# The glaring evidence that Obamacare is a catastrophic FAILURE continues to mount



## P@triot

As the Dumbocrats on USMB love to crow about - Obamacare was passed into law by Congress, signed into law by the president, and upheld by the Supreme Court. So _why_ exactly does the federal government have to piss away billions to *promote* an existing law?!? Has this _ever_ been done with any other law in U.S. _history_?

They begged the NBA to help promote it and the NBA said yes. They begged the NFL to help promote it, and the NFL told them to go fuck themselves (doh!). So why are they so desperate to reach people through Hollywood and sports? Because even the Dumbocrats know this is a miserable failure, and they _know_ it is going to be repealed eventually unless they can do major damage control and brainwash the masses (especially the young and impressionable - hence the NBA, NFL, etc.) that this is a "good" thing.

Super Bowl champ Baltimore Ravens getting paid $130,000 to promote Obamacare | WashingtonExaminer.com


----------



## P@triot

How embarassing that the federal government now has to use tax dollars on commercials to promote their catastrophic failures as being a "good" thing...

Baltimore Ravens Paid to Sell ObamaCare - Fox Nation


----------



## Edgetho

*14 Planned Parenthood Organizations Are Obamacare Navigators*

Pretend youre shocked.







- See more at: Weasel Zippers | Scouring the bowels of the internet | Weasel Zippers


----------



## P@triot

Can't wait until all of the Dumbocrats on USMB start claiming that this didn't happen and that it is "right-wing misinformation" 

Super Bowl champ Baltimore Ravens getting paid $130,000 to promote Obamacare | Economics and Politics


----------



## RDD_1210

It is sad that this has to happen. 

It's also sad that the GOP has convinced people of "death panels", "losing freedom" and all the other hysterical nonsense that you sheep believe, that have actually made you think you hate a law that is a Republican idea. 

So yeah, it's sad that a campaign needs to be waged to combat such blatant misinformation.


----------



## P@triot

Edgetho said:


> *14 Planned Parenthood Organizations Are Obamacare Navigators*
> 
> Pretend youre shocked.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - See more at: Weasel Zippers | Scouring the bowels of the internet | Weasel Zippers



Isn't it amazing that Dumbocrats cried in the streets like little girls over terrorists being interrogated with some slightly (and I stress slightly) harsh tactics, but they celebrate the murder of an American baby?

I mean, if you value life so much that you weep over a vicious terrorist having water splashed in his face, how the fuck do you celebrate, support, and fund an innocent baby being brutally and horrifically murdered?


----------



## Edgetho

Rottweiler said:


> Can't wait until all of the Dumbocrats on USMB start claiming that this didn't happen and that it is "right-wing misinformation"
> 
> Super Bowl champ Baltimore Ravens getting paid $130,000 to promote Obamacare | Economics and Politics



The party is infallible.

obama is infallible.

the party shall not be questioned

the party is infallible

obama is the party

both are infallible

If you don't know what I'm alluding to......  You should


----------



## Edgetho

Rottweiler said:


> Edgetho said:
> 
> 
> 
> *14 Planned Parenthood Organizations Are Obamacare Navigators*
> 
> Pretend youre shocked.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - See more at: Weasel Zippers | Scouring the bowels of the internet | Weasel Zippers
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't it amazing that Dumbocrats cried in the streets like little girls over terrorists being interrogated with some slightly (and I stress slightly) harsh tactics, but they celebrate the murder of an American baby?
> 
> I mean, if you value life so much that you weep over a vicious terrorist having water splashed in his face, how the fuck do you celebrate, support, and fund an innocent baby being brutally and horrifically murdered?
Click to expand...



the party is infallible


----------



## RDD_1210

Rottweiler said:


> Edgetho said:
> 
> 
> 
> *14 Planned Parenthood Organizations Are Obamacare Navigators*
> 
> Pretend youre shocked.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - See more at: Weasel Zippers | Scouring the bowels of the internet | Weasel Zippers
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't it amazing that Dumbocrats cried in the streets like little girls over terrorists being interrogated with some slightly (and I stress slightly) harsh tactics, but they celebrate the murder of an American baby?
> 
> I mean, if you value life so much that you weep over a vicious terrorist having water splashed in his face, how the fuck do you celebrate, support, and fund an innocent baby being brutally and horrifically murdered?
Click to expand...


LOL. Drama Queen much?


----------



## P@triot

RDD_1210 said:


> It is sad that this has to happen.
> 
> It's also sad that the GOP has convinced people of "death panels", "losing freedom" and all the other hysterical nonsense that you sheep believe, that have actually made you think you hate a law that is a Republican idea.
> 
> So yeah, it's sad that a campaign needs to be waged to combat such blatant misinformation.



Wait - let me get this straight - you believe you're not losing freedom under Obamacare [MENTION=23461]RDD_1210[/MENTION]?!? 

The federal government now *forces* you to make a purchase. How is that *not* losing freedom in your mind? I can't wait to hear this absurd explanation.

By the way - "death panels" are a 100% certainty and now that they've passed Obamacare, the left has even admitted as much. Perhaps you need to wake up to reality? When the federal government has limited funds and unlimited health issues to address, they will have to decide who gets treatment and who doesn't (just like the do in Canada, just like they do in England, just like they do in <insert idiot socialized medicine nation here>, etc.).

You are one willfully ignorant buffoon, aren't you? Oh well, ignorance is bliss I guess...


----------



## P@triot

RDD_1210 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Edgetho said:
> 
> 
> 
> *14 Planned Parenthood Organizations Are Obamacare Navigators*
> 
> Pretend youre shocked.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - See more at: Weasel Zippers | Scouring the bowels of the internet | Weasel Zippers
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't it amazing that Dumbocrats cried in the streets like little girls over terrorists being interrogated with some slightly (and I stress slightly) harsh tactics, but they celebrate the murder of an American baby?
> 
> I mean, if you value life so much that you weep over a vicious terrorist having water splashed in his face, how the fuck do you celebrate, support, and fund an innocent baby being brutally and horrifically murdered?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL. Drama Queen much?
Click to expand...


Yes. Yes you Dumbocrats do "drama queen" MUCH! Remember all of you little bitches in the streets during the Bush Administration? I sure do...


----------



## RDD_1210

Rottweiler said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is sad that this has to happen.
> 
> It's also sad that the GOP has convinced people of "death panels", "losing freedom" and all the other hysterical nonsense that you sheep believe, that have actually made you think you hate a law that is a Republican idea.
> 
> So yeah, it's sad that a campaign needs to be waged to combat such blatant misinformation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wait - let me get this straight - you believe you're not losing freedom under Obamacare [MENTION=23461]RDD_1210[/MENTION]?!?
> 
> The federal government now *forces* you to make a purchase. How is that *not* losing freedom in your mind? I can't wait to hear this absurd explanation.
> 
> By the way - "death panels" are a 100% certainty and now that they've passed Obamacare, the left has even admitted as much. Perhaps you need to wake up to reality? When the federal government has limited funds and unlimited health issues to address, they will have to decide who gets treatment and who doesn't (just like the do in Canada, just like they do in England, just like they do in <insert idiot socialized medicine nation here>, etc.).
> 
> You are one willfully ignorant buffoon, aren't you? Oh well, ignorance is bliss I guess...
Click to expand...


Obama should make a law saying breathing oxygen is mandated. You idiots would hold your breath while claiming your freedoms are being taken away.


----------



## RDD_1210

Rottweiler said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't it amazing that Dumbocrats cried in the streets like little girls over terrorists being interrogated with some slightly (and I stress slightly) harsh tactics, but they celebrate the murder of an American baby?
> 
> I mean, if you value life so much that you weep over a vicious terrorist having water splashed in his face, how the fuck do you celebrate, support, and fund an innocent baby being brutally and horrifically murdered?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL. Drama Queen much?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes. Yes you Dumbocrats do "drama queen" MUCH! Remember all of you little bitches in the streets during the Bush Administration? I sure do...
Click to expand...


Of course you remember. You had nothing else to do and your life has amounted to being a professional (unpaid) complainer.


----------



## P@triot

RDD_1210 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is sad that this has to happen.
> 
> It's also sad that the GOP has convinced people of "death panels", "losing freedom" and all the other hysterical nonsense that you sheep believe, that have actually made you think you hate a law that is a Republican idea.
> 
> So yeah, it's sad that a campaign needs to be waged to combat such blatant misinformation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wait - let me get this straight - you believe you're not losing freedom under Obamacare [MENTION=23461]RDD_1210[/MENTION]?!?
> 
> The federal government now *forces* you to make a purchase. How is that *not* losing freedom in your mind? I can't wait to hear this absurd explanation.
> 
> By the way - "death panels" are a 100% certainty and now that they've passed Obamacare, the left has even admitted as much. Perhaps you need to wake up to reality? When the federal government has limited funds and unlimited health issues to address, they will have to decide who gets treatment and who doesn't (just like the do in Canada, just like they do in England, just like they do in <insert idiot socialized medicine nation here>, etc.).
> 
> You are one willfully ignorant buffoon, aren't you? Oh well, ignorance is bliss I guess...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama should make a law saying breathing oxygen is mandated. You idiots would hold your breath while claiming your freedoms are being taken away.
Click to expand...


Ahahaha!!!! I asked a straight forward, simple question and you know the answer buries you as a liar, so you avoided it and gave a stupid ass, snarky, nonsensical response. Thank you for proving we are right and you're a lying propagandist.

Game. Set. Match.


----------



## P@triot

RDD_1210 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL. Drama Queen much?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. Yes you Dumbocrats do "drama queen" MUCH! Remember all of you little bitches in the streets during the Bush Administration? I sure do...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course you remember. You had nothing else to do and your life has amounted to being a professional (unpaid) complainer.
Click to expand...


If it's "unpaid", then it is not "professional"... 

A little confused on the meaning of "professional" are we?

It's amazing that you people post "the Republicans have no ideas", that we're the party of "NO", and that we are "happy with the status quo" and then you turn around and claim we "complain".

Do you see how you are the party of projecting? You actually wrongfully accuse everyone else of your own flaws.


----------



## RDD_1210

Rottweiler said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wait - let me get this straight - you believe you're not losing freedom under Obamacare [MENTION=23461]RDD_1210[/MENTION]?!?
> 
> The federal government now *forces* you to make a purchase. How is that *not* losing freedom in your mind? I can't wait to hear this absurd explanation.
> 
> By the way - "death panels" are a 100% certainty and now that they've passed Obamacare, the left has even admitted as much. Perhaps you need to wake up to reality? When the federal government has limited funds and unlimited health issues to address, they will have to decide who gets treatment and who doesn't (just like the do in Canada, just like they do in England, just like they do in <insert idiot socialized medicine nation here>, etc.).
> 
> You are one willfully ignorant buffoon, aren't you? Oh well, ignorance is bliss I guess...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obama should make a law saying breathing oxygen is mandated. You idiots would hold your breath while claiming your freedoms are being taken away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ahahaha!!!! I asked a straight forward, simple question and you know the answer buries you as a liar, so you avoided it and gave a stupid ass, snarky, nonsensical response. Thank you for proving we are right and you're a lying propagandist.
> 
> Game. Set. Match.
Click to expand...


Yup, you're the winner alright! Good for you. Pat yourself on the back. 

And as your prize, I get to subsidize your mooching ass for your healthcare needs when you insist on not having health insurance. You're welcome moocher.


----------



## P@triot

RDD_1210 said:


> Obama should make a law saying breathing oxygen is mandated. You idiots would hold your breath while claiming your freedoms are being taken away.



By the way, it is drop-down-on-the-floor-rolling hilarious that you didn't even understand this is true when you posted it.

You're absolutely correct - if Obama mandated my oxygen intake (and don't think for a moment he won't either now that Obamacare stipulates that the government gets to control your healthcare), that would be a major loss of my freedom. If I don't want to breathe in oxygen, who the fuck is the federal government to tell me otherwise?

That's the problem with you ignorant Dumbocrats. You don't realize that the federal government answers to *me*. I do *not* answer to the federal government. You were born believing you're a slave and you're happy to continue playing the serf in exchange for your pathetic government table scraps.


----------



## RDD_1210

Rottweiler said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama should make a law saying breathing oxygen is mandated. You idiots would hold your breath while claiming your freedoms are being taken away.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By the way, it is drop-down-on-the-floor-rolling hilarious that you didn't even understand this is true when you posted it.
> 
> You're absolutely correct - if Obama mandated my oxygen intake (and don't think for a moment he won't either now that Obamacare stipulates that the government gets to control your healthcare), that would be a major loss of my freedom. *If I don't want to breathe in oxygen, who the fuck is the federal government to tell me otherwise?*
> 
> That's the problem with you ignorant Dumbocrats. You don't realize that the federal government answers to *me*. I do *not* answer to the federal government. You were born believing you're a slave and you're happy to continue playing the serf in exchange for your pathetic government table scraps.
Click to expand...


Hahahahaahahahahah. I had to quote this so you can't try and delete this in the future. 

Fuck, you people are pure comedy gold.


----------



## P@triot

RDD_1210 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama should make a law saying breathing oxygen is mandated. You idiots would hold your breath while claiming your freedoms are being taken away.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ahahaha!!!! I asked a straight forward, simple question and you know the answer buries you as a liar, so you avoided it and gave a stupid ass, snarky, nonsensical response. Thank you for proving we are right and you're a lying propagandist.
> 
> Game. Set. Match.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup, you're the winner alright! Good for you. Pat yourself on the back.
> 
> And as your prize, I get to subsidize your mooching ass for your healthcare needs when you insist on not having health insurance. You're welcome moocher.
Click to expand...


Uh - excuse me - *you're* the moron's who created the mooching system. I do *not* believe you should _ever_ subsidize me or anyone else. Want to try again [MENTION=23461]RDD_1210[/MENTION]?

By the way, the reality is quite the opposite. I had the ultimate cadillac healthcare plan. Key word *had*. Thanks to Obamacare, I lost that because Obama - in his profound ignorance - penalized cadillac healthcare plans in Obamacare while claiming the point of the bill was to provide "quality, affordable healthcare" 

I've got $1,000 right here and now that says you're too willfully ignorant to explain why Obama and the Dumbocrats did that.


----------



## P@triot

RDD_1210 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama should make a law saying breathing oxygen is mandated. You idiots would hold your breath while claiming your freedoms are being taken away.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By the way, it is drop-down-on-the-floor-rolling hilarious that you didn't even understand this is true when you posted it.
> 
> You're absolutely correct - if Obama mandated my oxygen intake (and don't think for a moment he won't either now that Obamacare stipulates that the government gets to control your healthcare), that would be a major loss of my freedom. *If I don't want to breathe in oxygen, who the fuck is the federal government to tell me otherwise?*
> 
> That's the problem with you ignorant Dumbocrats. You don't realize that the federal government answers to *me*. I do *not* answer to the federal government. You were born believing you're a slave and you're happy to continue playing the serf in exchange for your pathetic government table scraps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hahahahaahahahahah. I had to quote this so you can't try and delete this in the future.
> 
> Fuck, you people are pure comedy gold.
Click to expand...


Why would I delete something that is accurate and exposes you for the willfully ignorant serf that you are?


----------



## RDD_1210

Rottweiler said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ahahaha!!!! I asked a straight forward, simple question and you know the answer buries you as a liar, so you avoided it and gave a stupid ass, snarky, nonsensical response. Thank you for proving we are right and you're a lying propagandist.
> 
> Game. Set. Match.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, you're the winner alright! Good for you. Pat yourself on the back.
> 
> And as your prize, I get to subsidize your mooching ass for your healthcare needs when you insist on not having health insurance. You're welcome moocher.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh - excuse me - *you're* the moron's who created the mooching system. I do *not* believe you should _ever_ subsidize me or anyone else. Want to try again [MENTION=23461]RDD_1210[/MENTION]?
> 
> By the way, the reality is quite the opposite. I had the ultimate cadillac healthcare plan. Key word *had*. Thanks to Obamacare, I lost that because Obama - in his profound ignorance - penalized cadillac healthcare plans in Obamacare while claiming the point of the bill was to provide "quality, affordable healthcare"
> 
> I've got $1,000 right here and now that says you're too willfully ignorant to explain why Obama and the Dumbocrats did that.
Click to expand...


Oh, you're the moocher alright. You insist on not having insurance which is what makes you a moocher. Again...you're welcome. Good thing I'm willing to pay for insurance and cover moochers such as you.


----------



## RDD_1210

Rottweiler said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> By the way, it is drop-down-on-the-floor-rolling hilarious that you didn't even understand this is true when you posted it.
> 
> You're absolutely correct - if Obama mandated my oxygen intake (and don't think for a moment he won't either now that Obamacare stipulates that the government gets to control your healthcare), that would be a major loss of my freedom. *If I don't want to breathe in oxygen, who the fuck is the federal government to tell me otherwise?*
> 
> That's the problem with you ignorant Dumbocrats. You don't realize that the federal government answers to *me*. I do *not* answer to the federal government. You were born believing you're a slave and you're happy to continue playing the serf in exchange for your pathetic government table scraps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hahahahaahahahahah. I had to quote this so you can't try and delete this in the future.
> 
> Fuck, you people are pure comedy gold.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would I delete something that is accurate and exposes you for the willfully ignorant serf that you are?
Click to expand...


Tell me...what would you like to breathe instead of oxygen?


----------



## P@triot

RDD_1210 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, you're the winner alright! Good for you. Pat yourself on the back.
> 
> And as your prize, I get to subsidize your mooching ass for your healthcare needs when you insist on not having health insurance. You're welcome moocher.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh - excuse me - *you're* the moron's who created the mooching system. I do *not* believe you should _ever_ subsidize me or anyone else. Want to try again [MENTION=23461]RDD_1210[/MENTION]?
> 
> By the way, the reality is quite the opposite. I had the ultimate cadillac healthcare plan. Key word *had*. Thanks to Obamacare, I lost that because Obama - in his profound ignorance - penalized cadillac healthcare plans in Obamacare while claiming the point of the bill was to provide "quality, affordable healthcare"
> 
> I've got $1,000 right here and now that says you're too willfully ignorant to explain why Obama and the Dumbocrats did that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, you're the moocher alright. You insist on not having insurance which is what makes you a moocher. Again...you're welcome. Good thing I'm willing to pay for insurance and cover moochers such as you.
Click to expand...


So to be clear, you are acknowledging you are too ignorant to explain why Obama and the Dumbocrats penalized having the best healthcare imaginable in the ACA?

Would you like me to explain it to you? Believe me, it will be a HUGE eye opener for you. Just remember though, ignorance _is_ bliss.


----------



## RDD_1210

Rottweiler said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uh - excuse me - *you're* the moron's who created the mooching system. I do *not* believe you should _ever_ subsidize me or anyone else. Want to try again [MENTION=23461]RDD_1210[/MENTION]?
> 
> By the way, the reality is quite the opposite. I had the ultimate cadillac healthcare plan. Key word *had*. Thanks to Obamacare, I lost that because Obama - in his profound ignorance - penalized cadillac healthcare plans in Obamacare while claiming the point of the bill was to provide "quality, affordable healthcare"
> 
> I've got $1,000 right here and now that says you're too willfully ignorant to explain why Obama and the Dumbocrats did that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, you're the moocher alright. You insist on not having insurance which is what makes you a moocher. Again...you're welcome. Good thing I'm willing to pay for insurance and cover moochers such as you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So to be clear, you are acknowledging you are too ignorant to explain why Obama and the Dumbocrats penalized having the best healthcare imaginable in the ACA?
> 
> Would you like me to explain it to you? Believe me, it will be a HUGE eye opener for you. Just remember though, ignorance _is_ bliss.
Click to expand...


And just so we're clear. You're ok with not having insurance and being a hypocrite all at the same time.


----------



## Avatar4321

Yes, the evidence is mounting that Obamacare is catastrophic failure.

So what are we going to do with this evidence?

1) Work with Republicans and Democrats to get this repealed.

or

2) Use it to mock Democrats, put them on the defensive and get their egos involved so that they become totally unwilling to even acknowledge any failure and get absolutely nothing repealed.

We really cannot do both, because we need a bipartisan effort to get this repealed. If you want to use this to attack Democrats and the left, then what you're telling me is you don't really care about getting it repealed, just using it as a weapon.

It may be a very natural desire to want to rub their faces in it. But what use is it if we are stuck with this piece of crap law?


----------



## P@triot

RDD_1210 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hahahahaahahahahah. I had to quote this so you can't try and delete this in the future.
> 
> Fuck, you people are pure comedy gold.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would I delete something that is accurate and exposes you for the willfully ignorant serf that you are?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell me...what would you like to breathe instead of oxygen?
Click to expand...


I would like to breathe whatever I choose to believe because I'm a free man and the federal government has zero authority to tell me what to breathe.

Like a typical Dumbocrat serf, you focus on your own absurd hypothetical instead of the point - which is that the federal government answers to me, I don't answer to the federal government. 

But not you! No sir - you are a goooood little obedient slave. I'm amazed you trade your freedom for such pitiful little government table scraps. But I guess that's what you parasites do. Mooch off of others, no matter how pitiful the table scraps are.


----------



## P@triot

Avatar4321 said:


> Yes, the evidence is mounting that Obamacare is catastrophic failure.
> 
> So what are we going to do with this evidence?
> 
> 1) Work with Republicans and Democrats to get this repealed.
> 
> or
> 
> 2) Use it to mock Democrats, put them on the defensive and get their egos involved so that they become totally unwilling to even acknowledge any failure and get absolutely nothing repealed.
> 
> We really cannot do both, because we need a bipartisan effort to get this repealed. If you want to use this to attack Democrats and the left, then what you're telling me is you don't really care about getting it repealed, just using it as a weapon.
> 
> It may be a very natural desire to want to rub their faces in it. But what use is it if we are stuck with this piece of crap law?



Avatar, I genuinely like you (I do). But you're absurd "zen-like" approach to the problem is as ignorant and juvenile as the Dumbocrats.

They have unequivocally proven that you cannot work with them. They are not willing to abide by the Constitution. They are not willing to recognize my rights. They are not willing to work. They are not willing to accept personal responsibility.

And I am not willing to give in to communism. I won't even accept a little communism. We've done that for over 100 years now and what we've received in exchange is a massive erosion to our rights, a shit-hole of an economy, and $17 trillion in debt to myself, my children, and my grandchildren.

Zen away all you like brother. But I prefer dealing in _reality_. And the reality is you have to hit the world in the face with a sledgehammer of FACTS and TRUTH. And you have to keep doing it. Over and over and over. Until the end of time. And even then it will be an uphill battle because it's easier for people like RDD to be a lazy parasite who lives off of government than to take personal responsibility.


----------



## RDD_1210

Rottweiler said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would I delete something that is accurate and exposes you for the willfully ignorant serf that you are?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me...what would you like to breathe instead of oxygen?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would like to breathe whatever I choose to believe because I'm a free man and the federal government has zero authority to tell me what to breathe.
> 
> Like a typical Dumbocrat serf, you focus on your own absurd hypothetical instead of the point - which is that the federal government answers to me, I don't answer to the federal government.
> 
> But not you! No sir - you are a goooood little obedient slave. I'm amazed you trade your freedom for such pitiful little government table scraps. But I guess that's what you parasites do. Mooch off of others, no matter how pitiful the table scraps are.
Click to expand...


So since you won't do what the federal government tells you do to. Do you pay taxes?


----------



## P@triot

RDD_1210 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, you're the moocher alright. You insist on not having insurance which is what makes you a moocher. Again...you're welcome. Good thing I'm willing to pay for insurance and cover moochers such as you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So to be clear, you are acknowledging you are too ignorant to explain why Obama and the Dumbocrats penalized having the best healthcare imaginable in the ACA?
> 
> Would you like me to explain it to you? Believe me, it will be a HUGE eye opener for you. Just remember though, ignorance _is_ bliss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And just so we're clear. You're ok with not having insurance and being a hypocrite all at the same time.
Click to expand...


No [MENTION=23461]RDD_1210[/MENTION] - I'm ok with not having insurance *and* not getting treatment unless you pay for it _yourself_. I'm assuming you can't handle more than one concept at a time?

Now, back to the real question at hand - would you like me to explain why Obama and the Dumbocrats penalized having quality health insurance? I imagine your stalling here as you desperately search the internet looking for answer so you can look "smart"?


----------



## RDD_1210

Rottweiler said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> So to be clear, you are acknowledging you are too ignorant to explain why Obama and the Dumbocrats penalized having the best healthcare imaginable in the ACA?
> 
> Would you like me to explain it to you? Believe me, it will be a HUGE eye opener for you. Just remember though, ignorance _is_ bliss.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And just so we're clear. You're ok with not having insurance and being a hypocrite all at the same time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No [MENTION=23461]RDD_1210[/MENTION] - I'm ok with not having insurance *and* not getting treatment unless you pay for it _yourself_. I'm assuming you can't handle more than one concept at a time?
> 
> Now, back to the real question at hand - would you like me to explain why Obama and the Dumbocrats penalized having quality health insurance? I imagine your stalling here as you desperately search the internet looking for answer so you can look "smart"?
Click to expand...


So how do you plan on paying for your medical bills, since you don't have insurance when you have a heart attack/diagnosed with cancer?


----------



## P@triot

RDD_1210 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me...what would you like to breathe instead of oxygen?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would like to breathe whatever I choose to believe because I'm a free man and the federal government has zero authority to tell me what to breathe.
> 
> Like a typical Dumbocrat serf, you focus on your own absurd hypothetical instead of the point - which is that the federal government answers to me, I don't answer to the federal government.
> 
> But not you! No sir - you are a goooood little obedient slave. I'm amazed you trade your freedom for such pitiful little government table scraps. But I guess that's what you parasites do. Mooch off of others, no matter how pitiful the table scraps are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So since you won't do what the federal government tells you do to. Do you pay taxes?
Click to expand...


They are Constitutionally justified in imposing taxes. Imagine that concept - the federal government adhering to the highest law in the land! 

(Careful RDD... be very careful here. I can feel your heart race as your pea-brain thinks "gotcha! Obamacare is a 'tax' right"). Well, I'm giving you fair warning (because I feel sorry for you) that if you try that, you will be humiliated. There is something about our federal government that you don't know (well, actually, there are a LOT of things you don't know - but something specifically related to taxes). Better look it up before you speak son...


----------



## P@triot

RDD_1210 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And just so we're clear. You're ok with not having insurance and being a hypocrite all at the same time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No [MENTION=23461]RDD_1210[/MENTION] - I'm ok with not having insurance *and* not getting treatment unless you pay for it _yourself_. I'm assuming you can't handle more than one concept at a time?
> 
> Now, back to the real question at hand - would you like me to explain why Obama and the Dumbocrats penalized having quality health insurance? I imagine your stalling here as you desperately search the internet looking for answer so you can look "smart"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So how do you plan on paying for your medical bills, since you don't have insurance when you have a heart attack/diagnosed with cancer?
Click to expand...


First of all, I have health insurance genius (since it is mandated now, I have to, or have you not been paying attention?).

Second, I would write a check in your scenario.

Third, if someone did not have the financial means, their inability to pay today is no indication of their inability to pay tomorrow. So you put them on a payment plan instead of giving them handouts and freebies, _stupid_. And no matter how long it takes or how many years, they are forced to keep making payments until it is all paid off.

But no, moochers like you just look for excuses to get government table scraps.


----------



## RDD_1210

Rottweiler said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would like to breathe whatever I choose to believe because I'm a free man and the federal government has zero authority to tell me what to breathe.
> 
> Like a typical Dumbocrat serf, you focus on your own absurd hypothetical instead of the point - which is that the federal government answers to me, I don't answer to the federal government.
> 
> But not you! No sir - you are a goooood little obedient slave. I'm amazed you trade your freedom for such pitiful little government table scraps. But I guess that's what you parasites do. Mooch off of others, no matter how pitiful the table scraps are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So since you won't do what the federal government tells you do to. Do you pay taxes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are Constitutionally justified in imposing taxes. Imagine that concept - the federal government adhering to the highest law in the land!
> 
> (Careful RDD... be very careful here. I can feel your heart race as your pea-brain thinks "gotcha! Obamacare is a 'tax' right"). Well, I'm giving you fair warning (because I feel sorry for you) that if you try that, you will be humiliated. There is something about our federal government that you don't know (well, actually, there are a LOT of things you don't know - but something specifically related to taxes). Better look it up before you speak son...
Click to expand...


So then you follow only what is in the constitution, right?

Is breathing oxygen in the constitution? Nope...so why do you do it every second of every single day?


----------



## Soggy in NOLA

It's doing what it is designed to do.. collapse the health care insurance industry so that people will call on the government to implement a fix which will ultimately be a gubmint run, single payer system that will also fail.. it's only a matter of when and how many people die in the process.


----------



## RDD_1210

Rottweiler said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> No [MENTION=23461]RDD_1210[/MENTION] - I'm ok with not having insurance *and* not getting treatment unless you pay for it _yourself_. I'm assuming you can't handle more than one concept at a time?
> 
> Now, back to the real question at hand - would you like me to explain why Obama and the Dumbocrats penalized having quality health insurance? I imagine your stalling here as you desperately search the internet looking for answer so you can look "smart"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So how do you plan on paying for your medical bills, since you don't have insurance when you have a heart attack/diagnosed with cancer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First of all, I have health insurance genius (since it is mandated now, I have to, or have you not been paying attention?).
> 
> Second, I would write a check in your scenario.
> 
> Third, if someone did not have the financial means, their inability to pay today is no indication of their inability to pay tomorrow. So you put them on a payment plan instead of giving them handouts and freebies, _stupid_. And no matter how long it takes or how many years, they are forced to keep making payments until it is all paid off.
> 
> But no, moochers like you just look for excuses to get government table scraps.
Click to expand...


Oh, you DO have insurance? I thought you don't do something just because the government tells you to. Why did you bend to the will of the government this time and purchase insurance? I thought you weren't going to be bullied by the government? What happened?


----------



## ShootSpeeders

Like most blacks, obozo can't actually DO anything. He's never had a real job, let alone an executive job. He has a great speaking voice, but no practical skill -  can't even add up a column of numbers.  He got obozocare passed and thought "there, we did that". He doesn't understand that implementing the law is where the work really is.

Obozo is the dumbest president in history.


----------



## RDD_1210

Soggy in NOLA said:


> It's doing what it is designed to do.. collapse the health care insurance industry so that people will call on the government to implement a fix which will ultimately be a gubmint run, single payer system that will also fail.. it's only a matter of when and how many people die in the process.



What's an example of a successful healthcare system that is totally free of government involvement? Give me one and we'll discuss.


----------



## RDD_1210

ShootSpeeders said:


> Like most blacks, obozo can't actually DO anything. He's never had a real job, let alone an executive job. He has a great speaking voice, but no practical skill -  can't even add up a column of numbers.  He got obozocare passed and thought "there, we did that". He doesn't understand that implementing the law is where the work really is.
> 
> Obozo is the dumbest president in history.



Are you just jealous because a black guy has achieved more with his life than you ever will? Doesn't say much for you does it?...I mean, since "a blacK" is more successful than you.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA

ShootSpeeders said:


> *Like most blacks*, obozo can't actually DO anything. He's never had a real job, let alone an executive job. He has a great speaking voice, but no practical skill -  can't even add up a column of numbers.  He got obozocare passed and thought "there, we did that". He doesn't understand that implementing the law is where the work really is.
> 
> Obozo is the dumbest president in history.



I think we could have done without that...  kinda nullifies your message which without the racial component, I actually agree with.


----------



## Edgetho

The 'idea' of the ACA isn't bad.

I even agree with its intentions.  I am sick and I am tired and disgusted with paying for people who refuse, for one reason or another, to buy Health Insurance.

The 'idea' is a good one.

But here's the problem.....  It's dimocraps doing it.

And I'm not kidding....  dimocraps are stupid.

It's like the Faculty at Harvard sitting around talking about how unfair something is -- Health Insurance for example, and then suddenly finding themselves in charge of it.

No clue.  None.  Zero.

These people have no idea what they're doing.  None at all.

They are educated idiots.  Can't do a goddam thing, any of them.

And they've pissed off the Business Community so badly that they won't help, Republicans who have the expertise to do things have been shit on and literally shut out and the rest of the Country has been lied to.

Remember the story in here the other day about a Teacher who made a mistake on a Student's paper (or spelling) but wouldn't change his/her mind and it cost the Student?

Arrogance.   Pure arrogance.

That's what you're seeing here, folks.  Pure arrogance.

They won't listen to anybody, they won't accept opinions for others, they refused input from people who KNOW what they're talking about.....

And this is the result....  A Clusterfuck.  A "Charlie-Foxtrot" as we used to say in the Army.

It isn't that it's a bad idea, it's that it is being handled by idiots.

Which ALL dimocraps are.

If they weren't idiots, they wouldn't be dimocraps.

Just the way of the world

And for that reason and the others I listed, dimocraps should never be in charge of ANYTHING.

Not saying they should be silenced or not listened to -- I'm saying that putting them in charge of ANYTHING is a big mistake.

Shit, even the rapist had the sense to FILL his cabinet with people from the Private Business Sector.

the Stuttering Clusterfuck fills his with eggheads from academia and campaign fund raisers.  (The top five people at the DoJ were bundlers for his campaigns)

I still don't know if he has hired the first Businessman


----------



## 007




----------



## RDD_1210

Edgetho said:


> The 'idea' of the ACA isn't bad.
> 
> I even agree with its intentions.  I am sick and I am tired and disgusted with paying for people who refuse, for one reason or another, to buy Health Insurance.
> 
> The 'idea' is a good one.
> 
> But here's the problem.....  It's dimocraps doing it.
> 
> And I'm not kidding....  dimocraps are stupid.
> 
> It's like the Faculty at Harvard sitting around talking about how unfair something is -- Health Insurance for example, and then suddenly finding themselves in charge of it.
> 
> No clue.  None.  Zero.
> 
> These people have no idea what they're doing.  None at all.
> 
> They are educated idiots.  Can't do a goddam thing, any of them.
> 
> And they've pissed off the Business Community so badly that they won't help, Republicans who have the expertise to do things have been shit on and literally shut out and the rest of the Country has been lied to.
> 
> Remember the story in here the other day about a Teacher who made a mistake on a Student's paper (or spelling) but wouldn't change his/her mind and it cost the Student?
> 
> Arrogance.   Pure arrogance.
> 
> That's what you're seeing here, folks.  Pure arrogance.
> 
> They won't listen to anybody, they won't accept opinions for others, they refused input from people who KNOW what they're talking about.....
> 
> And this is the result....  A Clusterfuck.  A "Charlie-Foxtrot" as we used to say in the Army.
> 
> It isn't that it's a bad idea, it's that it is being handled by idiots.
> 
> Which ALL dimocraps are.
> 
> If they weren't idiots, they wouldn't be dimocraps.
> 
> Just the way of the world
> 
> And for that reason and the others I listed, dimocraps should never be in charge of ANYTHING.
> 
> Not saying they should be silenced or not listened to -- I'm saying that putting them in charge of ANYTHING is a big mistake.
> 
> Shit, even the rapist had the sense to FILL his cabinet with people from the Private Business Sector.
> 
> the Stuttering Clusterfuck fills his with eggheads from academia and campaign fund raisers.  (The top five people at the DoJ were bundlers for his campaigns)
> 
> I still don't know if he has hired the first Businessman



But they adopted a Republican plan full of Republican ideas. You hate it simply because democrats implemented it. Simple as that. I'll prove it....what plan do you support instead of the ACA? You can't answer because there is no other republican plan....this is it. It's law. 
I can give you other democrat plans that weren't implemented. But you can't give me any other republican plan, because they don't exist. We got the republican plan and you hate the idea that "dems will get credit for it".


----------



## 007




----------



## 007




----------



## RDD_1210

007 said:


>



This is fine with me. The good parts of the country still appear to be intact.


----------



## Edgetho

RDD_1210 said:


> Edgetho said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 'idea' of the ACA isn't bad.
> 
> I even agree with its intentions.  I am sick and I am tired and disgusted with paying for people who refuse, for one reason or another, to buy Health Insurance.
> 
> The 'idea' is a good one.
> 
> But here's the problem.....  It's dimocraps doing it.
> 
> And I'm not kidding....  dimocraps are stupid.
> 
> It's like the Faculty at Harvard sitting around talking about how unfair something is -- Health Insurance for example, and then suddenly finding themselves in charge of it.
> 
> No clue.  None.  Zero.
> 
> These people have no idea what they're doing.  None at all.
> 
> They are educated idiots.  Can't do a goddam thing, any of them.
> 
> And they've pissed off the Business Community so badly that they won't help, Republicans who have the expertise to do things have been shit on and literally shut out and the rest of the Country has been lied to.
> 
> Remember the story in here the other day about a Teacher who made a mistake on a Student's paper (or spelling) but wouldn't change his/her mind and it cost the Student?
> 
> Arrogance.   Pure arrogance.
> 
> That's what you're seeing here, folks.  Pure arrogance.
> 
> They won't listen to anybody, they won't accept opinions for others, they refused input from people who KNOW what they're talking about.....
> 
> And this is the result....  A Clusterfuck.  A "Charlie-Foxtrot" as we used to say in the Army.
> 
> It isn't that it's a bad idea, it's that it is being handled by idiots.
> 
> Which ALL dimocraps are.
> 
> If they weren't idiots, they wouldn't be dimocraps.
> 
> Just the way of the world
> 
> And for that reason and the others I listed, dimocraps should never be in charge of ANYTHING.
> 
> Not saying they should be silenced or not listened to -- I'm saying that putting them in charge of ANYTHING is a big mistake.
> 
> Shit, even the rapist had the sense to FILL his cabinet with people from the Private Business Sector.
> 
> the Stuttering Clusterfuck fills his with eggheads from academia and campaign fund raisers.  (The top five people at the DoJ were bundlers for his campaigns)
> 
> I still don't know if he has hired the first Businessman
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *But they adopted a Republican plan full of Republican ideas. *You hate it simply because democrats implemented it. Simple as that. I'll prove it....what plan do you support instead of the ACA? You can't answer because there is no other republican plan....this is it. It's law.
> I can give you other democrat plans that weren't implemented. But you can't give me any other republican plan, because they don't exist. We got the republican plan and you hate the idea that "dems will get credit for it".
Click to expand...


Yeah....  That's why so many Republicans voted for it

No....  Wait


----------



## RDD_1210

Edgetho said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Edgetho said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 'idea' of the ACA isn't bad.
> 
> I even agree with its intentions.  I am sick and I am tired and disgusted with paying for people who refuse, for one reason or another, to buy Health Insurance.
> 
> The 'idea' is a good one.
> 
> But here's the problem.....  It's dimocraps doing it.
> 
> And I'm not kidding....  dimocraps are stupid.
> 
> It's like the Faculty at Harvard sitting around talking about how unfair something is -- Health Insurance for example, and then suddenly finding themselves in charge of it.
> 
> No clue.  None.  Zero.
> 
> These people have no idea what they're doing.  None at all.
> 
> They are educated idiots.  Can't do a goddam thing, any of them.
> 
> And they've pissed off the Business Community so badly that they won't help, Republicans who have the expertise to do things have been shit on and literally shut out and the rest of the Country has been lied to.
> 
> Remember the story in here the other day about a Teacher who made a mistake on a Student's paper (or spelling) but wouldn't change his/her mind and it cost the Student?
> 
> Arrogance.   Pure arrogance.
> 
> That's what you're seeing here, folks.  Pure arrogance.
> 
> They won't listen to anybody, they won't accept opinions for others, they refused input from people who KNOW what they're talking about.....
> 
> And this is the result....  A Clusterfuck.  A "Charlie-Foxtrot" as we used to say in the Army.
> 
> It isn't that it's a bad idea, it's that it is being handled by idiots.
> 
> Which ALL dimocraps are.
> 
> If they weren't idiots, they wouldn't be dimocraps.
> 
> Just the way of the world
> 
> And for that reason and the others I listed, dimocraps should never be in charge of ANYTHING.
> 
> Not saying they should be silenced or not listened to -- I'm saying that putting them in charge of ANYTHING is a big mistake.
> 
> Shit, even the rapist had the sense to FILL his cabinet with people from the Private Business Sector.
> 
> the Stuttering Clusterfuck fills his with eggheads from academia and campaign fund raisers.  (The top five people at the DoJ were bundlers for his campaigns)
> 
> I still don't know if he has hired the first Businessman
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *But they adopted a Republican plan full of Republican ideas. *You hate it simply because democrats implemented it. Simple as that. I'll prove it....what plan do you support instead of the ACA? You can't answer because there is no other republican plan....this is it. It's law.
> I can give you other democrat plans that weren't implemented. But you can't give me any other republican plan, because they don't exist. We got the republican plan and you hate the idea that "dems will get credit for it".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah....  That's why so many Republicans voted for it
> 
> No....  Wait
Click to expand...


I already explained why republicans didn't vote for it. 

I also asked for what republican alternative plan you like. I noticed you didn't answer...just like I said you wouldn't.


----------



## Spoonman




----------



## P@triot

RDD_1210 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So since you won't do what the federal government tells you do to. Do you pay taxes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are Constitutionally justified in imposing taxes. Imagine that concept - the federal government adhering to the highest law in the land!
> 
> (Careful RDD... be very careful here. I can feel your heart race as your pea-brain thinks "gotcha! Obamacare is a 'tax' right"). Well, I'm giving you fair warning (because I feel sorry for you) that if you try that, you will be humiliated. There is something about our federal government that you don't know (well, actually, there are a LOT of things you don't know - but something specifically related to taxes). Better look it up before you speak son...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So then you follow only what is in the constitution, right?
> 
> Is breathing oxygen in the constitution? Nope...so why do you do it every second of every single day?
Click to expand...


The Constitution is not for me to follow you buffoon, it's for the federal government to follow... 

I ask again, how _dumb_ are you? You have no idea that the Constitution was written to restrict the power of the federal government - not to restrict the power if the individual? Really? Did your school not offer even the most basic class on U.S. government? For the love of God...


----------



## P@triot

RDD_1210 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So how do you plan on paying for your medical bills, since you don't have insurance when you have a heart attack/diagnosed with cancer?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, I have health insurance genius (since it is mandated now, I have to, or have you not been paying attention?).
> 
> Second, I would write a check in your scenario.
> 
> Third, if someone did not have the financial means, their inability to pay today is no indication of their inability to pay tomorrow. So you put them on a payment plan instead of giving them handouts and freebies, _stupid_. And no matter how long it takes or how many years, they are forced to keep making payments until it is all paid off.
> 
> But no, moochers like you just look for excuses to get government table scraps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, you DO have insurance? I thought you don't do something just because the government tells you to. Why did you bend to the will of the government this time and purchase insurance? I thought you weren't going to be bullied by the government? What happened?
Click to expand...


What happened? Dumbocrat communism happened. You really need this explained to you again?


----------



## P@triot

RDD_1210 said:


> But they adopted a Republican plan full of Republican ideas. You hate it simply because democrats implemented it. Simple as that. I'll prove it....what plan do you support instead of the ACA? You can't answer because there is no other republican plan....this is it. It's law.
> I can give you other democrat plans that weren't implemented. But you can't give me any other republican plan, because they don't exist. We got the republican plan and you hate the idea that "dems will get credit for it".



There is no "Republican plan" because the federal government has no authority to control the free market, costs of the free market, of healthcare.

God almighty, how _dumb_ are you?!? There is literally no end to your stupidity.


----------



## P@triot

Rottweiler said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are Constitutionally justified in imposing taxes. Imagine that concept - the federal government adhering to the highest law in the land!
> 
> (Careful RDD... be very careful here. I can feel your heart race as your pea-brain thinks "gotcha! Obamacare is a 'tax' right"). Well, I'm giving you fair warning (because I feel sorry for you) that if you try that, you will be humiliated. There is something about our federal government that you don't know (well, actually, there are a LOT of things you don't know - but something specifically related to taxes). Better look it up before you speak son...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So then you follow only what is in the constitution, right?
> 
> Is breathing oxygen in the constitution? Nope...so why do you do it every second of every single day?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Constitution is not for me to follow you buffoon, it's for the federal government to follow...
> 
> I ask again, how _dumb_ are you? You have no idea that the Constitution was written to restrict the power of the federal government - not to restrict the power if the individual? Really? Did your school not offer even the most basic class on U.S. government? For the love of God...
Click to expand...


I'm literally stunned by the astounding display of ignorance by [MENTION=23461]RDD_1210[/MENTION]. He thinks that the Constitution was designed to limit the power of the people and the individual, and that as a result, the conservative position is that we won't do anything (including breath) that isn't listed in the Constitution. He's literally so stupid, he's flipped the entire thing. It's the federal government that should not do anything which isn't listed in the Constitution.

Ladies & Gentlemen - [MENTION=23461]RDD_1210[/MENTION] here really is your modern day Dumbocrat. Supporting and voting for Dumbicrats when he literally (I do mean literally) does not know even the most basic, rudimentary functions of his own government.


----------



## ShootSpeeders

RDD_1210 said:


> ShootSpeeders said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like most blacks, obozo can't actually DO anything. He's never had a real job, let alone an executive job. He has a great speaking voice, but no practical skill -  can't even add up a column of numbers.  He got obozocare passed and thought "there, we did that". He doesn't understand that implementing the law is where the work really is.
> 
> Obozo is the dumbest president in history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you just jealous because a black guy has achieved more with his life than you ever will? Doesn't say much for you does it?...I mean, since "a blacK" is more successful than you.
Click to expand...


Obozo is successful in the same way a lottery winner or a bank robber is.  He's got money but he didn't earn a penny of it. He can't actually do anything. THINK, YOU MISERABLE WRETCH.


----------



## RDD_1210

Rottweiler said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, I have health insurance genius (since it is mandated now, I have to, or have you not been paying attention?).
> 
> Second, I would write a check in your scenario.
> 
> Third, if someone did not have the financial means, their inability to pay today is no indication of their inability to pay tomorrow. So you put them on a payment plan instead of giving them handouts and freebies, _stupid_. And no matter how long it takes or how many years, they are forced to keep making payments until it is all paid off.
> 
> But no, moochers like you just look for excuses to get government table scraps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, you DO have insurance? I thought you don't do something just because the government tells you to. Why did you bend to the will of the government this time and purchase insurance? I thought you weren't going to be bullied by the government? What happened?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What happened? Dumbocrat communism happened. You really need this explained to you again?
Click to expand...


 But you clearly said



Rottweiler said:


> You don't realize that the federal government answers to me. I do not answer to the federal government. You were born believing you're a slave and you're happy to continue playing the serf in exchange for your pathetic government table scraps.



Yet you have insurance because the government forced you to have insurance. So the conclusions must be...

a) You do in fact answer to the federal government
b) You're a bitch who doesn't back up his big words
c) You need insurance and realize that you would buy it regardless of it being mandated or not

Your choice.


----------



## P@triot

RDD_1210 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, you're the moocher alright. You insist on not having insurance which is what makes you a moocher. Again...you're welcome. Good thing I'm willing to pay for insurance and cover moochers such as you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So to be clear, you are acknowledging you are too ignorant to explain why Obama and the Dumbocrats penalized having the best healthcare imaginable in the ACA?
> 
> Would you like me to explain it to you? Believe me, it will be a HUGE eye opener for you. Just remember though, ignorance _is_ bliss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And just so we're clear. You're ok with not having insurance and being a hypocrite all at the same time.
Click to expand...


Can we get back on track here [MENTION=23461]RDD_1210[/MENTION]? Would you like me to explain why Obama and the Dumbocrats penalize cadillac healthcare plans in Obamacare when they claimed the point of Obamacare was to creat quality, affordable healthcare (and that's exactly what a cadillac healthcare plan is)?

Go ahead - you can say "yes". You've already more than exposed your ignorance here. At this point, you literally have nothing to lose.


----------



## JakeStarkey

*The glaring evidence that Obamacare is a catastrophic FAILURE continues to mount *

No, it does not.

*The glaring evidence that Rottweiler is a paid shill continues to mount *

Yes, it does not.


----------



## RDD_1210

Rottweiler said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So then you follow only what is in the constitution, right?
> 
> Is breathing oxygen in the constitution? Nope...so why do you do it every second of every single day?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution is not for me to follow you buffoon, it's for the federal government to follow...
> 
> I ask again, how _dumb_ are you? You have no idea that the Constitution was written to restrict the power of the federal government - not to restrict the power if the individual? Really? Did your school not offer even the most basic class on U.S. government? For the love of God...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm literally stunned by the astounding display of ignorance by [MENTION=23461]RDD_1210[/MENTION]. He thinks that the Constitution was designed to limit the power of the people and the individual, and that as a result, the conservative position is that we won't do anything (including breath) that isn't listed in the Constitution. He's literally so stupid, he's flipped the entire thing. It's the federal government that should not do anything which isn't listed in the Constitution.
> 
> Ladies & Gentlemen - [MENTION=23461]RDD_1210[/MENTION] here really is your modern day Dumbocrat. Supporting and voting for Dumbicrats when he literally (I do mean literally) does not know even the most basic, rudimentary functions of his own government.
Click to expand...


Remind me again what you would like to breathe instead of oxygen, because I think you've already begun.


----------



## ShootSpeeders

Rottweiler said:


> [
> 
> I'm literally stunned by the astounding display of ignorance by [MENTION=23461]RDD_1210[/MENTION]. He thinks that the Constitution was designed to limit the power of the people and the individual, and that as a result, the conservative position is that we won't do anything (including breath) that isn't listed in the Constitution. He's literally so stupid, he's flipped the entire thing. It's the federal government that should not do anything which isn't listed in the Constitution.
> 
> Ladies & Gentlemen - [MENTION=23461]RDD_1210[/MENTION] here really is your modern day Dumbocrat. Supporting and voting for Dumbicrats when he literally (I do mean literally) does not know even the most basic, rudimentary functions of his own government.



Someone should read RDD the tenth amendment.  The FF hated a strong central govt. They were states rightists all the way.  That's why they originally wrote the Articles of Confederation to establish the federal govt. They then realized they had gone too far and  the feds were too weak, so they wrote the constitution and gave the feds more power but still nothing like nowadays.  They would be appalled at how the feds run everything today.


----------



## P@triot

RDD_1210 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, you DO have insurance? I thought you don't do something just because the government tells you to. Why did you bend to the will of the government this time and purchase insurance? I thought you weren't going to be bullied by the government? What happened?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What happened? Dumbocrat communism happened. You really need this explained to you again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you clearly said
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't realize that the federal government answers to me. I do not answer to the federal government. You were born believing you're a slave and you're happy to continue playing the serf in exchange for your pathetic government table scraps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet you have insurance because the government forced you to have insurance. So the conclusions must be...
> 
> a) You do in fact answer to the federal government
> b) You're a bitch who doesn't back up his big words
> c) You need insurance and realize that you would buy it regardless of it being mandated or not
> 
> Your choice.
Click to expand...


So by your logic, because Ted Bundy raped and murdered women, the rape and murder of women is completely legal now? 

Sweetie, just because someone violates the law, does not magically make that law void. And just because Obama and the Dumbocrats violated the Constitution, does not void the Constitution:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, *deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed*

Now I can tell that you're about 17, so I doubt you can understand this "legal jargon" (I was going to say "comprehend" but I didn't want to confuse you further). The "governed" are the people. "Consent" means to approve or ok. So basically, the people must approve or ok what the federal government does because they answer to us - we do not answer to them.

Why, or why, does this kids school not offer a basic civics class? Maybe he's been held back a few times and won't be eligible for the class until his senior year?


----------



## P@triot

ShootSpeeders said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> I'm literally stunned by the astounding display of ignorance by [MENTION=23461]RDD_1210[/MENTION]. He thinks that the Constitution was designed to limit the power of the people and the individual, and that as a result, the conservative position is that we won't do anything (including breath) that isn't listed in the Constitution. He's literally so stupid, he's flipped the entire thing. It's the federal government that should not do anything which isn't listed in the Constitution.
> 
> Ladies & Gentlemen - [MENTION=23461]RDD_1210[/MENTION] here really is your modern day Dumbocrat. Supporting and voting for Dumbicrats when he literally (I do mean literally) does not know even the most basic, rudimentary functions of his own government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Someone should read RDD the tenth amendment.  The FF hated a strong central govt. They were states rightists all the way.  That's why they originally wrote the Articles of Confederation to establish the federal govt. They then realized they had gone too far and  the feds were too weak, *so they wrote the constitution and gave the feds more power* but still nothing like nowadays.  They would be appalled at how the feds run everything today.
Click to expand...


That is a liberal lie. The founders wanted to expand the power of the federal government - yes. But out of fear that it would become what it has, they wrote the Constitution to *protect the people and the states and specifically limited the federal government to 18 enumerated powers* *only*. That is why they wrote the Constitution.


----------



## P@triot

RDD_1210 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution is not for me to follow you buffoon, it's for the federal government to follow...
> 
> I ask again, how _dumb_ are you? You have no idea that the Constitution was written to restrict the power of the federal government - not to restrict the power if the individual? Really? Did your school not offer even the most basic class on U.S. government? For the love of God...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm literally stunned by the astounding display of ignorance by [MENTION=23461]RDD_1210[/MENTION]. He thinks that the Constitution was designed to limit the power of the people and the individual, and that as a result, the conservative position is that we won't do anything (including breath) that isn't listed in the Constitution. He's literally so stupid, he's flipped the entire thing. It's the federal government that should not do anything which isn't listed in the Constitution.
> 
> Ladies & Gentlemen - [MENTION=23461]RDD_1210[/MENTION] here really is your modern day Dumbocrat. Supporting and voting for Dumbicrats when he literally (I do mean literally) does not know even the most basic, rudimentary functions of his own government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Remind me again what you would like to breathe instead of oxygen, because I think you've already begun.
Click to expand...


Remind me again why you're a useless little serf who views the federal government as your master? Is it because you've never actually read the Constitution or because you like being a mooch off of society via the pitiful table scraps (like Obamacare) the government throws to you like a dog on the floor?


----------



## NoTeaPartyPleez

Rottweiler said:


> As the Dumbocrats on USMB love to crow about - Obamacare was passed into law by Congress, signed into law by the president, and upheld by the Supreme Court. So _why_ exactly does the federal government have to piss away billions to *promote* an existing law?!? Has this _ever_ been done with any other law in U.S. _history_?
> 
> They begged the NBA to help promote it and the NBA said yes. They begged the NFL to help promote it, and the NFL told them to go fuck themselves (doh!). So why are they so desperate to reach people through Hollywood and sports? Because even the Dumbocrats know this is a miserable failure, and they _know_ it is going to be repealed eventually unless they can do major damage control and brainwash the masses (especially the young and impressionable - hence the NBA, NFL, etc.) that this is a "good" thing.
> 
> Super Bowl champ Baltimore Ravens getting paid $130,000 to promote Obamacare | WashingtonExaminer.com



*I drilled down through all the layers right into the PDF and sorry, but what you fail to realize is there's nothing illegal going on here.

There's complete transparency and a legal agreement with the amount to be paid.  

There's no billions of dollars in cash going overseas in suitcases to Iraq...Ooops, sorry.  Wrong administration....... * 

How the US sent $12,000,000,000 in cash to Iraq. And watched it vanish
"""The US flew nearly $12bn in shrink-wrapped $100 bills into Iraq, then distributed the cash with no proper control ...."""
How the US sent $12bn in cash to Iraq. And watched it vanish | World news | The Guardian

*
And given that the NFL is socialized sports, because if they didn't spread the wealth and the players around each year we'd be watching the same two teams play all year long, I think it's hypocritical if they don't accept the promotional offer.*
Goodell Admits NFL is Socialist
January 30, 2012
Home Page.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/01/30/goodell_admits_nfl_is_socialist

*So, sorry, Rotty, but again you are just a puppy ready to roll over and pee on yourself before you actually think about what you're saying.*


----------



## P@triot

[MENTION=23461]RDD_1210[/MENTION] can you explain why you keep running like a coward from the conversation? Why can't everyone just pay for healthcare themselves? That's a fair and simple enough question. What are you so afraid of?


----------



## RDD_1210

Rottweiler said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> What happened? Dumbocrat communism happened. You really need this explained to you again?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But you clearly said
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't realize that the federal government answers to me. I do not answer to the federal government. You were born believing you're a slave and you're happy to continue playing the serf in exchange for your pathetic government table scraps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet you have insurance because the government forced you to have insurance. So the conclusions must be...
> 
> a) You do in fact answer to the federal government
> b) You're a bitch who doesn't back up his big words
> c) You need insurance and realize that you would buy it regardless of it being mandated or not
> 
> Your choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So by your logic, because Ted Bundy raped and murdered women, the rape and murder of women is completely legal now?
> 
> Sweetie, just because someone violates the law, does not magically make that law void. And just because Obama and the Dumbocrats violated the Constitution, does not void the Constitution:
> 
> We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, *deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed*
> 
> Now I can tell that you're about 17, so I doubt you can understand this "legal jargon" (I was going to say "comprehend" but I didn't want to confuse you further). The "governed" are the people. "Consent" means to approve or ok. So basically, the people must approve or ok what the federal government does because they answer to us - we do not answer to them.
> 
> Why, or why, does this kids school not offer a basic civics class? Maybe he's been held back a few times and won't be eligible for the class until his senior year?
Click to expand...


WTF does any of your rant have to do with the fact that you didn't answer my question and you're still a hypocritical whiny asshole that is too dumb to realize he just contradicted himself numerous times.


----------



## JakeStarkey

007 said:


>



Kiddo, you are a reactionary and a birther, which is all anybody needs to know about your politics.


----------



## RDD_1210

Rottweiler said:


> [MENTION=23461]RDD_1210[/MENTION] can you explain why you keep running like a coward from the conversation? Why can't everyone just pay for healthcare themselves? That's a fair and simple enough question. What are you so afraid of?



Everyone who can afford it should pay for it. Glad we agree. It's about time you actually promoted some personal responsibility.


----------



## NoTeaPartyPleez

Rottweiler said:


> [MENTION=23461]RDD_1210[/MENTION] can you explain why you keep running like a coward from the conversation? Why can't everyone just pay for healthcare themselves? That's a fair and simple enough question. What are you so afraid of?



*Answer this:  What is the biggest medical bill you have ever received and could you just sit down and write a check for it?

If not, sit down and STFU.*


----------



## RDD_1210

Rottweiler said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm literally stunned by the astounding display of ignorance by [MENTION=23461]RDD_1210[/MENTION]. He thinks that the Constitution was designed to limit the power of the people and the individual, and that as a result, the conservative position is that we won't do anything (including breath) that isn't listed in the Constitution. He's literally so stupid, he's flipped the entire thing. It's the federal government that should not do anything which isn't listed in the Constitution.
> 
> Ladies & Gentlemen - [MENTION=23461]RDD_1210[/MENTION] here really is your modern day Dumbocrat. Supporting and voting for Dumbicrats when he literally (I do mean literally) does not know even the most basic, rudimentary functions of his own government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Remind me again what you would like to breathe instead of oxygen, because I think you've already begun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Remind me again why you're a useless little serf who views the federal government as your master? Is it because you've never actually read the Constitution or because you like being a mooch off of society via the pitiful table scraps (like Obamacare) the government throws to you like a dog on the floor?
Click to expand...


My master? You're the one who bent over and took it, and bought insurance because the government told you to.


----------



## P@triot

NoTeaPartyPleez said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> As the Dumbocrats on USMB love to crow about - Obamacare was passed into law by Congress, signed into law by the president, and upheld by the Supreme Court. So _why_ exactly does the federal government have to piss away billions to *promote* an existing law?!? Has this _ever_ been done with any other law in U.S. _history_?
> 
> They begged the NBA to help promote it and the NBA said yes. They begged the NFL to help promote it, and the NFL told them to go fuck themselves (doh!). So why are they so desperate to reach people through Hollywood and sports? Because even the Dumbocrats know this is a miserable failure, and they _know_ it is going to be repealed eventually unless they can do major damage control and brainwash the masses (especially the young and impressionable - hence the NBA, NFL, etc.) that this is a "good" thing.
> 
> Super Bowl champ Baltimore Ravens getting paid $130,000 to promote Obamacare | WashingtonExaminer.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I drilled down through all the layers right into the PDF and sorry, but what you fail to realize is there's nothing illegal going on here.
> 
> There's complete transparency and a legal agreement with the amount to be paid.
> 
> There's no billions of dollars in cash going overseas in suitcases to Iraq...Ooops, sorry.  Wrong administration....... *
> 
> How the US sent $12,000,000,000 in cash to Iraq. And watched it vanish
> """The US flew nearly $12bn in shrink-wrapped $100 bills into Iraq, then distributed the cash with no proper control over who was receiving it and how it was being spent.
> The staggering scale of the biggest transfer of cash in the history of the Federal Reserve has been graphically laid bare by a US congressional committee."""
> How the US sent $12bn in cash to Iraq. And watched it vanish | World news | The Guardian
> 
> *
> And given that the NFL is socialized sports, because if they didn't spread the wealth and the players around each year we'd be watching the same two teams play all year long, I think it's hypocritical if they don't accept the promotional offer.*
> Goodell Admits NFL is Socialist
> January 30, 2012
> Home Page.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/01/30/goodell_admits_nfl_is_socialist
> 
> *So, sorry, Rotty, but again you are just a puppy ready to roll over and pee on yourself before you actually think about what you're saying.*
Click to expand...


   

Hey stupid (aka [MENTION=41423]NoTeaPartyPleez[/MENTION]), where exactly did I say something "illegal" occurred? You responded to my FULL post (and thank you for that) - so please highlight the section where I said paying the Baltimore Ravens to promote this piece of shit legislation was "illegal".

So stupid, but again you are just a Dumbocrat ready to roll over and pee on yourself before you actually think about what you're reading. (By the way, how does it feel being my personal bitch on USMB?)


----------



## P@triot

RDD_1210 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remind me again what you would like to breathe instead of oxygen, because I think you've already begun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Remind me again why you're a useless little serf who views the federal government as your master? Is it because you've never actually read the Constitution or because you like being a mooch off of society via the pitiful table scraps (like Obamacare) the government throws to you like a dog on the floor?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My master? You're the one who bent over and took it, and bought insurance because the government told you to.
Click to expand...


I'm a law abiding citizen. I'm not going to bomb a building or break the law to prove to a little uneducated asshat like you that I'm a "man" (that really illustrates your maturity level).

Instead, I expose the stupidity (like I have with you here) and work to get law abiding citizens elected to Congress to undo the Dumbocrat communism.

By the way, didn't you start this thread by saying there was NO "loss of freedoms". Now you're admitting that people were *forced* to "bend over and take it"? Oops! Looks like someone just got _owned_ again...


----------



## NoTeaPartyPleez

RDD_1210 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> [MENTION=23461]RDD_1210[/MENTION] can you explain why you keep running like a coward from the conversation? Why can't everyone just pay for healthcare themselves? That's a fair and simple enough question. What are you so afraid of?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone who can afford it should pay for it. Glad we agree. It's about time you actually promoted some personal responsibility.
Click to expand...



*I caught some REAL outright right wing super-lies on Jersey 101 today while in my car.

Some fake woman stating she was from a Eastern European Bloc country where the health care was so awful, you "...had to wait six weeks to get an MRI".  They fucking don't even HAVE MRIs in those 2nd world countries.

The radio hosts, d'bags and Tea Baggers Dennis and Judy clucked their tongues at such an outrage.  But I know of two people whose insurance carriers either delayed or denied MRIs for their respective problems and one lost most of the function in her left calve and the other ended up having rotary cuff surgery when her arm became completely dislocated from soft tissue tearing after a storage locker fell on her.  

The rightwingers are out there on the airwaves just makin' shit up.  *


----------



## P@triot

NoTeaPartyPleez said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> [MENTION=23461]RDD_1210[/MENTION] can you explain why you keep running like a coward from the conversation? Why can't everyone just pay for healthcare themselves? That's a fair and simple enough question. What are you so afraid of?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Answer this:  What is the biggest medical bill you have ever received and could you just sit down and write a check for it?
> 
> If not, sit down and STFU.*
Click to expand...


Answer this: did you sit down and write a check for your house? Your car? Your entire college education?

No, you didn't, you fuck'n ignorant mooching buffoon. You took out a loan and you made *payments*. Stop trying to get everything for free you fuck'n parasite lazy piece of shit.

Now sit down and shut the fuck up before I own you again...


----------



## NoTeaPartyPleez

Rottweiler said:


> NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> As the Dumbocrats on USMB love to crow about - Obamacare was passed into law by Congress, signed into law by the president, and upheld by the Supreme Court. So _why_ exactly does the federal government have to piss away billions to *promote* an existing law?!? Has this _ever_ been done with any other law in U.S. _history_?
> 
> They begged the NBA to help promote it and the NBA said yes. They begged the NFL to help promote it, and the NFL told them to go fuck themselves (doh!). So why are they so desperate to reach people through Hollywood and sports? Because even the Dumbocrats know this is a miserable failure, and they _know_ it is going to be repealed eventually unless they can do major damage control and brainwash the masses (especially the young and impressionable - hence the NBA, NFL, etc.) that this is a "good" thing.
> 
> Super Bowl champ Baltimore Ravens getting paid $130,000 to promote Obamacare | WashingtonExaminer.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I drilled down through all the layers right into the PDF and sorry, but what you fail to realize is there's nothing illegal going on here.
> 
> There's complete transparency and a legal agreement with the amount to be paid.
> 
> There's no billions of dollars in cash going overseas in suitcases to Iraq...Ooops, sorry.  Wrong administration....... *
> 
> How the US sent $12,000,000,000 in cash to Iraq. And watched it vanish
> """The US flew nearly $12bn in shrink-wrapped $100 bills into Iraq, then distributed the cash with no proper control over who was receiving it and how it was being spent.
> The staggering scale of the biggest transfer of cash in the history of the Federal Reserve has been graphically laid bare by a US congressional committee."""
> How the US sent $12bn in cash to Iraq. And watched it vanish | World news | The Guardian
> 
> *
> And given that the NFL is socialized sports, because if they didn't spread the wealth and the players around each year we'd be watching the same two teams play all year long, I think it's hypocritical if they don't accept the promotional offer.*
> Goodell Admits NFL is Socialist
> January 30, 2012
> Home Page.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/01/30/goodell_admits_nfl_is_socialist
> 
> *So, sorry, Rotty, but again you are just a puppy ready to roll over and pee on yourself before you actually think about what you're saying.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey stupid (aka [MENTION=41423]NoTeaPartyPleez[/MENTION]), where exactly did I say something "illegal" occurred? You responded to my FULL post (and thank you for that) - so please highlight the section where I said paying the Baltimore Ravens to promote this piece of shit legislation was "illegal".
> 
> So stupid, but again you are just a Dumbocrat ready to roll over and pee on yourself before you actually think about what you're reading. (By the way, how does it feel being my personal bitch on USMB?)
Click to expand...


*The column is "Washington Secrets".  And apparently there is no secret, sucker.  *


----------



## RDD_1210

Rottweiler said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remind me again why you're a useless little serf who views the federal government as your master? Is it because you've never actually read the Constitution or because you like being a mooch off of society via the pitiful table scraps (like Obamacare) the government throws to you like a dog on the floor?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My master? You're the one who bent over and took it, and bought insurance because the government told you to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm a law abiding citizen. I'm not going to bomb a building or break the law to prove to a little uneducated asshat like you that I'm a "man" (that really illustrates your maturity level).
> 
> Instead, I expose the stupidity (like I have with you here) and work to get law abiding citizens elected to Congress to undo the Dumbocrat communism.
> 
> By the way, didn't you start this thread by saying there was NO "loss of freedoms". Now you're admitting that people were *forced* to "bend over and take it"? Oops! Looks like someone just got _owned_ again...
Click to expand...


There were no loss of freedoms and if you had half an ounce of intelligence you would have picked up by now that I displayed to you that you would have purchased insurance anyway, mandate or not...just like you would breathe oxygen, mandated or not. You're losing nothing...except for what little dignity you had.


----------



## NoTeaPartyPleez

Rottweiler said:


> NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> [MENTION=23461]RDD_1210[/MENTION] can you explain why you keep running like a coward from the conversation? Why can't everyone just pay for healthcare themselves? That's a fair and simple enough question. What are you so afraid of?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Answer this:  What is the biggest medical bill you have ever received and could you just sit down and write a check for it?
> 
> If not, sit down and STFU.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Answer this: did you sit down and write a check for your house? Your car? Your entire college education?*
Click to expand...


*Hahahaaaaaaaa!  As I thought.  

So....How many doctors and hospitals provide amortized medical accounts, asshole?

Thanks, that was easy....*


----------



## 007

JakeStarkey said:


> 007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kiddo, you are a reactionary and a birther, which is all anybody needs to know about your politics.
Click to expand...


Go fuck yourself, rectum mouth, and the asinine gas you belch up.


----------



## RDD_1210

Rottweiler said:


> NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> [MENTION=23461]RDD_1210[/MENTION] can you explain why you keep running like a coward from the conversation? Why can't everyone just pay for healthcare themselves? That's a fair and simple enough question. What are you so afraid of?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Answer this:  What is the biggest medical bill you have ever received and could you just sit down and write a check for it?
> 
> If not, sit down and STFU.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Answer this: did you sit down and write a check for your house? Your car? Your entire college education?
> 
> No, you didn't, you fuck'n ignorant mooching buffoon. You took out a loan and you made *payments*. Stop trying to get everything for free you fuck'n parasite lazy piece of shit.
> 
> Now sit down and shut the fuck up before I own you again...
Click to expand...


Ok, using your deep financial and budgeting knowledge. Can you break down what a payment plan would look like for $500,000 in medical bills. How much would be paid back per month and how many months would it take?


----------



## P@triot

RDD_1210 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> [MENTION=23461]RDD_1210[/MENTION] can you explain why you keep running like a coward from the conversation? Why can't everyone just pay for healthcare themselves? That's a fair and simple enough question. What are you so afraid of?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone who can afford it should pay for it. Glad we agree. It's about time you actually promoted some personal responsibility.
Click to expand...


The government mooch wants to talk about "personal responsibiity" now? 

And what about the other people?


----------



## RDD_1210

Rottweiler said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> [MENTION=23461]RDD_1210[/MENTION] can you explain why you keep running like a coward from the conversation? Why can't everyone just pay for healthcare themselves? That's a fair and simple enough question. What are you so afraid of?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone who can afford it should pay for it. Glad we agree. It's about time you actually promoted some personal responsibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The government mooch wants to talk about "personal responsibiity" now?
> 
> And what about the other people?
Click to expand...


We all pitch in and help subsidize the premiums for those who truly can't afford it. 

What's your plan for the other people?


----------



## 007

Rottweiler said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> [MENTION=23461]RDD_1210[/MENTION] can you explain why you keep running like a coward from the conversation? Why can't everyone just pay for healthcare themselves? That's a fair and simple enough question. What are you so afraid of?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone who can afford it should pay for it. Glad we agree. It's about time you actually promoted some personal responsibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The government mooch wants to talk about "personal responsibiity" now?
> 
> And what about the other people?
Click to expand...


----------



## JakeStarkey

007 said:


> Go fuck yourself, rectum mouth, and the asinine gas you belch up.



The truth bug you, birther boy?

You are aware that libertarianism is the flip side of communism?


----------



## NoTeaPartyPleez

RDD_1210 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Answer this:  What is the biggest medical bill you have ever received and could you just sit down and write a check for it?
> 
> If not, sit down and STFU.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Answer this: did you sit down and write a check for your house? Your car? Your entire college education?
> 
> No, you didn't, you fuck'n ignorant mooching buffoon. You took out a loan and you made *payments*. Stop trying to get everything for free you fuck'n parasite lazy piece of shit.
> 
> Now sit down and shut the fuck up before I own you again...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok, using your deep financial and budgeting knowledge. Can you break down what a payment plan would look like for $500,000 in medical bills. How much would be paid back per month and how many months would it take?
Click to expand...


*And you're not exaggerating either.  I have posted on here already that my late spouse's total bill to the insurer, Empire Blue, was $1,300,000.00 (no typo) over 3 years.  I still have every statement for every charge.  

The reason the bill was so high is the obvious:  Hospitals and doctors have to over-charge to cover the cost of uncollected fees from the millions of people who can't afford health insurance and just go to the ER...for everything. 

Rottweiler is so stupid I'm surprised it can breathe and type at the same time.*


----------



## P@triot

RDD_1210 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Answer this:  What is the biggest medical bill you have ever received and could you just sit down and write a check for it?
> 
> If not, sit down and STFU.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Answer this: did you sit down and write a check for your house? Your car? Your entire college education?
> 
> No, you didn't, you fuck'n ignorant mooching buffoon. You took out a loan and you made *payments*. Stop trying to get everything for free you fuck'n parasite lazy piece of shit.
> 
> Now sit down and shut the fuck up before I own you again...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok, using your deep financial and budgeting knowledge. Can you break down what a payment plan would look like for $500,000 in medical bills. How much would be paid back per month and how many months would it take?
Click to expand...


First of all, who incurs a $500,000 medical bill? A bit of a drama queen, are we?  My wife has given birth in a hospital on multiple occasions now and ALL of the bills combined didn't reach even $100,000. I watched my father go through triple-bypass surgery on multiple occasions and his bills plus that of my wife's combined don't equal $500,000. 

Come on drama queen, keeping making up completely unrealistic scenarios in a sad and weak attempt to justify your desire to live off of your fellow citizens.

Second, to answer your question of "how much per month" the answer is "as much as they can afford". See how simple that is?


----------



## NoTeaPartyPleez

RDD_1210 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone who can afford it should pay for it. Glad we agree. It's about time you actually promoted some personal responsibility.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The government mooch wants to talk about "personal responsibiity" now?
> 
> And what about the other people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We all pitch in and help subsidize the premiums for those who truly can't afford it.
> 
> What's your plan for the other people?
Click to expand...



*I bet anything that the puppy here also claims to be a good Christian. *


----------



## P@triot

RDD_1210 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone who can afford it should pay for it. Glad we agree. It's about time you actually promoted some personal responsibility.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The government mooch wants to talk about "personal responsibiity" now?
> 
> And what about the other people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We all pitch in and help subsidize the premiums for those who truly can't afford it.
> 
> What's your plan for the other people?
Click to expand...


First - who decides if a person can "afford it"? _You_? 

Sorry chief, I've seen too many of you welfare queens spend lavishly on frivilous items like Blackberry's and iPad's and then expect others to provide your critical needs like food and healthcare.

Second - how the fuck is it my problem if they are too lazy to get a job and handle their business properly? If you want to "subsidize" it - *you* do it you cheap, selfish, lazy bastard. You only "care" about other people when your spending MY money. The rest of the time, you're selfish ass could care less.


----------



## NoTeaPartyPleez

Rottweiler said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Answer this: did you sit down and write a check for your house? Your car? Your entire college education?
> 
> No, you didn't, you fuck'n ignorant mooching buffoon. You took out a loan and you made *payments*. Stop trying to get everything for free you fuck'n parasite lazy piece of shit.
> 
> Now sit down and shut the fuck up before I own you again...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, using your deep financial and budgeting knowledge. Can you break down what a payment plan would look like for $500,000 in medical bills. How much would be paid back per month and how many months would it take?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First of all, who incurs a $500,000 medical bill? A bit of a drama queen, are we?  My wife has given birth in a hospital on multiple occasions now and ALL of the bills combined didn't reach even $100,000. I watched my father go through triple-bypass surgery on multiple occasions and his bills plus that of my wife's combined don't equal $500,000.
> 
> Come on drama queen, keeping making up completely unrealistic scenarios in a sad and weak attempt to justify your desire to live off of your fellow citizens.
> 
> Second, to answer your question of "how much per month" the answer is "as much as they can afford". See how simple that is?
Click to expand...


*And your wife was probably in the hospital for all of one or two days, too, right?  

So your father had triple-bypass on multiple occasions?  Really?  Excuse me, but you're lying your ass off now.  *


----------



## RDD_1210

Rottweiler said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Answer this: did you sit down and write a check for your house? Your car? Your entire college education?
> 
> No, you didn't, you fuck'n ignorant mooching buffoon. You took out a loan and you made *payments*. Stop trying to get everything for free you fuck'n parasite lazy piece of shit.
> 
> Now sit down and shut the fuck up before I own you again...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, using your deep financial and budgeting knowledge. Can you break down what a payment plan would look like for $500,000 in medical bills. How much would be paid back per month and how many months would it take?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First of all, who incurs a $500,000 medical bill? A bit of a drama queen, are we?  My wife has given birth in a hospital on multiple occasions now and ALL of the bills combined didn't reach even $100,000. I watched my father go through triple-bypass surgery on multiple occasions and his bills plus that of my wife's combined don't equal $500,000.
> 
> Come on drama queen, keeping making up completely unrealistic scenarios in a sad and weak attempt to justify your desire to live off of your fellow citizens.
> 
> Second, to answer your question of "how much per month" the answer is "as much as they can afford". See how simple that is?
Click to expand...


I knew you were clueless, but thanks for confirming. How much do you think cancer treatment costs? Do you have any clue how much in-patient hospital stay costs for any amount of time? Do you know how much chemo or radiation treatment costs? Obviously not. 

$500,000 is on the low side of what any serious illness will cost. But I'll tell you what, break down a payment plan for just $100,000 in medical bills. I knocked off 80% to try and cut you a break. Give it a shot. How many months do you think a hospital is willing to stretch payments over? Let's hear an actual answer this time genius.


----------



## RDD_1210

NoTeaPartyPleez said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> The government mooch wants to talk about "personal responsibiity" now?
> 
> And what about the other people?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We all pitch in and help subsidize the premiums for those who truly can't afford it.
> 
> What's your plan for the other people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *I bet anything that the puppy here also claims to be a good Christian. *
Click to expand...


He's a hypocrite to the core.


----------



## P@triot

NoTeaPartyPleez said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> The government mooch wants to talk about "personal responsibiity" now?
> 
> And what about the other people?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We all pitch in and help subsidize the premiums for those who truly can't afford it.
> 
> What's your plan for the other people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *I bet anything that the puppy here also claims to be a good Christian. *
Click to expand...


For the first time in your life, you're right! Congrats! I absolutely am a good Christian.

Now, tell me again where in the bible Jesus says that government - by the use of force - will implement communism to take money from one and give it to those in "need"? I seem to have missed that part of the bible - can you cite it for me?


----------



## RDD_1210

Rottweiler said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> The government mooch wants to talk about "personal responsibiity" now?
> 
> And what about the other people?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We all pitch in and help subsidize the premiums for those who truly can't afford it.
> 
> What's your plan for the other people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First - who decides if a person can "afford it"? _You_?
> 
> Sorry chief, I've seen too many of you welfare queens spend lavishly on frivilous items like Blackberry's and iPad's and then expect others to provide your critical needs like food and healthcare.
> 
> Second - how the fuck is it my problem if they are too lazy to get a job and handle their business properly? If you want to "subsidize" it - *you* do it you cheap, selfish, lazy bastard. You only "care" about other people when your spending MY money. The rest of the time, you're selfish ass could care less.
Click to expand...


So, again you didn't actually answer what your plan is for the other people. I answered and you did not. Why is that? 

Maybe because you called me selfish and lazy, while trying to justify why you don't want to help those in need. Hypocrite much?


----------



## Edgetho

Things like this aren't supposed to happen in a Free Sociery..

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=bS0RdZChdpE]Fox News' Beckel: WH Called Me After Suggesting Obamacare Delay - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## RDD_1210

Rottweiler said:


> NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We all pitch in and help subsidize the premiums for those who truly can't afford it.
> 
> What's your plan for the other people?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I bet anything that the puppy here also claims to be a good Christian. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For the first time in your life, you're right! Congrats! I absolutely am a good Christian.
> 
> Now, tell me again where in the bible Jesus says that government - by the use of force - will implement communism to take money from one and give it to those in "need"? I seem to have missed that part of the bible - can you cite it for me?
Click to expand...


Which part of the bible says, "Fuck them, I got mine"


----------



## NoTeaPartyPleez

Rottweiler said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Answer this: did you sit down and write a check for your house? Your car? Your entire college education?
> 
> No, you didn't, you fuck'n ignorant mooching buffoon. You took out a loan and you made *payments*. Stop trying to get everything for free you fuck'n parasite lazy piece of shit.
> 
> Now sit down and shut the fuck up before I own you again...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, using your deep financial and budgeting knowledge. Can you break down what a payment plan would look like for $500,000 in medical bills. How much would be paid back per month and how many months would it take?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First of all, who incurs a $500,000 medical bill?
Click to expand...


*I can't believe someone would actually ask such a stupid question.  Wait...I can.  You.*


----------



## Katzndogz

The plan for other people should not include someone else being forced to pay their bills.  Particularly when that payment is made involuntarily.  Particularly when the person forced to pay the bills of another aren't consulted as to how much they can afford to kick in.


----------



## 007

Katzndogz said:


> The plan for other people should not include someone else being forced to pay their bills.  Particularly when that payment is made involuntarily.  Particularly when the person forced to pay the bills of another aren't consulted as to how much they can afford to kick in.


----------



## RDD_1210

Katzndogz said:


> The plan for other people should not include someone else being forced to pay their bills.  Particularly when that payment is made involuntarily.  Particularly when the person forced to pay the bills of another aren't consulted as to how much they can afford to kick in.



Remember when you claimed your shitty business shut down because of Obamacare? 

The dog grooming service where you had 1 employee. Yeah, I laugh about that still too.


----------



## 007




----------



## 007

[/URL]


----------



## 007




----------



## NoTeaPartyPleez

RDD_1210 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, using your deep financial and budgeting knowledge. Can you break down what a payment plan would look like for $500,000 in medical bills. How much would be paid back per month and how many months would it take?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, who incurs a $500,000 medical bill? A bit of a drama queen, are we?  My wife has given birth in a hospital on multiple occasions now and ALL of the bills combined didn't reach even $100,000. I watched my father go through triple-bypass surgery on multiple occasions and his bills plus that of my wife's combined don't equal $500,000.
> 
> Come on drama queen, keeping making up completely unrealistic scenarios in a sad and weak attempt to justify your desire to live off of your fellow citizens.
> 
> Second, to answer your question of "how much per month" the answer is "as much as they can afford". See how simple that is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I knew you were clueless, but thanks for confirming. How much do you think cancer treatment costs? Do you have any clue how much in-patient hospital stay costs for any amount of time? Do you know how much chemo or radiation treatment costs? Obviously not.
> 
> $500,000 is on the low side of what any serious illness will cost. But I'll tell you what, break down a payment plan for just $100,000 in medical bills. I knocked off 80% to try and cut you a break. Give it a shot. How many months do you think a hospital is willing to stretch payments over? Let's hear an actual answer this time genius.
Click to expand...


*He won't.  He's way out of his depth now and knows it.

My late spouse's bills for the first seven weeks of chemo came to $85,000 alone.  That was just the oncologist and infusions.  There's hospital visits, lab costs, MRI and PET scans, pathology and radiology, blood work, OTC meds and Rx meds, so we were well into $150,000 after the first couple of months.  *


----------



## NoTeaPartyPleez

007 said:


>



*Desperation is so unbecoming.  That's why I stick to facts.  *


----------



## 007

NoTeaPartyPleez said:


> 007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Desperation is so unbecoming.  That's why I stick to facts.
Click to expand...


Is that why you have been avoiding all the facts in this thread?


----------



## NoTeaPartyPleez

RDD_1210 said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> The plan for other people should not include someone else being forced to pay their bills.  Particularly when that payment is made involuntarily.  Particularly when the person forced to pay the bills of another aren't consulted as to how much they can afford to kick in.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Remember when you claimed your shitty business shut down because of Obamacare?
> 
> The dog grooming service where you had 1 employee. Yeah, I laugh about that still too.
Click to expand...


*That's what Rott does, groom dogs?  LMAO!!!!  *


----------



## RDD_1210

NoTeaPartyPleez said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, who incurs a $500,000 medical bill? A bit of a drama queen, are we?  My wife has given birth in a hospital on multiple occasions now and ALL of the bills combined didn't reach even $100,000. I watched my father go through triple-bypass surgery on multiple occasions and his bills plus that of my wife's combined don't equal $500,000.
> 
> Come on drama queen, keeping making up completely unrealistic scenarios in a sad and weak attempt to justify your desire to live off of your fellow citizens.
> 
> Second, to answer your question of "how much per month" the answer is "as much as they can afford". See how simple that is?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I knew you were clueless, but thanks for confirming. How much do you think cancer treatment costs? Do you have any clue how much in-patient hospital stay costs for any amount of time? Do you know how much chemo or radiation treatment costs? Obviously not.
> 
> $500,000 is on the low side of what any serious illness will cost. But I'll tell you what, break down a payment plan for just $100,000 in medical bills. I knocked off 80% to try and cut you a break. Give it a shot. How many months do you think a hospital is willing to stretch payments over? Let's hear an actual answer this time genius.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *He won't.  He's way out of his depth now and knows it.
> 
> My late spouse's bills for the first seven weeks of chemo came to $85,000 alone.  That was just the oncologist.  There's hospital visits, lab costs, MRI and PET scans, pathology and radiology, blood work, OTC meds and Rx meds, so we were well into $150,000 after the first couple of months.  *
Click to expand...


You're totally right. He's obviously in way over his head on this topic. 

I too lost my wife to cancer(Leukemia). So I know what months and months of treatment and in and our of multiple hospitals will cost. We had the best insurance policy we could possibly get and I still received a bill after my wife passed for $187,000 for treatment that exceeded the insurance coverage cap. Never mind the random $10-$20k bills I received for months after that. This is all WITH having insurance and very good insurance.


----------



## RDD_1210

NoTeaPartyPleez said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> The plan for other people should not include someone else being forced to pay their bills.  Particularly when that payment is made involuntarily.  Particularly when the person forced to pay the bills of another aren't consulted as to how much they can afford to kick in.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Remember when you claimed your shitty business shut down because of Obamacare?
> 
> The dog grooming service where you had 1 employee. Yeah, I laugh about that still too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *That's what Rott does, groom dogs?  LMAO!!!!  *
Click to expand...


No, that was KatznDogz claimed to do. No clue about Rott, but I'd be willing to bet he's gainfully unemployed.


----------



## P@triot

RDD_1210 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, using your deep financial and budgeting knowledge. Can you break down what a payment plan would look like for $500,000 in medical bills. How much would be paid back per month and how many months would it take?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, who incurs a $500,000 medical bill? A bit of a drama queen, are we?  My wife has given birth in a hospital on multiple occasions now and ALL of the bills combined didn't reach even $100,000. I watched my father go through triple-bypass surgery on multiple occasions and his bills plus that of my wife's combined don't equal $500,000.
> 
> Come on drama queen, keeping making up completely unrealistic scenarios in a sad and weak attempt to justify your desire to live off of your fellow citizens.
> 
> Second, to answer your question of "how much per month" the answer is "as much as they can afford". See how simple that is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I knew you were clueless, but thanks for confirming. How much do you think cancer treatment costs? Do you have any clue how much in-patient hospital stay costs for any amount of time? Do you know how much chemo or radiation treatment costs? Obviously not.
> 
> $500,000 is on the low side of what any serious illness will cost. But I'll tell you what, break down a payment plan for just $100,000 in medical bills. I knocked off 80% to try and cut you a break. Give it a shot. How many months do you think a hospital is willing to stretch payments over? Let's hear an actual answer this time genius.
Click to expand...


So major heart surgery is not a "serious illness" in your mind, you fuck'n drama queen? Really? 

Giving birth is not a serious medical procedure in your mind, you fuck'n drama queen? Really? 

All of those things COMBINED didn't even begin to reach $500,000. In fact, it didn't even reach $250,000 *combined* you fuck'n drama queen. God Almighty... 

And I gave you an actual answer. I gave you a serious answer. And I will give it again: AS MUCH AS THEY CAN AFFORD. What is so difficult about that for you? If someone's income is $2,800 per month, you obviously cannot stick them with an $8,000 per month bill, genius. You look at their finances, and you create a plan where they pay what they can afford per month.

Oh how quick your "personal responsibility" speech has gone out the door, eh there parasite? Just admit you want to live off of your fellow citizen as a parasite and we can move on. Just admit you're too lazy to be a big boy and take responsibility for yourself.


----------



## P@triot

RDD_1210 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I bet anything that the puppy here also claims to be a good Christian. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For the first time in your life, you're right! Congrats! I absolutely am a good Christian.
> 
> Now, tell me again where in the bible Jesus says that government - by the use of force - will implement communism to take money from one and give it to those in "need"? I seem to have missed that part of the bible - can you cite it for me?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which part of the bible says, "Fuck them, I got mine"
Click to expand...


It doesn't - it says we should help of our own FREE will. Not at the gun of a government.

You've already proven you are completely ignorant of your own government. Are you going to prove your also ignorant of the bible now? Jesus would be appalled at the government holding a gun to our head (literally - if you don't pay your taxes, eventually a man with a gun will show up at your door to take you into custody) and _stealing_ money by force to waste 85% and give the remaining 15% to someone who actually needs it.


----------



## RDD_1210

Rottweiler said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, who incurs a $500,000 medical bill? A bit of a drama queen, are we?  My wife has given birth in a hospital on multiple occasions now and ALL of the bills combined didn't reach even $100,000. I watched my father go through triple-bypass surgery on multiple occasions and his bills plus that of my wife's combined don't equal $500,000.
> 
> Come on drama queen, keeping making up completely unrealistic scenarios in a sad and weak attempt to justify your desire to live off of your fellow citizens.
> 
> Second, to answer your question of "how much per month" the answer is "as much as they can afford". See how simple that is?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I knew you were clueless, but thanks for confirming. How much do you think cancer treatment costs? Do you have any clue how much in-patient hospital stay costs for any amount of time? Do you know how much chemo or radiation treatment costs? Obviously not.
> 
> $500,000 is on the low side of what any serious illness will cost. But I'll tell you what, break down a payment plan for just $100,000 in medical bills. I knocked off 80% to try and cut you a break. Give it a shot. How many months do you think a hospital is willing to stretch payments over? Let's hear an actual answer this time genius.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So major heart surgery is not a "serious illness" in your mind, you fuck'n drama queen? Really?
> 
> Giving birth is not a serious medical procedure in your mind, you fuck'n drama queen? Really?
> 
> All of those things COMBINED didn't even begin to reach $500,000. In fact, it didn't even reach $250,000 *combined* you fuck'n drama queen. God Almighty...
> 
> And I gave you an actual answer. I gave you a serious answer. And I will give it again: AS MUCH AS THEY CAN AFFORD. What is so difficult about that for you? If someone's income is $2,800 per month, you obviously cannot stick them with an $8,000 per month bill, genius. You look at their finances, and you create a plan where they pay what they can afford per month.
> 
> Oh how quick your "personal responsibility" speech has gone out the door, eh there parasite? Just admit you want to live off of your fellow citizen as a parasite and we can move on. Just admit you're too lazy to be a big boy and take responsibility for yourself.
Click to expand...


Someone making $50k year. How much should they pay towards that bill? 

You wont provide the numbers either because you can't do basic math, OR you know how unrealistic your suggestion of a payment plan is. 

You've lost....again.


----------



## P@triot

Katzndogz said:


> The plan for other people should not include someone else being forced to pay their bills.  Particularly when that payment is made involuntarily.  Particularly when the person forced to pay the bills of another aren't consulted as to how much they can afford to kick in.


----------



## P@triot

007 said:


>


----------



## P@triot

NoTeaPartyPleez said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> The plan for other people should not include someone else being forced to pay their bills.  Particularly when that payment is made involuntarily.  Particularly when the person forced to pay the bills of another aren't consulted as to how much they can afford to kick in.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Remember when you claimed your shitty business shut down because of Obamacare?
> 
> The dog grooming service where you had 1 employee. Yeah, I laugh about that still too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *That's what Rott does, groom dogs?  LMAO!!!!  *
Click to expand...


   

Once again stupid, you go off half-cocked without having a fuck'n clue what you're talking about. Read the thread again stupid - he wasn't replying to me. My God are you one seriously stupid mother fucker. How...freaking...embarrassing for you [MENTION=41423]NoTeaPartyPleez[/MENTION].

By the way, I find it hilarious that a government parasite like you who frets about his government cheese being taken away during the "shutdown" would mock the profession of any business _owner_. He owned his own business like I own you in the USMB threads. How amazing that you would mock an entrepreneur when you needed the government to help pay for your trailer park lot.


----------



## Jackson

RDD_1210 said:


> It is sad that this has to happen.
> 
> It's also sad that the GOP has convinced people of "death panels", "losing freedom" and all the other hysterical nonsense that you sheep believe, that have actually made you think you hate a law that is a Republican idea.
> 
> So yeah, it's sad that a campaign needs to be waged to combat such blatant misinformation.



And it is ironic that the GOP didn't have to say or do anything.  All they had to do is wait and watch.   The crash you hear will be ObamaCare coming to an end.


----------



## NoTeaPartyPleez

RDD_1210 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I knew you were clueless, but thanks for confirming. How much do you think cancer treatment costs? Do you have any clue how much in-patient hospital stay costs for any amount of time? Do you know how much chemo or radiation treatment costs? Obviously not.
> 
> $500,000 is on the low side of what any serious illness will cost. But I'll tell you what, break down a payment plan for just $100,000 in medical bills. I knocked off 80% to try and cut you a break. Give it a shot. How many months do you think a hospital is willing to stretch payments over? Let's hear an actual answer this time genius.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So major heart surgery is not a "serious illness" in your mind, you fuck'n drama queen? Really?
> 
> Giving birth is not a serious medical procedure in your mind, you fuck'n drama queen? Really?
> 
> All of those things COMBINED didn't even begin to reach $500,000. In fact, it didn't even reach $250,000 *combined* you fuck'n drama queen. God Almighty...
> 
> And I gave you an actual answer. I gave you a serious answer. And I will give it again: AS MUCH AS THEY CAN AFFORD. What is so difficult about that for you? If someone's income is $2,800 per month, you obviously cannot stick them with an $8,000 per month bill, genius. You look at their finances, and you create a plan where they pay what they can afford per month.
> 
> Oh how quick your "personal responsibility" speech has gone out the door, eh there parasite? Just admit you want to live off of your fellow citizen as a parasite and we can move on. Just admit you're too lazy to be a big boy and take responsibility for yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Someone making $50k year. How much should they pay towards that bill?
> 
> You wont provide the numbers either because you can't do basic math, OR you know how unrealistic your suggestion of a payment plan is.
> 
> *You've lost....again.*
Click to expand...


*Wasn't the first time, won't be the last. 

They have no viable option for either the for-profit insurance system or mandated insurance.  None.
But when a catastrophic illness visits their house, they will quickly change their mind.

Rottwad the pooch pincher was simply lying about his father having MULTIPLE triple-bypasses.  

So they resort to bullshit because they have no answers.

But the Canadians sure seem to be happy with their universal health care.  I would gladly pay more taxes to have that, which is a federally FUNDED system, not managed. 

Rottwad et al. thinks that private corporations should profit from their health or lack thereof.*


----------



## P@triot

RDD_1210 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I knew you were clueless, but thanks for confirming. How much do you think cancer treatment costs? Do you have any clue how much in-patient hospital stay costs for any amount of time? Do you know how much chemo or radiation treatment costs? Obviously not.
> 
> $500,000 is on the low side of what any serious illness will cost. But I'll tell you what, break down a payment plan for just $100,000 in medical bills. I knocked off 80% to try and cut you a break. Give it a shot. How many months do you think a hospital is willing to stretch payments over? Let's hear an actual answer this time genius.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So major heart surgery is not a "serious illness" in your mind, you fuck'n drama queen? Really?
> 
> Giving birth is not a serious medical procedure in your mind, you fuck'n drama queen? Really?
> 
> All of those things COMBINED didn't even begin to reach $500,000. In fact, it didn't even reach $250,000 *combined* you fuck'n drama queen. God Almighty...
> 
> And I gave you an actual answer. I gave you a serious answer. And I will give it again: AS MUCH AS THEY CAN AFFORD. What is so difficult about that for you? If someone's income is $2,800 per month, you obviously cannot stick them with an $8,000 per month bill, genius. You look at their finances, and you create a plan where they pay what they can afford per month.
> 
> Oh how quick your "personal responsibility" speech has gone out the door, eh there parasite? Just admit you want to live off of your fellow citizen as a parasite and we can move on. Just admit you're too lazy to be a big boy and take responsibility for yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Someone making $50k year. How much should they pay towards that bill?
> 
> You wont provide the numbers either because you can't do basic math, OR you know how unrealistic your suggestion of a payment plan is.
> 
> You've lost....again.
Click to expand...


Dude - I've completely *owned* you. There are many variables and all you give is ONE of many and expect a number. This is how stupid you are.

*Do houses have payment plans? Do automobiles have payment plans? Do dentists have payment plans?!?! So why is this any different?!?!*

Do you see what an ignorant buffoon you are? You've been humiliated here son. You're just paralyzed with fear that someone will actually make you pay your own way through life instead of sitting on your ass in your trailer park typing nonsense on USMB like "hey, this scenario has 37 variables, but I'm going to give you ONE and expect an answer"


----------



## P@triot

NoTeaPartyPleez said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> So major heart surgery is not a "serious illness" in your mind, you fuck'n drama queen? Really?
> 
> Giving birth is not a serious medical procedure in your mind, you fuck'n drama queen? Really?
> 
> All of those things COMBINED didn't even begin to reach $500,000. In fact, it didn't even reach $250,000 *combined* you fuck'n drama queen. God Almighty...
> 
> And I gave you an actual answer. I gave you a serious answer. And I will give it again: AS MUCH AS THEY CAN AFFORD. What is so difficult about that for you? If someone's income is $2,800 per month, you obviously cannot stick them with an $8,000 per month bill, genius. You look at their finances, and you create a plan where they pay what they can afford per month.
> 
> Oh how quick your "personal responsibility" speech has gone out the door, eh there parasite? Just admit you want to live off of your fellow citizen as a parasite and we can move on. Just admit you're too lazy to be a big boy and take responsibility for yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Someone making $50k year. How much should they pay towards that bill?
> 
> You wont provide the numbers either because you can't do basic math, OR you know how unrealistic your suggestion of a payment plan is.
> 
> *You've lost....again.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Wasn't the first time, won't be the last.
> 
> They have no viable option for either the for-profit insurance system or mandated insurance.  None.
> But when a catastrophic illness visits their house, they will quickly change their mind.
> 
> Rottwad the pooch pincher was simply lying about his father having MULTIPLE triple-bypasses.
> 
> So they resort to bullshit because they have no answers.
> 
> But the Canadians sure seem to be happy with their universal health care.  I would gladly pay more taxes to have that, which is a federally FUNDED system, not managed.
> 
> Rottwad et al. thinks that private corporations should profit from their health or lack thereof.*
Click to expand...


This is simply unbelievable. The little bitch [MENTION=41423]NoTeaPartyPleez[/MENTION] has been so throughly defeated (and owned) by me that he has to pretend like something he knows is 100% true is not true.

What's next chief - my wife never gave birth either? 

It is so comical watching your paralyzing fear at the thought that this solution is going to catch on and you will be expected to be a big boy once in your miserable life and pay your own way.


----------



## RDD_1210

Rottweiler said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> So major heart surgery is not a "serious illness" in your mind, you fuck'n drama queen? Really?
> 
> Giving birth is not a serious medical procedure in your mind, you fuck'n drama queen? Really?
> 
> All of those things COMBINED didn't even begin to reach $500,000. In fact, it didn't even reach $250,000 *combined* you fuck'n drama queen. God Almighty...
> 
> And I gave you an actual answer. I gave you a serious answer. And I will give it again: AS MUCH AS THEY CAN AFFORD. What is so difficult about that for you? If someone's income is $2,800 per month, you obviously cannot stick them with an $8,000 per month bill, genius. You look at their finances, and you create a plan where they pay what they can afford per month.
> 
> Oh how quick your "personal responsibility" speech has gone out the door, eh there parasite? Just admit you want to live off of your fellow citizen as a parasite and we can move on. Just admit you're too lazy to be a big boy and take responsibility for yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Someone making $50k year. How much should they pay towards that bill?
> 
> You wont provide the numbers either because you can't do basic math, OR you know how unrealistic your suggestion of a payment plan is.
> 
> You've lost....again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude - I've completely *owned* you. There are many variables and all you give is ONE of many and expect a number. This is how stupid you are.
> 
> *Do houses have payment plans? Do automobiles have payment plans? Do dentists have payment plans?!?! So why is this any different?!?!*
> 
> Do you see what an ignorant buffoon you are? You've been humiliated here son. You're just paralyzed with fear that someone will actually make you pay your own way through life instead of sitting on your ass in your trailer park typing nonsense on USMB like "hey, this scenario has 37 variables, but I'm going to give you ONE and expect an answer"
Click to expand...


Another post where you refuse to lay out a basic payment plan. It's not a difficult request, yet you refuse to answer. Your excuses are lame and your viewpoint has been exposed as selfish and flawed.


----------



## P@triot

NoTeaPartyPleez said:


> But the Canadians sure seem to be happy with their universal health care.  I would gladly pay more taxes to have that, which is a federally FUNDED system, not managed.



Then move to Canada you crying little bitch. Or Cuba. Or Vietnam. There are plenty of places where you can mooch off of other people like you dream of doing. If Canada is so great - go there. Get the fuck out of our country you anti-American communist little bitch.

By the way, if Canadians are soooo "happy" with their healthcare system, how come the flock to America for their life-saving surgeries because they have to wait a minimum of 4 months for life or death surgeries? How come their freaking PM flew to Florida for his heart surgery?!?! How many more *lies* do you have up your sleave asshat?

Canadian premier defends U.S. surgery - UPI.com


----------



## P@triot

RDD_1210 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Someone making $50k year. How much should they pay towards that bill?
> 
> You wont provide the numbers either because you can't do basic math, OR you know how unrealistic your suggestion of a payment plan is.
> 
> You've lost....again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude - I've completely *owned* you. There are many variables and all you give is ONE of many and expect a number. This is how stupid you are.
> 
> *Do houses have payment plans? Do automobiles have payment plans? Do dentists have payment plans?!?! So why is this any different?!?!*
> 
> Do you see what an ignorant buffoon you are? You've been humiliated here son. You're just paralyzed with fear that someone will actually make you pay your own way through life instead of sitting on your ass in your trailer park typing nonsense on USMB like "hey, this scenario has 37 variables, but I'm going to give you ONE and expect an answer"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another post where you refuse to lay out a basic payment plan. It's not a difficult request, yet you refuse to answer. Your excuses are lame and your viewpoint has been exposed as selfish and flawed.
Click to expand...


I can't post a payment plan with 1/37th of the information required to create the plan stupid... 

*Do houses have payment plans? Do automobiles have payment plans? Do dentists have payment plans?!?! So why is this any different?!?!*

Why can't you answer [MENTION=23461]RDD_1210[/MENTION]? Too _stupid_?


----------



## P@triot

Hey [MENTION=23461]RDD_1210[/MENTION] and [MENTION=41423]NoTeaPartyPleez[/MENTION]

*Do people write a check for a $500,000 home or do they make payments?*

Game. Set. Match. You lost, bitches...


----------



## P@triot

RDD_1210 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Someone making $50k year. How much should they pay towards that bill?
> 
> You wont provide the numbers either because you can't do basic math, OR you know how unrealistic your suggestion of a payment plan is.
> 
> You've lost....again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude - I've completely *owned* you. There are many variables and all you give is ONE of many and expect a number. This is how stupid you are.
> 
> *Do houses have payment plans? Do automobiles have payment plans? Do dentists have payment plans?!?! So why is this any different?!?!*
> 
> Do you see what an ignorant buffoon you are? You've been humiliated here son. You're just paralyzed with fear that someone will actually make you pay your own way through life instead of sitting on your ass in your trailer park typing nonsense on USMB like "hey, this scenario has 37 variables, but I'm going to give you ONE and expect an answer"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another post where you refuse to lay out a basic payment plan. It's not a difficult request, yet you refuse to answer. Your excuses are lame and your viewpoint has been exposed as selfish and flawed.
Click to expand...


What are you talking about asshat? I've been waiting for 40 posts now for you to answer why Obama and the Dumbocrats fine cadillac healthcare plans in Obamacare when they claim that Obamacare is to create quality, affordable healthcare (which is exactly what a cadillac healthcare plan is).

I'll tell you what [MENTION=23461]RDD_1210[/MENTION], when you answer my question (which I asked first and a long time ago), I'll answer yours. Until then, well, you continue to embarrass yourself by exposing your ignorance.


----------



## P@triot

NoTeaPartyPleez said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, who incurs a $500,000 medical bill?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I can't believe someone would actually ask such a stupid question.  Wait...I can.  You.*
Click to expand...


Come on [MENTION=41423]NoTeaPartyPleez[/MENTION] - tell me your all of your medical bills combined for you _entire_ life have even come close to $500,000. Please? I would _kill_ to hear that lie! We could spend decades laughing at you over that bullshit. Come on kitty-kitty-kitty... tell us the lie kitty! 

Among families who were bankrupted by illness, those with private insurance reported average medical bills of $17,749 compared to those who were *uninsured, who faced an average of $26,971* in medical costs. Those who had health insurance but lost it in the course of their illness reported average medical bills of $22,568.

The average medical bill - for the uninsured - is $26,971. Less than the price of a car!!! I love humiliating *idiots* like [MENTION=23461]RDD_1210[/MENTION]. Sorry drama queen, $500,000 is more unrealistic than a unicorn! 

And a payment plant would easily cover that cost. Just admit you're a fuck'n parsite looking for your fellow citizen to pay your way through life.

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/04/medical-bills-cause-most-bankruptcies/


----------



## P@triot

NoTeaPartyPleez said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I drilled down through all the layers right into the PDF and sorry, but what you fail to realize is there's nothing illegal going on here.
> 
> There's complete transparency and a legal agreement with the amount to be paid.
> 
> There's no billions of dollars in cash going overseas in suitcases to Iraq...Ooops, sorry.  Wrong administration....... *
> 
> How the US sent $12,000,000,000 in cash to Iraq. And watched it vanish
> """The US flew nearly $12bn in shrink-wrapped $100 bills into Iraq, then distributed the cash with no proper control over who was receiving it and how it was being spent.
> The staggering scale of the biggest transfer of cash in the history of the Federal Reserve has been graphically laid bare by a US congressional committee."""
> How the US sent $12bn in cash to Iraq. And watched it vanish | World news | The Guardian
> 
> *
> And given that the NFL is socialized sports, because if they didn't spread the wealth and the players around each year we'd be watching the same two teams play all year long, I think it's hypocritical if they don't accept the promotional offer.*
> Goodell Admits NFL is Socialist
> January 30, 2012
> Home Page.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/01/30/goodell_admits_nfl_is_socialist
> 
> *So, sorry, Rotty, but again you are just a puppy ready to roll over and pee on yourself before you actually think about what you're saying.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey stupid (aka  [MENTION=41423]NoTeaPartyPleez[/MENTION]), where exactly did I say something "illegal" occurred? You responded to my FULL post (and thank you for that) - so please highlight the section where I said paying the Baltimore Ravens to promote this piece of shit legislation was "illegal".
> 
> So stupid, but again you are just a Dumbocrat ready to roll over and pee on yourself before you actually think about what you're reading. (By the way, how does it feel being my personal bitch on USMB?)
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The column is "Washington Secrets".  And apparently there is no secret, sucker.  *
Click to expand...


Oh [MENTION=41423]NoTeaPartyPleez[/MENTION], I just feel sorry for you now. You're lack of reading comprehension is so _painfully_ obvious now (and we can't emphasis the word painfully enough) that it's just gotten to the point of cringing out of embarassment for you every time I read your posts.

No where did I state anything "illegal" occurred. I never even used that word, nor did I even imply anything of the sort.

The only "sucker" is you believing the shit-sandwhich that Obama is feeding you is actually any good...


----------



## Seawytch

Rottweiler said:


> Super Bowl champ Baltimore Ravens getting paid $130,000 to promote Obamacare | WashingtonExaminer.com



Can we assume you oppose NASCAR sponsorships by the military?


----------



## Seawytch

Rottweiler said:


> NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, who incurs a $500,000 medical bill?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I can't believe someone would actually ask such a stupid question.  Wait...I can.  You.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Come on [MENTION=41423]NoTeaPartyPleez[/MENTION] - tell me your all of your medical bills combined for you _entire_ life have even come close to $500,000. Please? I would _kill_ to hear that lie! We could spend decades laughing at you over that bullshit. Come on kitty-kitty-kitty... tell us the lie kitty!
> 
> Among families who were bankrupted by illness, those with private insurance reported average medical bills of $17,749 compared to those who were *uninsured, who faced an average of $26,971* in medical costs. Those who had health insurance but lost it in the course of their illness reported average medical bills of $22,568.
> 
> The average medical bill - for the uninsured - is $26,971. Less than the price of a car!!! I love humiliating *idiots* like [MENTION=23461]RDD_1210[/MENTION]. Sorry drama queen, $500,000 is more unrealistic than a unicorn!
> 
> And a payment plant would easily cover that cost. Just admit you're a fuck'n parsite looking for your fellow citizen to pay your way through life.
> 
> http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/04/medical-bills-cause-most-bankruptcies/
Click to expand...


Cancer will take you to 500K in no time.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news...owing-burden-the-high-cost-of-care/53271430/1


----------



## Seawytch

http://www.tcu360.com/campus/2012/01/14225.student-faces-500000-medical-debt-health-issues


----------



## RDD_1210

Rottweiler said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude - I've completely *owned* you. There are many variables and all you give is ONE of many and expect a number. This is how stupid you are.
> 
> *Do houses have payment plans? Do automobiles have payment plans? Do dentists have payment plans?!?! So why is this any different?!?!*
> 
> Do you see what an ignorant buffoon you are? You've been humiliated here son. You're just paralyzed with fear that someone will actually make you pay your own way through life instead of sitting on your ass in your trailer park typing nonsense on USMB like "hey, this scenario has 37 variables, but I'm going to give you ONE and expect an answer"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another post where you refuse to lay out a basic payment plan. It's not a difficult request, yet you refuse to answer. Your excuses are lame and your viewpoint has been exposed as selfish and flawed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't post a payment plan with 1/37th of the information required to create the plan stupid...
> 
> *Do houses have payment plans? Do automobiles have payment plans? Do dentists have payment plans?!?! So why is this any different?!?!*
> 
> Why can't you answer [MENTION=23461]RDD_1210[/MENTION]? Too _stupid_?
Click to expand...


What information are you missing to put together a hypothetical payment plan? Give me one example of a critical piece of information that is preventing you from answering.


----------



## RDD_1210

Seawytch said:


> Student faces $500,000 medical debt, health issues | TCU 360



He's literally clueless. That much is evident.


----------



## Zoom-boing

RDD_1210 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> My master? You're the one who bent over and took it, and bought insurance because the government told you to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm a law abiding citizen. I'm not going to bomb a building or break the law to prove to a little uneducated asshat like you that I'm a "man" (that really illustrates your maturity level).
> 
> Instead, I expose the stupidity (like I have with you here) and work to get law abiding citizens elected to Congress to undo the Dumbocrat communism.
> 
> By the way, didn't you start this thread by saying there was NO "loss of freedoms". Now you're admitting that people were *forced* to "bend over and take it"? Oops! Looks like someone just got _owned_ again...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *There were no loss of freedoms* and if you had half an ounce of intelligence you would have picked up by now that I displayed to you that you would have purchased insurance anyway, mandate or not...just like you would breathe oxygen, mandated or not. You're losing nothing...except for what little dignity you had.
Click to expand...


You're serious, aren't you?

The freedom of choice was lost.  The freedom to choose not to have maternity, newborn, pediatric care (including vision and dental) included in one's coverage because they are a 55 year old, single guy with no kids.  The freedom to choose to keep your individual catastrophic health insurance plan that you have had for years was taken away.  Why?  Because it wasn't (un)aca compliant ... it didn't include coverage for maternity, newborn, pediatric care (including vision and dental).  The freedom to choose a plan that fit one's needs, rather than a plan that fit someone else's needs, was taken away.  The freedom to keep healthy and pay a lower rate is gone.  Now people with pre-existing conditions don't pay more for their coverage, even though they are a higher risk.  

You're another stupid leftist who can't see the forest for the trees.


----------



## RDD_1210

Zoom-boing said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm a law abiding citizen. I'm not going to bomb a building or break the law to prove to a little uneducated asshat like you that I'm a "man" (that really illustrates your maturity level).
> 
> Instead, I expose the stupidity (like I have with you here) and work to get law abiding citizens elected to Congress to undo the Dumbocrat communism.
> 
> By the way, didn't you start this thread by saying there was NO "loss of freedoms". Now you're admitting that people were *forced* to "bend over and take it"? Oops! Looks like someone just got _owned_ again...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *There were no loss of freedoms* and if you had half an ounce of intelligence you would have picked up by now that I displayed to you that you would have purchased insurance anyway, mandate or not...just like you would breathe oxygen, mandated or not. You're losing nothing...except for what little dignity you had.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're serious, aren't you?
> 
> The freedom of choice was lost.  The freedom to choose not to have maternity, newborn, pediatric care (including vision and dental) included in one's coverage because they are a 55 year old, single guy with no kids.  The freedom to choose to keep your individual catastrophic health insurance plan that you have had for years was taken away.  Why?  Because it wasn't (un)aca compliant ... it didn't include coverage for maternity, newborn, pediatric care (including vision and dental).  The freedom to choose a plan that fit one's needs, rather than a plan that fit someone else's needs, was taken away.  The freedom to keep healthy and pay a lower rate is gone.  Now people with pre-existing conditions don't pay more for their coverage, even though they are a higher risk.
> 
> You're another stupid leftist who can't see the forest for the trees.
Click to expand...


News flash, insurance plans have always and will always cover services that not everyone needs. Until the day comes out where there is a a-la-carte insurance plan, this is a ridiculous and invalid talking point. 

Like I said, no freedoms were lost.


----------



## Zoom-boing

RDD_1210 said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *There were no loss of freedoms* and if you had half an ounce of intelligence you would have picked up by now that I displayed to you that you would have purchased insurance anyway, mandate or not...just like you would breathe oxygen, mandated or not. You're losing nothing...except for what little dignity you had.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're serious, aren't you?
> 
> The freedom of choice was lost.  The freedom to choose not to have maternity, newborn, pediatric care (including vision and dental) included in one's coverage because they are a 55 year old, single guy with no kids.  The freedom to choose to keep your individual catastrophic health insurance plan that you have had for years was taken away.  Why?  Because it wasn't (un)aca compliant ... it didn't include coverage for maternity, newborn, pediatric care (including vision and dental).  The freedom to choose a plan that fit one's needs, rather than a plan that fit someone else's needs, was taken away.  The freedom to keep healthy and pay a lower rate is gone.  Now people with pre-existing conditions don't pay more for their coverage, even though they are a higher risk.
> 
> You're another stupid leftist who can't see the forest for the trees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> News flash, *insurance plans have always and will always cover services that not everyone needs.* Until the day comes out where there is a a-la-carte insurance plan, this is a ridiculous and invalid talking point.
> 
> Like I said, no freedoms were lost.
Click to expand...


With individual plans you most certainly could choose what you wanted to be covered. Not any more, since obama took that choice away.  Freedoms lost.  But do keep spinning and propping up obama.


----------



## Steve_McGarrett

Seawytch said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I can't believe someone would actually ask such a stupid question.  Wait...I can.  You.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Come on [MENTION=41423]NoTeaPartyPleez[/MENTION] - tell me your all of your medical bills combined for you _entire_ life have even come close to $500,000. Please? I would _kill_ to hear that lie! We could spend decades laughing at you over that bullshit. Come on kitty-kitty-kitty... tell us the lie kitty!
> 
> Among families who were bankrupted by illness, those with private insurance reported average medical bills of $17,749 compared to those who were *uninsured, who faced an average of $26,971* in medical costs. Those who had health insurance but lost it in the course of their illness reported average medical bills of $22,568.
> 
> The average medical bill - for the uninsured - is $26,971. Less than the price of a car!!! I love humiliating *idiots* like [MENTION=23461]RDD_1210[/MENTION]. Sorry drama queen, $500,000 is more unrealistic than a unicorn!
> 
> And a payment plant would easily cover that cost. Just admit you're a fuck'n parsite looking for your fellow citizen to pay your way through life.
> 
> http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/04/medical-bills-cause-most-bankruptcies/
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cancer will take you to 500K in no time.
> 
> High cost of care becomes cancer's growing burden ? USATODAY.com
Click to expand...


Correct. I have a close family member who fought Leukemia and the bill was over 480k for the treatments. That person is in remission right now.


----------



## RDD_1210

Steve_McGarrett said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Come on [MENTION=41423]NoTeaPartyPleez[/MENTION] - tell me your all of your medical bills combined for you _entire_ life have even come close to $500,000. Please? I would _kill_ to hear that lie! We could spend decades laughing at you over that bullshit. Come on kitty-kitty-kitty... tell us the lie kitty!
> 
> Among families who were bankrupted by illness, those with private insurance reported average medical bills of $17,749 compared to those who were *uninsured, who faced an average of $26,971* in medical costs. Those who had health insurance but lost it in the course of their illness reported average medical bills of $22,568.
> 
> The average medical bill - for the uninsured - is $26,971. Less than the price of a car!!! I love humiliating *idiots* like [MENTION=23461]RDD_1210[/MENTION]. Sorry drama queen, $500,000 is more unrealistic than a unicorn!
> 
> And a payment plant would easily cover that cost. Just admit you're a fuck'n parsite looking for your fellow citizen to pay your way through life.
> 
> http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/04/medical-bills-cause-most-bankruptcies/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cancer will take you to 500K in no time.
> 
> High cost of care becomes cancer's growing burden ? USATODAY.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correct. I have a close family member who fought Leukemia and the bill was over 480k for the treatments. That person is in remission right now.
Click to expand...


Rottweiler says this isn't true.


----------



## P@triot

Seawytch said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Super Bowl champ Baltimore Ravens getting paid $130,000 to promote Obamacare | WashingtonExaminer.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can we assume you oppose NASCAR sponsorships by the military?
Click to expand...


Well lets start with the fact that I flat out oppose NASCAR... 

But back to your point, can we compare apples-to-apples for this discussion? Since the draft was abolished years ago, the federal government must recruit men & women into the military. That does require a certain amount of money to be spent (how much and in what ways are a whole different discussion). That is drastically different from spending tax payer money to promote something that was signed into law 3-4 years ago. Wouldn't you agree?

It clearly illustrates that the Dumbocrats know the American people do not want this and that they feel the need to propagandize it.


----------



## P@triot

Seawytch said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I can't believe someone would actually ask such a stupid question.  Wait...I can.  You.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Come on [MENTION=41423]NoTeaPartyPleez[/MENTION] - tell me your all of your medical bills combined for you _entire_ life have even come close to $500,000. Please? I would _kill_ to hear that lie! We could spend decades laughing at you over that bullshit. Come on kitty-kitty-kitty... tell us the lie kitty!
> 
> Among families who were bankrupted by illness, those with private insurance reported average medical bills of $17,749 compared to those who were *uninsured, who faced an average of $26,971* in medical costs. Those who had health insurance but lost it in the course of their illness reported average medical bills of $22,568.
> 
> The average medical bill - for the uninsured - is $26,971. Less than the price of a car!!! I love humiliating *idiots* like [MENTION=23461]RDD_1210[/MENTION]. Sorry drama queen, $500,000 is more unrealistic than a unicorn!
> 
> And a payment plant would easily cover that cost. Just admit you're a fuck'n parsite looking for your fellow citizen to pay your way through life.
> 
> http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/04/medical-bills-cause-most-bankruptcies/
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cancer will take you to 500K in no time.
> 
> High cost of care becomes cancer's growing burden ? USATODAY.com
Click to expand...


It's a nice story SW, but it doesn't change the fact that the medical bill for the average uninsured person is less than a new car - and I've proven that with a link already. That's a far cry from RDD's outrageous (and frankly juvenile) $500,000 figure.


----------



## P@triot

RDD_1210 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another post where you refuse to lay out a basic payment plan. It's not a difficult request, yet you refuse to answer. Your excuses are lame and your viewpoint has been exposed as selfish and flawed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't post a payment plan with 1/37th of the information required to create the plan stupid...
> 
> *Do houses have payment plans? Do automobiles have payment plans? Do dentists have payment plans?!?! So why is this any different?!?!*
> 
> Why can't you answer [MENTION=23461]RDD_1210[/MENTION]? Too _stupid_?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What information are you missing to put together a hypothetical payment plan? Give me one example of a critical piece of information that is preventing you from answering.
Click to expand...


What is their mortgage payments? What is their car payment? What is their credit card debt? Do they pay child support? Alimony? What are their income taxes? Property taxes? State taxes? City taxes?

The lists continues (you need to add the other 30 on your own now junior). The fact that you have to ask this is a glaring indication of the fact that I'm dealing with a _child_. You've clearly never signed for a loan in your life if you believe that TWO criteria (their annual salary vs. the cost of the medical bill) are used to determine a payment plan. 

Watching you flail around wildly, desperately grasping at one immature argument to another, because you're pissed off that I've owned you in this debate with *facts* is equal parts comical and sad.

I mean, you started this thread off by declaring the Constitution was created to limit the power of citizens...(8 pages later, I still can't stop laughing about that). What more needs to be said?


----------



## P@triot

RDD_1210 said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *There were no loss of freedoms* and if you had half an ounce of intelligence you would have picked up by now that I displayed to you that you would have purchased insurance anyway, mandate or not...just like you would breathe oxygen, mandated or not. You're losing nothing...except for what little dignity you had.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're serious, aren't you?
> 
> The freedom of choice was lost.  The freedom to choose not to have maternity, newborn, pediatric care (including vision and dental) included in one's coverage because they are a 55 year old, single guy with no kids.  The freedom to choose to keep your individual catastrophic health insurance plan that you have had for years was taken away.  Why?  Because it wasn't (un)aca compliant ... it didn't include coverage for maternity, newborn, pediatric care (including vision and dental).  The freedom to choose a plan that fit one's needs, rather than a plan that fit someone else's needs, was taken away.  The freedom to keep healthy and pay a lower rate is gone.  Now people with pre-existing conditions don't pay more for their coverage, even though they are a higher risk.
> 
> You're another stupid leftist who can't see the forest for the trees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> News flash, insurance plans have always and will always cover services that not everyone needs. Until the day comes out where there is a a-la-carte insurance plan, this is a ridiculous and invalid talking point.
> 
> Like I said, no freedoms were lost.
Click to expand...


I can't believe you went back to the well on this after you already had your ass handed to you... 

Can you please explain how freedoms were *not* lost since I'm now forced to do something which I previously had the freedom to chose whether or not to do it? Please?


----------



## emilynghiem

Seawytch said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I can't believe someone would actually ask such a stupid question.  Wait...I can.  You.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Come on [MENTION=41423]NoTeaPartyPleez[/MENTION] - tell me your all of your medical bills combined for you _entire_ life have even come close to $500,000. Please? I would _kill_ to hear that lie! We could spend decades laughing at you over that bullshit. Come on kitty-kitty-kitty... tell us the lie kitty!
> 
> Among families who were bankrupted by illness, those with private insurance reported average medical bills of $17,749 compared to those who were *uninsured, who faced an average of $26,971* in medical costs. Those who had health insurance but lost it in the course of their illness reported average medical bills of $22,568.
> 
> The average medical bill - for the uninsured - is $26,971. Less than the price of a car!!! I love humiliating *idiots* like [MENTION=23461]RDD_1210[/MENTION]. Sorry drama queen, $500,000 is more unrealistic than a unicorn!
> 
> And a payment plant would easily cover that cost. Just admit you're a fuck'n parsite looking for your fellow citizen to pay your way through life.
> 
> http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/04/medical-bills-cause-most-bankruptcies/
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cancer will take you to 500K in no time.
> 
> High cost of care becomes cancer's growing burden ? USATODAY.com
Click to expand...


Hi RDD Seawitch and Rottweiler:
Yes, I agree current trends in placating SYMPTOMS of cancer such as with chemotherapy which doesn't address the root cause or cure or prevention of cancer itself,
WILL run up your bills.

So instead of letting insurance companies and these treatment providers make all those millions off such expensive treatments after the fact,

why not promote FREE and EFFECTIVE measures known to reduce, prevent and/or cure cancer and tumors by addressing the root cause? Spiritual healing and other forms of natural healing have worked to either cure the disease or at least reduce the COST of more expensive treatments.

coudl it be that (1) insurance and service providers wouldn't make as much money?
(2) govt cannot impose, mandate or regulate cures for cancer that involve voluntary spiritual therapy since the generational forgiveness process works by free choice

why not?

if govt can impose mandates forcing people to pay for insurance who don't believe in that

why not force everyone to go through spiritual healing to cut costs of health care
so it doesn't waste taxpayer's money

it makes no sense to punish charity hospitals and volunteer programs
just to try to control everything through a collusion of govt with private insurance
so the money goes through them to try to manage everything.

govt cannot manage spiritual healing, and all medical treatment is affected by it
since all human beings are body/mind/spirit and need treatment of all three levels to heal


----------



## JoeNormal

RDD_1210 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hahahahaahahahahah. I had to quote this so you can't try and delete this in the future.
> 
> Fuck, you people are pure comedy gold.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would I delete something that is accurate and exposes you for the willfully ignorant serf that you are?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell me...what would you like to breathe instead of oxygen?
Click to expand...


Probably Rush Limbaugh's intestinal gas.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Steve_McGarrett said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Come on [MENTION=41423]NoTeaPartyPleez[/MENTION] - tell me your all of your medical bills combined for you _entire_ life have even come close to $500,000. Please? I would _kill_ to hear that lie! We could spend decades laughing at you over that bullshit. Come on kitty-kitty-kitty... tell us the lie kitty!
> 
> Among families who were bankrupted by illness, those with private insurance reported average medical bills of $17,749 compared to those who were *uninsured, who faced an average of $26,971* in medical costs. Those who had health insurance but lost it in the course of their illness reported average medical bills of $22,568.
> 
> The average medical bill - for the uninsured - is $26,971. Less than the price of a car!!! I love humiliating *idiots* like [MENTION=23461]RDD_1210[/MENTION]. Sorry drama queen, $500,000 is more unrealistic than a unicorn!
> 
> And a payment plant would easily cover that cost. Just admit you're a fuck'n parsite looking for your fellow citizen to pay your way through life.
> 
> http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/04/medical-bills-cause-most-bankruptcies/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cancer will take you to 500K in no time.
> 
> High cost of care becomes cancer's growing burden ? USATODAY.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correct. I have a close family member who fought Leukemia and the bill was over 480k for the treatments. That person is in remission right now.
Click to expand...


I have a family member who died of leukemia. Bill was well over $500K. Catastrophic injury or disease can go over "lifetime limit" in no time.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

RDD_1210 said:


> Steve_McGarrett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cancer will take you to 500K in no time.
> 
> High cost of care becomes cancer's growing burden ? USATODAY.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correct. I have a close family member who fought Leukemia and the bill was over 480k for the treatments. That person is in remission right now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rottweiler says this isn't true.
Click to expand...


When was the last time Rottweiler was right about anything?

Medicare took more than 2 years to get it working. The rw's will whine but ObamaCare will make it. Apparently, there are thousands signing up in the state programs and that will grow.


----------



## emilynghiem

RDD_1210 said:


> News flash, insurance plans have always and will always cover services that not everyone needs. Until the day comes out where there is a a-la-carte insurance plan, this is a ridiculous and invalid talking point.
> 
> Like I said, no freedoms were lost.



OMG RDD are you SERIOUS?

And where is my choice to pay for all my health care myself without going through insurance which isn't the same as paying for health care.

Do you understand this choice is now penalized?

A. 
I think you are assuming that everyone needs to be under insurance anyway as the only choice, is this where we are branching off on two different pages?

Once you assume "everyone needs to be on insurance" then you don't see any choices missing.

Is this what's happening?

B. Do you really have no concept that a group of doctors and charity nurses can invest directly in setting up clinics or teaching hospitals for serving people for free or low cost WITHOUT insurance. But just exchange medical education/training for services to the public, and have investors, donors and clients pay for it similar to university funding.

Do you realize this is not a legal choice under ACA but would be penalized?

Do you really believe there is "no other way on earth" to pay for health care except go through insurance? What did we do before there was insurance? 

This is like saying there is no source of money but the Federal Reserve.
but there are legal forms of independent currency and barter that people can use, that are NOT banned. These exchanges are taxed like other federal money.

1. why do you think all other forms of paying for health care should be disqualified
EXCEPT insurance
2. why do you think this should be done through federal govt
instead of letting each state or community decide

are you really so dependent on insurance or federal govt you think those are your only choices?

do you really have no concept that other people live without depending on insurance or federal govt but pay for their own expenses themselves? I know people who do. why should those people be forced to pay for a system they don't need and penalized for wanting to invest in health programs that can cost less and serve more people?


----------



## emilynghiem

Luddly Neddite said:


> Medicare took more than 2 years to get it working. The rw's will whine but ObamaCare will make it. Apparently, there are thousands signing up in the state programs and that will grow.



You have never answered the question why can't this be supported by the peopel who believe in it.

Luddly spiritual healing works, costs less and cures causes of disease where insurance does not, but spiritual healing is not forced by govt.

Would you approve mandating spiritual healing by govt before proving it works where people chose it freely?

Also, once you put all this programming in the hands of federal govt,
Luddly how can you be sure all the govt officials deciding the policies will be prochoice?

Isn't the only way to assure a program will be prochoice is to make sure prochoice people run it, like Planned Parenthood. So why not set up this to be run by proACA. simple right?

why not let prolife people run and fund their own prolife hospitals and clinics
and keep the policies separate so no more fighting over it. why not Luddly
isnt that the epitome of prochoice?


----------



## Seawytch

Steve_McGarrett said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Come on [MENTION=41423]NoTeaPartyPleez[/MENTION] - tell me your all of your medical bills combined for you _entire_ life have even come close to $500,000. Please? I would _kill_ to hear that lie! We could spend decades laughing at you over that bullshit. Come on kitty-kitty-kitty... tell us the lie kitty!
> 
> Among families who were bankrupted by illness, those with private insurance reported average medical bills of $17,749 compared to those who were *uninsured, who faced an average of $26,971* in medical costs. Those who had health insurance but lost it in the course of their illness reported average medical bills of $22,568.
> 
> The average medical bill - for the uninsured - is $26,971. Less than the price of a car!!! I love humiliating *idiots* like [MENTION=23461]RDD_1210[/MENTION]. Sorry drama queen, $500,000 is more unrealistic than a unicorn!
> 
> And a payment plant would easily cover that cost. Just admit you're a fuck'n parsite looking for your fellow citizen to pay your way through life.
> 
> http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/04/medical-bills-cause-most-bankruptcies/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cancer will take you to 500K in no time.
> 
> High cost of care becomes cancer's growing burden ? USATODAY.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correct. I have a close family member who fought Leukemia and the bill was over 480k for the treatments. That person is in remission right now.
Click to expand...


That's good news! Glad to hear your friend is doing well.


----------



## Seawytch

Rottweiler said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Come on [MENTION=41423]NoTeaPartyPleez[/MENTION] - tell me your all of your medical bills combined for you _entire_ life have even come close to $500,000. Please? I would _kill_ to hear that lie! We could spend decades laughing at you over that bullshit. Come on kitty-kitty-kitty... tell us the lie kitty!
> 
> Among families who were bankrupted by illness, those with private insurance reported average medical bills of $17,749 compared to those who were *uninsured, who faced an average of $26,971* in medical costs. Those who had health insurance but lost it in the course of their illness reported average medical bills of $22,568.
> 
> The average medical bill - for the uninsured - is $26,971. Less than the price of a car!!! I love humiliating *idiots* like [MENTION=23461]RDD_1210[/MENTION]. Sorry drama queen, $500,000 is more unrealistic than a unicorn!
> 
> And a payment plant would easily cover that cost. Just admit you're a fuck'n parsite looking for your fellow citizen to pay your way through life.
> 
> http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/04/medical-bills-cause-most-bankruptcies/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cancer will take you to 500K in no time.
> 
> High cost of care becomes cancer's growing burden ? USATODAY.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a nice story SW, but it doesn't change the fact that the medical bill for the average uninsured person is less than a new car - and I've proven that with a link already. That's a far cry from RDD's outrageous (and frankly juvenile) $500,000 figure.
Click to expand...


It's not an outrageous figure. Just a broken leg is $10k. Without insurance, who do you think is paying those bills?


----------



## Seawytch

Rottweiler said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Super Bowl champ Baltimore Ravens getting paid $130,000 to promote Obamacare | WashingtonExaminer.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can we assume you oppose NASCAR sponsorships by the military?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well lets start with the fact that I flat out oppose NASCAR...
> 
> But back to your point, can we compare apples-to-apples for this discussion? Since the draft was abolished years ago, the federal government must recruit men & women into the military. That does require a certain amount of money to be spent (how much and in what ways are a whole different discussion). That is drastically different from spending tax payer money to promote something that was signed into law 3-4 years ago. Wouldn't you agree?
> 
> It clearly illustrates that the Dumbocrats know the American people do not want this and that they feel the need to propagandize it.
Click to expand...


So one type of advertising is okay with you, another isn't. Thanks for admitting your hypocrisy.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop




----------



## P@triot

emilynghiem said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Come on [MENTION=41423]NoTeaPartyPleez[/MENTION] - tell me your all of your medical bills combined for you _entire_ life have even come close to $500,000. Please? I would _kill_ to hear that lie! We could spend decades laughing at you over that bullshit. Come on kitty-kitty-kitty... tell us the lie kitty!
> 
> Among families who were bankrupted by illness, those with private insurance reported average medical bills of $17,749 compared to those who were *uninsured, who faced an average of $26,971* in medical costs. Those who had health insurance but lost it in the course of their illness reported average medical bills of $22,568.
> 
> The average medical bill - for the uninsured - is $26,971. Less than the price of a car!!! I love humiliating *idiots* like [MENTION=23461]RDD_1210[/MENTION]. Sorry drama queen, $500,000 is more unrealistic than a unicorn!
> 
> And a payment plant would easily cover that cost. Just admit you're a fuck'n parsite looking for your fellow citizen to pay your way through life.
> 
> http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/04/medical-bills-cause-most-bankruptcies/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cancer will take you to 500K in no time.
> 
> High cost of care becomes cancer's growing burden ? USATODAY.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hi RDD Seawitch and Rottweiler:
> Yes, I agree current trends in placating SYMPTOMS of cancer such as with chemotherapy which doesn't address the root cause or cure or prevention of cancer itself,
> WILL run up your bills.
> 
> So instead of letting insurance companies and these treatment providers make all those millions off such expensive treatments after the fact,
> 
> why not promote FREE and EFFECTIVE measures known to reduce, prevent and/or cure cancer and tumors by addressing the root cause? Spiritual healing and other forms of natural healing have worked to either cure the disease or at least reduce the COST of more expensive treatments.
> 
> coudl it be that (1) insurance and service providers wouldn't make as much money?
> (2) govt cannot impose, mandate or regulate cures for cancer that involve voluntary spiritual therapy since the generational forgiveness process works by free choice
> 
> why not?
> 
> if govt can impose mandates forcing people to pay for insurance who don't believe in that
> 
> why not force everyone to go through spiritual healing to cut costs of health care
> so it doesn't waste taxpayer's money
> 
> it makes no sense to punish charity hospitals and volunteer programs
> just to try to control everything through a collusion of govt with private insurance
> so the money goes through them to try to manage everything.
> 
> govt cannot manage spiritual healing, and all medical treatment is affected by it
> since all human beings are body/mind/spirit and need treatment of all three levels to heal
Click to expand...


Here's the bottom line - the government has absolutely no business what so ever mandating anything, controlling the cost of anything, or involving themselves in the free market. And that's exactly why the Dumbocrats got their asses handed to them in the 2010 mid-terms and why the government experienced a "shut down".

And I've already proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, the Dumbocrats in Washington and here on USMB know it too. But none of them are willing to take personal responsibility for themselves and their needs. Instead, they want to continue the same slavery that they adored in the 1800's. They lost the Civil Was but have continued to fight for slavery ever since.


----------



## P@triot

Seawytch said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can we assume you oppose NASCAR sponsorships by the military?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well lets start with the fact that I flat out oppose NASCAR...
> 
> But back to your point, can we compare apples-to-apples for this discussion? Since the draft was abolished years ago, the federal government must recruit men & women into the military. That does require a certain amount of money to be spent (how much and in what ways are a whole different discussion). That is drastically different from spending tax payer money to promote something that was signed into law 3-4 years ago. Wouldn't you agree?
> 
> It clearly illustrates that the Dumbocrats know the American people do not want this and that they feel the need to propagandize it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So one type of advertising is okay with you, another isn't. Thanks for admitting your hypocrisy.
Click to expand...


  

SW - you're really so stupid that you don't understand why one advertises?

Yep - no doubt about it - you've definitely been a dependent of government since becoming an "adult" (and I do use that term lightly).

By the way, thank you for admitting you are a hypocrite (by your own standards). After all, since you approve one type of spending (welfare for you and your children) you must approve ALL forms of spending (Iraq "war").


----------



## P@triot

Seawytch said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cancer will take you to 500K in no time.
> 
> High cost of care becomes cancer's growing burden ? USATODAY.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a nice story SW, but it doesn't change the fact that the medical bill for the average uninsured person is less than a new car - and I've proven that with a link already. That's a far cry from RDD's outrageous (and frankly juvenile) $500,000 figure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not an outrageous figure. Just a broken leg is $10k. Without insurance, who do you think is paying those bills?
Click to expand...


The person who broke their leg *should* be paying for it. But thanks to welfare baby communists like you, I end up paying for you and your children.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

The GOP perennially wrong 

 They were wrong in 1935 about Social Security.
 They were wrong in 1965 about Medicare.


----------



## P@triot

RDD_1210 said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *There were no loss of freedoms* and if you had half an ounce of intelligence you would have picked up by now that I displayed to you that you would have purchased insurance anyway, mandate or not...just like you would breathe oxygen, mandated or not. You're losing nothing...except for what little dignity you had.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're serious, aren't you?
> 
> The freedom of choice was lost.  The freedom to choose not to have maternity, newborn, pediatric care (including vision and dental) included in one's coverage because they are a 55 year old, single guy with no kids.  The freedom to choose to keep your individual catastrophic health insurance plan that you have had for years was taken away.  Why?  Because it wasn't (un)aca compliant ... it didn't include coverage for maternity, newborn, pediatric care (including vision and dental).  The freedom to choose a plan that fit one's needs, rather than a plan that fit someone else's needs, was taken away.  The freedom to keep healthy and pay a lower rate is gone.  Now people with pre-existing conditions don't pay more for their coverage, even though they are a higher risk.
> 
> You're another stupid leftist who can't see the forest for the trees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> News flash, insurance plans have always and will always cover services that not everyone needs. Until the day comes out where there is a a-la-carte insurance plan, this is a ridiculous and invalid talking point.
> 
> Like I said, no freedoms were lost.
Click to expand...


I no longer have the freedom to decide whether or not to carry insurance. Freedoms were lost and you know it. Pretending like the sun isn't hot and water isn't wet isn't a defense you fuck'n moron. You're just humiliating yourself more than normal now.


----------



## P@triot

Rottweiler said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude - I've completely *owned* you. There are many variables and all you give is ONE of many and expect a number. This is how stupid you are.
> 
> *Do houses have payment plans? Do automobiles have payment plans? Do dentists have payment plans?!?! So why is this any different?!?!*
> 
> Do you see what an ignorant buffoon you are? You've been humiliated here son. You're just paralyzed with fear that someone will actually make you pay your own way through life instead of sitting on your ass in your trailer park typing nonsense on USMB like "hey, this scenario has 37 variables, but I'm going to give you ONE and expect an answer"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another post where you refuse to lay out a basic payment plan. It's not a difficult request, yet you refuse to answer. Your excuses are lame and your viewpoint has been exposed as selfish and flawed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What are you talking about asshat? I've been waiting for 40 posts now for you to answer why Obama and the Dumbocrats fine cadillac healthcare plans in Obamacare when they claim that Obamacare is to create quality, affordable healthcare (which is exactly what a cadillac healthcare plan is).
> 
> I'll tell you what  [MENTION=23461]RDD_1210[/MENTION], when you answer my question (which I asked first and a long time ago), I'll answer yours. Until then, well, you continue to embarrass yourself by exposing your ignorance.
Click to expand...


I'm still waiting [MENTION=23461]RDD_1210[/MENTION] (and, frankly, this is getting _exceedingly_ humiliating for you now).

*Why did Obama and the Dumbocrats place a penalty/fine for cadillac healthcare plans in Obamacare when they claim that the entire point of Obamacare was to create quality, affordable healthcare (which is exactly what a cadillac healthcare plan is)?*

Someone is exposing their ignorance by dodging a simple question... 

(come welfare queen - you've had about 5 hours now to look this up )


----------



## P@triot

Luddly Neddite said:


> Steve_McGarrett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cancer will take you to 500K in no time.
> 
> High cost of care becomes cancer's growing burden ? USATODAY.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correct. I have a close family member who fought Leukemia and the bill was over 480k for the treatments. That person is in remission right now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have a family member who died of leukemia. Bill was well over $500K. Catastrophic injury or disease can go over "lifetime limit" in no time.
Click to expand...


And your point is? Because something is expensive, you get to *force* someone _else_ to pay for it? Is _that_ where you're going with this?


----------



## emilynghiem

RDD_1210 said:


> It is sad that this has to happen.
> 
> It's also sad that the GOP has convinced people of "death panels", "losing freedom" and all the other hysterical nonsense that you sheep believe, that have actually made you think you hate a law that is a Republican idea.
> 
> So yeah, it's sad that a campaign needs to be waged to combat such blatant misinformation.



Hi RDD as a prochoice progressive Democrat who works two jobs to save a national historic district of African American churches in Congresswoman SJLees district, I am shocked and outraged no funding has gone into plans here for a campus with health care services to change welfare to a sustainable system, but democrats push aca which limits the choices to insurance or fines to govt. This isnt prochoice to me. Can you explain why
This cant be run and paid for by free choice. Ppl are not penalized for wanting the free choice of abortion instead of paying for prolife only or be fined. Why penalize ppl for wanting free choices in health care instead of paying for insurance or be fined. If we dont trust fed govt to make decisions regulating abortion why trust them with even more policies on health where we cant vote directly on policies through this system. Why can u pls explain. I asked luddly and didnt get any response. Can you explain it better than we can thanks. All i get from prochoice singlepayer supporters is this is a stepping stone so why not let those ppl opt in who like this approach and protect free choice to opt elsewhere.


----------



## P@triot

[MENTION=32558]Luddly Neddite[/MENTION] please explain to me where is the origin of debt here? Lets set aside the U.S. Constitution for a moment since we both know it is not in there and in fact, quite the opposite, protects us from the slavery you want to return to.

So please explain to me where I can find the origin of this debt?


----------



## P@triot

[MENTION=24452]Seawytch[/MENTION] please explain to me where is the origin of debt here? Lets set aside the U.S. Constitution for a moment since we both know it is not in there and in fact, quite the opposite, protects us from the slavery you want to return to.

So please explain to me where I can find the origin of this debt?


----------



## P@triot

[MENTION=23461]RDD_1210[/MENTION] please explain to me where is the origin of debt here? Lets set aside the U.S. Constitution for a moment since we both know it is not in there and in fact, quite the opposite, protects us from the slavery you want to return to.

So please explain to me where I can find the origin of this debt?


----------



## P@triot

[MENTION=41423]NoTeaPartyPleez[/MENTION] please explain to me where is the origin of debt here? Lets set aside the U.S. Constitution for a moment since we both know it is not in there and in fact, quite the opposite, protects us from the slavery you want to return to.

So please explain to me where I can find the origin of this debt?


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

Rottweiler said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well lets start with the fact that I flat out oppose NASCAR...
> 
> But back to your point, can we compare apples-to-apples for this discussion? Since the draft was abolished years ago, the federal government must recruit men & women into the military. That does require a certain amount of money to be spent (how much and in what ways are a whole different discussion). That is drastically different from spending tax payer money to promote something that was signed into law 3-4 years ago. Wouldn't you agree?
> 
> It clearly illustrates that the Dumbocrats know the American people do not want this and that they feel the need to propagandize it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So one type of advertising is okay with you, another isn't. Thanks for admitting your hypocrisy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SW - you're really so stupid that you don't understand why one advertises?
> 
> Yep - no doubt about it - you've definitely been a dependent of government since becoming an "adult" (and I do use that term lightly).
> 
> By the way, thank you for admitting you are a hypocrite (by your own standards). After all, since you approve one type of spending (welfare for you and your children) you must approve ALL forms of spending (Iraq "war").
Click to expand...


Perhaps you did not notice that spending on assistance to our citizens serves a social purpose and provides benefits to our society... I approve such spending...the spending on Iraq did us no good, served no social purpose, provided no benefits and killed a bunch of innocent people... I repudiate that spending with prejudice...


----------



## emilynghiem

Rottweiler said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steve_McGarrett said:
> 
> 
> 
> Correct. I have a close family member who fought Leukemia and the bill was over 480k for the treatments. That person is in remission right now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have a family member who died of leukemia. Bill was well over $500K. Catastrophic injury or disease can go over "lifetime limit" in no time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And your point is? Because something is expensive, you get to *force* someone _else_ to pay for it? Is _that_ where you're going with this?
Click to expand...


I think because ppl dont want to believe free spiritual healing can cure the cause of cancer
And end dependence on chemotherapy and medications that mke money
They want everyone to pay for that instead. Otherwise using medical research to
Prove how spiritual healing works would prove Christians and
Conservatives right. They want to use federal govt as their substitute church.

They complain about religions forcing their views in public,
So until they make the same mistake they won't understand
They are basically mandating that everyone else pay to follow
Their beliefs in insurance and fine people for having different
Beliefs that dont count as a choice under govt regulations.

They have to commit the same wrongs they accuse others of.
So prochoice ppl now sound like prolife and prolife are
Arguing for prochoice free of govt regulations and controls.

As soon as everyone gets that they swapped positions,
We can quit playing these games bullying back and forth.
We need to separate beliefs by party and fund our own programs
Not charge our pet projects to the public but either get money
By serving as a business or get donations as a charity or 
Investments in a school. But on a voluntary basis not forced by law.
Whoever gets this first wins. Until we do, we all lose.


----------



## P@triot

TyroneSlothrop said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> So one type of advertising is okay with you, another isn't. Thanks for admitting your hypocrisy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SW - you're really so stupid that you don't understand why one advertises?
> 
> Yep - no doubt about it - you've definitely been a dependent of government since becoming an "adult" (and I do use that term lightly).
> 
> By the way, thank you for admitting you are a hypocrite (by your own standards). After all, since you approve one type of spending (welfare for you and your children) you must approve ALL forms of spending (Iraq "war").
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps you did not notice that spending on assistance to our citizens serves a social purpose and provides benefits to our society... I approve such spending...the spending on Iraq did us no good, served no social purpose, provided no benefits and killed a bunch of innocent people... I repudiate that spending with prejudice...
Click to expand...


First of all, spending on "assistance" serves absolutely no purpose what so ever and in fact does tremendously more harm than good.

But that aside, perhaps SW did not notice that advertising to recruit for the military is simply a must, while advertising for a law that already passed is not only comparing apples-to-oranges, but is also a monumental waste.

Incidentally, can you describe where the origin of debt arises from [MENTION=45552]TyroneSlothrop[/MENTION]?


----------



## emilynghiem

Rottweiler said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another post where you refuse to lay out a basic payment plan. It's not a difficult request, yet you refuse to answer. Your excuses are lame and your viewpoint has been exposed as selfish and flawed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are you talking about asshat? I've been waiting for 40 posts now for you to answer why Obama and the Dumbocrats fine cadillac healthcare plans in Obamacare when they claim that Obamacare is to create quality, affordIable healthcare (which is exactly what a cadillac healthcare plan is).
> 
> I'll tell you what  [MENTION=23461]RDD_1210[/MENTION], when you answer my question (which I asked first and a long time ago), I'll answer yours. Until then, well, you continue to embarrass yourself by exposing your ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm still waiting [MENTION=23461]RDD_1210[/MENTION] (and, frankly, this is getting _exceedingly_ humiliating for you now).
> 
> *Why did Obama and the Dumbocrats place a penalty/fine for cadillac healthcare plans in Obamacare when they claim that the entire point of Obamacare was to create quality, affordable healthcare (which is exactly what a cadillac healthcare plan is)?*
> 
> Someone is exposing their ignorance by dodging a simple question...
> 
> (come welfare queen - you've had about 5 hours now to look this up )
Click to expand...

Dear Rottweiler. I posted a draft of a letter on another thread.
Would you considet joining me in a 10 to 30 million dollar lawsuit
Against Obama and Democrat leaders for conspiring to
Violate Constitutional rights including equal protection inclusion
Representation of our beliefs in free choice of health care and
Spiritual healing without discrimination or penalty by law.
It would be more for educational outreach to pressure govt leaders
To declare Aca optional and voluntary to make it lawful.
But if it takes lawyers suing the Democrat Party, i have a laundry list
Of violations abusing tax money to violate equal rights that are
More egregious and grievous than this embarrassment here.
Let me know! I'd like help to write and circulate a plea from a
Fellow prohoice democrat to defend constitutional equality
Which this law completely violates and the party system abuses. Thanks!


----------



## P@triot

TyroneSlothrop said:


> Perhaps you did not notice that spending on assistance to our citizens serves a social purpose and provides benefits to our society...



Perhaps you did not notice just how _severely_ brainwashed you've been by communist propaganda? "Provides benefits to our society"? Are you kidding me? Few things are more _harmful_ to our society. And what's amazing is even the most basic, fundamental principles of animal life illustrates this fact.

*The Food Stamp Program, administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, is proud of the fact it is distributing the greatest amount of free meals and food stamps ever. 

Meanwhile, the National Park Service, administered by the U.S. Department of the Interior, asks us 'Please Do Not Feed the Animals.' Their stated reason for the policy is because the animals will grow dependent on handouts and will not learn to take care of themselves.*

Seriously folks, only the federal government could be so stupid as to contradict themselves to that degree.

Here endeth the lesson


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

Rottweiler said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you did not notice that spending on assistance to our citizens serves a social purpose and provides benefits to our society...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you did not notice just how _severely_ brainwashed you've been by communist propaganda? "Provides benefits to our society"? Are you kidding me? Few things are more _harmful_ to our society. And what's amazing is even the most basic, fundamental principles of animal life illustrates this fact.
> 
> *The Food Stamp Program, administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, is proud of the fact it is distributing the greatest amount of free meals and food stamps ever.
> 
> Meanwhile, the National Park Service, administered by the U.S. Department of the Interior, asks us 'Please Do Not Feed the Animals.' Their stated reason for the policy is because the animals will grow dependent on handouts and will not learn to take care of themselves.*
> 
> Seriously folks, only the federal government could be so stupid as to contradict themselves to that degree.
> 
> Here endeth the lesson
Click to expand...



Maybe just perhaps maybe your consciousness is vibrating so low that you do not notice differences between people and animals ...you appear to be somewhat categorical and simplistic in your conclusions... I reject with prejudice your way of thinking about folks,  I reject your lesson...


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

Rottweiler said:


> Edgetho said:
> 
> 
> 
> *14 Planned Parenthood Organizations Are Obamacare Navigators*
> 
> Pretend youre shocked.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - See more at: Weasel Zippers | Scouring the bowels of the internet | Weasel Zippers
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't it amazing that Dumbocrats cried in the streets like little girls over terrorists being interrogated with some slightly (and I stress slightly) harsh tactics, but they celebrate the murder of an American baby?
> 
> I mean, if you value life so much that you weep over a vicious terrorist having water splashed in his face, how the fuck do you celebrate, support, and fund an innocent baby being brutally and horrifically murdered?
Click to expand...


what was the name of the baby ?


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

The guy cares about fetuses but not about walking talking breathing human beings...its wild wild stuff...he says feeding wild animals is like the Food stamp program...WTF thinks like that ...


----------



## emilynghiem

TyroneSlothrop said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you did not notice that spending on assistance to our citizens serves a social purpose and provides benefits to our society...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you did not notice just how _severely_ brainwashed you've been by communist propaganda? "Provides benefits to our society"? Are you kidding me? Few things are more _harmful_ to our society. And what's amazing is even the most basic, fundamental principles of animal life illustrates this fact.
> 
> *The Food Stamp Program, administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, is proud of the fact it is distributing the greatest amount of free meals and food stamps ever.
> 
> Meanwhile, the National Park Service, administered by the U.S. Department of the Interior, asks us 'Please Do Not Feed the Animals.' Their stated reason for the policy is because the animals will grow dependent on handouts and will not learn to take care of themselves.*
> 
> Seriously folks, only the federal government could be so stupid as to contradict themselves to that degree.
> 
> Here endeth the lesson
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe just perhaps maybe your consciousness is vibrating so low that you do not notice differences between people and animals ...you appear to be somewhat categorical and simplistic in your conclusions... I reject with prejudice your way of thinking about folks,  I reject your lesson...
Click to expand...


To clarify, the comparison should be made between
Feeding ppl with fish
Vs.
Teaching ppl to fish for themselves

In this case perhaps you are right with bears who naturally
Learn to catch their own fish
Dont wait for other bears 
And dont go through insurance run by third parties
To add more complications to the process


----------



## TyroneSlothrop




----------



## P@triot

TyroneSlothrop said:


> The guy cares about fetuses but not about walking talking breathing human beings...its wild wild stuff...he says feeding wild animals is like the Food stamp program...WTF thinks like that ..



This is simply _unbelievable_... A fetus is completely helpless [MENTION=45552]TyroneSlothrop[/MENTION]. And that's how this guy views himself and his fellow Dumnocrats. As helpless infants who must be provided for and even have the government wipe their little chins when they get spittle on it.

You seriously don't see a difference between a fetus and a grown adult? Jesus man, even every species in the animal kingdom differentiates between their babies and their adults...


----------



## P@triot

emilynghiem said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you did not notice just how _severely_ brainwashed you've been by communist propaganda? "Provides benefits to our society"? Are you kidding me? Few things are more _harmful_ to our society. And what's amazing is even the most basic, fundamental principles of animal life illustrates this fact.
> 
> *The Food Stamp Program, administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, is proud of the fact it is distributing the greatest amount of free meals and food stamps ever.
> 
> Meanwhile, the National Park Service, administered by the U.S. Department of the Interior, asks us 'Please Do Not Feed the Animals.' Their stated reason for the policy is because the animals will grow dependent on handouts and will not learn to take care of themselves.*
> 
> Seriously folks, only the federal government could be so stupid as to contradict themselves to that degree.
> 
> Here endeth the lesson
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe just perhaps maybe your consciousness is vibrating so low that you do not notice differences between people and animals ...you appear to be somewhat categorical and simplistic in your conclusions... I reject with prejudice your way of thinking about folks,  I reject your lesson...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To clarify, the comparison should be made between
> Feeding ppl with fish
> Vs.
> Teaching ppl to fish for themselves
> 
> In this case perhaps you are right with bears who naturally
> Learn to catch their own fish
> Dont wait for other bears
> And dont go through insurance run by third parties
> To add more complications to the process
Click to expand...


----------



## P@triot

Rottweiler said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SW - you're really so stupid that you don't understand why one advertises?
> 
> Yep - no doubt about it - you've definitely been a dependent of government since becoming an "adult" (and I do use that term lightly).
> 
> By the way, thank you for admitting you are a hypocrite (by your own standards). After all, since you approve one type of spending (welfare for you and your children) you must approve ALL forms of spending (Iraq "war").
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you did not notice that spending on assistance to our citizens serves a social purpose and provides benefits to our society... I approve such spending...the spending on Iraq did us no good, served no social purpose, provided no benefits and killed a bunch of innocent people... I repudiate that spending with prejudice...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First of all, spending on "assistance" serves absolutely no purpose what so ever and in fact does tremendously more harm than good.
> 
> But that aside, perhaps SW did not notice that advertising to recruit for the military is simply a must, while advertising for a law that already passed is not only comparing apples-to-oranges, but is also a monumental waste.
> 
> Incidentally, can you describe where the origin of debt arises from [MENTION=45552]TyroneSlothrop[/MENTION]?
Click to expand...


I'm waiting patiently here T - can you tell me where this origin of debt arises from?


----------



## Billo_Really

Rottweiler said:


> As the Dumbocrats on USMB love to crow about - Obamacare was passed into law by Congress, signed into law by the president, and upheld by the Supreme Court. So _why_ exactly does the federal government have to piss away billions to *promote* an existing law?!? Has this _ever_ been done with any other law in U.S. _history_?
> 
> They begged the NBA to help promote it and the NBA said yes. They begged the NFL to help promote it, and the NFL told them to go fuck themselves (doh!). So why are they so desperate to reach people through Hollywood and sports? Because even the Dumbocrats know this is a miserable failure, and they _know_ it is going to be repealed eventually unless they can do major damage control and brainwash the masses (especially the young and impressionable - hence the NBA, NFL, etc.) that this is a "good" thing.
> 
> Super Bowl champ Baltimore Ravens getting paid $130,000 to promote Obamacare | WashingtonExaminer.com


Fuck you!  Take that Obamacare hate and shove it up your un-American ass!  The law is a better alternative than paying $37,000 for a one night stay in the hospital.  

You don't give shit about this country.  All you wanna do, is rape its resources.  No matter how harmful a system is to average American's, as long as you can make a buck on it, it's tough shitsky for the rest of the country.

You've chosen company over country.  Which makes you a disgusting piece of shit!  I've had it with all your Obamacare lies.  Take your lunacy and shove it up your ass, then get the fuck out of the country!  People like you, do more harm than al Qaeda.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

Rottweiler said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> The guy cares about fetuses but not about walking talking breathing human beings...its wild wild stuff...he says feeding wild animals is like the Food stamp program...WTF thinks like that ..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is simply _unbelievable_... A fetus is completely helpless [MENTION=45552]TyroneSlothrop[/MENTION]. And that's how this guy views himself and his fellow Dumnocrats. As helpless infants who must be provided for and even have the government wipe their little chins when they get spittle on it.
> 
> You seriously don't see a difference between a fetus and a grown adult? Jesus man, even every species in the animal kingdom differentiates between their babies and their adults...
Click to expand...


A fetus has the mother the fetus does  not need you or the rest of the phonies...you want to cut off  food stamps for children ...you seriously do not see the difference between a wild animal and a person receiving nutrition assistance...you are aware through the dimness that children eat from food stamp don't you?  Every species differentiates between its species and others ...you do not see a difference between feeding a wild bear and helping a single parent female led family with nutrition assistance...WTF is that ?


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

Rottweiler said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you did not notice that spending on assistance to our citizens serves a social purpose and provides benefits to our society... I approve such spending...the spending on Iraq did us no good, served no social purpose, provided no benefits and killed a bunch of innocent people... I repudiate that spending with prejudice...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, spending on "assistance" serves absolutely no purpose what so ever and in fact does tremendously more harm than good.
> 
> But that aside, perhaps SW did not notice that advertising to recruit for the military is simply a must, while advertising for a law that already passed is not only comparing apples-to-oranges, but is also a monumental waste.
> 
> Incidentally, can you describe where the origin of debt arises from [MENTION=45552]TyroneSlothrop[/MENTION]?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm waiting patiently here T - can you tell me where this origin of debt arises from?
Click to expand...


I am not you 'do boy " Clarence


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

emilynghiem said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you did not notice just how _severely_ brainwashed you've been by communist propaganda? "Provides benefits to our society"? Are you kidding me? Few things are more _harmful_ to our society. And what's amazing is even the most basic, fundamental principles of animal life illustrates this fact.
> 
> *The Food Stamp Program, administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, is proud of the fact it is distributing the greatest amount of free meals and food stamps ever.
> 
> Meanwhile, the National Park Service, administered by the U.S. Department of the Interior, asks us 'Please Do Not Feed the Animals.' Their stated reason for the policy is because the animals will grow dependent on handouts and will not learn to take care of themselves.*
> 
> Seriously folks, only the federal government could be so stupid as to contradict themselves to that degree.
> 
> Here endeth the lesson
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe just perhaps maybe your consciousness is vibrating so low that you do not notice differences between people and animals ...you appear to be somewhat categorical and simplistic in your conclusions... I reject with prejudice your way of thinking about folks,  I reject your lesson...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To clarify, the comparison should be made between
> Feeding ppl with fish
> Vs.
> Teaching ppl to fish for themselves
> 
> In this case perhaps you are right with bears who naturally
> Learn to catch their own fish
> Dont wait for other bears
> And dont go through insurance run by third parties
> To add more complications to the process
Click to expand...


That is not the comparison the wing nut made..his lesson is and continues to be 
1) Life begins at conception and ends when the mother gives birth
2) Feeding American children through Food stamp assistance is exactly the same as feeding a wild bear in Yellowstone


----------



## P@triot

Billo_Really said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> As the Dumbocrats on USMB love to crow about - Obamacare was passed into law by Congress, signed into law by the president, and upheld by the Supreme Court. So _why_ exactly does the federal government have to piss away billions to *promote* an existing law?!? Has this _ever_ been done with any other law in U.S. _history_?
> 
> They begged the NBA to help promote it and the NBA said yes. They begged the NFL to help promote it, and the NFL told them to go fuck themselves (doh!). So why are they so desperate to reach people through Hollywood and sports? Because even the Dumbocrats know this is a miserable failure, and they _know_ it is going to be repealed eventually unless they can do major damage control and brainwash the masses (especially the young and impressionable - hence the NBA, NFL, etc.) that this is a "good" thing.
> 
> Super Bowl champ Baltimore Ravens getting paid $130,000 to promote Obamacare | WashingtonExaminer.com
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck you!  Take that Obamacare hate and shove it up your un-American ass!  The law is a better alternative than paying $37,000 for a one night stay in the hospital.
> 
> You don't give shit about this country.  All you wanna do, is rape its resources.  No matter how harmful a system is to average American's, as long as you can make a buck on it, it's tough shitsky for the rest of the country.
> 
> You've chosen company over country.  Which makes you a disgusting piece of shit!  I've had it with all your Obamacare lies.  Take your lunacy and shove it up your ass, then get the fuck out of the country!  People like you, do more harm than al Qaeda.
Click to expand...


Ah - a communist rant by comrade B.O.!

In a twist of irony, it's the parasites like B.O. here who have chosen their greedy selves over country. We're $17 trillion in debt, but comrade [MENTION=2873]Billo_Really[/MENTION] here thinks the United States _owes_ him cancer treatments on the house.

If you gave the slightest fuck about this country you greedy, selfish bastard, you'd incur the cost yourself or even die of the cancer to ensure the continued success of this nation. But not Billo_Really here - no sir! Never served his country a single day in the military and he sure as hell isn't going to serve it by being a big boy by taking personal responsibility for himself now.

Remember when John F. Kennedy said "Ask NOT what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country"? He must be rolling over in his grave vomiting listening to his party being hijacked by socialists/marxists/communists who keep demanding that the country owes them everything from free food and healthcare to free transportation and entertainment.


----------



## P@triot

TyroneSlothrop said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe just perhaps maybe your consciousness is vibrating so low that you do not notice differences between people and animals ...you appear to be somewhat categorical and simplistic in your conclusions... I reject with prejudice your way of thinking about folks,  I reject your lesson...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To clarify, the comparison should be made between
> Feeding ppl with fish
> Vs.
> Teaching ppl to fish for themselves
> 
> In this case perhaps you are right with bears who naturally
> Learn to catch their own fish
> Dont wait for other bears
> And dont go through insurance run by third parties
> To add more complications to the process
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is not the comparison the wing nut made..his lesson is and continues to be
> 1) Life begins at conception and ends when the mother gives birth
> 2) Feeding American children through Food stamp assistance is exactly the same as feeding a wild bear in Yellowstone
Click to expand...


And your ignorant position continues to be that adults are exactly like a fetus - completely helpless in every capacity. 

You don't have the right to commit murder idiot. But that doesn't mean I owe you shit because I uphold the laws preventing murder. 

By the way - I noticed you and your Dumbocrat pals still can't tell me *where is the origin of debt*. Pretty much puts this entire debate to rest, doesn't it?

Game over. Real Americans who actually abide by the Constitution wins!


----------



## Billo_Really

Rottweiler said:


> Ah - a communist rant by comrade B.O.!
> 
> In a twist of irony, it's the parasites like B.O. here who have chosen their greedy selves over country. We're $17 trillion in debt, but comrade [MENTION=2873]Billo_Really[/MENTION] here thinks the United States _owes_ him cancer treatments on the house.
> 
> If you gave the slightest fuck about this country you greedy, selfish bastard, you'd incur the cost yourself or even die of the cancer to ensure the continued success of this nation. But not Billo_Really here - no sir! Never served his country a single day in the military and he sure as hell isn't going to serve it by being a big boy by taking personal responsibility for himself now.
> 
> Remember when John F. Kennedy said "Ask NOT what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country"? He must be rolling over in his grave vomiting listening to his party being hijacked by socialists/marxists/communists who keep demanding that the country owes them everything from free food and healthcare to free transportation and entertainment.


Hey shithead, I'm making monthly payments on that bill.

The difference between you and I, I don't have to make up bullshit with which to argue with.


----------



## RDD_1210

Rottweiler said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're serious, aren't you?
> 
> The freedom of choice was lost.  The freedom to choose not to have maternity, newborn, pediatric care (including vision and dental) included in one's coverage because they are a 55 year old, single guy with no kids.  The freedom to choose to keep your individual catastrophic health insurance plan that you have had for years was taken away.  Why?  Because it wasn't (un)aca compliant ... it didn't include coverage for maternity, newborn, pediatric care (including vision and dental).  The freedom to choose a plan that fit one's needs, rather than a plan that fit someone else's needs, was taken away.  The freedom to keep healthy and pay a lower rate is gone.  Now people with pre-existing conditions don't pay more for their coverage, even though they are a higher risk.
> 
> You're another stupid leftist who can't see the forest for the trees.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> News flash, insurance plans have always and will always cover services that not everyone needs. Until the day comes out where there is a a-la-carte insurance plan, this is a ridiculous and invalid talking point.
> 
> Like I said, no freedoms were lost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't believe you went back to the well on this after you already had your ass handed to you...
> 
> Can you please explain how freedoms were *not* lost since I'm now forced to do something which I previously had the freedom to chose whether or not to do it? Please?
Click to expand...


I've pointed out numerous times that you're not losing any freedom if it wasn't something you would ever consider going without anyway. But then again you have said you would breathe something other than oxygen so you're obviously an idiot.

But we all knew that already.


----------



## RDD_1210

emilynghiem said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> News flash, insurance plans have always and will always cover services that not everyone needs. Until the day comes out where there is a a-la-carte insurance plan, this is a ridiculous and invalid talking point.
> 
> Like I said, no freedoms were lost.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OMG RDD are you SERIOUS?
> 
> And where is my choice to pay for all my health care myself without going through insurance which isn't the same as paying for health care.
> 
> Do you understand this choice is now penalized?
> 
> A.
> I think you are assuming that everyone needs to be under insurance anyway as the only choice, is this where we are branching off on two different pages?
> 
> Once you assume "everyone needs to be on insurance" then you don't see any choices missing.
> 
> Is this what's happening?
> 
> B. Do you really have no concept that a group of doctors and charity nurses can invest directly in setting up clinics or teaching hospitals for serving people for free or low cost WITHOUT insurance. But just exchange medical education/training for services to the public, and have investors, donors and clients pay for it similar to university funding.
> 
> Do you realize this is not a legal choice under ACA but would be penalized?
> 
> Do you really believe there is "no other way on earth" to pay for health care except go through insurance? What did we do before there was insurance?
> 
> This is like saying there is no source of money but the Federal Reserve.
> but there are legal forms of independent currency and barter that people can use, that are NOT banned. These exchanges are taxed like other federal money.
> 
> 1. why do you think all other forms of paying for health care should be disqualified
> EXCEPT insurance
> 2. why do you think this should be done through federal govt
> instead of letting each state or community decide
> 
> are you really so dependent on insurance or federal govt you think those are your only choices?
> 
> do you really have no concept that other people live without depending on insurance or federal govt but pay for their own expenses themselves? I know people who do. why should those people be forced to pay for a system they don't need and penalized for wanting to invest in health programs that can cost less and serve more people?
Click to expand...


I'm all for eliminating insurance companies from the healthcare equation. Unfortunately that would be "socialism" and we know how Republicans feel about that dirty word.


----------



## P@triot

RDD_1210 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> News flash, insurance plans have always and will always cover services that not everyone needs. Until the day comes out where there is a a-la-carte insurance plan, this is a ridiculous and invalid talking point.
> 
> Like I said, no freedoms were lost.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't believe you went back to the well on this after you already had your ass handed to you...
> 
> Can you please explain how freedoms were *not* lost since I'm now forced to do something which I previously had the freedom to chose whether or not to do it? Please?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've pointed out numerous times that you're not losing any freedom if it wasn't something you would ever consider going without anyway. But then again you have said you would breathe something other than oxygen so you're obviously an idiot.
> 
> But we all knew that already.
Click to expand...


Speculating on what my decision *would* be is irrelevant. The fact that the decision is no longer available to me means I've lost freedoms.

This is painfully clear to even a 1st grader junior (and it's clear to you too - you just know admitting the truth hurts your radical cause).


----------



## RDD_1210

Rottweiler said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're serious, aren't you?
> 
> The freedom of choice was lost.  The freedom to choose not to have maternity, newborn, pediatric care (including vision and dental) included in one's coverage because they are a 55 year old, single guy with no kids.  The freedom to choose to keep your individual catastrophic health insurance plan that you have had for years was taken away.  Why?  Because it wasn't (un)aca compliant ... it didn't include coverage for maternity, newborn, pediatric care (including vision and dental).  The freedom to choose a plan that fit one's needs, rather than a plan that fit someone else's needs, was taken away.  The freedom to keep healthy and pay a lower rate is gone.  Now people with pre-existing conditions don't pay more for their coverage, even though they are a higher risk.
> 
> You're another stupid leftist who can't see the forest for the trees.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> News flash, insurance plans have always and will always cover services that not everyone needs. Until the day comes out where there is a a-la-carte insurance plan, this is a ridiculous and invalid talking point.
> 
> Like I said, no freedoms were lost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I no longer have the freedom to decide whether or not to carry insurance. Freedoms were lost and you know it. Pretending like the sun isn't hot and water isn't wet isn't a defense you fuck'n moron. You're just humiliating yourself more than normal now.
Click to expand...


Not having insurance isn't a choice to be made. No sane person would go without it in this country. Also why breathing oxygen isn't a choice. Hence no freedoms are lost.


----------



## P@triot

Billo_Really said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah - a communist rant by comrade B.O.!
> 
> In a twist of irony, it's the parasites like B.O. here who have chosen their greedy selves over country. We're $17 trillion in debt, but comrade  [MENTION=2873]Billo_Really[/MENTION] here thinks the United States _owes_ him cancer treatments on the house.
> 
> If you gave the slightest fuck about this country you greedy, selfish bastard, you'd incur the cost yourself or even die of the cancer to ensure the continued success of this nation. But not Billo_Really here - no sir! Never served his country a single day in the military and he sure as hell isn't going to serve it by being a big boy by taking personal responsibility for himself now.
> 
> Remember when John F. Kennedy said "Ask NOT what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country"? He must be rolling over in his grave vomiting listening to his party being hijacked by socialists/marxists/communists who keep demanding that the country owes them everything from free food and healthcare to free transportation and entertainment.
> 
> 
> 
> Hey shithead, I'm making monthly payments on that bill.
> 
> The difference between you and I, I don't have to make up bullshit with which to argue with.
Click to expand...


Which part did I "make up" B.O.? The fact that we're $17 trillion in debt? The fact that the Dumbocrats are paying the Baltimore Ravens to promote a law passed 3 - 4 years ago? The fact that your selfish ass would rather see the country die for you than for you to die for the country? No, really [MENTION=2873]Billo_Really[/MENTION] - please specify for us which part was "made up bullshit"? The fact that you didn't means you can't.

By the way - I keep asking this question to every Dumbocrat on USMB and not one of you have been man enough to answer it. Please tell me where is the origin of debt on this?


----------



## RDD_1210

emilynghiem said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a family member who died of leukemia. Bill was well over $500K. Catastrophic injury or disease can go over "lifetime limit" in no time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And your point is? Because something is expensive, you get to *force* someone _else_ to pay for it? Is _that_ where you're going with this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think because ppl dont want to believe free spiritual healing can cure the cause of cancer
> And end dependence on chemotherapy and medications that mke money
> They want everyone to pay for that instead. Otherwise using medical research to
> Prove how spiritual healing works would prove Christians and
> Conservatives right. They want to use federal govt as their substitute church.
> 
> They complain about religions forcing their views in public,
> So until they make the same mistake they won't understand
> They are basically mandating that everyone else pay to follow
> Their beliefs in insurance and fine people for having different
> Beliefs that dont count as a choice under govt regulations.
> 
> They have to commit the same wrongs they accuse others of.
> So prochoice ppl now sound like prolife and prolife are
> Arguing for prochoice free of govt regulations and controls.
> 
> As soon as everyone gets that they swapped positions,
> We can quit playing these games bullying back and forth.
> We need to separate beliefs by party and fund our own programs
> Not charge our pet projects to the public but either get money
> By serving as a business or get donations as a charity or
> Investments in a school. But on a voluntary basis not forced by law.
> Whoever gets this first wins. Until we do, we all lose.
Click to expand...


I've never heard of spiritual healing curing cancer or removing a tumor but if that's what you believe... best of luck to you.


----------



## P@triot

RDD_1210 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> News flash, insurance plans have always and will always cover services that not everyone needs. Until the day comes out where there is a a-la-carte insurance plan, this is a ridiculous and invalid talking point.
> 
> Like I said, no freedoms were lost.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I no longer have the freedom to decide whether or not to carry insurance. Freedoms were lost and you know it. Pretending like the sun isn't hot and water isn't wet isn't a defense you fuck'n moron. You're just humiliating yourself more than normal now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not having insurance isn't a choice to be made. No sane person would go without it in this country. Also why breathing oxygen isn't a choice. Hence no freedoms are lost.
Click to expand...


What are you talking about?!? The Dumbocrats themselves declared that 30 *million* Americans went without health insurance - a good portion of which was by choice.

Want to try again junior?


----------



## P@triot

RDD_1210 said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> And your point is? Because something is expensive, you get to *force* someone _else_ to pay for it? Is _that_ where you're going with this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think because ppl dont want to believe free spiritual healing can cure the cause of cancer
> And end dependence on chemotherapy and medications that mke money
> They want everyone to pay for that instead. Otherwise using medical research to
> Prove how spiritual healing works would prove Christians and
> Conservatives right. They want to use federal govt as their substitute church.
> 
> They complain about religions forcing their views in public,
> So until they make the same mistake they won't understand
> They are basically mandating that everyone else pay to follow
> Their beliefs in insurance and fine people for having different
> Beliefs that dont count as a choice under govt regulations.
> 
> They have to commit the same wrongs they accuse others of.
> So prochoice ppl now sound like prolife and prolife are
> Arguing for prochoice free of govt regulations and controls.
> 
> As soon as everyone gets that they swapped positions,
> We can quit playing these games bullying back and forth.
> We need to separate beliefs by party and fund our own programs
> Not charge our pet projects to the public but either get money
> By serving as a business or get donations as a charity or
> Investments in a school. But on a voluntary basis not forced by law.
> Whoever gets this first wins. Until we do, we all lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've never heard of spiritual healing curing cancer or removing a tumor but if that's what you believe... best of luck to you.
Click to expand...


Yes, but before today you also didn't know that the Constitution was specifically designed to limit the power of the federal government. You thought it was designed to limit the power of the people... 

Ergo, there is a fuck-load that you don't know.


----------



## RDD_1210

Rottweiler said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't believe you went back to the well on this after you already had your ass handed to you...
> 
> Can you please explain how freedoms were *not* lost since I'm now forced to do something which I previously had the freedom to chose whether or not to do it? Please?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've pointed out numerous times that you're not losing any freedom if it wasn't something you would ever consider going without anyway. But then again you have said you would breathe something other than oxygen so you're obviously an idiot.
> 
> But we all knew that already.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Speculating on what my decision *would* be is irrelevant. The fact that the decision is no longer available to me means I've lost freedoms.
> 
> This is painfully clear to even a 1st grader junior (and it's clear to you too - you just know admitting the truth hurts your radical cause).
Click to expand...


Your hypocrisy is actually quite relevant. It exposes the fact that no freedom is being lost.


----------



## RDD_1210

Rottweiler said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> I no longer have the freedom to decide whether or not to carry insurance. Freedoms were lost and you know it. Pretending like the sun isn't hot and water isn't wet isn't a defense you fuck'n moron. You're just humiliating yourself more than normal now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not having insurance isn't a choice to be made. No sane person would go without it in this country. Also why breathing oxygen isn't a choice. Hence no freedoms are lost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What are you talking about?!? The Dumbocrats themselves declared that 30 *million* Americans went without health insurance - a good portion of which was by choice.
> 
> Want to try again junior?
Click to expand...


It must be fun to make up your own facts. 

When you resort to outright lying, you know you've lost.


----------



## RDD_1210

Rottweiler said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think because ppl dont want to believe free spiritual healing can cure the cause of cancer
> And end dependence on chemotherapy and medications that mke money
> They want everyone to pay for that instead. Otherwise using medical research to
> Prove how spiritual healing works would prove Christians and
> Conservatives right. They want to use federal govt as their substitute church.
> 
> They complain about religions forcing their views in public,
> So until they make the same mistake they won't understand
> They are basically mandating that everyone else pay to follow
> Their beliefs in insurance and fine people for having different
> Beliefs that dont count as a choice under govt regulations.
> 
> They have to commit the same wrongs they accuse others of.
> So prochoice ppl now sound like prolife and prolife are
> Arguing for prochoice free of govt regulations and controls.
> 
> As soon as everyone gets that they swapped positions,
> We can quit playing these games bullying back and forth.
> We need to separate beliefs by party and fund our own programs
> Not charge our pet projects to the public but either get money
> By serving as a business or get donations as a charity or
> Investments in a school. But on a voluntary basis not forced by law.
> Whoever gets this first wins. Until we do, we all lose.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've never heard of spiritual healing curing cancer or removing a tumor but if that's what you believe... best of luck to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, but before today you also didn't know that the Constitution was specifically designed to limit the power of the federal government. You thought it was designed to limit the power of the people...
> 
> Ergo, there is a fuck-load that you don't know.
Click to expand...


I never once said such a thing.

I do remember you saying that breathing oxygen was a choice. If you don't understand that, there isn't much hope for you.


----------



## P@triot

RDD_1210 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not having insurance isn't a choice to be made. No sane person would go without it in this country. Also why breathing oxygen isn't a choice. Hence no freedoms are lost.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are you talking about?!? The Dumbocrats themselves declared that 30 *million* Americans went without health insurance - a good portion of which was by choice.
> 
> Want to try again junior?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It must be fun to make up your own facts.
> 
> When you resort to outright lying, you know you've lost.
Click to expand...


Apparently there is no limit to your ignorance...

Obamacare leaves millions uninsured. Here?s who they are.

48 Million Americans Are Uninsured Ahead Of Obamacare Changes

48 million Americans without health insurance - Census Bureau 48 million Americans without health insurance, according to Census - Sep. 17, 2013

CBO: Obamacare Will Leave 30 Million Uninsured | CNS News

Uh Oh: 36 Percent of Uninsured Americans "Do Not Plan" to Seek Coverage Through Obamacare - Guy Benson

If this were a prize fight, you would have suffered a first round knock out a long time ago son. Now it's just a blood bath. Please have your corner throw in the towel. I'm actually feeling bad about mangling you so horribly here.


----------



## emilynghiem

RDD_1210 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is sad that this has to happen.
> 
> It's also sad that the GOP has convinced people of "death panels", "losing freedom" and all the other hysterical nonsense that you sheep believe, that have actually made you think you hate a law that is a Republican idea.
> 
> So yeah, it's sad that a campaign needs to be waged to combat such blatant misinformation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wait - let me get this straight - you believe you're not losing freedom under Obamacare [MENTION=23461]RDD_1210[/MENTION]?!?
> 
> The federal government now *forces* you to make a purchase. How is that *not* losing freedom in your mind? I can't wait to hear this absurd explanation.
> 
> By the way - "death panels" are a 100% certainty and now that they've passed Obamacare, the left has even admitted as much. Perhaps you need to wake up to reality? When the federal government has limited funds and unlimited health issues to address, they will have to decide who gets treatment and who doesn't (just like the do in Canada, just like they do in England, just like they do in <insert idiot socialized medicine nation here>, etc.).
> 
> You are one willfully ignorant buffoon, aren't you? Oh well, ignorance is bliss I guess...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama should make a law saying breathing oxygen is mandated. You idiots would hold your breath while claiming your freedoms are being taken away.
Click to expand...


Close RDD
But make it a prolife argument

Ask why is it ok for govt to ban choice of abortion
Instead of letting ppl choose not to have it (in order to save
More lives at the expense of free choice)
But not ok to impose buying insurance to save more lives

Why is it ok to ban choice of gay marriage

But not ok to ban free choice of health care
And only have the choice of insurance or pay a fine

But its ok to only have choice of marriage for hetero couples
And exclude gay couples who believe in gay marriage


----------



## emilynghiem

RDD_1210 said:


> I've never heard of spiritual healing curing cancer or removing a tumor but if that's what you believe... best of luck to you.



It has been documented medically. My friend Olivia Reiner has been volunteering with MDAnderson cancer center and has 35 years of testimonies. Some cases go into remission, some tumors disappear before doctors can operate, one woman had tumors metastasized and spread but after prayer they were all combined in one huge
Tumor that the doctors could remove together.

It can and legally needs to be proven medically to offer broader
Access to more ppl. Spiritual healing based on forgiveness therapy is not
Like the fraudulent false faith healing that wrongly rejects medicine.

It will become common knowledge especially with this contested mandate.
We could servr more ppl and save more lives by adding spiritual healing
To mental health and medical treatment. Th e argument will arise how can federal govt
Impose buying insurance while free and effective measures like
Spiritual healing that cures diseases cannot be required to save
Costs but is disqualified as a choice for health care.
It is penalized while insurance is required.
When spiritual healing has been proven medically to
Cure diseases from cancer to schizophrenia
While the procedures insurance pays for only
Treats the symptoms and doesnt cure the cause.


----------



## emilynghiem

RDD_1210 said:


> y is actually quite relevant. It exposes the fact that no freedom is being lost.



Hi RDD you and Rottweiler are switching contexts.
With spiritual freedom and political freedom.

He is saying we have spiritual free will to
Breathe or decide to go against nature and
To not breathe. Thats a different level than political freedom.

But someone trying to abuse govt to make laws
Dictating things without the consent of the governed
Is violating natural laws of governance and 
Manipulating political freedom. So that law can be
Good bad true or false, but as long as it is against
The consent of the parties held to it then it goes
Against natural laws and will.cause protests
And problems with enforcement until the conflicts
Are resolved civilly where ppl consent and are represented.

If the ppl agree to the law of course they fee it is
Reflecting their consent not imposing on their free will.

Justice is a balance between peace and freedom
All must be established.by informed consent not coersion.


----------



## emilynghiem

RDD_1210 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> News flash, insurance plans have always and will always cover services that not everyone needs. Until the day comes out where there is a a-la-carte insurance plan, this is a ridiculous and invalid talking point.
> 
> Like I said, no freedoms were lost.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I no longer have the freedom to decide whether or not to carry insurance. Freedoms were lost and you know it. Pretending like the sun isn't hot and water isn't wet isn't a defense you fuck'n moron. You're just humiliating yourself more than normal now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not having insurance isn't a choice to be made. No sane person would go without it in this country. Also why breathing oxygen isn't a choice. Hence no freedoms are lost.
Click to expand...


??? You sound like ppl who dont believe abortion
Is a real choice and ought to be banned.

Because govt is limited in its jurisdiction
It cannot be abused to impose either prolife beliefs
That abortion is always murder, gay marriage is
Wrong, or your beliefs everyone should believe
And buy insurance as the only choice so much
That it should be required by law.

If that is your belief theres nothing wrong with all the
Ppl in agreement require yourselves to buy it, but
Leave others to free choice. Same with abortion.
All the ppl who are prolife practice that by free choice
Not force of law under threat of penalty if you are prochoice.
So why not have proinsurance ppl practice by free choice
Not force of law under penalty for believing in prochoice.

You are excluding and penalizing ppl who dont believe
In forced insurance and even assume no freedom is
Lost because you void these beliefs as hypocritical.

Lots of christians are hypocritical but are not
Punished and fined but still have free choice of religion
Without penalty while ppl here are excluded and penalized.


----------



## Billo_Really

Rottweiler said:


> Which part did I "make up" B.O.?


Well, since you asked... 


> _Bullshit made up by *Rottweiler*:
> comrade @Billo_Really here thinks the United States owes him cancer treatments on the house.
> 
> If you gave the slightest fuck about this country you greedy, selfish bastard, you'd incur the cost yourself
> 
> he sure as hell isn't going to serve it by being a big boy by taking personal responsibility for himself now
> 
> his party being hijacked by socialists/marxists/communists who keep demanding that the country owes them everything from free food and healthcare to free transportation and entertainment.
> 
> your selfish ass would rather see the country die for you than for you to die for the country​ _


All that, is lunatic bullshit you made up, because you don't have any valid argument to debate with and you don't have any balls to deal with reality, so you make up your own.




Rottweiler said:


> The fact that we're $17 trillion in debt? The fact that the Dumbocrats are paying the Baltimore Ravens to promote a law passed 3 - 4 years ago? The fact that your selfish ass would rather see the country die for you than for you to die for the country? No, really [MENTION=2873]Billo_Really[/MENTION] - please specify for us which part was "made up bullshit"? The fact that you didn't means you can't.


Well, I just did fuckhead.  How's that crow taste?


Rottweiler said:


> By the way - I keep asking this question to every Dumbocrat on USMB and not one of you have been man enough to answer it. Please tell me where is the origin of debt on this?


You never asked me the question, which is pretty easy to answer.

The debt began with Ronald Reagan and his tax cuts for the rich.  That started the whole ball of bullshit rolling along.  Reagan, Bush41 and Bush43 are responsible for $9 trillion of the debt and Obama is responsible for $8 trillion.

Now fuck off and die!


----------



## RDD_1210

Rottweiler said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> What are you talking about?!? The Dumbocrats themselves declared that 30 *million* Americans went without health insurance - a good portion of which was by choice.
> 
> Want to try again junior?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It must be fun to make up your own facts.
> 
> When you resort to outright lying, you know you've lost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently there is no limit to your ignorance...
> 
> Obamacare leaves millions uninsured. Here?s who they are.
> 
> 48 Million Americans Are Uninsured Ahead Of Obamacare Changes
> 
> 48 million Americans without health insurance - Census Bureau 48 million Americans without health insurance, according to Census - Sep. 17, 2013
> 
> CBO: Obamacare Will Leave 30 Million Uninsured | CNS News
> 
> Uh Oh: 36 Percent of Uninsured Americans "Do Not Plan" to Seek Coverage Through Obamacare - Guy Benson
> 
> If this were a prize fight, you would have suffered a first round knock out a long time ago son. Now it's just a blood bath. Please have your corner throw in the towel. I'm actually feeling bad about mangling you so horribly here.
Click to expand...


You said uninsured by choice. Big difference. Of course you have failed again.


----------



## Zoom-boing

RDD_1210 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> News flash, insurance plans have always and will always cover services that not everyone needs. Until the day comes out where there is a a-la-carte insurance plan, this is a ridiculous and invalid talking point.
> 
> Like I said, no freedoms were lost.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I no longer have the freedom to decide whether or not to carry insurance. Freedoms were lost and you know it. Pretending like the sun isn't hot and water isn't wet isn't a defense you fuck'n moron. You're just humiliating yourself more than normal now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Not having insurance isn't a choice to be made. *No sane person would go without it in this country. Also why breathing oxygen isn't a choice. Hence no freedoms are lost.
Click to expand...


Well not now.  obama took that choice away. Freedom lost.  Derp.


----------



## Seawytch

Rottweiler said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well lets start with the fact that I flat out oppose NASCAR...
> 
> But back to your point, can we compare apples-to-apples for this discussion? Since the draft was abolished years ago, the federal government must recruit men & women into the military. That does require a certain amount of money to be spent (how much and in what ways are a whole different discussion). That is drastically different from spending tax payer money to promote something that was signed into law 3-4 years ago. Wouldn't you agree?
> 
> It clearly illustrates that the Dumbocrats know the American people do not want this and that they feel the need to propagandize it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So one type of advertising is okay with you, another isn't. Thanks for admitting your hypocrisy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SW - you're really so stupid that you don't understand why one advertises?
> 
> Yep - no doubt about it - you've definitely been a dependent of government since becoming an "adult" (and I do use that term lightly).
> 
> By the way, thank you for admitting you are a hypocrite (by your own standards). After all, since you approve one type of spending (welfare for you and your children) you must approve ALL forms of spending (Iraq "war").
Click to expand...


Of course I do. Why is Armed Forces advertising different than ACA advertising? Both need healthy young people in order to work. Of course, the Armed Forces advertising costs considerably more than the ACA advertising, 26 Million for the National Guard alone. And how many recruits do they report getting for their big buck sponsorship? None.


----------



## Seawytch

Rottweiler said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a nice story SW, but it doesn't change the fact that the medical bill for the average uninsured person is less than a new car - and I've proven that with a link already. That's a far cry from RDD's outrageous (and frankly juvenile) $500,000 figure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not an outrageous figure. Just a broken leg is $10k. Without insurance, who do you think is paying those bills?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The person who broke their leg *should* be paying for it. But thanks to welfare baby communists like you, I end up paying for you and your children.
Click to expand...


Yes, that would be the "personally responsible" thing to do...hence the individual mandate because if you don't have insurance, I'm paying your bills.  It's why the GOP came up with it in the first place.


----------



## RDD_1210

Zoom-boing said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> I no longer have the freedom to decide whether or not to carry insurance. Freedoms were lost and you know it. Pretending like the sun isn't hot and water isn't wet isn't a defense you fuck'n moron. You're just humiliating yourself more than normal now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Not having insurance isn't a choice to be made. *No sane person would go without it in this country. Also why breathing oxygen isn't a choice. Hence no freedoms are lost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well not now.  obama took that choice away. Freedom lost.  Derp.
Click to expand...


No intelligent person would choose to go without it. Hence, it's not a real choice, just like breathing oxygen really isn't a choice. You can pretend it is, but at the end of the day, you're going to do it anyway.


----------



## PredFan

What we are witnessing is a preview of what our healthcare will look like in the future under obamacare. Sick people lost in a inefficient and beaurocratic system.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free


----------



## Zoom-boing

PredFan said:


> What we are witnessing is a preview of what our healthcare will look like in the future under obamacare. Sick people lost in a inefficient and beaurocratic system.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free



That's the plan, Stan.


----------



## P@triot

Billo_Really said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> By the way - I keep asking this question to every Dumbocrat on USMB and not one of you have been man enough to answer it. Please tell me where is the origin of debt on this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You never asked me the question, which is pretty easy to answer.
> 
> The debt began with Ronald Reagan and his tax cuts for the rich.  That started the whole ball of bullshit rolling along.  Reagan, Bush41 and Bush43 are responsible for $9 trillion of the debt and Obama is responsible for $8 trillion.
> 
> Now fuck off and die!
Click to expand...


   

*Not* the _national_ debt you fuck'n Down syndrome buffoon... 

You're perceived notion that myself and others are indebted to you if you decide you have a "need" that you can't afford. Where do you derive this power over the rest of us to make us labor (just like slaves) against our will on your behalf? Where is the origin of your perception of our debt to you and other parasites like you [MENTION=2873]Billo_Really[/MENTION]?


----------



## Zoom-boing

RDD_1210 said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Not having insurance isn't a choice to be made. *No sane person would go without it in this country. Also why breathing oxygen isn't a choice. Hence no freedoms are lost.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well not now.  obama took that choice away. Freedom lost.  Derp.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No intelligent person would choose to go without it. Hence, it's not a real choice, just like breathing oxygen really isn't a choice. You can pretend it is, but at the end of the day, you're going to do it anyway.
Click to expand...


You're opinion not withstanding, prior to the (un)aca people had a choice.  Now?  _obama took that choice away._  Freedom lost.

You're comparing a reflex bodily function to choosing to purchase a product (or not)?  

Please, keep spinning.


----------



## P@triot

Seawytch said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not an outrageous figure. Just a broken leg is $10k. Without insurance, who do you think is paying those bills?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The person who broke their leg *should* be paying for it. But thanks to welfare baby communists like you, I end up paying for you and your children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, that would be the "personally responsible" thing to do...hence the individual mandate because if you don't have insurance, I'm paying your bills.  It's why the GOP came up with it in the first place.
Click to expand...


There is still *no* "personal responsibility" here _stupid_. A person who couldn't afford insurance before Obamacare still can't afford it after Obamacare. As Obama himself said, "mandating that people who can't afford health insurance purchase health insurance is as stupid as mandating that people who can't afford a house purchase a house to solve homelessness" (how hilarious is it that this asshole contradicts himself in EVERYTHING - just like his hard stance that raising the debt ceiling is "a failure of leadership", "unpatriotic", and "irresponsible" - which gets your panties in a bunch every time).

I'm still paying for someone else's healthcare. Only now I'm paying the wasteful government as opposed to the hospital.

Nobody knows how to take stupid to a whole new level quite like wytchey...


----------



## Billo_Really

Rottweiler said:


> *Not* the _national_ debt you fuck'n Down syndrome buffoon...
> 
> You're perceived notion that myself and others are indebted to you if you decide you have a "need" that you can't afford. Where do you derive this power over the rest of us to make us labor (just like slaves) against our will on your behalf? Where is the origin of your perception of our debt to you and other parasites like you [MENTION=2873]Billo_Really[/MENTION]?


That's just another one of your bullshit lies, you un-American prick.

Are you that stupid that you have to make up your own arguments to argue against?


----------



## P@triot

Zoom-boing said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well not now.  obama took that choice away. Freedom lost.  Derp.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No intelligent person would choose to go without it. Hence, it's not a real choice, just like breathing oxygen really isn't a choice. You can pretend it is, but at the end of the day, you're going to do it anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're opinion not withstanding, prior to the (un)aca people had a choice.  Now?  _obama took that choice away._  Freedom lost.
> 
> You're comparing a reflex bodily function to choosing to purchase a product (or not)?
> 
> Please, keep spinning.
Click to expand...


That's how desperate this buffoon is to defend the indefensible. He will put any nonsensical, immature spin on it as long as the government keeps feeding him table scraps.


----------



## P@triot

Billo_Really said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Not* the _national_ debt you fuck'n Down syndrome buffoon...
> 
> You're perceived notion that myself and others are indebted to you if you decide you have a "need" that you can't afford. Where do you derive this power over the rest of us to make us labor (just like slaves) against our will on your behalf? Where is the origin of your perception of our debt to you and other parasites like you  [MENTION=2873]Billo_Really[/MENTION]?
> 
> 
> 
> That's just another one of your bullshit lies, you un-American prick.
> 
> Are you that stupid that you have to make up your own arguments to argue against?
Click to expand...


What lie [MENTION=2873]Billo_Really[/MENTION]?!? Dumbocrats created Social Security in 1931. Dumbocrats created Medicare & Medicaid in 1967. Dumbocrats created Obamacare. You asshole believe that if you have a "need" or a want that you can't afford, someone else owes it to you.

So I ask again stupid - where is the origin of our debt to you? Where do you derive your perceived power to make us labor on your behalf?

I love watching you have a meltdown because your ideology is destroyed with *facts*.


----------



## RDD_1210

Rottweiler said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> By the way - I keep asking this question to every Dumbocrat on USMB and not one of you have been man enough to answer it. Please tell me where is the origin of debt on this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You never asked me the question, which is pretty easy to answer.
> 
> The debt began with Ronald Reagan and his tax cuts for the rich.  That started the whole ball of bullshit rolling along.  Reagan, Bush41 and Bush43 are responsible for $9 trillion of the debt and Obama is responsible for $8 trillion.
> 
> Now fuck off and die!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Not* the _national_ debt you fuck'n Down syndrome buffoon...
> 
> You're perceived notion that myself and others are indebted to you if you decide you have a "need" that you can't afford. Where do you derive this power over the rest of us to make us labor (just like slaves) against our will on your behalf? Where is the origin of your perception of our debt to you and other parasites like you [MENTION=2873]Billo_Really[/MENTION]?
Click to expand...


"We the people...."


----------



## RDD_1210

Zoom-boing said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well not now.  obama took that choice away. Freedom lost.  Derp.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No intelligent person would choose to go without it. Hence, it's not a real choice, just like breathing oxygen really isn't a choice. You can pretend it is, but at the end of the day, you're going to do it anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're opinion not withstanding, prior to the (un)aca people had a choice.  Now?  _obama took that choice away._  Freedom lost.
> 
> You're comparing a reflex bodily function to choosing to purchase a product (or not)?
> 
> Please, keep spinning.
Click to expand...


And that "choice" made my premiums increase, year after year. You may not be about personal responsibility, but I am not about to subsidize the cost of healthcare for people who can afford to pay for insurance but "choose" not to. No real freedoms are lost, but my freedom from your selfish choices are gained.


----------



## P@triot

Seawytch said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> So one type of advertising is okay with you, another isn't. Thanks for admitting your hypocrisy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SW - you're really so stupid that you don't understand why one advertises?
> 
> Yep - no doubt about it - you've definitely been a dependent of government since becoming an "adult" (and I do use that term lightly).
> 
> By the way, thank you for admitting you are a hypocrite (by your own standards). After all, since you approve one type of spending (welfare for you and your children) you must approve ALL forms of spending (Iraq "war").
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course I do. *Why is Armed Forces advertising different than ACA advertising? Both need healthy young people in order to work*. Of course, the Armed Forces advertising costs considerably more than the ACA advertising, 26 Million for the National Guard alone. And how many recruits do they report getting for their big buck sponsorship? None.
Click to expand...


Oh my God! The ACA is mandatory dummy! The military is *not*. Ergo it really doesn't matter what people think of the ACA and thus spending money to advertise for it is a waste. Advertisements are for items of *choice*. That's why Apple advertise the iPad. Because you have a choice of whether or not to purchase it.

Want to try again sweetie? Even in the most egregious forms of stupidity, you just can't bring yourself to go "yeah, that was pretty dumb right there by the Democrats". You will literally humiliate yourself to the ends of the earth and beyond trying to defend the indefensible.


----------



## P@triot

RDD_1210 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It must be fun to make up your own facts.
> 
> When you resort to outright lying, you know you've lost.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently there is no limit to your ignorance...
> 
> Obamacare leaves millions uninsured. Here?s who they are.
> 
> 48 Million Americans Are Uninsured Ahead Of Obamacare Changes
> 
> 48 million Americans without health insurance - Census Bureau 48 million Americans without health insurance, according to Census - Sep. 17, 2013
> 
> CBO: Obamacare Will Leave 30 Million Uninsured | CNS News
> 
> Uh Oh: 36 Percent of Uninsured Americans "Do Not Plan" to Seek Coverage Through Obamacare - Guy Benson
> 
> If this were a prize fight, you would have suffered a first round knock out a long time ago son. Now it's just a blood bath. Please have your corner throw in the towel. I'm actually feeling bad about mangling you so horribly here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You said uninsured by choice. Big difference. Of course you have failed again.
Click to expand...


I said a PORTION choose to not carry insurance you fuck'n buffoon and that is an undeniable *FACT*. You continue to expose your ignorance to the world [MENTION=23461]RDD_1210[/MENTION]


----------



## boedicca

$6B was awarded to a PR agency to promote ObamaCare...I wonder how much of that is being recycled into DNC campaign donations.


----------



## RDD_1210

Rottweiler said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently there is no limit to your ignorance...
> 
> Obamacare leaves millions uninsured. Here?s who they are.
> 
> 48 Million Americans Are Uninsured Ahead Of Obamacare Changes
> 
> 48 million Americans without health insurance - Census Bureau 48 million Americans without health insurance, according to Census - Sep. 17, 2013
> 
> CBO: Obamacare Will Leave 30 Million Uninsured | CNS News
> 
> Uh Oh: 36 Percent of Uninsured Americans "Do Not Plan" to Seek Coverage Through Obamacare - Guy Benson
> 
> If this were a prize fight, you would have suffered a first round knock out a long time ago son. Now it's just a blood bath. Please have your corner throw in the towel. I'm actually feeling bad about mangling you so horribly here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You said uninsured by choice. Big difference. Of course you have failed again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I said a PORTION choose to not carry insurance you fuck'n buffoon and that is an undeniable *FACT*. You continue to expose your ignorance to the world [MENTION=23461]RDD_1210[/MENTION]
Click to expand...


And none of your links you shared support any of the garbage coming out of your mouth.


----------



## boedicca

Racist Joe Manchin (D) is now proposing that the Individual Mandate be delayed for a year.

He's such Nazi KKK Racist!

_Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) is working on legislation to effectively delay Obamacare's individual mandate for one year, his office told TPM on Wednesday.

His spokesman, Jonathan Kott, said Manchin opposes a bill proposed by Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) to delay the mandate for a more indefinite period of time while problems with the insurance exchanges persist.

"He doesn't support the Rubio bill and is working on bill to delay the penalty for a year," Kott said....._



Manchin Working On Bill To Delay Obamacare Individual Mandate


----------



## Zoom-boing

RDD_1210 said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No intelligent person would choose to go without it. Hence, it's not a real choice, just like breathing oxygen really isn't a choice. You can pretend it is, but at the end of the day, you're going to do it anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're opinion not withstanding, prior to the (un)aca people had a choice.  Now?  _obama took that choice away._  Freedom lost.
> 
> You're comparing a reflex bodily function to choosing to purchase a product (or not)?
> 
> Please, keep spinning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *And that "choice" made my premiums increase,* year after year. You may not be about personal responsibility, but* I am not about to subsidize the cost of healthcare for people who can afford to pay for insurance but "choose" not to*. No real freedoms are lost, but my freedom from your selfish choices are gained.
Click to expand...


And you think that the (un)aca will change that, don't you?    Sucker.

Newflash, skippy.  _You're still subsidizing the cost of others insurance_.  

Personal responsibility??  I've always had insurance, everyone of my family members have always had insurance ... even when they had to purchase an individual policy themselves.  They had the freedom of choice to select what coverage worked best for them.  Now?  They have to pay for things they do not need, provides zero benefit to them, and jacks their premiums.  Freedom of choice, lost.  Thanks obama.

Spin away, little spider.


----------



## P@triot

RDD_1210 said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No intelligent person would choose to go without it. Hence, it's not a real choice, just like breathing oxygen really isn't a choice. You can pretend it is, but at the end of the day, you're going to do it anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're opinion not withstanding, prior to the (un)aca people had a choice.  Now?  _obama took that choice away._  Freedom lost.
> 
> You're comparing a reflex bodily function to choosing to purchase a product (or not)?
> 
> Please, keep spinning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that "choice" made my premiums increase, year after year. You may not be about personal responsibility, but I am not about to subsidize the cost of healthcare for people who can afford to pay for insurance but "choose" not to. No real freedoms are lost, but my freedom from your selfish choices are gained.
Click to expand...


So you get to take choice away from people because you're too inept to get a job that pays enough for you avoid your premium? Really Adolf? Is that how that works? You get to take choice away from people simply because you don't like the cost of something?

And these assholes claim they are not communists? Holy Jesus, this is the very definition of communism here. I'm going to FORCE you to do something because I can't afford something.


----------



## RDD_1210

Zoom-boing said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're opinion not withstanding, prior to the (un)aca people had a choice.  Now?  _obama took that choice away._  Freedom lost.
> 
> You're comparing a reflex bodily function to choosing to purchase a product (or not)?
> 
> Please, keep spinning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *And that "choice" made my premiums increase,* year after year. You may not be about personal responsibility, but* I am not about to subsidize the cost of healthcare for people who can afford to pay for insurance but "choose" not to*. No real freedoms are lost, but my freedom from your selfish choices are gained.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you think that the (un)aca will change that, don't you?    Sucker.
> 
> Newflash, skippy.  _You're still subsidizing the cost of others insurance_.
Click to expand...

No shit. But the mandate will result in more people having insurance and for those who still choose to be idiots and intentionally not purchase insurance then the penalty is in place to at least offset their lack of personal responsibility to some degree. 



> Personal responsibility??  I've always had insurance, everyone of my family members have always had insurance ... even when they had to purchase an individual policy themselves.  They had the freedom of choice to select what coverage worked best for them.  Now?  They have to pay for things they do not need, provides zero benefit to them, and jacks their premiums.  Freedom of choice, lost.  Thanks obama.
> 
> Spin away, little spider.



Oh, so you'll have insurance no matter what. Mandate or not. So no actual freedom is lost. Got it.


----------



## RDD_1210

Rottweiler said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're opinion not withstanding, prior to the (un)aca people had a choice.  Now?  _obama took that choice away._  Freedom lost.
> 
> You're comparing a reflex bodily function to choosing to purchase a product (or not)?
> 
> Please, keep spinning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that "choice" made my premiums increase, year after year. You may not be about personal responsibility, but I am not about to subsidize the cost of healthcare for people who can afford to pay for insurance but "choose" not to. No real freedoms are lost, but my freedom from your selfish choices are gained.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you get to take choice away from people because you're too inept to get a job that pays enough for you avoid your premium? Really Adolf? Is that how that works? You get to take choice away from people simply because you don't like the cost of something?
> 
> And these assholes claim they are not communists? Holy Jesus, this is the very definition of communism here. I'm going to FORCE you to do something because I can't afford something.
Click to expand...


The cost for everyones healthcare has been increasing for years. That's the point. EVERYONE is complaining about the cost of healthcare premiums for years now. This is the point. How fucking slow are you? Of course I want my premiums to be lower. You would too if you actually purchased your own health insurance.


----------



## P@triot

RDD_1210 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You said uninsured by choice. Big difference. Of course you have failed again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I said a PORTION choose to not carry insurance you fuck'n buffoon and that is an undeniable *FACT*. You continue to expose your ignorance to the world [MENTION=23461]RDD_1210[/MENTION]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And none of your links you shared support any of the garbage coming out of your mouth.
Click to expand...


  

Seriously son, you have to turn off Nick Jr. and turn on CNN once in a while. There were endless stories on this for 5 fuck'n years now. If you're so fuck'n stupid as to not know (or to pretend to not know) that there was a large portion of people in this country that chose to go without health insurance to save money, well, I can't help you. You're just too fuck'n stupid and willfully ignorant to help. You want to be remain ignorant because ignorance is bliss. You were trained to obey the Dumbocrat party and you intend to keep it that way.

*Not all of America's 46 million uninsured people can be considered victims of a system that excludes them financially or because of pre-existing conditions. According to an unpublished Kaiser Family Foundation analysis of the CDC's 2008 National Health Interview Survey, 2% of uninsured people said they simply didn't want health insurance. Some experts say others who could - and should - buy insurance choose not to because they perceive the costs as too high.*

People Who Choose Not To Have Health Insurance - Kaiser Health News

(It's amazing what you learn when you turn off Nick Jr. and you don't go to a radical left-wing blog. By the way faggot, you can't attempt to dispute this by calling this a "right-wing" site - as this is a healthcare system's website! How does my dick taste, faggot?)


----------



## RDD_1210

Rottweiler said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> I said a PORTION choose to not carry insurance you fuck'n buffoon and that is an undeniable *FACT*. You continue to expose your ignorance to the world [MENTION=23461]RDD_1210[/MENTION]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And none of your links you shared support any of the garbage coming out of your mouth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously son, you have to turn off Nick Jr. and turn on CNN once in a while. There were endless stories on this for 5 fuck'n years now. If you're so fuck'n stupid as to not know (or to pretend to not know) that there was a large portion of people in this country that chose to go without health insurance to save money, well, I can't help you. You're just too fuck'n stupid and willfully ignorant to help. You want to be remain ignorant because ignorance is bliss. You were trained to obey the Dumbocrat party and you intend to keep it that way.
> 
> *Not all of America's 46 million uninsured people can be considered victims of a system that excludes them financially or because of pre-existing conditions. According to an unpublished Kaiser Family Foundation analysis of the CDC's 2008 National Health Interview Survey, 2% of uninsured people said they simply didn't want health insurance. Some experts say others who could - and should - buy insurance choose not to because they perceive the costs as too high.*
> 
> People Who Choose Not To Have Health Insurance - Kaiser Health News
> 
> (It's amazing what you learn when you turn off Nick Jr. and you don't go to a radical left-wing blog. By the way faggot, you can't attempt to dispute this by calling this a "right-wing" site - as this is a healthcare system's website! How does my dick taste, faggot?)
Click to expand...


And there it is.....finally. In your own words......you're talking about 2% of people. Thanks for that. You omitted this stat in your original bullshit post because you knew how shitty it makes your already shitty point look. 

How fucking slow are you that you keep setting yourself up to look like a complete tool and continue to do it over and over again.


----------



## RDD_1210

Rottweiler said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> I no longer have the freedom to decide whether or not to carry insurance. Freedoms were lost and you know it. Pretending like the sun isn't hot and water isn't wet isn't a defense you fuck'n moron. You're just humiliating yourself more than normal now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not having insurance isn't a choice to be made. No sane person would go without it in this country. Also why breathing oxygen isn't a choice. Hence no freedoms are lost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What are you talking about?!? The Dumbocrats themselves declared that 30 *million* Americans went without health insurance - *a good portion of which was by choice*.
> 
> Want to try again junior?
Click to expand...


Let's bump back your original bullshit post. So now "a good portion" is actually only 2%. 

You lose and the best part is, you did it to yourself.


----------



## Zoom-boing

RDD_1210 said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *And that "choice" made my premiums increase,* year after year. You may not be about personal responsibility, but* I am not about to subsidize the cost of healthcare for people who can afford to pay for insurance but "choose" not to*. No real freedoms are lost, but my freedom from your selfish choices are gained.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you think that the (un)aca will change that, don't you?    Sucker.
> 
> Newflash, skippy.  _You're still subsidizing the cost of others insurance_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No shit. But *the mandate will result in more people having insurance* and for those who still choose to be idiots and intentionally not purchase insurance then the penalty is in place to at least offset their lack of personal responsibility to some degree.
> 
> And you will be subsidizing the majority of them!  You're so busy yapping about people choosing to be insured or not, you're not seeing the bigger picture.  The reason doesn't matter, the fact is you will still be paying for it. Even moreso now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Personal responsibility??  I've always had insurance, everyone of my family members have always had insurance ... even when they had to purchase an individual policy themselves.  They had the freedom of choice to select what coverage worked best for them.  Now?  They have to pay for things they do not need, provides zero benefit to them, and jacks their premiums.  Freedom of choice, lost.  Thanks obama.
> 
> Spin away, little spider.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, so you'll have insurance no matter what. Mandate or not. *So no actual freedom is lost.* Got it.
Click to expand...


Did you fail reading comprehension 101 or are you retarded?



> even when they had to purchase an individual policy themselves.  They had the freedom of choice to select what coverage worked best for them.  Now?  They have to pay for things they do not need, provides zero benefit to them, and jacks their premiums.  Freedom of choice, lost.  Thanks obama.


----------



## P@triot

RDD_1210 said:


> Oh, so you'll have insurance no matter what. Mandate or not. So no actual freedom is lost. Got it.



Again asshat, no matter how many times you repeat this nonsensical line, it doesn't change the fact that freedoms were lost. It only continues to expose you for the mildly retarded buffoon that you are.

It doesn't matter what he would have chosen. The fact that he no longer has a choice is indisputable evidence that freedoms were *lost*.

Game over stupid. You lose (again)


----------



## P@triot

RDD_1210 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not having insurance isn't a choice to be made. No sane person would go without it in this country. Also why breathing oxygen isn't a choice. Hence no freedoms are lost.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are you talking about?!? The Dumbocrats themselves declared that 30 *million* Americans went without health insurance - *a good portion of which was by choice*.
> 
> Want to try again junior?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's bump back your original bullshit post. So now "a good portion" is actually only 2%.
> 
> You lose and the best part is, you did it to yourself.
Click to expand...


2% of 46 million is 920,000 you uneducated fuck'n moron.

Would you not refer to almost 1 million people as "a good portion"?


----------



## P@triot

Zoom-boing said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you think that the (un)aca will change that, don't you?    Sucker.
> 
> Newflash, skippy.  _You're still subsidizing the cost of others insurance_.
> 
> 
> 
> No shit. But *the mandate will result in more people having insurance* and for those who still choose to be idiots and intentionally not purchase insurance then the penalty is in place to at least offset their lack of personal responsibility to some degree.
> 
> And you will be subsidizing the majority of them!  You're so busy yapping about people choosing to be insured or not, you're not seeing the bigger picture.  The reason doesn't matter, the fact is you will still be paying for it. Even moreso now.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, so you'll have insurance no matter what. Mandate or not. *So no actual freedom is lost.* Got it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you fail reading comprehension 101 or are you retarded?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> even when they had to purchase an individual policy themselves.  They had the freedom of choice to select what coverage worked best for them.  Now?  They have to pay for things they do not need, provides zero benefit to them, and jacks their premiums.  Freedom of choice, lost.  Thanks obama.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Zoom - he is _unquestionably_ retarded. Two days of humiliating himself has proven that.


----------



## RDD_1210

Zoom-boing said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you think that the (un)aca will change that, don't you?    Sucker.
> 
> Newflash, skippy.  _You're still subsidizing the cost of others insurance_.
> 
> 
> 
> No shit. But *the mandate will result in more people having insurance* and for those who still choose to be idiots and intentionally not purchase insurance then the penalty is in place to at least offset their lack of personal responsibility to some degree.
> 
> And you will be subsidizing the majority of them!  You're so busy yapping about people choosing to be insured or not, you're not seeing the bigger picture.  The reason doesn't matter, the fact is you will still be paying for it. Even moreso now.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, so you'll have insurance no matter what. Mandate or not. *So no actual freedom is lost.* Got it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you fail reading comprehension 101 or are you retarded?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> even when they had to purchase an individual policy themselves.  They had the freedom of choice to select what coverage worked best for them.  Now?  They have to pay for things they do not need, provides zero benefit to them, and jacks their premiums.  Freedom of choice, lost.  Thanks obama.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


So why don't you start a thread about modifying the insurance options to only cover the things you want. Nope.....you'd rather complain that the whole law is shitty. Good for you.


----------



## RDD_1210

Rottweiler said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No shit. But *the mandate will result in more people having insurance* and for those who still choose to be idiots and intentionally not purchase insurance then the penalty is in place to at least offset their lack of personal responsibility to some degree.
> 
> And you will be subsidizing the majority of them!  You're so busy yapping about people choosing to be insured or not, you're not seeing the bigger picture.  The reason doesn't matter, the fact is you will still be paying for it. Even moreso now.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, so you'll have insurance no matter what. Mandate or not. *So no actual freedom is lost.* Got it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you fail reading comprehension 101 or are you retarded?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> even when they had to purchase an individual policy themselves.  They had the freedom of choice to select what coverage worked best for them.  Now?  They have to pay for things they do not need, provides zero benefit to them, and jacks their premiums.  Freedom of choice, lost.  Thanks obama.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Zoom - he is _unquestionably_ retarded. Two days of humiliating himself has proven that.
Click to expand...


Says the guy who disproves his own posts. That's pretty rich.


----------



## Zoom-boing

RDD_1210 said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No shit. But *the mandate will result in more people having insurance* and for those who still choose to be idiots and intentionally not purchase insurance then the penalty is in place to at least offset their lack of personal responsibility to some degree.
> 
> And you will be subsidizing the majority of them!  You're so busy yapping about people choosing to be insured or not, you're not seeing the bigger picture.  The reason doesn't matter, the fact is you will still be paying for it. Even moreso now.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, so you'll have insurance no matter what. Mandate or not. *So no actual freedom is lost.* Got it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you fail reading comprehension 101 or are you retarded?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> even when they had to purchase an individual policy themselves.  They had the freedom of choice to select what coverage worked best for them.  Now?  They have to pay for things they do not need, provides zero benefit to them, and jacks their premiums.  Freedom of choice, lost.  Thanks obama.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So why don't you start a thread about modifying the insurance options to only cover the things you want. Nope.....you'd rather complain that the whole law is shitty. Good for you.
Click to expand...



obama and the dems successfully took away freedom of choice from Americans and your reply to that is 'go start a thread'.  

Loser.


----------



## RDD_1210

Zoom-boing said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you fail reading comprehension 101 or are you retarded?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So why don't you start a thread about modifying the insurance options to only cover the things you want. Nope.....you'd rather complain that the whole law is shitty. Good for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> obama and the dems successfully took away freedom of choice from Americans and your reply to that is 'go start a thread'.
> 
> Loser.
Click to expand...


You want to deny access to health insurance for millions of people because there might be something on your policy you may not need.

And I'm the loser?


----------



## RDD_1210

Rottweiler said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> What are you talking about?!? The Dumbocrats themselves declared that 30 *million* Americans went without health insurance - *a good portion of which was by choice*.
> 
> Want to try again junior?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's bump back your original bullshit post. So now "a good portion" is actually only 2%.
> 
> You lose and the best part is, you did it to yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 2% of 46 million is 920,000 you uneducated fuck'n moron.
> 
> Would you not refer to almost 1 million people as "a good portion"?
Click to expand...


Because it's not a good portion, it's 2%. A very small minority of the group. You've made it clear that you have difficulty with numbers but now you've clearly demonstrated you don't understand percentages. 

"Ooooh, 1 million sounds like a lot! That must mean it's a "good portion". Nevermind that it's only 2% of the total number, it still sounds like a lot!"

Holy fucking fail.


----------



## emilynghiem

Tyrone: Don't forget to add:
Are you a rape baby born to a mother who actually loves you
as a gift from God and wants to keep you?



TyroneSlothrop said:


>



Also: where's the chart for people who yell about Black slavery in America
but don't mind buying products keeping Asian people enslaved in China and India
or go on strike if they're not paid 10-15 an hour as "living wage"


----------



## emilynghiem

TyroneSlothrop said:


>



Democrats keep it simple:


----------



## Seawytch

Rottweiler said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> The person who broke their leg *should* be paying for it. But thanks to welfare baby communists like you, I end up paying for you and your children.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, that would be the "personally responsible" thing to do...hence the individual mandate because if you don't have insurance, I'm paying your bills.  It's why the GOP came up with it in the first place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is still *no* "personal responsibility" here _stupid_. A person who couldn't afford insurance before Obamacare still can't afford it after Obamacare. As Obama himself said, "mandating that people who can't afford health insurance purchase health insurance is as stupid as mandating that people who can't afford a house purchase a house to solve homelessness" (how hilarious is it that this asshole contradicts himself in EVERYTHING - just like his hard stance that raising the debt ceiling is "a failure of leadership", "unpatriotic", and "irresponsible" - which gets your panties in a bunch every time).
> 
> I'm still paying for someone else's healthcare. Only now I'm paying the wasteful government as opposed to the hospital.
> 
> Nobody knows how to take stupid to a whole new level quite like wytchey...
Click to expand...


When we paid for others healthcare before the ACA, we did it in the most inefficient, ineffective and expensive way possible. Work smarter, not harder.


----------



## Seawytch

Rottweiler said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SW - you're really so stupid that you don't understand why one advertises?
> 
> Yep - no doubt about it - you've definitely been a dependent of government since becoming an "adult" (and I do use that term lightly).
> 
> By the way, thank you for admitting you are a hypocrite (by your own standards). After all, since you approve one type of spending (welfare for you and your children) you must approve ALL forms of spending (Iraq "war").
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course I do. *Why is Armed Forces advertising different than ACA advertising? Both need healthy young people in order to work*. Of course, the Armed Forces advertising costs considerably more than the ACA advertising, 26 Million for the National Guard alone. And how many recruits do they report getting for their big buck sponsorship? None.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh my God! The ACA is mandatory dummy! The military is *not*. Ergo it really doesn't matter what people think of the ACA and thus spending money to advertise for it is a waste. Advertisements are for items of *choice*. That's why Apple advertise the iPad. Because you have a choice of whether or not to purchase it.
> 
> Want to try again sweetie? Even in the most egregious forms of stupidity, you just can't bring yourself to go "yeah, that was pretty dumb right there by the Democrats". You will literally humiliate yourself to the ends of the earth and beyond trying to defend the indefensible.
Click to expand...


They are both advertising to young, healthy people. Last I checked, the military isn't having a difficult time recruiting people and the millions spent on NASCAR advertising has produced no results. If the advertising for the ACA produces no results as well, then it too should be stopped. Let's see first.


----------



## RDD_1210

emilynghiem said:


> Tyrone: Don't forget to add:
> Are you a rape baby born to a mother who actually loves you
> as a gift from God and wants to keep you?
> 
> 
> Also: where's the chart for people who yell about Black slavery in America
> but don't mind buying products keeping Asian people enslaved in China and India
> or go on strike if they're not paid 10-15 an hour as "living wage"



How many cats do you have? 

I'm guessing 6.


----------



## emilynghiem

*REVISED:  The point of this post is to make two comments (A. and B.)
that the amount of people (like 1% or 2%) is not the issue
but the principle that is violating Constitutional rights, PERIOD,
regardless "how many people were infringed upon."*



RDD_1210 said:


> Because it's not a good portion, it's 2%. A very small minority of the group. You've made it clear that you have difficulty with numbers but now you've clearly demonstrated you don't understand percentages.
> 
> "Ooooh, 1 million sounds like a lot! That must mean it's a "good portion". Nevermind that it's only 2% of the total number, it still sounds like a lot!"
> 
> Holy fucking fail.



*A. First point: percentage of the minority does not justify violating the Constitution, no matter how small*

Example:
I would bet the beliefs I have as an individual, whicy are protected by law,
are less than 2%, maybe a fraction of 1% of the people in the world.

Yet, I would NOT put up with legislation that violated my religious beliefs by
banning and punishing me for them, even if I were less than 1% of 1% of the population.

*B. Second point: the vote in Congress passing ACA was divided by Party,
and the bill was biased on Partisan lines.

This analogy compares this to  religious groups passing a "biased bill" by majority rule of the Religion that "believe" in the bill:*

If a bill was written by and biased toward Muslims and against Hindus,
forcing people to eat beef only and banning pork for example,
and the votes in Congress were 51% yes votes by Muslims and pro-Muslims
and 49% by Hindus, Christians, and anti-Muslims (and Vegans who said
the bill didn't go far enough but should have banned all meat).

Would you impose that bill on all people of all beliefs across the nation
just because the majority in Congress voted the majority
even though the votes were either Muslims or proMuslims who got kickbacks.

*C. Dear RDD is this more clear if I separate the two points into A and B?

Sorry. I hope this is clear, can you please answer the questions now:*

Wouldn't you say that was religiously discriminating and
imposing a belief on the rest of the nation by abusing govt to do so?

So why not with political beliefs?
Why push one at the exclusion and punishment of others?

Is it really that hard to see what's going on here?

That people are abusing party to force beliefs by majority rule
on dissenters at the exclusion of other parties and their beliefs.

When the Constitutional 14th Amendment is supposed to protect and include
people of ALL beliefs equally by law, 
and the Code of Ethics for Govt Service requires putting
duty to the Constitution and laws ABOVE party.

Is that more clear? sorry RDD!


----------



## P@triot

RDD_1210 said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So why don't you start a thread about modifying the insurance options to only cover the things you want. Nope.....you'd rather complain that the whole law is shitty. Good for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> obama and the dems successfully took away freedom of choice from Americans and your reply to that is 'go start a thread'.
> 
> Loser.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You want to deny access to health insurance for millions of people because there might be something on your policy you may not need.
> 
> And I'm the loser?
Click to expand...


Republicans have NEVER "denied" ANYONE access to ANYTHING you lying fuck. Just because your lazy and can't afford something doesn't mean I'm "denying" it to you. It just means you can't afford it because you don't want to work. And that is *your* problem.

As I told RDean in another - even a fuck'n wild animal in the forest can figure out how to survive without help from the government. What does it say about you [MENTION=23461]RDD_1210[/MENTION] that you apparently cannot?


----------



## P@triot

RDD_1210 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's bump back your original bullshit post. So now "a good portion" is actually only 2%.
> 
> You lose and the best part is, you did it to yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2% of 46 million is 920,000 you uneducated fuck'n moron.
> 
> Would you not refer to almost 1 million people as "a good portion"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because it's not a good portion, it's 2%. A very small minority of the group. You've made it clear that you have difficulty with numbers but now you've clearly demonstrated you don't understand percentages.
> 
> "Ooooh, 1 million sounds like a lot! That must mean it's a "good portion". Nevermind that it's only 2% of the total number, it still sounds like a lot!"
> 
> Holy fucking fail.
Click to expand...


1 million have CHOSEN not to carry health insurance asshat. You wildly claimed that "no one" would do that. You lose!


----------



## P@triot

emilynghiem said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats keep it simple:
Click to expand...


     

Standing ovation [MENTION=22295]emilynghiem[/MENTION] for demonstrating how the Dumbocrats humiliate themselves


----------



## emilynghiem

RDD_1210 said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tyrone: Don't forget to add:
> Are you a rape baby born to a mother who actually loves you
> as a gift from God and wants to keep you?
> 
> 
> Also: where's the chart for people who yell about Black slavery in America
> but don't mind buying products keeping Asian people enslaved in China and India
> or go on strike if they're not paid 10-15 an hour as "living wage"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many cats do you have?
> 
> I'm guessing 6.
Click to expand...


No I cannot keep pets. I work two jobs, and all my money has being going to
pay off credit card debts from lending to community nonprofits doing the work
to repair damages done to a national historic district we are trying to save.

We have gotten no help from Democrats who only raise money for their own campaigns.

I am a member of the Democrat party trying to set up corrections and restitution
for the long history of damage and fraud, but only the little people at the bottom care
to do the work. All the politicians and media hype have bought and sold out the party
where they only focus on elections and campaigns but not investing directly in solutions.

Ironically the same solutions that came out of my district for restoring the historic landmarks as a sustainable campus for housing, jobs and service internships
can be used to convert sweatshops and replace slave labor with work-study jobs.

www.rightsfortheworkers.org

So we have the solutions and proposed them repeatedly to city state and federal offices.
But they are always too busy working on easier things for political points, this harder
work that takes uniting all the parties (not bashing each other to get elected) is left behind.

so the people trying to do all this work have no resources that aren't already stretched to the max trying to fix this ourselves. I am working two jobs and can't keep up, and the other community leader I am helping who wrote up the Vet housing plan can't get help or attention of anyone either, because she is a Black woman Republican.

We can't figure out if the  problem is we are both women, I am an Asian Democrat and she is Black Republican, and so we are expected to work like slaves while men expect to be in charge and have everyone work under them. So we can't get our ideas taken seriously though I posted hers online and tried to start a petition. It seems individual women sympathize with us, while the men are content to play bully games at all costs. not sure?

here's the website: Freedmen's Town Historic Churches and Vet Housing
I have Gladys' Vet housing plans posted there, and the sustainable campus plans signed by Sheila Jackson Lee. I am thinking of trying to ask Oprah for help to set up a school system
that incorporates all the community plans and history to generate income to preserve it.

but people are so caught up in political warfare, millions go into campaigns to fight each other, and even 130 M to push Obamacare, but not putting those millions into actually setting up a model for training people in providing the health care and social services.

so I can barely pay for my gas and rent and other bills I have been paying for other nonprofits who got screwed by govt where I had to bail them out or they would go under.

I can't pay for cats or anything extra. just lucky to keep both my jobs. If I lose my day job and have to pay for insurance, I won't be able to afford this and repair the damage done by the Democrat party I am still struggling to get paid for by demanding that taxpayer money be refunded which Democrat administrations funneled to developer interests to destroy the national history (from churches, gravesites, rowhouses, brick streets, all landmarks registered nationally as a freed slave and civil rights history). if we could get tax money paid back that was abused, then we could pay to restore the damages instead of me trying to work 2 jobs and Gladys 2-3 jobs paying for all the costs ourselves. it's crazy.

If Oprah could interview Gladys and me, the whole Democrat party would have to answer why they are abusing us like slaves to fix the damage their leaders did, the president spending billions running for office and millions more pushing his ACA, while the solutions that the residents in our historic community wrote into federal reforms passed through Congress in 1994 could have solved all these problems had they been funded instead of demolished and censored to cater to developer interests so Democrats stayed in office.

http://www.earnedamnesty.org

These same plans for building sustainable campuses combining education, housing, jobs, and social/health services
can be used to solve issues with Vet housing and Health Care, immigration and prison reform, and restitution for govt abuses and crime paid back into community development and jobs.

As long as people are too busy wasting millions fighting, then these solutions go unfunded instead of setting up models to prove and perfect how they work more cost effectively instead of raising taxes.


----------



## P@triot

Seawytch said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course I do. *Why is Armed Forces advertising different than ACA advertising? Both need healthy young people in order to work*. Of course, the Armed Forces advertising costs considerably more than the ACA advertising, 26 Million for the National Guard alone. And how many recruits do they report getting for their big buck sponsorship? None.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my God! The ACA is mandatory dummy! The military is *not*. Ergo it really doesn't matter what people think of the ACA and thus spending money to advertise for it is a waste. Advertisements are for items of *choice*. That's why Apple advertise the iPad. Because you have a choice of whether or not to purchase it.
> 
> Want to try again sweetie? Even in the most egregious forms of stupidity, you just can't bring yourself to go "yeah, that was pretty dumb right there by the Democrats". You will literally humiliate yourself to the ends of the earth and beyond trying to defend the indefensible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are both advertising to young, healthy people. Last I checked, the military isn't having a difficult time recruiting people and the millions spent on NASCAR advertising has produced no results. If the advertising for the ACA produces no results as well, then it too should be stopped. Let's see first.
Click to expand...


Well now you're just back pedaling. I made it very clear in the post of how much and where the military spending on recruitment is done is a completely difficult discussion. I'll agree with you 100% that millions on NASCAR - especially if it's not improving recruitment - is a complete and unacceptable waste (something the government is good at).

But that doesn't change the fact that something which is mandatory renders advertisement completely useless as there is no need to convince anyone of anything. It's mandatory...


----------



## P@triot

Seawytch said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, that would be the "personally responsible" thing to do...hence the individual mandate because if you don't have insurance, I'm paying your bills.  It's why the GOP came up with it in the first place.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is still *no* "personal responsibility" here _stupid_. A person who couldn't afford insurance before Obamacare still can't afford it after Obamacare. As Obama himself said, "mandating that people who can't afford health insurance purchase health insurance is as stupid as mandating that people who can't afford a house purchase a house to solve homelessness" (how hilarious is it that this asshole contradicts himself in EVERYTHING - just like his hard stance that raising the debt ceiling is "a failure of leadership", "unpatriotic", and "irresponsible" - which gets your panties in a bunch every time).
> 
> I'm still paying for someone else's healthcare. Only now I'm paying the wasteful government as opposed to the hospital.
> 
> Nobody knows how to take stupid to a whole new level quite like wytchey...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When we paid for others healthcare before the ACA, we did it in the most inefficient, ineffective and expensive way possible. Work smarter, not harder.
Click to expand...


The problem is - you Dumbocrats won't work at all. Your inability to pay your bills is *not* my responsibility. It really is that simple SW.

You can deliver of us all of the sob stories that you want, but it doesn't change anything. You cannot tell me where the origin of my debt to your wants and needs arises from and there is a reason for that. Because you parasites are flat out in the wrong.


----------



## emilynghiem

Seawytch said:


> When we paid for others healthcare before the ACA, we did it in the most inefficient, ineffective and expensive way possible. Work smarter, not harder.




Hi Seawytch: The most effective way to serve more people is
to promote spiritual healing which is FREE and has been medically documented
in cases of curing not only cancer, but diabetes, schizophrenia, rheumatoid arthritis
and other diseases and conditions including addiction and abuse-related issues.

As effective, safe and free as this is
it cannot be imposed by govt.

So if the best solution in the world cannot be mandated or regulated by govt, what makes you think insurance can be mandated when it does not address or cure the cause of disease and thus is not necessary but an option for paying COSTS which could be avoided, reduced or prevented by spiritual healing in the first place.

It would be one thing if the ACA allowed for these practices as an equal option.
but the requirements would penalize people for it, because it is free and is
about curing the diseases to prevent the costs, and the ACA is only about paying costs through insurance and not about addressed or reducing the costs of the actual treatments and services. 

this ACA should be voluntary, as is spiritual healing which more effectively addresses cutting the costs of not only public health, but of CRIME which cost taxpayers BILLIONS more. those costs could be managed where the money we already waste on prisons and feeding/housing/health care for nonworking offenders could pay for education and health care instead of raising taxes or forcing working citizens to buy insurance. why not pay us back for money we spend on criminal health care, and use THAT to pay for people who don't commit crimes?

there are other ways besides insurance.
and spiritual healing would actually address the cause of diseases as well as crimes.
so it would be more cost effective.


----------



## RDD_1210

emilynghiem said:


> Hi RDD: I would bet the beliefs I have as an individual, whicy are protected by law,
> are less than 2%, maybe a fraction of 1% of the people in the world.
> 
> Yet, I would NOT put up with legislation that violated my religious beliefs by
> banning and punishing me for them, even if I were less than 1% of 1% of the population.
> 
> 
> 
> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because it's not a good portion, it's 2%. A very small minority of the group. You've made it clear that you have difficulty with numbers but now you've clearly demonstrated you don't understand percentages.
> 
> "Ooooh, 1 million sounds like a lot! That must mean it's a "good portion". Nevermind that it's only 2% of the total number, it still sounds like a lot!"
> 
> Holy fucking fail.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RDD it is clear that the votes in Congress were divided by Party.
> 
> If a bill was written by and biased toward Muslims and against Hindus,
> forcing people to eat beef only and banning pork for example,
> and the votes in Congress were 51% yes votes by Muslims and pro-Muslims
> and 49% by Hindus, Christians, and anti-Muslims (and Vegans who said
> the bill didn't go far enough but should have banned all meat).
> 
> Would you impose that bill on all people of all beliefs across the nation
> just because the majority in Congress voted the majority
> even though the votes were either Muslims or proMuslims who got kickbacks.
> 
> Wouldn't you say that was religiously discriminating and
> imposing a belief on the rest of the nation by abusing govt to do so?
> 
> So why not with political beliefs?
> Why push one at the exclusion and punishment of others?
> 
> Is it really that hard to see what's going on here?
> People taking turns bullying like Hindus and Muslims, or Sunni vs. Shiite.
> We already went through this with Protestants vs. Catholics.
> Do we need to keep repeating this same scenario without learning from history?
Click to expand...


I'm sorry, but I am going to do you a favor and let you know that I don't bother reading your posts. I tried, but you start with a stat about number of people uninsured voluntarily and end up talking about bullying Hindus. You're all over the place and I'm pretty sure we'll never be on the same wave length. So please save the energy next time you are hoping for me to respond to some long winded post you write....chances are it's just not going to happen.


----------



## RDD_1210

Rottweiler said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> obama and the dems successfully took away freedom of choice from Americans and your reply to that is 'go start a thread'.
> 
> Loser.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You want to deny access to health insurance for millions of people because there might be something on your policy you may not need.
> 
> And I'm the loser?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Republicans have NEVER "denied" ANYONE access to ANYTHING you lying fuck. Just because your lazy and can't afford something doesn't mean I'm "denying" it to you. It just means you can't afford it because you don't want to work. And that is *your* problem.
> 
> As I told RDean in another - even a fuck'n wild animal in the forest can figure out how to survive without help from the government. What does it say about you [MENTION=23461]RDD_1210[/MENTION] that you apparently cannot?
Click to expand...


I'll take "Things people will say to justify their selfishness for $200" Alex.


----------



## RDD_1210

Rottweiler said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2% of 46 million is 920,000 you uneducated fuck'n moron.
> 
> Would you not refer to almost 1 million people as "a good portion"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because it's not a good portion, it's 2%. A very small minority of the group. You've made it clear that you have difficulty with numbers but now you've clearly demonstrated you don't understand percentages.
> 
> "Ooooh, 1 million sounds like a lot! That must mean it's a "good portion". Nevermind that it's only 2% of the total number, it still sounds like a lot!"
> 
> Holy fucking fail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1 million have CHOSEN not to carry health insurance asshat. *You wildly claimed that "no one" would do that.* You lose!
Click to expand...


I certainly did not say it wasn't done. I said it wasn't a "good portion" of people doing it. Which you so kindly proved for me. Now you're flat out lying. You must be proud. 

Let me know when you're ready for another statistics lesson.


----------



## emilynghiem

RDD_1210 said:


> You want to deny access to health insurance for millions of people because there might be something on your policy you may not need.
> 
> And I'm the loser?



No, I believe the pool can still be paid for by people who believe in depending on insurance through federal mandates, and not force it on people who don't believe in that approach.

It is enough for just the supporters to pay for it.
You can cover everyone that way who believes in going this route.

SEE my other msg to Seawytch that promoting spiritual healing
will do more to cut the costs of disease and treatment.

It would especially cut the costs of crime, so the billions of taxes wasted
per state on prisons could easily pay for housing, health care and education
by combining these into campuses for sustainable jobs, training and services.

Spiritual healing not only cures addiction and cycles of abuse,
but also can cure criminal illness where medicine alone has failed.

The main problem is that this method works by free choice, so it cannot be mandated by govt, so it takes longer to prove it works so more people understand and access it.
because it is free, no politician or pharmaceutical/insurance lobby will profit from it. It will reduce costs so we save resources that way, but does not give anyone political points.

it cannot be bought and sold like all the other issues can for votes and party interests.


----------



## emilynghiem

RDD_1210 said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi RDD: I would bet the beliefs I have as an individual, whicy are protected by law,
> are less than 2%, maybe a fraction of 1% of the people in the world.
> 
> Yet, I would NOT put up with legislation that violated my religious beliefs by
> banning and punishing me for them, even if I were less than 1% of 1% of the population.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, but I am going to do you a favor and let you know that I don't bother reading your posts. I tried, but you start with a stat about number of people uninsured voluntarily and end up talking about bullying Hindus. You're all over the place and I'm pretty sure we'll never be on the same wave length. So please save the energy next time you are hoping for me to respond to some long winded post you write....chances are it's just not going to happen.
Click to expand...


Sorry, I will go back and edit my msg.

*My point is that 2% or 1% does not give the govt the right
to violate my religious principles. Even if I am just one person,
it is unconstitutional to overrule and ban my beliefs by law.*

Is that more clear? sorry!


----------



## P@triot

emilynghiem said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> When we paid for others healthcare before the ACA, we did it in the most inefficient, ineffective and expensive way possible. Work smarter, not harder.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Seawytch: The most effective way to serve more people is
> to promote spiritual healing which is FREE and has been medically documented
> in cases of curing not only cancer, but diabetes, schizophrenia, rheumatoid arthritis
> and other diseases and conditions including addiction and abuse-related issues.
> 
> As effective, safe and free as this is
> it cannot be imposed by govt.
Click to expand...


The most effective way to serve the people is FREEDOM. There is a reason they say: "Liberalism - ideas so good they have to be *forced* on other people".

Just take a look at the history of people who thought the best idea was to FORCE other people to do something and then look how it turned out:

Joseph Stalin - 20 millions Russians dead via genocide and the complete and total collapse of the U.S.S.R.

Adolf Hitler - 6 million Jews dead via genocide, Adolf dead via suicide, and the complete and total collapse of Germany

Fidel Castro - collapsed Cuba and left the entire nation in perpetual poverty. Recently admitted that communism does NOT work.

Obviously, I could go on all day listing these types of failures (Kim Jong-Il, Idi Amin, Ho Chi Minh, Saddam Hussein, Pol Pot, Mao Zedong, etc.) but it's painfully obvious to even a 2nd grader that Dumbocrat policy (ie redistribution of wealth, government control over everything, and force) is a platform of catastrophic failure.


----------



## P@triot

RDD_1210 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because it's not a good portion, it's 2%. A very small minority of the group. You've made it clear that you have difficulty with numbers but now you've clearly demonstrated you don't understand percentages.
> 
> "Ooooh, 1 million sounds like a lot! That must mean it's a "good portion". Nevermind that it's only 2% of the total number, it still sounds like a lot!"
> 
> Holy fucking fail.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1 million have CHOSEN not to carry health insurance asshat. *You wildly claimed that "no one" would do that.* You lose!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *I certainly did not say it wasn't done*. I said it wasn't a "good portion" of people doing it. Which you so kindly proved for me. Now you're flat out lying. You must be proud.
> 
> Let me know when you're ready for another statistics lesson.
Click to expand...


Ahhhh! [MENTION=23461]RDD_1210[/MENTION] caught LYING!!!

Here is the exact post: *#182*

Here is the exact quote:


RDD_1210 said:


> Not having insurance isn't a choice to be made. *No sane person would go without it in this country*. Also why breathing oxygen isn't a choice. Hence no freedoms are lost.



And here is the exact link to his post:  *HERE*

Game over . You just got exposed for being the LYING piece of shit that you are!!!


----------



## P@triot

RDD_1210 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1 million have CHOSEN not to carry health insurance asshat. *You wildly claimed that "no one" would do that.* You lose!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I certainly did not say it wasn't done*. I said it wasn't a "good portion" of people doing it. Which you so kindly proved for me. Now you're flat out lying. You must be proud.
> 
> Let me know when you're ready for another statistics lesson.
Click to expand...


Ahhhh!  [MENTION=23461]RDD_1210[/MENTION] caught LYING!!! He did it AGAIN in post #200.

Here is the exact post: *#200*

Here is the exact quote:


RDD_1210 said:


> *No intelligent person would choose to go without it*. Hence, it's not a real choice, just like breathing oxygen really isn't a choice. You can pretend it is, but at the end of the day, you're going to do it anyway.



And here is the exact link to his post:  *HERE*

Game over . You just got exposed for being the LYING piece of shit that you are!!!


----------



## RDD_1210

Rottweiler said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1 million have CHOSEN not to carry health insurance asshat. *You wildly claimed that "no one" would do that.* You lose!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I certainly did not say it wasn't done*. I said it wasn't a "good portion" of people doing it. Which you so kindly proved for me. Now you're flat out lying. You must be proud.
> 
> Let me know when you're ready for another statistics lesson.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ahhhh! [MENTION=23461]RDD_1210[/MENTION] caught LYING!!!
> 
> Here is the exact post: *#182*
> 
> Here is the exact quote:
> 
> 
> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not having insurance isn't a choice to be made. *No sane person would go without it in this country*. Also why breathing oxygen isn't a choice. Hence no freedoms are lost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And here is the exact link to his post:  *HERE*
> 
> Game over . You just got exposed for being the LYING piece of shit that you are!!!
Click to expand...

Seriously????? I said no sane person would do it. That doesn't mean it's not done. There are certainly a number of idiots/insane people in this country. You're evidence of that. In fact, there is probably a defined number of people like this. I wonder if there are any stats to support this....maybe something like 2% of people. Sound familiar? 

You've ONCE again proved me correct with your own posts. I would think you're a plant to make me look good, if I didn't know better.


----------



## emilynghiem

REVISED thanks RDD!



RDD_1210 said:


> I'll take "Things people will say to justify their selfishness for $200" Alex.



Dear RDD:
Sorry if my msgs were too taxing.

I have trouble editing because I work two jobs and have to rush.

If you reply and tell me what's wrong, I can revise it.
I can't magically read minds and get it right the first time.

Please do not punish me for working two jobs.
I have to pay off huge debts I invested to fix political problems with govt
that I studied and compiled the best solutions from all sources.

I actually have solid answers that don't require slamming people.

Proposing real longterm solutions does not fit in short sound bytes.

You show what is wrong with politics run by today's media,
where everyone wants fast answers that fit in fast attention spans.

It is easier to slam someone for attention; but to present real solutions
"takes too long to understand"

And comprehensive solutions like mine, that address several issues at once,
get ignored. They are too hard to explain and look like they're running too much together.

This made me very sad, but that's reality.

Thanks for demonstrating why people and politicians slam each other.

And why negative slams get more attention in public, while real sincere efforts go uncredited
for putting together realistic longterm solutions that would prevent any need to slam anyone.

This is why we don't see solutions the media, only BS propaganda!

Thanks for pointing that out, RDD


----------



## RDD_1210

Rottweiler said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1 million have CHOSEN not to carry health insurance asshat. *You wildly claimed that "no one" would do that.* You lose!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I certainly did not say it wasn't done*. I said it wasn't a "good portion" of people doing it. Which you so kindly proved for me. Now you're flat out lying. You must be proud.
> 
> Let me know when you're ready for another statistics lesson.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ahhhh!  [MENTION=23461]RDD_1210[/MENTION] caught LYING!!! He did it AGAIN in post #200.
> 
> Here is the exact post: *#200*
> 
> Here is the exact quote:
> 
> 
> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *No intelligent person would choose to go without it*. Hence, it's not a real choice, just like breathing oxygen really isn't a choice. You can pretend it is, but at the end of the day, you're going to do it anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And here is the exact link to his post:  *HERE*
> 
> Game over . You just got exposed for being the LYING piece of shit that you are!!!
Click to expand...


And again you prove me correct. I did not say it didn't happen. I said "no intelligent person" would do that. You've shown that 2% of the country are not intelligent. Thanks for proving me right, AGAIN.


----------



## P@triot

RDD_1210 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I certainly did not say it wasn't done*. I said it wasn't a "good portion" of people doing it. Which you so kindly proved for me. Now you're flat out lying. You must be proud.
> 
> Let me know when you're ready for another statistics lesson.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ahhhh!  [MENTION=23461]RDD_1210[/MENTION] caught LYING!!! He did it AGAIN in post #200.
> 
> Here is the exact post: *#200*
> 
> Here is the exact quote:
> 
> 
> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *No intelligent person would choose to go without it*. Hence, it's not a real choice, just like breathing oxygen really isn't a choice. You can pretend it is, but at the end of the day, you're going to do it anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And here is the exact link to his post:  *HERE*
> 
> Game over . You just got exposed for being the LYING piece of shit that you are!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And again you prove me correct. I did not say it didn't happen. I said "no intelligent person" would do that. You've shown that 2% of the country are not intelligent. Thanks for proving me right, AGAIN.
Click to expand...


So you're saying the 1 million people out there - some of which have IQ's much higher than yours, and educations much higer than yours, are not "intelligent"?



You just owned bitch! I proved you LIED!!!


----------



## RDD_1210

emilynghiem said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll take "Things people will say to justify their selfishness for $200" Alex.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear RDD:
> Your decision to assume my messages have no value if they are long made me sad.
> 
> I have trouble editing because I work two jobs and have to rush.
> 
> If you reply and tell me what's wrong, I can revise it.
> I can't magically read minds and get it right the first time.
> 
> Please do not punish me for working two jobs.
> I have to pay off huge debts I invested to fix political problems with govt
> that I studied and compiled the best solutions from all sources.
> 
> I actually have solid answers that don't require slamming people.
> 
> Proposing real longterm solutions does not fit in short sound bytes.
> 
> It is insulting to me that you would reply to short msgs that slam and say nothing.
> 
> But messages with REAL content and solutions get skipped?
> 
> This is why the solutions I spent 20 years pooling from different groups
> are still waiting. They don't get credit because people are distracted by fighting.
> 
> You show what is wrong with America,
> and our political system that wants fast answers.
> 
> It is easier to slam someone for attention; but to present real solutions
> "takes too long to understand"
> 
> This made me very sad, but that's reality.
> 
> Thanks for demonstrating why people and politicians slam each other.
> 
> You reward that by responding to negative slams, while skipping the real
> sincere efforts to put together solutions that would prevent any need to slam anyone.
> 
> Thanks RDD
Click to expand...


I have no problems with long messages. Yours are just so all over the place and long winded, I get tired just trying to figure out what your point is.


----------



## RDD_1210

Rottweiler said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ahhhh!  [MENTION=23461]RDD_1210[/MENTION] caught LYING!!! He did it AGAIN in post #200.
> 
> Here is the exact post: *#200*
> 
> Here is the exact quote:
> 
> 
> And here is the exact link to his post:  *HERE*
> 
> Game over . You just got exposed for being the LYING piece of shit that you are!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And again you prove me correct. I did not say it didn't happen. I said "no intelligent person" would do that. You've shown that 2% of the country are not intelligent. Thanks for proving me right, AGAIN.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you're saying the 1 million people out there - some of which have IQ's much higher than yours, and educations much higer than yours, are not "intelligent"?
> 
> 
> 
> You just owned bitch! I proved you LIED!!!
Click to expand...


That's exactly what I'm saying. Anyone who chooses to not have insurance in this country is an idiot. Good thing it's NOT a good portion of people as you've pointed out and it's only 2% of those who are uninsured.


----------



## Zoom-boing

RDD_1210 said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So why don't you start a thread about modifying the insurance options to only cover the things you want. Nope.....you'd rather complain that the whole law is shitty. Good for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> obama and the dems successfully took away freedom of choice from Americans and your reply to that is 'go start a thread'.
> 
> Loser.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You want to deny access to health insurance for millions of people because there might be something on your policy you may not need.*
> 
> And I'm the loser?
Click to expand...


No, you twit.  I want people to be able to have the choice of whether they need all that coverage for themselves.  Key word:  CHOICE.  Dear God, I really needed to spell that out for you??


----------



## RDD_1210

Zoom-boing said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> obama and the dems successfully took away freedom of choice from Americans and your reply to that is 'go start a thread'.
> 
> Loser.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *You want to deny access to health insurance for millions of people because there might be something on your policy you may not need.*
> 
> And I'm the loser?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you twit.  I want people to be able to have the choice of whether they need all that coverage for themselves.  Key word:  CHOICE.  Dear God, I really needed to spell that out for you??
Click to expand...


So why aren't you advocating for that portion of the law to be fixed? You're not advocating that the whole law should be repealed?


----------



## P@triot

RDD_1210 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And again you prove me correct. I did not say it didn't happen. I said "no intelligent person" would do that. You've shown that 2% of the country are not intelligent. Thanks for proving me right, AGAIN.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying the 1 million people out there - some of which have IQ's much higher than yours, and educations much higer than yours, are not "intelligent"?
> 
> 
> 
> You just owned bitch! I proved you LIED!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's exactly what I'm saying. Anyone who chooses to not have insurance in this country is an idiot. Good thing it's NOT a good portion of people as you've pointed out and it's only 2% of those who are uninsured.
Click to expand...


2% of 46 million - or 920,000 people. All of which are exponentially more intelligent than you (and apparently have more integrity as well - LIAR)


----------



## RDD_1210

Rottweiler said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying the 1 million people out there - some of which have IQ's much higher than yours, and educations much higer than yours, are not "intelligent"?
> 
> 
> 
> You just owned bitch! I proved you LIED!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's exactly what I'm saying. Anyone who chooses to not have insurance in this country is an idiot. Good thing it's NOT a good portion of people as you've pointed out and it's only 2% of those who are uninsured.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 2% of 46 million - or 920,000 people. All of which are exponentially more intelligent than you (and apparently have more integrity as well - LIAR)
Click to expand...


Thanks for posting the stats again. We've established that you were greatly exaggerating before since your stats don't support your uninformed opinion.


----------



## Zoom-boing

RDD_1210 said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *You want to deny access to health insurance for millions of people because there might be something on your policy you may not need.*
> 
> And I'm the loser?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you twit.  I want people to be able to have the choice of whether they need all that coverage for themselves.  Key word:  CHOICE.  Dear God, I really needed to spell that out for you??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So why aren't you advocating for that portion of the law to be fixed? You're not advocating that the whole law should be repealed?
Click to expand...


Been too busy trying to get it through your thick skull that obama and the dems have taken away freedom of choice.  Do you get it _yet_?


----------



## RDD_1210

Zoom-boing said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you twit.  I want people to be able to have the choice of whether they need all that coverage for themselves.  Key word:  CHOICE.  Dear God, I really needed to spell that out for you??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So why aren't you advocating for that portion of the law to be fixed? You're not advocating that the whole law should be repealed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Been too busy trying to get it through your thick skull that obama and the dems have taken away freedom of choice.  Do you get it _yet_?
Click to expand...


Oh, so you haven't bothered trying that is what you're saying. Instead you figured, I'll just complain about the entire law. How lazy of you. 

And just to reiterate, no real choice has been taken away. Insurance plans have always covered services that people don't use.


----------



## Zoom-boing

RDD_1210 said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So why aren't you advocating for that portion of the law to be fixed? You're not advocating that the whole law should be repealed?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Been too busy trying to get it through your thick skull that obama and the dems have taken away freedom of choice.  Do you get it _yet_?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, so you haven't bothered trying that is what you're saying. Instead you figured, I'll just complain about the entire law. How lazy of you.
> 
> And just to reiterate, *no real choice has been taken away. Insurance plans have always covered services that people don't use*.
Click to expand...


_Individual catastrophic plan_ prior to (un)aca did not mandate coverage for maternity, newborn, pediatric care (including vision and dental).  You could choose to have this coverage or not.  

Now individual catastrophic plan must include this coverage.  No choice.  No longer can you choose what you need covered, you must have what the gov't says.  Doesn't matter if you switch insurance companies/policies.  Prior to (un)aca, individual decided; after (un)aca gov't decides. 

Freedom of choice lost thanks to obama and dems.

Continuing derping.


----------



## P@triot

RDD_1210 said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So why aren't you advocating for that portion of the law to be fixed? You're not advocating that the whole law should be repealed?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Been too busy trying to get it through your thick skull that obama and the dems have taken away freedom of choice.  Do you get it _yet_?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, so you haven't bothered trying that is what you're saying. Instead you figured, I'll just complain about the entire law. How lazy of you.
> 
> And just to reiterate, no real choice has been taken away. Insurance plans have always covered services that people don't use.
Click to expand...


You're so lazy that you want to live off of your fellow citizens, and you're going to complain that Zoom is "lazy" because he's not changing a law that he has NO power to change?


----------



## RDD_1210

Zoom-boing said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> Been too busy trying to get it through your thick skull that obama and the dems have taken away freedom of choice.  Do you get it _yet_?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, so you haven't bothered trying that is what you're saying. Instead you figured, I'll just complain about the entire law. How lazy of you.
> 
> And just to reiterate, *no real choice has been taken away. Insurance plans have always covered services that people don't use*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _Individual catastrophic plan_ prior to (un)aca did not mandate coverage for maternity, newborn, pediatric care (including vision and dental).  You could choose to have this coverage or not.
> 
> Now individual catastrophic plan must include this coverage.  No choice.  No longer can you choose what you need covered, you must have what the gov't says.  Doesn't matter if you switch insurance companies/policies.  Prior to (un)aca, individual decided; after (un)aca gov't decides.
> 
> Freedom of choice lost thanks to obama and dems.
> 
> Continuing derping.
Click to expand...


See, how hard is that to talk about a specific portion that you don't like? Nope, you'd rather be a lazy asshole and try and repeal the entire law. 

Continuing being lazy.


----------



## RDD_1210

Rottweiler said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> Been too busy trying to get it through your thick skull that obama and the dems have taken away freedom of choice.  Do you get it _yet_?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, so you haven't bothered trying that is what you're saying. Instead you figured, I'll just complain about the entire law. How lazy of you.
> 
> And just to reiterate, no real choice has been taken away. Insurance plans have always covered services that people don't use.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're so lazy that you want to live off of your fellow citizens, and you're going to complain that Zoom is "lazy" because he's not changing a law that he has NO power to change?
Click to expand...


She's not talking about the portion she doesn't like. She's being lazy and complaining about the entire law. You should know about being lazy. You do it all the time when you argue something and *attempt* to make your points.


----------



## emilynghiem

RDD_1210 said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *You want to deny access to health insurance for millions of people because there might be something on your policy you may not need.*
> 
> And I'm the loser?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you twit.  I want people to be able to have the choice of whether they need all that coverage for themselves.  Key word:  CHOICE.  Dear God, I really needed to spell that out for you??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So why aren't you advocating for that portion of the law to be fixed? You're not advocating that the whole law should be repealed?
Click to expand...


Hi RDD
After asking around, I found out there are people who 
A. want to repeal the whole thing since fed govt should never pass it in that form at all
B. want to keep the ACA and revise it to correct the problems or conflicts as one policy
C. want to change the ACA to be "optional" (opt in or opt out) 
and let groups fix their own version of it
D. want to keep the ACA and make it optional for some but mandatory for others
E. want to keep it mandatory for everyone and have no one opt out at all
(this is argued as either wanting to force it to crash, either because people want to
go back to before ACA, or people want to force it into singlepayer govt control)

For A
1. some people's Constitutional beliefs are such and won't change, just what they believe
2. some people don't trust the people advocating ACA and why they want none of it at all

Out of respect for people's beliefs, I refrain from judging anyone for why they
believe or don't believe one way or another; I just ask them to take responsibility
for whichever way they do believe and don't impose that on people of other beliefs.

So I believe in C, where participation is voluntary by party membership
but propose D for people who want it to be mandatory to be under that.


----------



## P@triot

Come Dumbocrats, start brainstorming so ways to spin this one! 

Minor Detail: Woman who nearly fainted at WH not actually enrolled in Obamacare


----------



## Zoom-boing

RDD_1210 said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, so you haven't bothered trying that is what you're saying. Instead you figured, I'll just complain about the entire law. How lazy of you.
> 
> And just to reiterate, *no real choice has been taken away. Insurance plans have always covered services that people don't use*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Individual catastrophic plan_ prior to (un)aca did not mandate coverage for maternity, newborn, pediatric care (including vision and dental).  You could choose to have this coverage or not.
> 
> Now individual catastrophic plan must include this coverage.  No choice.  No longer can you choose what you need covered, you must have what the gov't says.  Doesn't matter if you switch insurance companies/policies.  Prior to (un)aca, individual decided; after (un)aca gov't decides.
> 
> Freedom of choice lost thanks to obama and dems.
> 
> Continuing derping.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See, how hard is that to talk about a specific portion that you don't like? Nope, you'd rather be a lazy asshole and try and repeal the entire law.
> 
> Continuing being lazy.
Click to expand...


You're not too bright, are you?  I've been talking specifically about this and _you_ say I'm talking about repealing the entire law. 

Leftists, can't clean the stupid off of them.  

Fact:  Freedom of choice lost due to obama and dems.


----------



## Seawytch

Rottweiler said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is still *no* "personal responsibility" here _stupid_. A person who couldn't afford insurance before Obamacare still can't afford it after Obamacare. As Obama himself said, "mandating that people who can't afford health insurance purchase health insurance is as stupid as mandating that people who can't afford a house purchase a house to solve homelessness" (how hilarious is it that this asshole contradicts himself in EVERYTHING - just like his hard stance that raising the debt ceiling is "a failure of leadership", "unpatriotic", and "irresponsible" - which gets your panties in a bunch every time).
> 
> I'm still paying for someone else's healthcare. Only now I'm paying the wasteful government as opposed to the hospital.
> 
> Nobody knows how to take stupid to a whole new level quite like wytchey...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When we paid for others healthcare before the ACA, we did it in the most inefficient, ineffective and expensive way possible. Work smarter, not harder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem is - you Dumbocrats won't work at all. Your inability to pay your bills is *not* my responsibility. It really is that simple SW.
> 
> You can deliver of us all of the sob stories that you want, but it doesn't change anything. You cannot tell me where the origin of my debt to your wants and needs arises from and there is a reason for that. Because you parasites are flat out in the wrong.
Click to expand...


Right...it's only Democrats that refuse to get insurance...that must be why the GOP dreamed up the individual mandate.


----------



## Zoom-boing

RDD_1210 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, so you haven't bothered trying that is what you're saying. Instead you figured, I'll just complain about the entire law. How lazy of you.
> 
> And just to reiterate, no real choice has been taken away. Insurance plans have always covered services that people don't use.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're so lazy that you want to live off of your fellow citizens, and you're going to complain that Zoom is "lazy" because he's not changing a law that he has NO power to change?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *She's not talking about the portion she doesn't like. She's being lazy and complaining about the entire law. *You should know about being lazy. You do it all the time when you argue something and *attempt* to make your points.
Click to expand...


Stupid and a liar.  I've talked about the loss of freedom of choice and people with pre-existing conditions not having to pay more, even though they are a higher risk.

My first post in this thread:



Zoom-boing said:


> You're serious, aren't you?
> 
> The freedom of choice was lost.  The freedom to choose not to have maternity, newborn, pediatric care (including vision and dental) included in one's coverage because they are a 55 year old, single guy with no kids.  The freedom to choose to keep your individual catastrophic health insurance plan that you have had for years was taken away.  Why?  Because it wasn't (un)aca compliant ... it didn't include coverage for maternity, newborn, pediatric care (including vision and dental).  The freedom to choose a plan that fit one's needs, rather than a plan that fit someone else's needs, was taken away.  The freedom to keep healthy and pay a lower rate is gone.  Now people with pre-existing conditions don't pay more for their coverage, even though they are a higher risk.
> 
> You're another stupid leftist who can't see the forest for the trees.


----------



## P@triot

Seawytch said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> When we paid for others healthcare before the ACA, we did it in the most inefficient, ineffective and expensive way possible. Work smarter, not harder.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is - you Dumbocrats won't work at all. Your inability to pay your bills is *not* my responsibility. It really is that simple SW.
> 
> You can deliver of us all of the sob stories that you want, but it doesn't change anything. You cannot tell me where the origin of my debt to your wants and needs arises from and there is a reason for that. Because you parasites are flat out in the wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right...it's only Democrats that refuse to get insurance...that must be why the GOP dreamed up the individual mandate.
Click to expand...


No [MENTION=24452]Seawytch[/MENTION] - but it is only Democrats who expect someone else to pick up the bills.

The only thing I've ever advocated is to be left the hell alone, for people to take personal responsibility, and for the federal government to be forced to abide by the Constitution as they are legally bound to be. Gasp! 

And for those basic American principles, your side considers me a "monster". Kind if speaks volumes, doesn't it?

Now what have *you* asked for? For every person - regardless of circumstance - to have all meals provided to them if they wish. For every person - regardless of circumstance - to have housing provided to them if they wish. For every person - regardless of circumstance - to have all healthcare needs provided to them if they wish. For every person - regardless of circumstance - to have all transportation provided to them if they wish. For every person - regardless of circumstance - to have all education provided to them if they wish. And for the federal government to trample the rights of any person and violate the law in order to achieve those desires.

Again, kind of speaks volumes, doesn't it?


----------



## francoHFW

Read something fer chrissake- brainwashed and clueless is a horrible thing...

Pubs underfunded the website and insurers are also obstructing in red states- something will have to be tinkered with...today the penalty date was moved back 6 weeks...the hater dupes seem to think dems are trying to screw people lol...


----------



## Geaux4it

Jeez.. Bay of Pigs was more successful than this 3 ring circus called Obamacare

-Geaux


----------



## francoHFW

Everyone ALREADY HAS HEALTH CARE PROVIDED, JUST IN THE STUPIDEST, CRUELEST, MOST EXPENSIVE WAY, FER CHRISSAKE.


----------



## Geaux4it

francoHFW said:


> Everyone ALREADY HAS HEALTH CARE PROVIDED, JUST IN THE STUPIDEST, CRUELEST, MOST EXPENSIVE WAY, FER CHRISSAKE.



Not for 300,000 terminated policies in Florida. There are now more uninsured as a result of Obamacare than what the system was suppose to fix

What happens when one of those who have been terminated need medical care? Oh, that's right, there suppose to sign up for Obamacare on a site that doesn't work

-Geaux


----------



## francoHFW

When do they cancel....

When does THIS O-care START, HATER DUPE...Seems to be ANOTHER insurer problem, like for the last 50 years, hunh...


----------



## Geaux4it

Dear  xxxxxx 

Thank you for contacting me to express your views regarding health reform. I appreciate hearing from you and welcome the opportunity to respond. 

I support the Affordable Care Act (ACA), health reform legislation signed into law by President Obama in 2010. The ACA creates important new benefits for health insurance consumers, expands access to care, and protects Medicare while reducing the federal deficit.  

The ACA makes it easier for people to shop for health insurance plans and protects consumers from some of the most egregious abuses by health insurance companies. For example, the law prohibits insurers from denying coverage, charging higher premiums, or refusing reimbursement for the millions of people who have pre-existing health conditions like cancer, diabetes, or asthma. The law also stops insurance companies from setting annual or lifetime limits on coverage, allows young adults to stay on their parents' health insurance until age 26, and requires new insurance plans to cover preventive health care such as mammograms and diabetes screenings without  a co -pay.  

Under the ACA, individuals who get insurance through an employer or Medicare can continue to receive this coverage. In addition, the law creates new  health insurance marketplaces through which individuals  who do not have access to affordable insurance or who want to explore new insurance options can shop for coverage. California's health insurance marketplace is known as Covered California, and is online now at CoveredCA.com. On this website, individuals can compare plans, find out if they qualify for subsidies to reduce the cost of coverage, and enroll in a plan of their choice. For your information, I have attached a fact sheet that provides more information about Covered California and the Affordable Care Act.  

Although I support the many new consumer protections and preventive health benefits created as part of the Affordable Care Act, I recognize that the law remains controversial. Please know that I have made note of your views and will keep them in mind as I continue to monitor the implementation of the Affordable Care Act. Should have any further comments or questions, please feel free to contact my Washington, D.C. office at (202) 224-3841. Best regards. 

Sincerely yours,


  Dianne Feinstein
         United States Senator


----------



## Seawytch

Rottweiler said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is - you Dumbocrats won't work at all. Your inability to pay your bills is *not* my responsibility. It really is that simple SW.
> 
> You can deliver of us all of the sob stories that you want, but it doesn't change anything. You cannot tell me where the origin of my debt to your wants and needs arises from and there is a reason for that. Because you parasites are flat out in the wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right...it's only Democrats that refuse to get insurance...that must be why the GOP dreamed up the individual mandate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No [MENTION=24452]Seawytch[/MENTION] - but it is only Democrats who expect someone else to pick up the bills.
> 
> The only thing I've ever advocated is to be left the hell alone, for people to take personal responsibility, and for the federal government to be forced to abide by the Constitution as they are legally bound to be. Gasp!
> 
> And for those basic American principles, your side considers me a "monster". Kind if speaks volumes, doesn't it?
> 
> Now what have *you* asked for? For every person - regardless of circumstance - to have all meals provided to them if they wish. For every person - regardless of circumstance - to have housing provided to them if they wish. For every person - regardless of circumstance - to have all healthcare needs provided to them if they wish. For every person - regardless of circumstance - to have all transportation provided to them if they wish. For every person - regardless of circumstance - to have all education provided to them if they wish. And for the federal government to trample the rights of any person and violate the law in order to achieve those desires.
> 
> Again, kind of speaks volumes, doesn't it?
Click to expand...



Puppy, I'm sure this won't do any good, but I'll try to make this as simple as I can so you can grasp it. I'll even promise to type really slowly for you. 

Before the ACA most people got their insurance through their employer or spouses employer. That hasn't changed. Also before the ACA a small percentage of people purchased their own insurance, but usually from a very small pool of providers. That did change with the ACA. Those individuals can purchase their insurance from an exchange with a larger pool of providers. What they are finding is that this competition has lowered premium prices for those individuals.

Now, we also had a small percentage of people that would not purchase insurance. These are the people that think they can't get sick or get into an accident. When something happens to these people, those of us with insurance pay for them. The ACA requires that these people purchase insurance, be personally responsible.

Finally there is a small percentage of Americans that did not have insurance because they couldn't. Maybe they had a pre-existing condition that prevented them from getting insurance or maybe they just simply couldn't afford it. These folks are the ones that clog county hospitals and emergency rooms. They didn't get preventative care so they would ignore problems until they reached a point where the treatment is more expensive or it is too late to do anything about the individuals health. Now, with the ACA these people get subsidies to purchase insurance. Yes, we are still paying for these individuals, but we aren't paying for their care, we're helping pay for their insurance so that when or if they do get sick, they get to go to a doctor right away and the *insurance* pays for their care. This saves the government, the taxpayer, money...lots of it. 

Yes, I do believe that Education and Health Care are a right not a privilege that should be the same for each and every American. I make no bones about my desire for a single payer system, but that's not the system we have and I won't let perfect be the enemy of good.


----------



## Zoom-boing

Geaux4it said:


> Dear  xxxxxx
> 
> Thank you for contacting me to express your views regarding health reform. I appreciate hearing from you and welcome the opportunity to respond.
> 
> I support the Affordable Care Act (ACA), health reform legislation signed into law by President Obama in 2010. The ACA creates important new benefits for health insurance consumers (while failing to provide consumer choice in whether they want some of these new benefits), expands access to care, and protects Medicare while reducing the federal deficit (counting chickens? the fat lady hasn't sung yet).
> 
> The ACA makes it easier for people to shop for health insurance plans (if you can access the website) and protects consumers from some of the most egregious abuses by health insurance companies. For example, the law prohibits insurers from denying coverage (this is a good thing), charging higher premiums (this is complete bullshit.  higher risk people SHOULD pay a higher rate), or refusing reimbursement for the millions of people who have pre-existing health conditions like cancer, diabetes, or asthma (again, no problem). The law also stops insurance companies from setting annual or lifetime limits on coverage (a good thing, although it will raise costs), allows young adults to stay on their parents' health insurance until age 26 (this will keep the parents premiums higher; why aren't they consistent with their numbers?  17 and up on income tax is not considered a child, 26 and under on health insurance is), and requires new insurance plans to cover preventive health care such as mammograms and diabetes screenings without  a co -pay (one of the reasons premiums are so expensive is because they cover everything under the sun.  Dumb. Try covering oil changes and inspections for your car and see what happens to your premiums.  You'd spend less money if you paid for a mammogram or other testing out of pocket on an as-needed basis, vs paying for it in premiums.)
> 
> Under the ACA, individuals who get insurance through an employer or Medicare can continue to receive this coverage. In addition, the law creates new  health insurance marketplaces through which individuals  who do not have access to affordable insurance or who want to explore new insurance options can shop for coverage (the website is a snafu). California's health insurance marketplace is known as Covered California, and is online now at CoveredCA.com. On this website, individuals can compare plans, find out if they qualify for subsidies (someone else footing the bill) to reduce the cost of coverage, and enroll in a plan of their choice (notice how you can't get a freaking price for this without signing in and providing very personal information?  that is bullshit.) For your information, I have attached a fact sheet that provides more information about Covered California and the Affordable Care Act (affordable? well, I suppose it is if you get someone else to pay for your ass).
> 
> Although I support the many new consumer protections and preventive health benefits created as part of the Affordable Care Act, I recognize that the law remains controversial (gee, _yathink??_) . Please know that I have made note of your views and will keep them in mind as I continue to monitor the implementation of the Affordable Care Act. Should have any further comments or questions, please feel free to contact my Washington, D.C. office at (202) 224-3841. Best regards.
> 
> Sincerely yours,
> 
> 
> Dianne Feinstein
> United States Senator



Well, isn't she special?


----------



## Geaux4it

Seawytch said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right...it's only Democrats that refuse to get insurance...that must be why the GOP dreamed up the individual mandate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No [MENTION=24452]Seawytch[/MENTION] - but it is only Democrats who expect someone else to pick up the bills.
> 
> The only thing I've ever advocated is to be left the hell alone, for people to take personal responsibility, and for the federal government to be forced to abide by the Constitution as they are legally bound to be. Gasp!
> 
> And for those basic American principles, your side considers me a "monster". Kind if speaks volumes, doesn't it?
> 
> Now what have *you* asked for? For every person - regardless of circumstance - to have all meals provided to them if they wish. For every person - regardless of circumstance - to have housing provided to them if they wish. For every person - regardless of circumstance - to have all healthcare needs provided to them if they wish. For every person - regardless of circumstance - to have all transportation provided to them if they wish. For every person - regardless of circumstance - to have all education provided to them if they wish. And for the federal government to trample the rights of any person and violate the law in order to achieve those desires.
> 
> Again, kind of speaks volumes, doesn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Puppy, I'm sure this won't do any good, but I'll try to make this as simple as I can so you can grasp it. I'll even promise to type really slowly for you.
> 
> Before the ACA most people got their insurance through their employer or spouses employer. That hasn't changed. Also before the ACA a small percentage of people purchased their own insurance, but usually from a very small pool of providers. That did change with the ACA. Those individuals can purchase their insurance from an exchange with a larger pool of providers. What they are finding is that this competition has lowered premium prices for those individuals.
> 
> Now, we also had a small percentage of people that would not purchase insurance. These are the people that think they can't get sick or get into an accident. When something happens to these people, those of us with insurance pay for them. The ACA requires that these people purchase insurance, be personally responsible.
> 
> Finally there is a small percentage of Americans that did not have insurance because they couldn't. Maybe they had a pre-existing condition that prevented them from getting insurance or maybe they just simply couldn't afford it. These folks are the ones that clog county hospitals and emergency rooms. They didn't get preventative care so they would ignore problems until they reached a point where the treatment is more expensive or it is too late to do anything about the individuals health. Now, with the ACA these people get subsidies to purchase insurance. Yes, we are still paying for these individuals, but we aren't paying for their care, we're helping pay for their insurance so that when or if they do get sick, they get to go to a doctor right away and the *insurance* pays for their care. This saves the government, the taxpayer, money...lots of it.
> 
> Yes, I do believe that Education and Health Care are a right not a privilege that should be the same for each and every American. I make no bones about my desire for a single payer system, but that's not the system we have and I won't let perfect be the enemy of good.
Click to expand...


There is a smaller pool of providers not larger, and this is due to the elimination of competition from out of state providers. So, Johnny in Vermont can't shop for a premium which meets their individual needs, that may be provided at the cost they seek, but its in Alabama. The needs, and where you shop, are determined by the government.  That is not a good thing

-Geaux


----------



## Seawytch

Geaux4it said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> No [MENTION=24452]Seawytch[/MENTION] - but it is only Democrats who expect someone else to pick up the bills.
> 
> The only thing I've ever advocated is to be left the hell alone, for people to take personal responsibility, and for the federal government to be forced to abide by the Constitution as they are legally bound to be. Gasp!
> 
> And for those basic American principles, your side considers me a "monster". Kind if speaks volumes, doesn't it?
> 
> Now what have *you* asked for? For every person - regardless of circumstance - to have all meals provided to them if they wish. For every person - regardless of circumstance - to have housing provided to them if they wish. For every person - regardless of circumstance - to have all healthcare needs provided to them if they wish. For every person - regardless of circumstance - to have all transportation provided to them if they wish. For every person - regardless of circumstance - to have all education provided to them if they wish. And for the federal government to trample the rights of any person and violate the law in order to achieve those desires.
> 
> Again, kind of speaks volumes, doesn't it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Puppy, I'm sure this won't do any good, but I'll try to make this as simple as I can so you can grasp it. I'll even promise to type really slowly for you.
> 
> Before the ACA most people got their insurance through their employer or spouses employer. That hasn't changed. Also before the ACA a small percentage of people purchased their own insurance, but usually from a very small pool of providers. That did change with the ACA. Those individuals can purchase their insurance from an exchange with a larger pool of providers. What they are finding is that this competition has lowered premium prices for those individuals.
> 
> Now, we also had a small percentage of people that would not purchase insurance. These are the people that think they can't get sick or get into an accident. When something happens to these people, those of us with insurance pay for them. The ACA requires that these people purchase insurance, be personally responsible.
> 
> Finally there is a small percentage of Americans that did not have insurance because they couldn't. Maybe they had a pre-existing condition that prevented them from getting insurance or maybe they just simply couldn't afford it. These folks are the ones that clog county hospitals and emergency rooms. They didn't get preventative care so they would ignore problems until they reached a point where the treatment is more expensive or it is too late to do anything about the individuals health. Now, with the ACA these people get subsidies to purchase insurance. Yes, we are still paying for these individuals, but we aren't paying for their care, we're helping pay for their insurance so that when or if they do get sick, they get to go to a doctor right away and the *insurance* pays for their care. This saves the government, the taxpayer, money...lots of it.
> 
> Yes, I do believe that Education and Health Care are a right not a privilege that should be the same for each and every American. I make no bones about my desire for a single payer system, but that's not the system we have and I won't let perfect be the enemy of good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is a smaller pool of providers not larger, and this is due to the elimination of competition from out of state providers. So, Johnny in Vermont can't shop for a premium which meets their individual needs, that may be provided at the cost they seek, but its in Alabama. The needs, and where you shop, are determined by the government.  That is not a good thing
> 
> -Geaux
Click to expand...


They couldn't sell across state lines BEFORE the ACA so there is no "elimination of competition". The exchanges are creating competition. 

Oh, and there IS a provision in the ACA that allows sales across state lines. Bet you didn't know that did you?


----------



## emilynghiem

Seawytch said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Puppy, I'm sure this won't do any good, but I'll try to make this as simple as I can so you can grasp it. I'll even promise to type really slowly for you.
> 
> Before the ACA most people got their insurance through their employer or spouses employer. That hasn't changed. Also before the ACA a small percentage of people purchased their own insurance, but usually from a very small pool of providers. That did change with the ACA. Those individuals can purchase their insurance from an exchange with a larger pool of providers. What they are finding is that this competition has lowered premium prices for those individuals.
> 
> Now, we also had a small percentage of people that would not purchase insurance. These are the people that think they can't get sick or get into an accident. When something happens to these people, those of us with insurance pay for them. The ACA requires that these people purchase insurance, be personally responsible.
> 
> Finally there is a small percentage of Americans that did not have insurance because they couldn't. Maybe they had a pre-existing condition that prevented them from getting insurance or maybe they just simply couldn't afford it. These folks are the ones that clog county hospitals and emergency rooms. They didn't get preventative care so they would ignore problems until they reached a point where the treatment is more expensive or it is too late to do anything about the individuals health. Now, with the ACA these people get subsidies to purchase insurance. Yes, we are still paying for these individuals, but we aren't paying for their care, we're helping pay for their insurance so that when or if they do get sick, they get to go to a doctor right away and the *insurance* pays for their care. This saves the government, the taxpayer, money...lots of it.
> 
> Yes, I do believe that Education and Health Care are a right not a privilege that should be the same for each and every American. I make no bones about my desire for a single payer system, but that's not the system we have and I won't let perfect be the enemy of good.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is a smaller pool of providers not larger, and this is due to the elimination of competition from out of state providers. So, Johnny in Vermont can't shop for a premium which meets their individual needs, that may be provided at the cost they seek, but its in Alabama. The needs, and where you shop, are determined by the government.  That is not a good thing
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They couldn't sell across state lines BEFORE the ACA so there is no "elimination of competition". The exchanges are creating competition.
> 
> Oh, and there IS a provision in the ACA that allows sales across state lines. Bet you didn't know that did you?
Click to expand...


News for you Seawytch: Once you add a bunch of bureaucracy to the process, only companies who can afford lawyers can keep up with those who do. That's why many smaller medical practices had to close down because they couldn't hire staff or lawyers to follow the govt process for getting paid. Wake up, honey!

A. for those who benefit like Aetna or other companies that can survive while other companies bail out, they will deal with this
B. for those who wanted singlepayer and understand this step will force companies out and more control into the federal govt programs, they put up with this too

Please be honest that you are one who will benefit from B so you support this. The sooner you get where this is going you can help your fellow advocates so the system doesn't crash but you can transition to your single payer plan. If you don't see the roof coming down, you are wasting your time you could be using to build your next house to move into. so get going. if you support this transition then you are responsible for where it's going. these activists need help to organize if they will successfully set up singlepayer for themselves.

If any companies survive under A, they will either be so big they can accommodate for losses and bureaucratic red tape during the transition while others cannot, or they will be so insular like USAA* they can keep managing their own base, or like charity/nonprofit health coops that operate independently anyway so long as they "qualify for exemption or for state innovations" etc. Again, only if you have LEGAL RESOURCES to make sure you fit the law. Do you realize how exhaustive that is? Do you have any clue how much companies have had to spend on legal departments to decide whether to comply or drop out? ???

*(USAA was always for military families only, didn't need federal govt to tell them how to run their business, and they have direct contacts, reps, and LOBBYISTS working with Congress/govt to make sure no changes were made to the law they couldn't handle. how many companies have that kind of support and resources to protect their business? so this is forcing out the smaller businesses and individuals who they serve who DON'T have that kind of protection.)

Very few will not be affected, honey. So please don't waste time arguing with people who don't approve. The people who want a smoother transition to single payer need supporters like you to make it work. You need to start pooling your resources together to make sure you get what you want before the govt messes it up worse. Get involved


----------



## emilynghiem

Rottweiler said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is - you Dumbocrats won't work at all. Your inability to pay your bills is *not* my responsibility. It really is that simple SW.
> 
> You can deliver of us all of the sob stories that you want, but it doesn't change anything. You cannot tell me where the origin of my debt to your wants and needs arises from and there is a reason for that. Because you parasites are flat out in the wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right...it's only Democrats that refuse to get insurance...that must be why the GOP dreamed up the individual mandate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No [MENTION=24452]Seawytch[/MENTION] - but it is only Democrats who expect someone else to pick up the bills.
> 
> The only thing I've ever advocated is to be left the hell alone, for people to take personal responsibility, and for the federal government to be forced to abide by the Constitution as they are legally bound to be. Gasp!
> 
> And for those basic American principles, your side considers me a "monster". Kind if speaks volumes, doesn't it?
> 
> Now what have *you* asked for? For every person - regardless of circumstance - to have all meals provided to them if they wish. For every person - regardless of circumstance - to have housing provided to them if they wish. For every person - regardless of circumstance - to have all healthcare needs provided to them if they wish. For every person - regardless of circumstance - to have all transportation provided to them if they wish. For every person - regardless of circumstance - to have all education provided to them if they wish. And for the federal government to trample the rights of any person and violate the law in order to achieve those desires.
> 
> Again, kind of speaks volumes, doesn't it?
Click to expand...


Dear Rottweiler: I agree in the people pushing this to pay for it themselves and they'd have no opposition. the billions Democrats spend on campaigns could go directly here. if they would have listened to the Greens even Pres candidate Jill Stein and health care/currency coop trainer Paul Glover, they'd be done by now.

I have friends who are pushing singlepayer and where we disagree is I think THEY should foot the bill for this transition stage if they believe it is necessary.

the most I could find is some antiwarspending activists willing to push to collect back on abused war contracts, get taxpayers reimbursed millions of dollars, and use that to fund reforms. so it doesn't have to be any new taxes, but can be payback from taxmoney that corrupt corporate/govt dealings cost taxpayers in the past. and these politicians/lawyers could be hired on commission to collect that on public behalf for investing in health care.


----------



## emilynghiem

Dear RDD and Rottweiler:
I hope we are past the slamming which was interfering with making your points.

Here is more about losing free choice:
http://news.yahoo.com/why-obamacare-individual-mandate-isn-t-going-away-101606061--politics.html

Basically, people are now required to register and report to govt "proof of insurance" and/or *PROVE they meet the requirements that are RESTRICTED BY RELIGION* (ie if you want to be "exempted" and "pay for your own health care without insurance" you must be a "member of a religious group or organization in existence since 1999 where the members share their medical expenses").  So paying for your own  health care yourself or through family or church does NOT count as a qualified registered religious organization and you are not exempted because you don't meet "religious requirements set by govt."

How is that NOT regulating or discriminating by religion?

The govt goes through this with conscientious objectors who refuse service or go AWOL
and it's a mess fighting those arguments with govt but necessary for the defense policies.

This was NOT NECESSARY to impose new legislation that introduces religious regulation!

So me and others are losing our freedom to pay for our own care without reporting to govt or be fined a higher tax than we can afford.

We are losing rights or freedom without "due process" to PROVE we had committed a crime or abuse first. How is wanting to pay for your own health care a CRIME?

Is this more clear?


----------



## P@triot

Seawytch said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right...it's only Democrats that refuse to get insurance...that must be why the GOP dreamed up the individual mandate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No  [MENTION=24452]Seawytch[/MENTION] - but it is only Democrats who expect someone else to pick up the bills.
> 
> The only thing I've ever advocated is to be left the hell alone, for people to take personal responsibility, and for the federal government to be forced to abide by the Constitution as they are legally bound to be. Gasp!
> 
> And for those basic American principles, your side considers me a "monster". Kind if speaks volumes, doesn't it?
> 
> Now what have *you* asked for? For every person - regardless of circumstance - to have all meals provided to them if they wish. For every person - regardless of circumstance - to have housing provided to them if they wish. For every person - regardless of circumstance - to have all healthcare needs provided to them if they wish. For every person - regardless of circumstance - to have all transportation provided to them if they wish. For every person - regardless of circumstance - to have all education provided to them if they wish. And for the federal government to trample the rights of any person and violate the law in order to achieve those desires.
> 
> Again, kind of speaks volumes, doesn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Before the ACA most people got their insurance through their employer or spouses employer. That hasn't changed*.
Click to expand...


Once again, Seawytch displays her profound ignorance for the world...

Are these people still getting their insurance through their employer or spouses employer?
UPS Dropping Spouses Health Coverage - Business Insider

Are these people still getting their insurance through their employer or spouses employer?
Hospital Staff Under The Knife: Layoffs Pick Up As ObamaCare Looms - Investors.com

Are these people still getting their insurance through their employer or spouses employer?
Citing Obamacare, Cleveland Clinic to Cut $300M, Warns of Layoffs - US News and World Report

Are these people still getting their insurance through their employer or spouses employer?
Bonnie Doon Ice Cream blames Obamacare for plant shutdown - Fox 28: South Bend, Elkhart IN News, Weather, Sports

Are these people still getting their insurance through their employer or spouses employer?
Medical Company Smith & Nephew Lays Off Almost 100 People, Blames Obamacare

Are these people still getting their insurance through their employer or spouses employer?
Hospitals Suffering From Mass Layoffs Thanks to Obamacare - Katie Pavlich

You're right about one thing though [MENTION=24452]Seawytch[/MENTION] - you're definitely _not_ allowing "perfect to be the enemy of good". Hell, you're not even allowing shitty to be the enemy of catstrophic. And Obamacare has literally been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to be catastrophic . But all you know is that it was supported by a Dumbocrat, so you will play the loyal little lap dog and support it too - even in the face of all evidence which indicates it catastrophic.


----------



## P@triot

Seawytch said:


> Yes, I do believe that Education and Health Care are a right not a privilege that should be the same for each and every American.



This is astounding stupidity on a level I can't even begin to fathom. It's literally the equivalent of saying "I believe the world is flat" or "I believe that fire does not exist".

You don't get to "believe" what is a right and what isn't. Rights are explicitly spelled out in the U.S. Constitution and healthcare or education is *not* one of them.

Do you understand that you cannot make something which requires money to be a right because rights are guaranteed and you cannot guarantee money on someone else's behalf?

Do you understand that your rights *end* where mine begin and therefore you have absolutely zero grounds to force me to pay for someone else's needs or wants?

Of course you don't understand these things because you truly are painfully _stupid_. You're an immature, *idealistic*, fuck'n child. Of course it would be wonderful if every American could have the best healthcare in the world for free. But mature adults take that dream, examine all of the ideas/options to make it come to fruition, and them come to the scientific conclusion that it is _literally_ impossible. It can't be "free" and you have no right to force someone else to pay for it. It really is that simple (and how frightening that you can't grasp something that simple).


----------



## Billo_Really

Rottweiler said:


> This is astounding stupidity on a level I can't even begin to fathom. It's literally the equivalent of saying "I believe the world is flat" or "I believe that fire does not exist".
> 
> You don't get to "believe" what is a right and what isn't. Rights are explicitly spelled out in the U.S. Constitution and healthcare or education is *not* one of them.
> 
> Do you understand that you cannot make something which requires money to be a right because rights are guaranteed and you cannot guarantee money on someone else's behalf?
> 
> Do you understand that your rights *end* where mine begin and therefore you have absolutely zero grounds to force me to pay for someone else's needs or wants?
> 
> Of course you don't understand these things because you truly are painfully _stupid_. You're an immature, *idealistic*, fuck'n child. Of course it would be wonderful if every American could have the best healthcare in the world for free. But mature adults take that dream, examine all of the ideas/options to make it come to fruition, and them come to the scientific conclusion that it is _literally_ impossible. It can't be "free" and you have no right to force someone else to pay for it. It really is that simple (and how frightening that you can't grasp something that simple).


If you think it's okay to charge someone $37,000 for a one night stay in the hospital, then it's also okay for someone to get health insurance for free.  Your position is, if they're allowed to do it, then it's none of your god-damn business.

Door swings both ways, fuckhead!


----------



## P@triot

Billo_Really said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is astounding stupidity on a level I can't even begin to fathom. It's literally the equivalent of saying "I believe the world is flat" or "I believe that fire does not exist".
> 
> You don't get to "believe" what is a right and what isn't. Rights are explicitly spelled out in the U.S. Constitution and healthcare or education is *not* one of them.
> 
> Do you understand that you cannot make something which requires money to be a right because rights are guaranteed and you cannot guarantee money on someone else's behalf?
> 
> Do you understand that your rights *end* where mine begin and therefore you have absolutely zero grounds to force me to pay for someone else's needs or wants?
> 
> Of course you don't understand these things because you truly are painfully _stupid_. You're an immature, *idealistic*, fuck'n child. Of course it would be wonderful if every American could have the best healthcare in the world for free. But mature adults take that dream, examine all of the ideas/options to make it come to fruition, and them come to the scientific conclusion that it is _literally_ impossible. It can't be "free" and you have no right to force someone else to pay for it. It really is that simple (and how frightening that you can't grasp something that simple).
> 
> 
> 
> If you think it's okay to charge someone $37,000 for a one night stay in the hospital, then it's also okay for someone to get health insurance for free.  Your position is, if they're allowed to do it, then it's none of your god-damn business.
> 
> Door swings both ways, fuckhead!
Click to expand...


Well, for a homo like you, the "door swings both ways" (just like your anus). However, what someone so profoundly stupid as you [MENTION=2873]Billo_Really[/MENTION] doesn't understand is that it's *not* "free". Forcing someone else to pay for it (slavery) doesn't make the service "free". It's just paid for through slavery.

How dumb are you exactly? 

Now, there are plenty of physicians who perform their labor for free as charitable acts. And I applaud and support that 100%. Because it's not slavery, it's of that clinicians own *free* *will*.

Watching your meltdown after meltdown because I'm owning you with facts is absolutely priceless. Truly. I have gotten more laughs from your posts these past two days than I've had all week. Thank you for that.


----------



## Billo_Really

Rottweiler said:


> Well, for a homo like you, the "door swings both ways" (just like your anus). However, what someone so profoundly stupid as you [MENTION=2873]Billo_Really[/MENTION] doesn't understand is that it's *not* "free". Forcing someone else to pay for it (slavery) doesn't make the service "free". It's just paid for through slavery.
> 
> How dumb are you exactly?
> 
> Now, there are plenty of physicians who perform their labor for free as charitable acts. And I applaud and support that 100%. Because it's not slavery, it's of that clinicians own *free* *will*.
> 
> Watching your meltdown after meltdown because I'm owning you with facts is absolutely priceless. Truly. I have gotten more laughs from your posts these past two days than I've had all week. Thank you for that.


You're not "owning with facts".  I've got to pull up my pant legs everytime I read your posts so I don't get them dirty in case you have a heavy flow.

If you think it's okay to throw $4 trillion away on that bullshit Iraq war, then shut your whiney little bitchy ass regarding the ACA.

And fuck you with your "free" shit!  If you go to anyone of the exchanges, they got about 30 plans to pick from and they all cost money to the one being insured.  Even the ones with a $0 per year premium, have a $5000 deductable.  So no one is getting anything for free, dumbass!


----------



## Sarah G

It's not a failure and it isn't going anywhere.  You all should know by now, Rs have tried to repeal it 40 times.  

It's here to stay.  Yay.


----------



## Billo_Really

Sarah G said:


> It's not a failure and it isn't going anywhere.  You all should know by now, Rs have tried to repeal it 40 times.
> 
> It's here to stay.  Yay.


The right is afraid it's going to get as popular as Medicare.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Rottweiler said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is - you Dumbocrats won't work at all. Your inability to pay your bills is *not* my responsibility. It really is that simple SW.
> 
> You can deliver of us all of the sob stories that you want, but it doesn't change anything. You cannot tell me where the origin of my debt to your wants and needs arises from and there is a reason for that. Because you parasites are flat out in the wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right...it's only Democrats that refuse to get insurance...that must be why the GOP dreamed up the individual mandate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No [MENTION=24452]Seawytch[/MENTION] - *but it is only Democrats who expect someone else to pick up the bills.*
> ............
Click to expand...


I really wish rw's could explain how buying and paying for your own health care insurance is "expecting someone else to pick of the bills" while Socialist EMTALA that forces insured patients to pay the bills for the uninsured. 

The truth is, lazy rw's like having their bills paid by Ds. If rw's believed in taking personal responsibility, they would be in favor of paying for own health care insurance.


----------



## Sarah G

Billo_Really said:


> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not a failure and it isn't going anywhere.  You all should know by now, Rs have tried to repeal it 40 times.
> 
> It's here to stay.  Yay.
> 
> 
> 
> The right is afraid it's going to get as popular as Medicare.
Click to expand...


Even if by some miracle they take the WH in 2016, so many people will be in the system, they won't be able to do anything at all.  They can't do anything now but whine.


----------



## Sarah G

Luddly Neddite said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right...it's only Democrats that refuse to get insurance...that must be why the GOP dreamed up the individual mandate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No [MENTION=24452]Seawytch[/MENTION] - *but it is only Democrats who expect someone else to pick up the bills.*
> ............
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I really wish rw's could explain how buying and paying for your own health care insurance is "expecting someone else to pick of the bills" while Socialist EMTALA that forces insured patients to pay the bills for the uninsured.
> 
> The truth is, lazy rw's like having their bills paid by Ds. If rw's believed in taking personal responsibility, they would be in favor of paying for own health care insurance.
Click to expand...


God, the way insurance worked before, they had to pick up the slack for those who had no insurance.  Now they complain that people have to pay for their own.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Sarah G said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> No [MENTION=24452]Seawytch[/MENTION] - *but it is only Democrats who expect someone else to pick up the bills.*
> ............
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I really wish rw's could explain how buying and paying for your own health care insurance is "expecting someone else to pick of the bills" while Socialist EMTALA that forces insured patients to pay the bills for the uninsured.
> 
> The truth is, lazy rw's like having their bills paid by Ds. If rw's believed in taking personal responsibility, they would be in favor of paying for own health care insurance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God, the way insurance worked before, they had to pick up the slack for those who had no insurance.  Now they complain that people have to pay for their own.
Click to expand...


Since not one of them knows the definition of "socialism", they also don't understand that paying your own way is pretty much the opposite. 

From reading posts here, I believe they just want to keep the gravy train that pays for their health care.


----------



## jasonnfree

Rottweiler said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is astounding stupidity on a level I can't even begin to fathom. It's literally the equivalent of saying "I believe the world is flat" or "I believe that fire does not exist".
> 
> You don't get to "believe" what is a right and what isn't. Rights are explicitly spelled out in the U.S. Constitution and healthcare or education is *not* one of them.
> 
> Do you understand that you cannot make something which requires money to be a right because rights are guaranteed and you cannot guarantee money on someone else's behalf?
> 
> Do you understand that your rights *end* where mine begin and therefore you have absolutely zero grounds to force me to pay for someone else's needs or wants?
> 
> Of course you don't understand these things because you truly are painfully _stupid_. You're an immature, *idealistic*, fuck'n child. Of course it would be wonderful if every American could have the best healthcare in the world for free. But mature adults take that dream, examine all of the ideas/options to make it come to fruition, and them come to the scientific conclusion that it is _literally_ impossible. It can't be "free" and you have no right to force someone else to pay for it. It really is that simple (and how frightening that you can't grasp something that simple).
> 
> 
> 
> If you think it's okay to charge someone $37,000 for a one night stay in the hospital, then it's also okay for someone to get health insurance for free.  Your position is, if they're allowed to do it, then it's none of your god-damn business.
> 
> Door swings both ways, fuckhead!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, for a homo like you, the "door swings both ways" (just like your anus). However, what someone so profoundly stupid as you [MENTION=2873]Billo_Really[/MENTION] doesn't understand is that it's *not* "free". Forcing someone else to pay for it (slavery) doesn't make the service "free". It's just paid for through slavery.
> 
> How dumb are you exactly?
> 
> Now, there are plenty of physicians who perform their labor for free as charitable acts. And I applaud and support that 100%. Because it's not slavery, it's of that clinicians own *free* *will*.
> 
> Watching your meltdown after meltdown because I'm owning you with facts is absolutely priceless. Truly. I have gotten more laughs from your posts these past two days than I've had all week. Thank you for that.
Click to expand...


If obamacare was really going to be  bad I'd think the right would be happy.   Then they would have something to  run on.  Remember, all you guys have is rick cruz or rand paul.


----------



## P@triot

emilynghiem said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right...it's only Democrats that refuse to get insurance...that must be why the GOP dreamed up the individual mandate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No [MENTION=24452]Seawytch[/MENTION] - but it is only Democrats who expect someone else to pick up the bills.
> 
> The only thing I've ever advocated is to be left the hell alone, for people to take personal responsibility, and for the federal government to be forced to abide by the Constitution as they are legally bound to be. Gasp!
> 
> And for those basic American principles, your side considers me a "monster". Kind if speaks volumes, doesn't it?
> 
> Now what have *you* asked for? For every person - regardless of circumstance - to have all meals provided to them if they wish. For every person - regardless of circumstance - to have housing provided to them if they wish. For every person - regardless of circumstance - to have all healthcare needs provided to them if they wish. For every person - regardless of circumstance - to have all transportation provided to them if they wish. For every person - regardless of circumstance - to have all education provided to them if they wish. And for the federal government to trample the rights of any person and violate the law in order to achieve those desires.
> 
> Again, kind of speaks volumes, doesn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Rottweiler: I agree in the people pushing this to pay for it themselves and they'd have no opposition. the billions Democrats spend on campaigns could go directly here. if they would have listened to the Greens even Pres candidate Jill Stein and health care/currency coop trainer Paul Glover, they'd be done by now.
> 
> I have friends who are pushing singlepayer and where we disagree is I think THEY should foot the bill for this transition stage if they believe it is necessary.
> 
> the most I could find is some antiwarspending activists willing to push to collect back on abused war contracts, get taxpayers reimbursed millions of dollars, and use that to fund reforms. so it doesn't have to be any new taxes, but can be payback from taxmoney that corrupt corporate/govt dealings cost taxpayers in the past. and these politicians/lawyers could be hired on commission to collect that on public behalf for investing in health care.
Click to expand...


While I love the idea of recovering tax dollars that were lost through waste, fraud, and abuse [MENTION=22295]emilynghiem[/MENTION]- keep in mind that the Obamacare nightmare goes a lot further than taxes (if that's all it was, I'd probably bend over and take it as, ultimately, money doesn't mean all that much to me).

But I will *never* bend on the Constitution, rights, or my children's future. Not a day goes by that I don't think about the the unthinkable sacrifices that were made by strangers on my behalf so that I can live the amazing life that I do. The least I can do is uphold what they made that sacrifice for (while, sadly, Dumbocrats piss all over what they made that sacrifice for and do so with contempt towards it).

I will never accept being unconstitutionally forced by the federal government to purchase a good or service. I will never accept redistribution of wealth. And I will never accept socialism/marxism/communism.


----------



## P@triot

Sarah G said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> No [MENTION=24452]Seawytch[/MENTION] - *but it is only Democrats who expect someone else to pick up the bills.*
> ............
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I really wish rw's could explain how buying and paying for your own health care insurance is "expecting someone else to pick of the bills" while Socialist EMTALA that forces insured patients to pay the bills for the uninsured.
> 
> The truth is, lazy rw's like having their bills paid by Ds. If rw's believed in taking personal responsibility, they would be in favor of paying for own health care insurance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God, the way insurance worked before, they had to pick up the slack for those who had no insurance.  Now they complain that people have to pay for their own.
Click to expand...


Oh would you drama queens quit pretending to be so dumb? This little game you are playing is...so....fucking...._obnoxious_ [MENTION=32558]Luddly Neddite[/MENTION] and [MENTION=18645]Sarah G[/MENTION]. You know damn well that people would could not afford health insurance before, *still* cannot afford health insurance.

The difference before was that I was largely shielded from the communism (a diluted portion partially hit me through health insurance and a direct portion hit me _only_ when I had to go to the hospital). But now? Well now I am ass-fucked 24x7 by Obamacare. My taxes have absolutely skyrocketed. It's insane what I've been crushed with to pay for this bill which is not only a disaster, but guarantees free healthcare for the parasites out there.


----------



## P@triot

Sarah G said:


> It's not a failure and it isn't going anywhere.  You all should know by now, Rs have tried to repeal it 40 times.
> 
> It's here to stay.  Yay.



Spoken like a true Dumbocrat (ie a quitter and a failure). To borrow a quote from Thomas Edison: "the Republican's have not failed 40 times - they've just figured out 40 ways to _not_ repeal Obamacare". But the 41st time they do it, may be the magic number to getting Obamacare repealed. Won't you be pissed when that happens? 

I don't have a crystal ball and so I have no idea what will happen tomorrow. But I do know when a Dumbocrat is wetting themselves with concern because they try desperately to convince themselves with false bravado to soothe their own nerves (ie "Obamacare is here to stay - yay"). Sweetie, how can you convince America when you're not even able to convince yourself? 

The one thing you guys have going for you - a very long and very pitiful history of the Republican Party capitulating on your every whim.

The one thing you guys have going against you - the American people are fed up with your shenanigans and bypassed the GOP. They sent the Tea Party to Washington to stop you and they have done one _hell_ of a job so far. If that party grows in size and power, you guys are _so_ fucked.


----------



## Sarah G

Rottweiler said:


> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> I really wish rw's could explain how buying and paying for your own health care insurance is "expecting someone else to pick of the bills" while Socialist EMTALA that forces insured patients to pay the bills for the uninsured.
> 
> The truth is, lazy rw's like having their bills paid by Ds. If rw's believed in taking personal responsibility, they would be in favor of paying for own health care insurance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God, the way insurance worked before, they had to pick up the slack for those who had no insurance.  Now they complain that people have to pay for their own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh would you drama queens quit pretending to be so dumb? This little game you are playing is...so....fucking...._obnoxious_ [MENTION=32558]Luddly Neddite[/MENTION] and [MENTION=18645]Sarah G[/MENTION]. You know damn well that people would could not afford health insurance before, *still* cannot afford health insurance.
> 
> The difference before was that I was largely shielded from the communism (a diluted portion partially hit me through health insurance and a direct portion hit me _only_ when I had to go to the hospital). But now? Well now I am ass-fucked 24x7 by Obamacare. My taxes have absolutely skyrocketed. It's insane what I've been crushed with to pay for this bill which is not only a disaster, but guarantees free healthcare for the parasites out there.
Click to expand...


Iow, you just hate Obama and anything he may have anything to do with?


----------



## Billo_Really

Rottweiler said:


> I will never accept being unconstitutionally forced by the federal government to purchase a good or service. I will never accept redistribution of wealth. And I will never accept socialism/marxism/communism.


You'll never accept growing up and becoming a responsible adult.

Where does it say in the Constitution we're supposed to keep and maintain over a 1000 military bases around the world?  Where does it say it's okay for us to make up bullshit lies to attack sovereign nations that hadn't threatened us?  Where does it say in the Constitution you're allowed to disobey the law?

The ACA is a fucking law!  Yet you got republican controlled states deliberately not setting up their exchanges in violation of that law. Which I suppose you're fine with?  Which means you don't support the Constitution.

And finally, wipe your ass with that "redistribution of wealth" mantra.  You're perfectly okay with redistribution, as long as it's going upwards, not downwards.


----------



## Seawytch

emilynghiem said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is a smaller pool of providers not larger, and this is due to the elimination of competition from out of state providers. So, Johnny in Vermont can't shop for a premium which meets their individual needs, that may be provided at the cost they seek, but its in Alabama. The needs, and where you shop, are determined by the government.  That is not a good thing
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They couldn't sell across state lines BEFORE the ACA so there is no "elimination of competition". The exchanges are creating competition.
> 
> Oh, and there IS a provision in the ACA that allows sales across state lines. Bet you didn't know that did you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> News for you Seawytch: Once you add a bunch of bureaucracy to the process, only companies who can afford lawyers can keep up with those who do. That's why many smaller medical practices had to close down because they couldn't hire staff or lawyers to follow the govt process for getting paid. Wake up, honey!
> 
> A. for those who benefit like Aetna or other companies that can survive while other companies bail out, they will deal with this
> B. for those who wanted singlepayer and understand this step will force companies out and more control into the federal govt programs, they put up with this too
Click to expand...


What are you talking about "honey" and how does it relate to the Affordable Care Act or purchasing insurance across state lines?



> Please be honest that you are one who will benefit from B so you support this. The sooner you get where this is going you can help your fellow advocates so the system doesn't crash but you can transition to your single payer plan. If you don't see the roof coming down, you are wasting your time you could be using to build your next house to move into. so get going. if you support this transition then you are responsible for where it's going. these activists need help to organize if they will successfully set up singlepayer for themselves.



Our country will benefit from single payer, not me personally. I have two employer provided insurance plans that cover me and the family just fine.


----------



## Seawytch

Rottweiler said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> No  [MENTION=24452]Seawytch[/MENTION] - but it is only Democrats who expect someone else to pick up the bills.
> 
> The only thing I've ever advocated is to be left the hell alone, for people to take personal responsibility, and for the federal government to be forced to abide by the Constitution as they are legally bound to be. Gasp!
> 
> And for those basic American principles, your side considers me a "monster". Kind if speaks volumes, doesn't it?
> 
> Now what have *you* asked for? For every person - regardless of circumstance - to have all meals provided to them if they wish. For every person - regardless of circumstance - to have housing provided to them if they wish. For every person - regardless of circumstance - to have all healthcare needs provided to them if they wish. For every person - regardless of circumstance - to have all transportation provided to them if they wish. For every person - regardless of circumstance - to have all education provided to them if they wish. And for the federal government to trample the rights of any person and violate the law in order to achieve those desires.
> 
> Again, kind of speaks volumes, doesn't it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Before the ACA most people got their insurance through their employer or spouses employer. That hasn't changed*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again, Seawytch displays her profound ignorance for the world...
> 
> Are these people still getting their insurance through their employer or spouses employer?
> UPS Dropping Spouses Health Coverage - Business Insider
> 
> Are these people still getting their insurance through their employer or spouses employer?
> Hospital Staff Under The Knife: Layoffs Pick Up As ObamaCare Looms - Investors.com
> 
> Are these people still getting their insurance through their employer or spouses employer?
> Citing Obamacare, Cleveland Clinic to Cut $300M, Warns of Layoffs - US News and World Report
> 
> Are these people still getting their insurance through their employer or spouses employer?
> Bonnie Doon Ice Cream blames Obamacare for plant shutdown - Fox 28: South Bend, Elkhart IN News, Weather, Sports
> 
> Are these people still getting their insurance through their employer or spouses employer?
> Medical Company Smith & Nephew Lays Off Almost 100 People, Blames Obamacare
> 
> Are these people still getting their insurance through their employer or spouses employer?
> Hospitals Suffering From Mass Layoffs Thanks to Obamacare - Katie Pavlich
> 
> You're right about one thing though [MENTION=24452]Seawytch[/MENTION] - you're definitely _not_ allowing "perfect to be the enemy of good". Hell, you're not even allowing shitty to be the enemy of catstrophic. And Obamacare has literally been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to be catastrophic . But all you know is that it was supported by a Dumbocrat, so you will play the loyal little lap dog and support it too - even in the face of all evidence which indicates it catastrophic.
Click to expand...


None of what you quoted is the result of the Affordable Care Act. Sure, it's an easy scapegoat for asshole employers, but it isn't the cause. 

The people that had shitty insurance with lifetime caps, high deductibles and large out of pocket expenses are finding their plans don't meet the requirements of the ACA. In other words, the ACA is preventing insurance companies from dishing up shit and charging you for it (only to drop you if you get sick). That means some people pay more, but more pay less.


----------



## Seawytch

Rottweiler said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I do believe that Education and Health Care are a right not a privilege that should be the same for each and every American.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is astounding stupidity on a level I can't even begin to fathom. It's literally the equivalent of saying "I believe the world is flat" or "I believe that fire does not exist".
> 
> You don't get to "believe" what is a right and what isn't. Rights are explicitly spelled out in the U.S. Constitution and healthcare or education is *not* one of them.
> 
> Do you understand that you cannot make something which requires money to be a right because rights are guaranteed and you cannot guarantee money on someone else's behalf?
> 
> Do you understand that your rights *end* where mine begin and therefore you have absolutely zero grounds to force me to pay for someone else's needs or wants?
> 
> Of course you don't understand these things because you truly are painfully _stupid_. You're an immature, *idealistic*, fuck'n child. Of course it would be wonderful if every American could have the best healthcare in the world for free. But mature adults take that dream, examine all of the ideas/options to make it come to fruition, and them come to the scientific conclusion that it is _literally_ impossible. It can't be "free" and you have no right to force someone else to pay for it. It really is that simple (and how frightening that you can't grasp something that simple).
Click to expand...


Really? Where in the Constitution does it say I have to pay for a standing army? 

Do we not provide education to every American regardless of their ability to pay? Yes, we do. Do we provide defense to every American regardless of their ability to pay? Yes, we do. Healthcare should be the same way. 

Now call me some more names Puppy, it really helps your case to throw out ad hominems.


----------



## P@triot

Billo_Really said:


> Where does it say in the Constitution you're allowed to disobey the law?



It doesn't - which is why Obama should be impeached and then indicted. He's violated the highest law in the land (the Constitution) on multiple occassions now and even admitted as much.



Billo_Really said:


> The ACA is a fucking law!



Exactly. And can the president arbitrarily alter a law? Of course you don't know this because you are astoundingly ignorant of the Constitution, your government, current events, etc. - but that answer is unequivocally *no*. A law may only be altered by Congress. And yet, Obama has altered Obamacare on at least 5 occasions that I'm aware of. He has _illegally_ bypassed Congress and acted like a dictator.

So since you're so jacked-up about the "fucking law" I have no doubt you support impeaching Obama and will call your representatives today demand as much, right [MENTION=2873]Billo_Really[/MENTION]?

PolitiFact | Tom Graves says Obama has changed the Affordable Care Act 19 times



Billo_Really said:


> Yet you got republican controlled states deliberately not setting up their exchanges in violation of that law. Which I suppose you're fine with?  Which means you don't support the Constitution.



Well that's because outside of the 18 enumerated powers outlined in the U.S. Constitution, the states have _complete_ and _total_ power over the federal government (and controlling/regulating healthcare is *not* one of those 18 enumerated powers). Another fact you are simply unaware of because you do not know the laws of your own nation. So once again, my views align _perfectly_ with the U.S. Constitution.



Billo_Really said:


> And finally, wipe your ass with that "redistribution of wealth" mantra.  You're perfectly okay with redistribution, as long as it's going upwards, not downwards.



I can't - I'm too busy wiping my ass with your ignorant and uneducated arguments! 

I really don't understand why you can't just have an honest conversation. You're greedy and lazy. As such, you want other people to provide for you. Just be honest about it rather making up absurd claims about the Constitution. After all, exposing your ignorance to the world is not helping your cause any.


----------



## P@triot

Seawytch said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I do believe that Education and Health Care are a right not a privilege that should be the same for each and every American.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is astounding stupidity on a level I can't even begin to fathom. It's literally the equivalent of saying "I believe the world is flat" or "I believe that fire does not exist".
> 
> You don't get to "believe" what is a right and what isn't. Rights are explicitly spelled out in the U.S. Constitution and healthcare or education is *not* one of them.
> 
> Do you understand that you cannot make something which requires money to be a right because rights are guaranteed and you cannot guarantee money on someone else's behalf?
> 
> Do you understand that your rights *end* where mine begin and therefore you have absolutely zero grounds to force me to pay for someone else's needs or wants?
> 
> Of course you don't understand these things because you truly are painfully _stupid_. You're an immature, *idealistic*, fuck'n child. Of course it would be wonderful if every American could have the best healthcare in the world for free. But mature adults take that dream, examine all of the ideas/options to make it come to fruition, and them come to the scientific conclusion that it is _literally_ impossible. It can't be "free" and you have no right to force someone else to pay for it. It really is that simple (and how frightening that you can't grasp something that simple).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? Where in the Constitution does it say I have to pay for a standing army?
Click to expand...


 Simply unbelievable  Where does it say you "have to pay for a standing army"?!? Right here _sweetie_:

Section 8. The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises...

...To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

...To raise and support Armies

...To provide and maintain a Navy

...To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

...To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

...To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress

Excerpt From: States, United. The United States Constitution. iBooks. 
This material may be protected by copyright.

Check out this book on the iBooks Store: https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewBook?id=361557977



Seawytch said:


> Do we not provide education to every American regardless of their ability to pay? Yes, we do. Do we provide defense to every American regardless of their ability to pay? Yes, we do. Healthcare should be the same way.



As we've covered over and over, defense is a Constitutional responsibility of the federal government. So this is a nonsensical "argument" which at some point you have to realize makes you look like a fool.

As far as education, I don't know where you live, but where I live the federal government does *not* pay for education. That is paid for by my property taxes. And therein lies the key that you ignorant Dumbocrats simply can't figure out for some reason...

Everything you guys want (absolutely *everything*) is legal at the local level. You can have communism in your city or county SW - but you can't at the federal level because the Constitution makes that illegal. Our founders were absolutely brilliant and set it up that way so that everyone could live their own utopia. You can live in San Fransisco with with the flaming homo's who conduct themselves repulsively and inappropriately with their parades where they literally lead naked people down the middle of the streets on dog leashes and have communism to cover the cost of all of the AIDS, while I can go live in Dallas and live among people who take personal responsibility for their own lives and their own actions and who leave me the fuck alone. We're both happy SW. Everybody wins.

So why don't Dumbocrats follow the Constitution which ends with everybody getting exactly what they want [MENTION=24452]Seawytch[/MENTION]? I know the exact reason. Let's see if your honest enough to say them. There are two of them and they are pretty repulsive.


----------



## P@triot

Seawytch said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Before the ACA most people got their insurance through their employer or spouses employer. That hasn't changed*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, Seawytch displays her profound ignorance for the world...
> 
> Are these people still getting their insurance through their employer or spouses employer?
> UPS Dropping Spouses Health Coverage - Business Insider
> 
> Are these people still getting their insurance through their employer or spouses employer?
> Hospital Staff Under The Knife: Layoffs Pick Up As ObamaCare Looms - Investors.com
> 
> Are these people still getting their insurance through their employer or spouses employer?
> Citing Obamacare, Cleveland Clinic to Cut $300M, Warns of Layoffs - US News and World Report
> 
> Are these people still getting their insurance through their employer or spouses employer?
> Bonnie Doon Ice Cream blames Obamacare for plant shutdown - Fox 28: South Bend, Elkhart IN News, Weather, Sports
> 
> Are these people still getting their insurance through their employer or spouses employer?
> Medical Company Smith & Nephew Lays Off Almost 100 People, Blames Obamacare
> 
> Are these people still getting their insurance through their employer or spouses employer?
> Hospitals Suffering From Mass Layoffs Thanks to Obamacare - Katie Pavlich
> 
> You're right about one thing though [MENTION=24452]Seawytch[/MENTION] - you're definitely _not_ allowing "perfect to be the enemy of good". Hell, you're not even allowing shitty to be the enemy of catstrophic. And Obamacare has literally been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to be catastrophic . But all you know is that it was supported by a Dumbocrat, so you will play the loyal little lap dog and support it too - even in the face of all evidence which indicates it catastrophic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of what you quoted is the result of the Affordable Care Act. Sure, it's an easy scapegoat for asshole employers, but it isn't the cause.
Click to expand...


"Easy scapegoat for asshole employers"? SW - the Cleveland Clinic *supported* Obamacare and even *hosted* Barack Obama on his ACA tour to garner support for it 4 years ago. Jesus, do your homework for once. You're embarrassing yourself by randomly throwing feces at a wall like a little monkey and hoping some of it sticks.

Besides SW - you made the outrageous claim that "Before the ACA most people got their insurance through their employer or spouses employer. That *hasn't* changed". Are you admitting now that you were wrong and that _has_, in fact, changed? It has changed and you know it sweetie. Now you're just moving the goalposts again out of desperation.

So now that we've disproven that Hail Mary, would you like to try again? You have to trust me SW - this is so much easier if you do your homework instead of making up answers/excuses as you go.



Seawytch said:


> The people that had shitty insurance with lifetime caps, high deductibles and large out of pocket expenses are finding their plans don't meet the requirements of the ACA. In other words, the ACA is preventing insurance companies from dishing up shit and charging you for it (only to drop you if you get sick). That means some people pay more, but more pay less.



Even if an insurance company "dished you up shit" you were free at ANY time to drop them and go do business with someone else. That's the beauty of the free market and why it works flawlessly (but that requires personal responsibility of course - something a lazy liberal is unwilling to do). Unfortunately for all of us, we're not able to drop the federal government.


----------



## P@triot

Sarah G said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> 
> God, the way insurance worked before, they had to pick up the slack for those who had no insurance.  Now they complain that people have to pay for their own.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh would you drama queens quit pretending to be so dumb? This little game you are playing is...so....fucking...._obnoxious_ [MENTION=32558]Luddly Neddite[/MENTION] and  [MENTION=18645]Sarah G[/MENTION]. You know damn well that people would could not afford health insurance before, *still* cannot afford health insurance.
> 
> The difference before was that I was largely shielded from the communism (a diluted portion partially hit me through health insurance and a direct portion hit me _only_ when I had to go to the hospital). But now? Well now I am ass-fucked 24x7 by Obamacare. My taxes have absolutely skyrocketed. It's insane what I've been crushed with to pay for this bill which is not only a disaster, but guarantees free healthcare for the parasites out there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Iow, you just hate Obama and anything he may have anything to do with?
Click to expand...


Wow - what an intelligent response [MENTION=18645]Sarah G[/MENTION]. Just out of curiosity, instead of raising my taxes, had Obama lowered them - do you think I would hate him? Instead of taking my freedoms, had Obama increased them - do you think I would hate him? Instead of trampling all over the Constitution, had Obama upheld it - do you think I would hate him? Really?


----------



## P@triot

Seawytch said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Before the ACA most people got their insurance through their employer or spouses employer. That hasn't changed*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, Seawytch displays her profound ignorance for the world...
> 
> Are these people still getting their insurance through their employer or spouses employer?
> UPS Dropping Spouses Health Coverage - Business Insider
> 
> Are these people still getting their insurance through their employer or spouses employer?
> Hospital Staff Under The Knife: Layoffs Pick Up As ObamaCare Looms - Investors.com
> 
> Are these people still getting their insurance through their employer or spouses employer?
> Citing Obamacare, Cleveland Clinic to Cut $300M, Warns of Layoffs - US News and World Report
> 
> Are these people still getting their insurance through their employer or spouses employer?
> Bonnie Doon Ice Cream blames Obamacare for plant shutdown - Fox 28: South Bend, Elkhart IN News, Weather, Sports
> 
> Are these people still getting their insurance through their employer or spouses employer?
> Medical Company Smith & Nephew Lays Off Almost 100 People, Blames Obamacare
> 
> Are these people still getting their insurance through their employer or spouses employer?
> Hospitals Suffering From Mass Layoffs Thanks to Obamacare - Katie Pavlich
> 
> You're right about one thing though [MENTION=24452]Seawytch[/MENTION] - you're definitely _not_ allowing "perfect to be the enemy of good". Hell, you're not even allowing shitty to be the enemy of catstrophic. And Obamacare has literally been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to be catastrophic . But all you know is that it was supported by a Dumbocrat, so you will play the loyal little lap dog and support it too - even in the face of all evidence which indicates it catastrophic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of what you quoted is the result of the Affordable Care Act. Sure, it's an easy scapegoat for asshole employers, but it isn't the cause.
> 
> The people that had shitty insurance with lifetime caps, high deductibles and large out of pocket expenses are finding their plans don't meet the requirements of the ACA. In other words, the ACA is preventing insurance companies from dishing up shit and charging you for it (only to drop you if you get sick). That means some people pay more, but more pay less.
Click to expand...


Wow - yet another Democrat politician (with way more skin in the game than you will EVER have) admits that Obamacare is a train wreck. Wonder why you can't admit as much? Oh that's right, you're the very definition of partisan hack. You'd rather see the nation collapse or another 9/11 where 3,000 Americans die than ever criticize Obama...

&#8220;It should be a transition year, for one year there should be no fines, and let&#8217;s work through the problems,&#8221; Manchin said on Fox News&#8217;s &#8220;The O&#8217;Reilly Factor&#8221; on Wednesday. &#8220;*We&#8217;ve got a lot of problems. They have been identified. I think everybody has recognized them. Let&#8217;s fix it*.&#8221;

Joe Manchin wants Obamacare transition year - POLITICO.com


----------



## Billo_Really

Rottweiler said:


> It doesn't - which is why Obama should be impeached and then indicted. He's violated the highest law in the land (the Constitution) on multiple occassions now and even admitted as much.


You're going to have to name at least 3 examples to make that claim valid.




Rottweiler said:


> Exactly. And can the president arbitrarily alter a law? Of course you don't know this because you are astoundingly ignorant of the Constitution, your government, current events, etc. - but that answer is unequivocally *no*. A law may only be altered by Congress. And yet, Obama has altered Obamacare on at least 5 occasions that I'm aware of. He has _illegally_ bypassed Congress and acted like a dictator.
> 
> So since you're so jacked-up about the "fucking law" I have no doubt you support impeaching Obama and will call your representatives today demand as much, right [MENTION=2873]Billo_Really[/MENTION]?
> 
> PolitiFact | Tom Graves says Obama has changed the Affordable Care Act 19 times


You need to read your links a little more carefully before you post them, because this one doesn't prove what you said it does.  Politifact stated the only thing Graves got right was the number (19), he overexaggerated Obama's involvement.

From your link...


> _ Based on the analysis by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, Graves has the right number. However,* he simplifies the way that many of those 19 changes came about, and by doing that, makes it seem as though the president were more directly involved*._


But hey, try again, maybe your luck will change.


Rottweiler said:


> Well that's because outside of the 18 enumerated powers outlined in the U.S. Constitution, the states have _complete_ and _total_ power over the federal government (and controlling/regulating healthcare is *not* one of those 18 enumerated powers). Another fact you are simply unaware of because you do not know the laws of your own nation. So once again, my views align _perfectly_ with the U.S. Constitution..


Congress is in charge of making any law that will ensure the general welfare of the country.  There is no "shared" authority with the States.  The Supremacy Clause made that pretty evident.




Rottweiler said:


> I can't - I'm too busy wiping my ass with your ignorant and uneducated arguments!
> 
> I really don't understand why you can't just have an honest conversation. You're greedy and lazy. As such, you want other people to provide for you. Just be honest about it rather making up absurd claims about the Constitution. After all, exposing your ignorance to the world is not helping your cause any.


I've worked my entire life and you call me "greedy and lazy", then ask why "I" can't have an honest conversation.

You talk like you're 14 years old!


----------



## Seawytch

Rottweiler said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, Seawytch displays her profound ignorance for the world...
> 
> Are these people still getting their insurance through their employer or spouses employer?
> UPS Dropping Spouses Health Coverage - Business Insider
> 
> Are these people still getting their insurance through their employer or spouses employer?
> Hospital Staff Under The Knife: Layoffs Pick Up As ObamaCare Looms - Investors.com
> 
> Are these people still getting their insurance through their employer or spouses employer?
> Citing Obamacare, Cleveland Clinic to Cut $300M, Warns of Layoffs - US News and World Report
> 
> Are these people still getting their insurance through their employer or spouses employer?
> Bonnie Doon Ice Cream blames Obamacare for plant shutdown - Fox 28: South Bend, Elkhart IN News, Weather, Sports
> 
> Are these people still getting their insurance through their employer or spouses employer?
> Medical Company Smith & Nephew Lays Off Almost 100 People, Blames Obamacare
> 
> Are these people still getting their insurance through their employer or spouses employer?
> Hospitals Suffering From Mass Layoffs Thanks to Obamacare - Katie Pavlich
> 
> You're right about one thing though [MENTION=24452]Seawytch[/MENTION] - you're definitely _not_ allowing "perfect to be the enemy of good". Hell, you're not even allowing shitty to be the enemy of catstrophic. And Obamacare has literally been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to be catastrophic . But all you know is that it was supported by a Dumbocrat, so you will play the loyal little lap dog and support it too - even in the face of all evidence which indicates it catastrophic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None of what you quoted is the result of the Affordable Care Act. Sure, it's an easy scapegoat for asshole employers, but it isn't the cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Easy scapegoat for asshole employers"? SW - the Cleveland Clinic *supported* Obamacare and even *hosted* Barack Obama on his ACA tour to garner support for it 4 years ago. Jesus, do your homework for once. You're embarrassing yourself by randomly throwing feces at a wall like a little monkey and hoping some of it sticks.
> 
> Besides SW - you made the outrageous claim that "Before the ACA most people got their insurance through their employer or spouses employer. That *hasn't* changed". Are you admitting now that you were wrong and that _has_, in fact, changed? It has changed and you know it sweetie. Now you're just moving the goalposts again out of desperation.
> 
> So now that we've disproven that Hail Mary, would you like to try again? You have to trust me SW - this is so much easier if you do your homework instead of making up answers/excuses as you go.
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> The people that had shitty insurance with lifetime caps, high deductibles and large out of pocket expenses are finding their plans don't meet the requirements of the ACA. In other words, the ACA is preventing insurance companies from dishing up shit and charging you for it (only to drop you if you get sick). That means some people pay more, but more pay less.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even if an insurance company "dished you up shit" you were free at ANY time to drop them and go do business with someone else. That's the beauty of the free market and why it works flawlessly (but that requires personal responsibility of course - something a lazy liberal is unwilling to do). Unfortunately for all of us, we're not able to drop the federal government.
Click to expand...


Oh Puppy, you Fox dupe. Get out of the bubble every once in a while.

Obamacare Isn't Really Taking Away Jobs: Cleveland Clinic Edition

_"We felt health-care reform was absolutely necessary," Sheil said. "This is the new normal. This is where hospitals have to focus to be viable in the long run. This is not doomsday for the clinic. We're still growing  we're still hiring. The hardest thing is when it affects people."

Actually, much of what the Cleveland Clinic system is doing follows the recommendations of health-care analysts closely. For example, it has consolidated closely located neonatal intensive care units, because high volumes tend to lead to better results. It's working to reduce the number of procedures its staff performs, since in the current system "physicians are rewarded to do more, not to do the right thing for the patient," as Sheil put it. And there's a new focus on chronic diseases, which are an increasingly important and costly area for treatment.

Think of it this way: These are all steps that the Cleveland Clinic was likely to take, but Obamacare implementation is acting as a catalyst, spurring the clinic to adopt them now rather than on a slower timeline.

This isn't to absolve the ACA of any role in the cuts at all. The revenue reduction because of the law is real. Pretty much everyone agrees that the spiraling costs of health care in the U.S. threaten  through Medicaid and Medicare  the nation's long-term fiscal health.

Changes like what the clinic is doing, and the reduced reimbursements, do reduce costs. But of course the flip side of "costs" is "revenue." The end result may not be zero-sum  there's good reason to think lower medical costs would be good for the economy and the deficit in the long term  it will mean reshuffling at providers like the Cleveland Clinic in the short term. Whether you think that's a good idea probably has a lot to do with your political outlook  and also with whether you happen to be, say a doctor or an uninsured person._​


----------



## Seawytch

Rottweiler said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is astounding stupidity on a level I can't even begin to fathom. It's literally the equivalent of saying "I believe the world is flat" or "I believe that fire does not exist".
> 
> You don't get to "believe" what is a right and what isn't. Rights are explicitly spelled out in the U.S. Constitution and healthcare or education is *not* one of them.
> 
> Do you understand that you cannot make something which requires money to be a right because rights are guaranteed and you cannot guarantee money on someone else's behalf?
> 
> Do you understand that your rights *end* where mine begin and therefore you have absolutely zero grounds to force me to pay for someone else's needs or wants?
> 
> Of course you don't understand these things because you truly are painfully _stupid_. You're an immature, *idealistic*, fuck'n child. Of course it would be wonderful if every American could have the best healthcare in the world for free. But mature adults take that dream, examine all of the ideas/options to make it come to fruition, and them come to the scientific conclusion that it is _literally_ impossible. It can't be "free" and you have no right to force someone else to pay for it. It really is that simple (and how frightening that you can't grasp something that simple).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? Where in the Constitution does it say I have to pay for a standing army?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Simply unbelievable  Where does it say you "have to pay for a standing army"?!? Right here _sweetie_:
> 
> Section 8. The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises...
> 
> ...To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
> 
> ...To raise and support Armies
Click to expand...

 But not *maintain*, Puppy, Fox dupe. 



> ...To provide and maintain a Navy


 Navy is not a standing army. Washington didn't want a standing army...hence all that stuff about militias. 



> ...To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
> 
> ...To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;



No standing *Army *puppy. 



Seawytch said:


> Do we not provide education to every American regardless of their ability to pay? Yes, we do. Do we provide defense to every American regardless of their ability to pay? Yes, we do. Healthcare should be the same way.





> As we've covered over and over, defense is a Constitutional responsibility of the federal government. So this is a nonsensical "argument" which at some point you have to realize makes you look like a fool.
> 
> As far as education, I don't know where you live, but where I live the federal government does *not* pay for education. That is paid for by my property taxes. And therein lies the key that you ignorant Dumbocrats simply can't figure out for some reason...



Really? The Public Schools where you live take no federal education dollars at all? Sorry, you're gonna have to support that one with some actual facts, not ass facts (those pulled from your hindquarters)



> Everything you guys want (absolutely *everything*) is legal at the local level. You can have communism in your city or county SW - but you can't at the federal level because the Constitution makes that illegal. Our founders were absolutely brilliant and set it up that way so that everyone could live their own utopia. You can live in San Fransisco with with the flaming homo's who conduct themselves repulsively and inappropriately with their parades where they literally lead naked people down the middle of the streets on dog leashes and have communism to cover the cost of all of the AIDS, while I can go live in Dallas and live among people who take personal responsibility for their own lives and their own actions and who leave me the fuck alone. We're both happy SW. Everybody wins.
> 
> So why don't Dumbocrats follow the Constitution which ends with everybody getting exactly what they want [MENTION=24452]Seawytch[/MENTION]? I know the exact reason. Let's see if your honest enough to say them. There are two of them and they are pretty repulsive.



Puppy, when you go off on your little "fags are bad" rants, you stop making any sense (not that you made much to begin with)


----------



## Zoom-boing

Health insurance isn't "free" ...for anyone.  If something with health insurance is listed as "free" it simply means that someone else is paying for it.

Why do leftists scream that prior to the (un)aca we were all paying for those who used ERs as their personal doctors office and hospital costs were jacked because of those who did not have insurance but now that the (un)aca has passed and things are suddenly "free", you think that we (me and you) are still not paying for all those ER and jacked hospital costs? 

What? People have to get their own insurance now so that solves the problem?  Many people who couldn't afford it prior to (un)aca still can't afford it now, so we (me and you) pick up their tab.  Deductibles are maxed at $6K or so?  And?  Who do you think pays for anything above that?  We (me and you).  Pre-existing condition?  No problem!  You're a higher risk to insure but don't worry, insurance companies won't charge you more (they can't!).  Guess who picks up that cost?  Bingo, we (me and you) do.

Prior to (un)aca, we (me and you) paid for everyone who didn't.  Post (un)aca, we (me and you) pay for everyone who doesn't_ plus_ we get the gov't taking over part of the economy_ plus_ we get another big-assed entitlement program_ plus _we have another gov't bureaucracy _plus_ we have gov't telling you that you have to purchase a product or get fined _plus_ we have gov't we have gov't taking away choice.

It was a problem before. Now it's a boondoggle. And the left says that's just dandy.


----------



## P@triot

Billo_Really said:


> Congress is in charge of making *any* law that will ensure the general welfare of the country.



Once again, this is an astounding display of ignorance. Can Congress create a law that says Catholicism is illegal? Can Congress create a law that says firearms are illegal? Can Congress create a law that says speaking out against Congress is illegal? Can Congress create a law that says the press is illegal? 

If Congress can create "any" law they want - why do we have a Supreme Court? I mean, if Congress is empowered to create "any" law they want, then a law couldn't possibly be challenged. 

Furthermore, Obamacare does not ensure the GENERAL welfare. It ensures that a specific minority benefits at the detriment of another specific minority. So even under this desperate view, you still fail. 

*gen·er·al*
&#712;jen&#601;r&#601;l/
adjective
1. affecting or concerning *all or most people*, places, or things; widespread.

Congress cannot create "any" law they want and even a small child suffering from Down Syndrome know as much. I'm just curious - why do you want to display to display your ignorance to the world? Is it just that you're too lazy to read and do your homework? You keep saying shit that simply isn't true and even you Dumbocrat brethren are cringing at you comments. They are all wishing you would shut up because you're making them look so bad.



Billo_Really said:


> There is no "shared" authority with the States.



Well for once you got something right - though this one was by pure, blind, dumb accident and not because you actually know what you're talking about. There is no "shared" authority. The states have _full_ authority over the federal government save for the 18 enumerated powers outlined in the U.S. Constitution. And do you want to take a wild guess (and that's all it would be with you) where the federal government received those 18 enumerated powers from? That's right Sally - the STATES. The states delegated those responsibilities to the federal government. If the states didn't have power over the federal government, how could they possibly delegate responsibilities to them (since you're a parasite you wouldn't know this - but people who work know that you don't delegate responsibilities to your boss, your boss delegates responsibilities to you).



Billo_Really said:


> The Supremacy Clause made that pretty evident.



 

You can't look up a term and use it without understanding it Sally. The Supremacy Clause states that federal law trumps state or local laws WITH REGARDS TO THOSE SPECIFIC 18 ENUMERATED POWERS and with regards to the rights spelled out in the Constitution Sally. So a state can't can't coin their own money because that is one of the 18 enumerated powers of the federal government. A state can't take away my freedom of speech, because that is protected by the U.S. Constitution.

Do you get it now? How humiliating that you heard a term and posted it without realizing what it was...


----------



## P@triot

Billo_Really said:


> PolitiFact | Tom Graves says Obama has changed the Affordable Care Act 19 times
> 
> You need to read your links a little more carefully before you post them, because this one doesn't prove what you said it does.  Politifact stated the only thing Graves got right was the number (19), he overexaggerated Obama's involvement.
> 
> From your link...
> But hey, try again, maybe your luck will change.



    

Watching you Dumbocrats wildly flailing around trying to find a spin for everything Obama does is hilarious.

Sweetie, Obama isn't allowed any involvement in altering the law. That is strictly the responsibility of Congress. And he has altered Obamacare multiple times now on his own.

Here he is Sally, on video, from his own fucking website (WhiteHouse.Gov) admitting that he altered Obamacare all by himself (but claiming the decision was not his alone - that he "consulted" with business owners across America). Well guess what Sally - business owners don't get to alter Obamacare either. Only Congress can do that. And they haven't altered it. Not once. It has only been altered - ILLEGALLY - by Obama.

Forward to the 38:00 mark Sally - and watch your homosexaul fantasy ADMIT that he violated the U.S. Constitution:
*President Obama Holds a Press Conference | The White House*

And here is a fun link about the moment Obama admitted he violated the U.S. Constitution:
Obama: I Had To Violate The Constitution

And here is the transcripts as well Sally:

Obama: Ed Henry.

Ed Henry: I hope you would defend me as well.

Obmaa: I would.

Ed Henry: Okay, thank you. I want to ask you about two important dates that are coming up. October 1st youve got to implement your signature health care law. You recently decided on your own to delay a key part of that. And I wonder, if you pick and choose what parts of the law to implement, couldnt your successor down the road pick and choose whether theyll implement your law and keep it in place?

Obama: With respect to health care, *I didnt simply choose to delay this on my own. This was in consultation with businesses all across the country*, many of whom are supportive of the Affordable Care Act, but -- and many of whom, by the way, are already providing health insurance to their employees but were concerned about the operational details of changing their HR operations, if theyve got a lot of employees, which could be costly for them, and them suggesting that there may be easier ways to do this.

Now, whats true, Ed, is, is that in a normal political environment, it would have been easier for me to simply call up the Speaker and say, you know what, this is a tweak that doesnt go to the essence of the law -- it has to do with, for example, are we able to simplify the attestation of employers as to whether theyre already providing health insurance or not -- it looks like there may be some better ways to do this; let's make a technical change to the law. That would be the normal thing that I would prefer to do.

But we're not in a normal atmosphere around here when it comes to "Obamacare." (In other words, since the Republicans won't do what I want them to do, I simply violate the U.S. Constitution and do what I want done anyway because I'm an arrogant asshole who believes I deserve dictatorial powers due to my supreme intellect).

Once again B.O. - you just got owned. Words - on video and right from your own God's mouth - admitting that he violated the U.S. Constitution. Now remember how you screamed the ACA was the "law!!!!"? Since you're such a law-abiding citizen, I can fully expect you to call all of your representatives this afternoon and demand that Obama be impeached (and after that, indicted) for violating the U.S. Constitution as well as his oath to uphold & defend it, correct?

Game. Set. Match.


----------



## P@triot

Seawytch said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> None of what you quoted is the result of the Affordable Care Act. Sure, it's an easy scapegoat for asshole employers, but it isn't the cause.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Easy scapegoat for asshole employers"? SW - the Cleveland Clinic *supported* Obamacare and even *hosted* Barack Obama on his ACA tour to garner support for it 4 years ago. Jesus, do your homework for once. You're embarrassing yourself by randomly throwing feces at a wall like a little monkey and hoping some of it sticks.
> 
> Besides SW - you made the outrageous claim that "Before the ACA most people got their insurance through their employer or spouses employer. That *hasn't* changed". Are you admitting now that you were wrong and that _has_, in fact, changed? It has changed and you know it sweetie. Now you're just moving the goalposts again out of desperation.
> 
> So now that we've disproven that Hail Mary, would you like to try again? You have to trust me SW - this is so much easier if you do your homework instead of making up answers/excuses as you go.
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> The people that had shitty insurance with lifetime caps, high deductibles and large out of pocket expenses are finding their plans don't meet the requirements of the ACA. In other words, the ACA is preventing insurance companies from dishing up shit and charging you for it (only to drop you if you get sick). That means some people pay more, but more pay less.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even if an insurance company "dished you up shit" you were free at ANY time to drop them and go do business with someone else. That's the beauty of the free market and why it works flawlessly (but that requires personal responsibility of course - something a lazy liberal is unwilling to do). Unfortunately for all of us, we're not able to drop the federal government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh Puppy, you Fox dupe. Get out of the bubble every once in a while.
> 
> Obamacare Isn't Really Taking Away Jobs: Cleveland Clinic Edition
Click to expand...


Uh-oh, wytchey go all twitchey again when hit with facts.

Google it for yourself sweetie - the Cleveland Clinic made the announcement. Because they are in Obama's pocket, he called them furious and they have since changed their story. But that doesn't change the fact that they ADMITTED to the world that they have cut $300+ million per year from their budget - and thus cut employees - because of Obamacare! You lose wytchey...


----------



## P@triot

Dave Ramsey Says People Will Pay More for Obamacare  Its Simple Math

Everyone Will Pay for Obamacare -- Its Simple Math - video


----------



## Seawytch

Rottweiler said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Easy scapegoat for asshole employers"? SW - the Cleveland Clinic *supported* Obamacare and even *hosted* Barack Obama on his ACA tour to garner support for it 4 years ago. Jesus, do your homework for once. You're embarrassing yourself by randomly throwing feces at a wall like a little monkey and hoping some of it sticks.
> 
> Besides SW - you made the outrageous claim that "Before the ACA most people got their insurance through their employer or spouses employer. That *hasn't* changed". Are you admitting now that you were wrong and that _has_, in fact, changed? It has changed and you know it sweetie. Now you're just moving the goalposts again out of desperation.
> 
> So now that we've disproven that Hail Mary, would you like to try again? You have to trust me SW - this is so much easier if you do your homework instead of making up answers/excuses as you go.
> 
> 
> 
> Even if an insurance company "dished you up shit" you were free at ANY time to drop them and go do business with someone else. That's the beauty of the free market and why it works flawlessly (but that requires personal responsibility of course - something a lazy liberal is unwilling to do). Unfortunately for all of us, we're not able to drop the federal government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh Puppy, you Fox dupe. Get out of the bubble every once in a while.
> 
> Obamacare Isn't Really Taking Away Jobs: Cleveland Clinic Edition
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh-oh, wytchey go all twitchey again when hit with facts.
> 
> Google it for yourself sweetie - the Cleveland Clinic made the announcement. Because they are in Obama's pocket, he called them furious and they have since changed their story. But that doesn't change the fact that they ADMITTED to the world that they have cut $300+ million per year from their budget - and thus cut employees - because of Obamacare! You lose wytchey...
Click to expand...



And I already provided the evidence that debunked that claim. Repeating the same lie already debunked just makes you look silly(er)...


----------



## P@triot

Seawytch said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh Puppy, you Fox dupe. Get out of the bubble every once in a while.
> 
> Obamacare Isn't Really Taking Away Jobs: Cleveland Clinic Edition
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh-oh, wytchey go all twitchey again when hit with facts.
> 
> Google it for yourself sweetie - the Cleveland Clinic made the announcement. Because they are in Obama's pocket, he called them furious and they have since changed their story. But that doesn't change the fact that they ADMITTED to the world that they have cut $300+ million per year from their budget - and thus cut employees - because of Obamacare! You lose wytchey...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I already provided the evidence that debunked that claim. Repeating the same lie already debunked just makes you look silly(er)...
Click to expand...


Sweetie - you can't "debunk" *FACT*. It made national news. Finding one little left-wing website desperately trying to cover for Obama doesn't change the *FACTS*.

Even in the face of indisputable facts - you literally just make shit up [MENTION=24452]Seawytch[/MENTION]. Businesses have crunched the numbers and have been forced to layoff workers, drop healthcare coverage, and cut hours. You're only response to the millions of workers who have been fucked over by idiot Dumbocrat policy is to decry "the business are Faux news lying". Do you realize what an idiot that makes you sound like? The fact that you can't accept facts makes you a certified idiot. I'll post them again just to make wytchey go twitchey (because it's so amusing to see you lose it in the face of facts):

*Citing Obamacare, Cleveland Clinic to Cut $300M, Warns of Layoff*

Administrators at the Cleveland Clinic announced on Wednesday that the health care giant would be cutting as much as $300 million from its 2014 budget, and that the cuts will likely include layoffs.

"*Health care reform has really changed things, and the burden of cost is going to be falling on patients," spokeswoman Eileen Shiel told The Plain Dealer*. "We want to make sure we can keep care affordable."

During a regularly scheduled quarterly meeting, *Cleveland Clinic President and Chief Executive Dr. Toby Cosgrove told employees about plans to reduce operating expenses by about 6 percent, and cited the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, as one of the reasons for the cuts*.

Citing Obamacare, Cleveland Clinic to Cut $300M, Warns of Layoffs - US News and World Report


----------



## P@triot

Seawytch said:


> And I already provided the evidence that debunked that claim. Repeating the same lie already debunked just makes you look silly(er)...



The _only_ thing you just "debunked" is your credibility... 

*Citing Obamacare, Cleveland Clinic to Cut $300M, Warns of Layoff*

Administrators at the Cleveland Clinic announced on Wednesday that the health care giant would be cutting as much as $300 million from its 2014 budget, and that the cuts will likely include layoffs.

"*Health care reform has really changed things, and the burden of cost is going to be falling on patients," spokeswoman Eileen Shiel told The Plain Dealer*. "We want to make sure we can keep care affordable."

During a regularly scheduled quarterly meeting, *Cleveland Clinic President and Chief Executive Dr. Toby Cosgrove told employees about plans to reduce operating expenses by about 6 percent, and cited the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, as one of the reasons for the cuts*.

Citing Obamacare, Cleveland Clinic to Cut $300M, Warns of Layoffs - US News and World Report


----------



## Seawytch

Rottweiler said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I already provided the evidence that debunked that claim. Repeating the same lie already debunked just makes you look silly(er)...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The _only_ thing you just "debunked" is your credibility...
> 
> *Citing Obamacare, Cleveland Clinic to Cut $300M, Warns of Layoff*
> 
> Administrators at the Cleveland Clinic announced on Wednesday that the health care giant would be cutting as much as $300 million from its 2014 budget, and that the cuts will likely include layoffs.
> 
> "*Health care reform has really changed things, and the burden of cost is going to be falling on patients," spokeswoman Eileen Shiel told The Plain Dealer*. "We want to make sure we can keep care affordable."
> 
> During a regularly scheduled quarterly meeting, *Cleveland Clinic President and Chief Executive Dr. Toby Cosgrove told employees about plans to reduce operating expenses by about 6 percent, and cited the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, as one of the reasons for the cuts*.
> 
> Citing Obamacare, Cleveland Clinic to Cut $300M, Warns of Layoffs - US News and World Report
Click to expand...


You poor Fox dupe. The Atlantic is now a "liberal rag"? Sillier and sillier you are...

Cleveland Clinic cutbacks: Are they really Obama's fault?  (Cleveland Business)

Is Obamacare to Blame for Hospital Layoffs? (US News)


----------



## P@triot

Seawytch said:


> Our country will benefit from single payer, not me personally. I have two employer provided insurance plans that cover me and the family just fine.



So then why don't *you* become that "single payer" and cover the premiums for everyone out there who can't afford it? I mean, you're the one who "cares" about them, right? You're the one who is calling for the single payer, right? So why don't you become the single payer? I guess I don't understand wytchey - whenever I want something, I just go do it.

Apparently you are one greedy and selfish little twat if you know there are people out there who aren't covered and you're refusing to cover it for them.


----------



## P@triot

Seawytch said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I already provided the evidence that debunked that claim. Repeating the same lie already debunked just makes you look silly(er)...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The _only_ thing you just "debunked" is your credibility...
> 
> *Citing Obamacare, Cleveland Clinic to Cut $300M, Warns of Layoff*
> 
> Administrators at the Cleveland Clinic announced on Wednesday that the health care giant would be cutting as much as $300 million from its 2014 budget, and that the cuts will likely include layoffs.
> 
> "*Health care reform has really changed things, and the burden of cost is going to be falling on patients," spokeswoman Eileen Shiel told The Plain Dealer*. "We want to make sure we can keep care affordable."
> 
> During a regularly scheduled quarterly meeting, *Cleveland Clinic President and Chief Executive Dr. Toby Cosgrove told employees about plans to reduce operating expenses by about 6 percent, and cited the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, as one of the reasons for the cuts*.
> 
> Citing Obamacare, Cleveland Clinic to Cut $300M, Warns of Layoffs - US News and World Report
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You poor Fox dupe. The Atlantic is now a "liberal rag"? Sillier and sillier you are...
> 
> Cleveland Clinic cutbacks: Are they really Obama's fault?  (Cleveland Business)
> 
> Is Obamacare to Blame for Hospital Layoffs? (US News)
Click to expand...


You poor MSNBC dupe - this is straight from the mouth of the CEO of the Cleveland Clinic. Now who knows better why the Cleveland Clinic suddenly cut $300 million from their budget the month before Obamacare officially want live - the Cleveland Clinic CEO or the "Atlantic"??? 

*Citing Obamacare, Cleveland Clinic to Cut $300M, Warns of Layoff*

Administrators at the Cleveland Clinic announced on Wednesday that the health care giant would be cutting as much as $300 million from its 2014 budget, and that the cuts will likely include layoffs.

"*Health care reform has really changed things, and the burden of cost is going to be falling on patients," spokeswoman Eileen Shiel told The Plain Dealer*. "We want to make sure we can keep care affordable."

During a regularly scheduled quarterly meeting, *Cleveland Clinic President and Chief Executive Dr. Toby Cosgrove told employees about plans to reduce operating expenses by about 6 percent, and cited the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, as one of the reasons for the cuts*.

Citing Obamacare, Cleveland Clinic to Cut $300M, Warns of Layoffs - US News and World Report


----------



## P@triot

*Citing Obamacare, Cleveland Clinic to Cut $300M, Warns of Layoff*

Administrators at the Cleveland Clinic announced on Wednesday that the health care giant would be cutting as much as $300 million from its 2014 budget, and that the cuts will likely include layoffs.

"*Health care reform has really changed things, and the burden of cost is going to be falling on patients," spokeswoman Eileen Shiel told The Plain Dealer*. "We want to make sure we can keep care affordable."

During a regularly scheduled quarterly meeting, *Cleveland Clinic President and Chief Executive Dr. Toby Cosgrove told employees about plans to reduce operating expenses by about 6 percent, and cited the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, as one of the reasons for the cuts*.

Citing Obamacare, Cleveland Clinic to Cut $300M, Warns of Layoffs - US News and World Report


----------



## P@triot

Seawytch: "Pay no attention to the bull dyke behind the curtain (and while you're at it, pay no attention to what the CEO of the Cleveland Clinic officially stated on record) - just believe my lies that I tell you"... 

*Citing Obamacare, Cleveland Clinic to Cut $300M, Warns of Layoff*

Administrators at the Cleveland Clinic announced on Wednesday that the health care giant would be cutting as much as $300 million from its 2014 budget, and that the cuts will likely include layoffs.

"*Health care reform has really changed things, and the burden of cost is going to be falling on patients," spokeswoman Eileen Shiel told The Plain Dealer*. "We want to make sure we can keep care affordable."

During a regularly scheduled quarterly meeting, *Cleveland Clinic President and Chief Executive Dr. Toby Cosgrove told employees about plans to reduce operating expenses by about 6 percent, and cited the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, as one of the reasons for the cuts*.

Citing Obamacare, Cleveland Clinic to Cut $300M, Warns of Layoffs - US News and World Report


----------



## P@triot




----------



## P@triot

Seawytch said:


> Our country will benefit from single payer, not me personally. I have two employer provided insurance plans that cover me and the family just fine.



Yeah, just like all of those other countries which "benefited" from socialism...


----------



## P@triot

So the federal government - with trillions of dollars at their disposal and unlimited power - resources beyond our wildest dreams, says they are not capable of building a simple little website in 3.5 years? 

And these are the people that Dumbocrats want in charge of their healthcare? 

Seriously folks, if anything has illustrated how inept and unqualified Barack Obama is to be president, _this_ is most definitely it. This bumbling buffoon can't even hire the right people to build a website.

CMS: 3.5 years not enough time to make HealthCare.gov work - The Hill's Healthwatch


----------



## PMZ

For four or five years Republicans have tried to make the point that doing nothing is easier for them than doing anything.  And that if you ignore we,  the people,  health care is fine.  Most Republicans have some coverage at least for now,  and our wealthy are enjoying pretty good health compared to their peers around the world. 

Every time they've trumpeted this, they are surprised that no uprisings ensue. 

Now they're at it again,  passionately constructing a mountain of obfuscation from a molehill of Internet inconvenience.  

I predict that they will be equally surprised at the failure of this anti-Americanism as all of their previous attempts.


----------



## P@triot

Seawytch said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Before the ACA most people got their insurance through their employer or spouses employer. That hasn't changed*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, Seawytch displays her profound ignorance for the world...
> 
> Are these people still getting their insurance through their employer or spouses employer?
> UPS Dropping Spouses Health Coverage - Business Insider
> 
> Are these people still getting their insurance through their employer or spouses employer?
> Hospital Staff Under The Knife: Layoffs Pick Up As ObamaCare Looms - Investors.com
> 
> Are these people still getting their insurance through their employer or spouses employer?
> Citing Obamacare, Cleveland Clinic to Cut $300M, Warns of Layoffs - US News and World Report
> 
> Are these people still getting their insurance through their employer or spouses employer?
> Bonnie Doon Ice Cream blames Obamacare for plant shutdown - Fox 28: South Bend, Elkhart IN News, Weather, Sports
> 
> Are these people still getting their insurance through their employer or spouses employer?
> Medical Company Smith & Nephew Lays Off Almost 100 People, Blames Obamacare
> 
> Are these people still getting their insurance through their employer or spouses employer?
> Hospitals Suffering From Mass Layoffs Thanks to Obamacare - Katie Pavlich
> 
> You're right about one thing though [MENTION=24452]Seawytch[/MENTION] - you're definitely _not_ allowing "perfect to be the enemy of good". Hell, you're not even allowing shitty to be the enemy of catstrophic. And Obamacare has literally been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to be catastrophic . But all you know is that it was supported by a Dumbocrat, so you will play the loyal little lap dog and support it too - even in the face of all evidence which indicates it catastrophic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of what you quoted is the result of the Affordable Care Act. Sure, it's an easy scapegoat for asshole employers, but it isn't the cause.
> 
> The people that had shitty insurance with lifetime caps, high deductibles and large out of pocket expenses are finding their plans don't meet the requirements of the ACA. In other words, the ACA is preventing insurance companies from dishing up shit and charging you for it (only to drop you if you get sick). That means some people pay more, but more pay less.
Click to expand...


Oh wytchey - put on your little tin foil hat and tell us again how this is all one giant "conspiracy"... 

*CareFirst says 76,000 customers will lose current coverage due to Obamacare | WashingtonExaminer.com*


----------



## PMZ

The inconvenient truth for Republicans is that our national boat would be sinking without Medicare.  And Obamacare will be equally necessary.  And that Republicans have fought tooth and nail against both.  And deservedly lost.


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, Seawytch displays her profound ignorance for the world...
> 
> Are these people still getting their insurance through their employer or spouses employer?
> UPS Dropping Spouses Health Coverage - Business Insider
> 
> Are these people still getting their insurance through their employer or spouses employer?
> Hospital Staff Under The Knife: Layoffs Pick Up As ObamaCare Looms - Investors.com
> 
> Are these people still getting their insurance through their employer or spouses employer?
> Citing Obamacare, Cleveland Clinic to Cut $300M, Warns of Layoffs - US News and World Report
> 
> Are these people still getting their insurance through their employer or spouses employer?
> Bonnie Doon Ice Cream blames Obamacare for plant shutdown - Fox 28: South Bend, Elkhart IN News, Weather, Sports
> 
> Are these people still getting their insurance through their employer or spouses employer?
> Medical Company Smith & Nephew Lays Off Almost 100 People, Blames Obamacare
> 
> Are these people still getting their insurance through their employer or spouses employer?
> Hospitals Suffering From Mass Layoffs Thanks to Obamacare - Katie Pavlich
> 
> You're right about one thing though [MENTION=24452]Seawytch[/MENTION] - you're definitely _not_ allowing "perfect to be the enemy of good". Hell, you're not even allowing shitty to be the enemy of catstrophic. And Obamacare has literally been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to be catastrophic . But all you know is that it was supported by a Dumbocrat, so you will play the loyal little lap dog and support it too - even in the face of all evidence which indicates it catastrophic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None of what you quoted is the result of the Affordable Care Act. Sure, it's an easy scapegoat for asshole employers, but it isn't the cause.
> 
> The people that had shitty insurance with lifetime caps, high deductibles and large out of pocket expenses are finding their plans don't meet the requirements of the ACA. In other words, the ACA is preventing insurance companies from dishing up shit and charging you for it (only to drop you if you get sick). That means some people pay more, but more pay less.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh wytchey - put on your little tin foil hat and tell us again how this is all one giant "conspiracy"...
> 
> *CareFirst says 76,000 customers will lose current coverage due to Obamacare | WashingtonExaminer.com*
Click to expand...


From your reference. 

'' CareFirst BlueCross BlueShield is being forced to cancel plans that currently cover 76,000 individuals in Virginia, Maryland, and Washington, D.C., due to changes made by President Obama's health care law, the company told the Washington Examiner today''

Of course they are.  They didn't cover what they should have then and have to now. 

They'll be replace by new policies with adequate coverage.


----------



## Zoom-boing

PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> None of what you quoted is the result of the Affordable Care Act. Sure, it's an easy scapegoat for asshole employers, but it isn't the cause.
> 
> The people that had shitty insurance with lifetime caps, high deductibles and large out of pocket expenses are finding their plans don't meet the requirements of the ACA. In other words, the ACA is preventing insurance companies from dishing up shit and charging you for it (only to drop you if you get sick). That means some people pay more, but more pay less.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh wytchey - put on your little tin foil hat and tell us again how this is all one giant "conspiracy"...
> 
> *CareFirst says 76,000 customers will lose current coverage due to Obamacare | WashingtonExaminer.com*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From your reference.
> 
> '' CareFirst BlueCross BlueShield is being forced to cancel plans that currently cover 76,000 individuals in Virginia, Maryland, and Washington, D.C., due to changes made by President Obama's health care law, the company told the Washington Examiner today''
> 
> Of course they are.  *They didn't cover what they should have then and have to now.
> 
> They'll be replace by new policies with adequate coverage*.
Click to expand...


So now a 55 year old single male with no kids will HAVE to pay for maternity, newborn, pediatric coverage (including vision and dental).   His premiums (whether on (un)aca plan or private) will substantially increase.  And he has zero choice in electing this (and other unneeded) coverage.  

The government took choices away from people.  I thought the left was the party of choice?  

Please, keep spinning.


----------



## Zoom-boing

Go onto healthcare.gov facebook page.  99% of the feedback is negative, much of it from people whose policies (that obama said they could keep ... no, he PROMISED they could keep it) have been axed.  People whose premiums are doubling for lesser coverage.  

But the left jumps on here and says "bullshit, they are just made up stories".  Those in favor of this have been suckered.


----------



## Zoom-boing

50 Dangers from Obamacare


> This list contains information pulled from the first House bill HR 3200. Its mandates and threats likely survived in one form or another into the 2080 page monster from the Senate. This list therefore is only a guide. Let them make you wary and on the alert against this attack on your freedoms. Let it be the catalyst to get you to do your own research and then go out and teach your family and friends why we have to fight this move by people who want to enslave us.
> The first list is all 50 of the threats.
> In the second list the threats are organized in categories.
> Download the sections that most affect you and go into battle against this bill. Copy this material and pass it around to everyone you can.
> 
> 
> 1) Pg 22 mandates that the Government will audit books of ALL EMPLOYERS that self insure. So every employer in the United States will be subjected to a health insurance audit just as all taxpayers are subject to audit. Of course, we will have to pay for an entire new bureaucracy to do thisthe Internal Health Revenue Service?
> 
> 2) Pg 30, Sec 123 states that there will be a government committee that decides what treatments you are allowed and what your overall benefits are.
> 
> 3) Pg 29, lines 4-16 basically mandates the rationing of health care as is being done in Canada.
> 
> 4) Pg 42 recognizes the power of the Health Choices Commissioner to determine your health benefits. You will have no choice.
> 
> 5) PG 50, section 152 states that free, taxpayer-paid health care will be given to the 30 million non-citizens in the USA, even illegal aliens.
> 
> 6) Pg 58 states that government will have possession of all your health care records & history including finances and you will have to have a National ID Healthcard.
> 
> 7) Pg 59, lines 21-24 gives direct access to your banks accounts to compel you to pay any out-of-pocket or premium costs electronically without your previous consent.
> 
> 8) PG 65, sec 164 provides for a political payoff from the Democrats and Obama; a special subsidized plan for retirees and their families in unions community groups like ACORN.
> 
> 9) Pg 72, lines 8-14 creates a Health Care Exchange to bring private health insurance plans under government control.  This part of the bill reveals Obamas lies about being able to keep your plan if you like it.  Any health insurance plan which does not completely rework itself to conform to these regulations will be dropped from the exchange and those insured will have to pick one of the plans in the exchange. This is why the Congressional Budget Office determined that over 20 million will lose the coverage they are now enjoying if Obamacare is implemented.
> 
> 10) PG 85, line 7 provides specifics for benefit levels for all health plans, giving government the right to ration everyones healthcare.
> 
> 11) PG 91, lines 4-7 mandates that doctors offices, clinics and hospitals provide language-appropriate services, basically ordering them to hire translators at the expense of the American taxpayer.
> 
> 12) Pg 95, lines 8-18 allows the government to hire non-profit community groups like ACORN and Americorps to sign up people for the government health plan.
> 
> 13) PG 85, line 7 provides for specifics on benefit levels for Medicare recipients, basically rationing the care of every senior citizen I the United States.
> 
> 14) PG 102, lines 12-18 mandates that all Medicaid eligible will be automatically enrolled in Medicaid based upon income and insurance status. No choice.
> 
> 15) Pg 124, lines 24-25 states that no private company or individual can have the right to sue the federal government for medical price fixing, basically eliminating your right to seek redress in the courts regarding your medical care.
> 
> 16) Pg 127, lines 1-16 dictates doctors payment and therefore income which will reduce what doctors earn and lead to greater shortages of doctors and more rationing of care.
> 
> 17) Pg 145, line 15-17 any employer not currently insuring their employees must enroll employees into public plan option, with no choice of private insurance allowed.
> 
> 18) Pg 126, lines 22-25 mandates that employers must pay for health insurance even for part-time workers and their families, which will certainly lead to massive layoffs.
> 
> 19) Pg 149, lines 16-24 all employers with an annual payroll bigger than $400k who does not pay to enroll employees in public insurance option will pay an 8% tax on all payroll.
> 
> 20) Pg 150, lines 9-13 mandates that employers with an annual payroll between $251K & $400K who does not pay to enroll employees in public insurance option will pay a 2-6% tax on all payroll.
> 
> 21) Pg 167, lines 18-23 any individual who is self-employed and does not have health insurance will be taxed 2.5% of income and forced to accept public health insurance. So paying for health care out of pocket will be banned from the face of the earth.
> 
> 22) Pg 170, lines 1-3 exempts non-resident aliens from the individual health care taxes, so Americans citizens will pay for these aliens, legal and illegal alike.
> 
> 23) Pg 195 officers & employees of the new Health Care Administration will have access to all Americans personal financial records and accounts.
> 
> 24) PG 203, line 14-15 actually says that The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax. Yes, it says that.
> 
> 25) Pg 239, line 14-24 mandates that available physician services will be reduced for Medicaid recipients. Many poor people including many seniors will be affected.



The remaining 25 and much more information at link

50 Dangers from Obamacare « Coach is Right


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> The inconvenient truth for Republicans is that our national boat would be sinking without Medicare.  And Obamacare will be equally necessary.  And that Republicans have fought tooth and nail against both.  And deservedly lost.



The lies from the left never step.

Medicare is bankrupt and insolvent (Obama's entire case for Obamacare was because the federal government could no longer afford their healthcare entitlements.

Our national boat is sinking _because_ of Medicare. We're $17 trillion in debt. Which part of that do you not understand - the *trillion* or the *debt*?


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> None of what you quoted is the result of the Affordable Care Act. Sure, it's an easy scapegoat for asshole employers, but it isn't the cause.
> 
> The people that had shitty insurance with lifetime caps, high deductibles and large out of pocket expenses are finding their plans don't meet the requirements of the ACA. In other words, the ACA is preventing insurance companies from dishing up shit and charging you for it (only to drop you if you get sick). That means some people pay more, but more pay less.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh wytchey - put on your little tin foil hat and tell us again how this is all one giant "conspiracy"...
> 
> *CareFirst says 76,000 customers will lose current coverage due to Obamacare | WashingtonExaminer.com*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From your reference.
> 
> '' CareFirst BlueCross BlueShield is being forced to cancel plans that currently cover 76,000 individuals in Virginia, Maryland, and Washington, D.C., due to changes made by President Obama's health care law, the company told the Washington Examiner today''
> 
> Of course they are.  They didn't cover what they should have then and have to now.
> 
> They'll be replace by new policies with adequate coverage.
Click to expand...


Astounding mix of arrogance and ignorance here.

 [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] - please explain to me who the *fuck* are you to tell _another_ business what they "should" cover?!? Obviously they covered everything they should or those 76,000 people wouldn't have done business with them - they would have gone somewhere else.

Want to try again?


----------



## Zoom-boing

obama and the dems lied their asses off to the nth degree in order to 'sell' this pile of shit.  Oh go ahead and watch it's only 5 minutes.  obama in his very own words.  Keep lapping, idiots.  

Watch: Five Big Lies of ObamaCare | Independent Journal Review


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> For four or five years Republicans have tried to make the point that doing nothing is easier for them than doing anything.  And that if you ignore we,  the people,  health care is fine.



"You, the people" don't get to trample the Constitution or take away my rights simply because you're lazy and incompetent.

What does it say about you [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] that the dumbest wild animal in the world can figure out how to survive on it's own - with absolutely no interference from government and without petitioning government to steal from other animals on their behalf - but you *can't*?


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> For four or five years Republicans have tried to make the point that doing nothing is easier for them than doing *anything*...



Really sums up the idiocy of Dumbocrats, doesn't it? Don't research policy, examine figures, or analyze plans. Just do.......*anything*.

Folks - any wonder why we're $17 trillion in debt and failing miserably as a nation when this is the mindset of the modern day Dumbocrat?


----------



## RKMBrown

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> For four or five years Republicans have tried to make the point that doing nothing is easier for them than doing anything.  And that if you ignore we,  the people,  health care is fine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "You, the people" don't get to trample the Constitution or take away my rights simply because you're lazy and incompetent.
> 
> What does it say about you [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] that the dumbest wild animal in the world can figure out how to survive on it's own - with absolutely no interference from government and without petitioning government to steal from other animals on their behalf - but you *can't*?
Click to expand...

QFT

Democrats are truly the dumbest animal in the animal kingdom or are they just smart crooks that like to live off the fat of other people's efforts? Hmmm... maybe not so dumb, just despicable crooks.


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> The inconvenient truth for Republicans is that our national boat would be sinking without Medicare.  And Obamacare will be equally necessary.  And that Republicans have fought tooth and nail against both.  And deservedly lost.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The lies from the left never step.
> 
> Medicare is bankrupt and insolvent (Obama's entire case for Obamacare was because the federal government could no longer afford their healthcare entitlements.
> 
> Our national boat is sinking _because_ of Medicare. We're $17 trillion in debt. Which part of that do you not understand - the *trillion* or the *debt*?
Click to expand...


Here's what I understand. 

Bush had a golden opportunity to get us completely out of debt.  He chose not to. 

Instead,  he launched several absolutely unaffordable policies.  His holy wars.  His weath redistribution tax cuts.  His over-stimulation of the economy.  His refusal to regulate mortgage backed derivatives. The resulting Great Recession. His Medicare part D. 

Thats the complete story of our current debt.  His choice between zero and $17T.

SS and Medicare both have surpluses that are invested in US Treasury bonds as required by law. 

Despite their dismal financial results Republicans at every opportunity waste billions shutting down the government. 

Now,  they want to waste more billions undoing the only progress made in solving our worst in the world,  completely uncompetitive health care non-system. 

We can,  in no way,  afford conservatism.  It's the most expensive political philosophy in the world,  a fact that conservatives are unable to even process. 

But the electorate has caught on.  And democracy will solve the problem.


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh wytchey - put on your little tin foil hat and tell us again how this is all one giant "conspiracy"...
> 
> *CareFirst says 76,000 customers will lose current coverage due to Obamacare | WashingtonExaminer.com*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From your reference.
> 
> '' CareFirst BlueCross BlueShield is being forced to cancel plans that currently cover 76,000 individuals in Virginia, Maryland, and Washington, D.C., due to changes made by President Obama's health care law, the company told the Washington Examiner today''
> 
> Of course they are.  They didn't cover what they should have then and have to now.
> 
> They'll be replace by new policies with adequate coverage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Astounding mix of arrogance and ignorance here.
> 
> [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] - please explain to me who the *fuck* are you to tell _another_ business what they "should" cover?!? Obviously they covered everything they should or those 76,000 people wouldn't have done business with them - they would have gone somewhere else.
> 
> Want to try again?
Click to expand...


Every business is regulated because their one rule,  make more money regardless of the cost to others,  makes regulation and competition absolutely necessary.  And the health care insurance market is about as lacking price competition as any.  

So no,  I don't want to try again.  You need to.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> The inconvenient truth for Republicans is that our national boat would be sinking without Medicare.  And Obamacare will be equally necessary.  And that Republicans have fought tooth and nail against both.  And deservedly lost.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The lies from the left never step.
> 
> Medicare is bankrupt and insolvent (Obama's entire case for Obamacare was because the federal government could no longer afford their healthcare entitlements.
> 
> Our national boat is sinking _because_ of Medicare. We're $17 trillion in debt. Which part of that do you not understand - the *trillion* or the *debt*?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's what I understand.
> 
> Bush had a golden opportunity to get us completely out of debt.  He chose not to.
> 
> Instead,  he launched several absolutely unaffordable policies.  His holy wars.  His weath redistribution tax cuts.  His over-stimulation of the economy.  His refusal to regulate mortgage backed derivatives. The resulting Great Recession. His Medicare part D.
> 
> Thats the complete story of our current debt.  His choice between zero and $17T.
> 
> SS and Medicare both have surpluses that are invested in US Treasury bonds as required by law.
> 
> Despite their dismal financial results Republicans at every opportunity waste billions shutting down the government.
> 
> Now,  they want to waste more billions undoing the only progress made in solving our worst in the world,  completely uncompetitive health care non-system.
> 
> We can,  in no way,  afford conservatism.  It's the most expensive political philosophy in the world,  a fact that conservatives are unable to even process.
> 
> But the electorate has caught on.  And democracy will solve the problem.
Click to expand...

Booooooosh!!! ROFL what a retard.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> From your reference.
> 
> '' CareFirst BlueCross BlueShield is being forced to cancel plans that currently cover 76,000 individuals in Virginia, Maryland, and Washington, D.C., due to changes made by President Obama's health care law, the company told the Washington Examiner today''
> 
> Of course they are.  They didn't cover what they should have then and have to now.
> 
> They'll be replace by new policies with adequate coverage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Astounding mix of arrogance and ignorance here.
> 
> [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] - please explain to me who the *fuck* are you to tell _another_ business what they "should" cover?!? Obviously they covered everything they should or those 76,000 people wouldn't have done business with them - they would have gone somewhere else.
> 
> Want to try again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every business is regulated because their one rule,  make more money regardless of the cost to others,  makes regulation and competition absolutely necessary.  And the health care insurance market is about as lacking price competition as any.
> 
> So no,  I don't want to try again.  You need to.
Click to expand...

You are nothing but a lying POS.


----------



## PMZ

The Republican vultures are circling again eyeing everyone's wallets.  Their story?  Trust us.  We're the good guys despite our absolutely disreputable performance. 

They see the middle class exactly as a lion sees a herd of prey.  Lunch to be harvested. 

One can never be too fat.  Besides the kill is fun,  and the meat tasty,  and if God hadn't wanted me to be a predator he wouldn't have given me these teeth and claws.  

Unlike the herds,  Americans have democracy.  We can vote the lions out of our business.  

And we will.  Pull their teeth.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> The Republican vultures are circling again eyeing everyone's wallets.  Their story?  Trust us.  We're the good guys despite our absolutely disreputable performance.
> 
> They see the middle class exactly as a lion sees a herd of prey.  Lunch to be harvested.
> 
> One can never be too fat.  Besides the kill is fun,  and the meat tasty,  and if God hadn't wanted me to be a predator he wouldn't have given me these teeth and claws.
> 
> Unlike the herds,  Americans have democracy.  We can vote the lions out of our business.
> 
> And we will.  Pull their teeth.



You are FOS.  Heinz is republican?  Gates is republican? Soros is republican?  Bull shit retard.  The richest of the rich are democrats.  The republicans are the people working their ass off to improve the lives of their families.  You will never be anything but a piece of poo.


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> The inconvenient truth for Republicans is that our national boat would be sinking without Medicare.  And Obamacare will be equally necessary.  And that Republicans have fought tooth and nail against both.  And deservedly lost.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The lies from the left never step.
> 
> Medicare is bankrupt and insolvent (Obama's entire case for Obamacare was because the federal government could no longer afford their healthcare entitlements.
> 
> Our national boat is sinking _because_ of Medicare. We're $17 trillion in debt. Which part of that do you not understand - the *trillion* or the *debt*?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's what I understand.
> 
> Bush had a golden opportunity to get us completely out of debt.  He chose not to.
> 
> Instead,  he launched.. His weath redistribution tax cuts.
Click to expand...


Oh the mindset of the idiot liberal. Can you please explain how tax cuts are "wealth redistribution" [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION]?

How is taking less of what someone *already has* "redistributing" anything?


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> The inconvenient truth for Republicans is that our national boat would be sinking without Medicare.  And Obamacare will be equally necessary.  And that Republicans have fought tooth and nail against both.  And deservedly lost.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The lies from the left never step.
> 
> Medicare is bankrupt and insolvent (Obama's entire case for Obamacare was because the federal government could no longer afford their healthcare entitlements.
> 
> Our national boat is sinking _because_ of Medicare. We're $17 trillion in debt. Which part of that do you not understand - the *trillion* or the *debt*?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's what I understand.
> 
> Bush had a golden opportunity to get us completely out of debt.  He chose not to.
> 
> Instead,  he launched several absolutely unaffordable policies.  His holy wars.  His weath redistribution tax cuts.  His over-stimulation of the economy.  His refusal to regulate mortgage backed derivatives. The resulting Great Recession. His Medicare part D.
> 
> Thats the complete story of our current debt.  His choice between zero and $17T.
> 
> SS and Medicare both have surpluses that are invested in US Treasury bonds as required by law.
> 
> Despite their dismal financial results Republicans at every opportunity waste billions shutting down the government.
> 
> Now,  they want to waste more billions undoing the only progress made in solving our worst in the world,  completely uncompetitive health care non-system.
> 
> We can,  in no way,  afford conservatism.  It's the most expensive political philosophy in the world,  a fact that conservatives are unable to even process.
> 
> But the electorate has caught on.  And democracy will solve the problem.
Click to expand...


Conservatism is personal responsibility. Socialism (which is what you falsely label as "democracy") requires a few to pay for all.

When Obama took office, the national debt stood at $10 trillion dollars (which took 230 years). It now stands at $17 trillion after only 5 years of Obama.

Clearly the only thing we can't afford is your stupidity.

(Seriously [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] - if you're going to attempt to spin things, you really need to do a better job than this here - it was jus weak and pathetic!)


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> From your reference.
> 
> '' CareFirst BlueCross BlueShield is being forced to cancel plans that currently cover 76,000 individuals in Virginia, Maryland, and Washington, D.C., due to changes made by President Obama's health care law, the company told the Washington Examiner today''
> 
> Of course they are.  They didn't cover what they should have then and have to now.
> 
> They'll be replace by new policies with adequate coverage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Astounding mix of arrogance and ignorance here.
> 
> [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] - please explain to me who the *fuck* are you to tell _another_ business what they "should" cover?!? Obviously they covered everything they should or those 76,000 people wouldn't have done business with them - they would have gone somewhere else.
> 
> Want to try again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every business is regulated because their one rule,  make more money regardless of the cost to others,  makes regulation and competition absolutely necessary.  And the health care insurance market is about as lacking price competition as any.
> 
> So no,  I don't want to try again.  You need to.
Click to expand...


 [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] - I know you are a bit lacking in IQ (hence the reason you are a parasite and not a producer) but surely even you can understand that the *only* reason a business exists is to make money. Their sole reason for existing is to make money. Not to provide for you. Not to be patriotic. Not to "share the wealth". To make money.

Now, what makes competition "absolutely necessary" is that it improves products (goods or services) while driving down costs. So in your confusion, you literally just made the case for the free market and against Obamacare... 

As I said, would you like to try again [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION]?


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> From your reference.
> 
> '' CareFirst BlueCross BlueShield is being forced to cancel plans that currently cover 76,000 individuals in Virginia, Maryland, and Washington, D.C., due to changes made by President Obama's health care law, the company told the Washington Examiner today''
> 
> Of course they are.  They didn't cover what they should have then and have to now.
> 
> They'll be replace by new policies with adequate coverage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Astounding mix of arrogance and ignorance here.
> 
> [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] - please explain to me who the *fuck* are you to tell _another_ business what they "should" cover?!? Obviously they covered everything they should or those 76,000 people wouldn't have done business with them - they would have gone somewhere else.
> 
> Want to try again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every business is regulated because their one rule,  make more money regardless of the cost to others,  makes regulation and competition absolutely necessary.  And the health care insurance market is about as lacking price competition as any.
> 
> So no,  I don't want to try again.  You need to.
Click to expand...


By the way - I noticed you were unable to explain why those 76,000 customers didn't go somewhere else if CareFirst was not proving what they "should"?

You're silence is deafening...


----------



## depotoo

PMZ said:


> The Republican vultures are circling again eyeing everyone's wallets.  Their story?  Trust us.  We're the good guys despite our absolutely disreputable performance.
> 
> They see the middle class exactly as a lion sees a herd of prey.  Lunch to be harvested.
> 
> One can never be too fat.  Besides the kill is fun,  and the meat tasty,  and if God hadn't wanted me to be a predator he wouldn't have given me these teeth and claws.
> 
> Unlike the herds,  Americans have democracy.  We can vote the lions out of our business.
> 
> And we will.  Pull their teeth.



Words need to be substituted there. You are as blind as a bat.  Maybe an ophtalmologist could help.  Then again it might take a neurosurgeon...


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> The Republican vultures are circling again eyeing everyone's wallets.  Their story?  Trust us.  We're the good guys despite our absolutely disreputable performance.
> 
> They see the middle class exactly as a lion sees a herd of prey.  Lunch to be harvested.
> 
> One can never be too fat.  Besides the kill is fun,  and the meat tasty,  and if God hadn't wanted me to be a predator he wouldn't have given me these teeth and claws.
> 
> Unlike the herds,  *Americans have democracy*.  We can vote the lions out of our business.
> 
> And we will.  Pull their teeth.



Folks - you simply cannot make this up. [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] is the poster boy of the modern day idiot Dumbocrat. Completely uninformed about the most basics of government, economics, and society.

Case in point - the United States has *never* been a Democracy. We are a Republic.

Now, it's sad enough that PMZ is ignorant of that basic (yet critical) fact. But what's worse is that he's too fuck'n lazy to do an 1.4 second Google search to verify his information before ignorantly posting it.

Lazy & Ignorant... like I said, the poster boy of the modern day idiot Dumbocrat.

(P.S. - after the Obama regime of terror occupied the White House, the American people handed the Dumbocrats one of the biggest ass-kickings in U.S. political history and conservatives now control the House. How is that whole "vote ourselves communism" thing working out for you? )


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> The Republican vultures are circling again eyeing everyone's wallets...



 

Isn't it remarkable how the Dumbocrats accuse their opposition of being guilty of the Dubmocrats own policies (much like the Nazi's used to do)?

The Republican platforms is simple - this is America, America is freedom, freedom includes keeping what you earn.

The Dumbocrat platform is much more complex - this isn't America, you're not entitled to freedom, and you OWE us what you make so that we can't redistribute it among our friends and the power elite.

The ONLY one's who have EVER "circled the people's wallets like vultures" are the Dumbocrats.


----------



## PMZ

What we see overwhelming evidence of here is a combination of the Dunning-Kruger effect  ignorance being too ignorant to even recognize itself,  and circling vultures that want to finish what they started under Bush,  the harvesting of the middle class.  
Example.  They deny that we,  the people,  through democracy,  are fully capable of voting them completely out of government. 

They've been brainwashed to claim,  robot like,  America is a republic,  which is defined in legitimate dictionaries as,  not having a monarch. 

We don't have a monarch,  we do have a democracy,  and it's their worst enemy because we can render the predators completely harmless in government and in business.  Just by voting.  And regulating.  And as consumers,  supporting only legitimate businesses. 

We have power.  They have declared and demonstrated their hatred of and for America.  Our power can,  should,  in fact has to,  send them packing forever.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> What we see overwhelming evidence of here is a combination of the Dunning-Kruger effect  ignorance being too ignorant to even recognize itself,  and circling vultures that want to finish what they started under Bush,  the harvesting of the middle class.
> Example.  They deny that we,  the people,  through democracy,  are fully capable of voting them completely out of government.
> 
> They've been brainwashed to claim,  robot like,  America is a republic,  which is defined in legitimate dictionaries as,  not having a monarch.
> 
> We don't have a monarch,  we do have a democracy,  and it's their worst enemy because we can render the predators completely harmless in government and in business.  Just by voting.  And regulating.  And as consumers,  supporting only legitimate businesses.
> 
> We have power.  They have declared and demonstrated their hatred of and for America.  Our power can,  should,  in fact has to,  send them packing forever.



Are you are entirely incapable of writing a sentence without lying?


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> The lies from the left never step.
> 
> Medicare is bankrupt and insolvent (Obama's entire case for Obamacare was because the federal government could no longer afford their healthcare entitlements.
> 
> Our national boat is sinking _because_ of Medicare. We're $17 trillion in debt. Which part of that do you not understand - the *trillion* or the *debt*?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's what I understand.
> 
> Bush had a golden opportunity to get us completely out of debt.  He chose not to.
> 
> Instead,  he launched.. His weath redistribution tax cuts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh the mindset of the idiot liberal. Can you please explain how tax cuts are "wealth redistribution" [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION]?
> 
> How is taking less of what someone *already has* "redistributing" anything?
Click to expand...


Bush did it by rewarding having wealth over creating it.  The evidence is the huge transfer of wealth up.  The biggest in history. 

But did that satisfy the wealthy?  Not at all.  Now they're eyeing the 15% shared by 80% of Americans and saying we want that too.  And we don't want them to have health insurance or jobs for that matter.  We want it all.  We need slaves to do our work and starving people make the best ones.  

I think that I  speak for the vast majority of middle America when I say fuck off. Stay out of our government.  Not that you'll have any choice come election days.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> What we see overwhelming evidence of here is a combination of the Dunning-Kruger effect  ignorance being too ignorant to even recognize itself,  and circling vultures that want to finish what they started under Bush,  the harvesting of the middle class.
> Example.  They deny that we,  the people,  through democracy,  are fully capable of voting them completely out of government.
> 
> They've been brainwashed to claim,  robot like,  America is a republic,  which is defined in legitimate dictionaries as,  not having a monarch.
> 
> We don't have a monarch,  we do have a democracy,  and it's their worst enemy because we can render the predators completely harmless in government and in business.  Just by voting.  And regulating.  And as consumers,  supporting only legitimate businesses.
> 
> We have power.  They have declared and demonstrated their hatred of and for America.  Our power can,  should,  in fact has to,  send them packing forever.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you are entirely incapable of writing a sentence without lying?
Click to expand...


Can you ever provide evidence of what you claim?


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Republican vultures are circling again eyeing everyone's wallets.  Their story?  Trust us.  We're the good guys despite our absolutely disreputable performance.
> 
> They see the middle class exactly as a lion sees a herd of prey.  Lunch to be harvested.
> 
> One can never be too fat.  Besides the kill is fun,  and the meat tasty,  and if God hadn't wanted me to be a predator he wouldn't have given me these teeth and claws.
> 
> Unlike the herds,  *Americans have democracy*.  We can vote the lions out of our business.
> 
> And we will.  Pull their teeth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Folks - you simply cannot make this up. [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] is the poster boy of the modern day idiot Dumbocrat. Completely uninformed about the most basics of government, economics, and society.
> 
> Case in point - the United States has *never* been a Democracy. We are a Republic.
> 
> Now, it's sad enough that PMZ is ignorant of that basic (yet critical) fact. But what's worse is that he's too fuck'n lazy to do an 1.4 second Google search to verify his information before ignorantly posting it.
> 
> Lazy & Ignorant... like I said, the poster boy of the modern day idiot Dumbocrat.
> 
> (P.S. - after the Obama regime of terror occupied the White House, the American people handed the Dumbocrats one of the biggest ass-kickings in U.S. political history and conservatives now control the House. How is that whole "vote ourselves communism" thing working out for you? )
Click to expand...


Old Rotweiner is back at it again rewriting history.  But,  can we blame him?  He's stuck with a no account political cult based on a foundation of ignorance built by bought and paid for media propaganda. 

So,  yes,  we should hold him accountable for his words and actions.  

And we should vote everybody like him out of our government.  And as consumers,  support only those who love America.


----------



## Zoom-boing

PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> The inconvenient truth for Republicans is that our national boat would be sinking without Medicare.  And Obamacare will be equally necessary.  And that Republicans have fought tooth and nail against both.  And deservedly lost.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The lies from the left never step.
> 
> Medicare is bankrupt and insolvent (Obama's entire case for Obamacare was because the federal government could no longer afford their healthcare entitlements.
> 
> Our national boat is sinking _because_ of Medicare. We're $17 trillion in debt. Which part of that do you not understand - the *trillion* or the *debt*?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's what I understand.
> 
> Bush had a golden opportunity to get us completely out of debt.  He chose not to.
> 
> Instead,  he launched several absolutely unaffordable policies.  His holy wars.  His weath redistribution tax cuts.  His over-stimulation of the economy.  His refusal to regulate mortgage backed derivatives. The resulting Great Recession. His Medicare part D.
> 
> Thats the complete story of our current debt.  His choice between zero and $17T.
> 
> SS and Medicare both have surpluses that are invested in US Treasury bonds as required by law.
> 
> Despite their dismal financial results Republicans at every opportunity waste billions shutting down the government.
> 
> Now,  they want to waste more billions undoing the only progress made in solving our worst in the world,  completely uncompetitive health care non-system.
> 
> We can,  in no way,  afford conservatism.  It's the most expensive political philosophy in the world,  a fact that conservatives are unable to even process.
> 
> But the electorate has caught on.  And democracy will solve the problem.
Click to expand...


In what delusional world do you live in?  See how much he spent?  See how much debt?  Look at everything you listed ... _Shrub wasn't a conservative_.  

obama is Shrub on steroids ... yet, nary a word from you on the debt _he _has incurred, on the money _he_ has spent, on the power grab_ he_ has gleaned, on reduction of debt under_ his_ administration.

Please, continue to derp.


----------



## PMZ

Zoom-boing said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> The lies from the left never step.
> 
> Medicare is bankrupt and insolvent (Obama's entire case for Obamacare was because the federal government could no longer afford their healthcare entitlements.
> 
> Our national boat is sinking _because_ of Medicare. We're $17 trillion in debt. Which part of that do you not understand - the *trillion* or the *debt*?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's what I understand.
> 
> Bush had a golden opportunity to get us completely out of debt.  He chose not to.
> 
> Instead,  he launched several absolutely unaffordable policies.  His holy wars.  His weath redistribution tax cuts.  His over-stimulation of the economy.  His refusal to regulate mortgage backed derivatives. The resulting Great Recession. His Medicare part D.
> 
> Thats the complete story of our current debt.  His choice between zero and $17T.
> 
> SS and Medicare both have surpluses that are invested in US Treasury bonds as required by law.
> 
> Despite their dismal financial results Republicans at every opportunity waste billions shutting down the government.
> 
> Now,  they want to waste more billions undoing the only progress made in solving our worst in the world,  completely uncompetitive health care non-system.
> 
> We can,  in no way,  afford conservatism.  It's the most expensive political philosophy in the world,  a fact that conservatives are unable to even process.
> 
> But the electorate has caught on.  And democracy will solve the problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In what delusional world do you live in?  See how much he spent?  See how much debt?  Look at everything you listed ... _Shrub wasn't a conservative_.
> 
> obama is Shrub on steroids ... yet, nary a word from you on the debt _he _has incurred, on the money _he_ has spent, on the power grab_ he_ has gleaned, on reduction of debt under_ his_ administration.
> 
> Please, continue to derp.
Click to expand...


I know how embarrassing failure is to conservative Republicans.  Now they have to throw their former hero under the bus along with all liberals,  Democrats,  government workers,  union members,  all other races, creeds and nationalities,  immigrants legal and illegal,  the educated,  the middle class,  women,  Senators, scientists and even their own spawn like Romney.  In other words,  most of we,  the people.  

They deny,  because they're incapable of understanding, democracy.  That's why they have zero future in American politics. 

They are the most expensive experiment in US history and the most conclusive. 

Conservatism is the most expensive option always.  Ignoring problems is the most costly option.  Continuous lying is a necessity for conservatives as reality is not kind to them because they make everything worse.  For which there is incontrovertible evidence.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's what I understand.
> 
> Bush had a golden opportunity to get us completely out of debt.  He chose not to.
> 
> Instead,  he launched several absolutely unaffordable policies.  His holy wars.  His weath redistribution tax cuts.  His over-stimulation of the economy.  His refusal to regulate mortgage backed derivatives. The resulting Great Recession. His Medicare part D.
> 
> Thats the complete story of our current debt.  His choice between zero and $17T.
> 
> SS and Medicare both have surpluses that are invested in US Treasury bonds as required by law.
> 
> Despite their dismal financial results Republicans at every opportunity waste billions shutting down the government.
> 
> Now,  they want to waste more billions undoing the only progress made in solving our worst in the world,  completely uncompetitive health care non-system.
> 
> We can,  in no way,  afford conservatism.  It's the most expensive political philosophy in the world,  a fact that conservatives are unable to even process.
> 
> But the electorate has caught on.  And democracy will solve the problem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In what delusional world do you live in?  See how much he spent?  See how much debt?  Look at everything you listed ... _Shrub wasn't a conservative_.
> 
> obama is Shrub on steroids ... yet, nary a word from you on the debt _he _has incurred, on the money _he_ has spent, on the power grab_ he_ has gleaned, on reduction of debt under_ his_ administration.
> 
> Please, continue to derp.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know how embarrassing failure is to conservative Republicans.  Now they have to throw their former hero under the bus along with all liberals,  Democrats,  government workers,  union members,  all other races, creeds and nationalities,  immigrants legal and illegal,  the educated,  the middle class,  women,  Senators, scientists and even their own spawn like Romney.  In other words,  most of we,  the people.
> 
> They deny,  because they're incapable of understanding, democracy.  That's why they have zero future in American politics.
> 
> They are the most expensive experiment in US history and the most conclusive.
> 
> Conservatism is the most expensive option always.  Ignoring problems is the most costly option.  Continuous lying is a necessity for conservatives as reality is not kind to them because they make everything worse.  For which there is incontrovertible evidence.
Click to expand...

Conservatism is the more efficient means for people to accomplish that which they desire.  Modern Liberalism is the least efficient means to do anything, and merely results in a society filled with frigging spastic retard liars like you.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> In what delusional world do you live in?  See how much he spent?  See how much debt?  Look at everything you listed ... _Shrub wasn't a conservative_.
> 
> obama is Shrub on steroids ... yet, nary a word from you on the debt _he _has incurred, on the money _he_ has spent, on the power grab_ he_ has gleaned, on reduction of debt under_ his_ administration.
> 
> Please, continue to derp.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know how embarrassing failure is to conservative Republicans.  Now they have to throw their former hero under the bus along with all liberals,  Democrats,  government workers,  union members,  all other races, creeds and nationalities,  immigrants legal and illegal,  the educated,  the middle class,  women,  Senators, scientists and even their own spawn like Romney.  In other words,  most of we,  the people.
> 
> They deny,  because they're incapable of understanding, democracy.  That's why they have zero future in American politics.
> 
> They are the most expensive experiment in US history and the most conclusive.
> 
> Conservatism is the most expensive option always.  Ignoring problems is the most costly option.  Continuous lying is a necessity for conservatives as reality is not kind to them because they make everything worse.  For which there is incontrovertible evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Conservatism is the more efficient means for people to accomplish that which they desire.  Modern Liberalism is the least efficient means to do anything, and merely results in a society filled with frigging spastic retard liars like you.
Click to expand...


Again,  not a shred of evidence.  You merely repeat the propaganda that you unquestionably bought from the Fox boobs and boobies.  They told you why you should be angry and gave you a scapegoat (everyone outside your cult) and you have so little respect for others that you thought that we would buy that BS too.  

Not a chance.  The rest of us are way smarter than that. 

You had your chance to do good and the people like you but in government did badly.  Very badly.  We'll be paying for generations. 

You are free to spend the rest of your life in your deluded state.  We are free to vote.  Thats the power of the democracy that you deny.  

Keep denying it.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> In what delusional world do you live in?  See how much he spent?  See how much debt?  Look at everything you listed ... _Shrub wasn't a conservative_.
> 
> obama is Shrub on steroids ... yet, nary a word from you on the debt _he _has incurred, on the money _he_ has spent, on the power grab_ he_ has gleaned, on reduction of debt under_ his_ administration.
> 
> Please, continue to derp.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know how embarrassing failure is to conservative Republicans.  Now they have to throw their former hero under the bus along with all liberals,  Democrats,  government workers,  union members,  all other races, creeds and nationalities,  immigrants legal and illegal,  the educated,  the middle class,  women,  Senators, scientists and even their own spawn like Romney.  In other words,  most of we,  the people.
> 
> They deny,  because they're incapable of understanding, democracy.  That's why they have zero future in American politics.
> 
> They are the most expensive experiment in US history and the most conclusive.
> 
> Conservatism is the most expensive option always.  Ignoring problems is the most costly option.  Continuous lying is a necessity for conservatives as reality is not kind to them because they make everything worse.  For which there is incontrovertible evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Conservatism is the more efficient means for people to accomplish that which they desire.  Modern Liberalism is the least efficient means to do anything, and merely results in a society filled with frigging spastic retard liars like you.
Click to expand...


''Conservatism is the more efficient means for people to accomplish that which they desire.''

If you are a predator,  conservatism is efficient because it promotes helpless prey.  Liberalism evens the playing field.  You hate that.


----------



## Antares

PMZ said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's what I understand.
> 
> Bush had a golden opportunity to get us completely out of debt.  He chose not to.
> 
> Instead,  he launched several absolutely unaffordable policies.  His holy wars.  His weath redistribution tax cuts.  His over-stimulation of the economy.  His refusal to regulate mortgage backed derivatives. The resulting Great Recession. His Medicare part D.
> 
> Thats the complete story of our current debt.  His choice between zero and $17T.
> 
> SS and Medicare both have surpluses that are invested in US Treasury bonds as required by law.
> 
> Despite their dismal financial results Republicans at every opportunity waste billions shutting down the government.
> 
> Now,  they want to waste more billions undoing the only progress made in solving our worst in the world,  completely uncompetitive health care non-system.
> 
> We can,  in no way,  afford conservatism.  It's the most expensive political philosophy in the world,  a fact that conservatives are unable to even process.
> 
> But the electorate has caught on.  And democracy will solve the problem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In what delusional world do you live in?  See how much he spent?  See how much debt?  Look at everything you listed ... _Shrub wasn't a conservative_.
> 
> obama is Shrub on steroids ... yet, nary a word from you on the debt _he _has incurred, on the money _he_ has spent, on the power grab_ he_ has gleaned, on reduction of debt under_ his_ administration.
> 
> Please, continue to derp.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know how embarrassing failure is to conservative Republicans.  Now they have to throw their former hero under the bus along with all liberals,  Democrats,  government workers,  union members,  all other races, creeds and nationalities,  immigrants legal and illegal,  the educated,  the middle class,  women,  Senators, scientists and even their own spawn like Romney.  In other words,  most of we,  the people.
> 
> They deny,  because they're incapable of understanding, democracy.  That's why they have zero future in American politics.
> 
> They are the most expensive experiment in US history and the most conclusive.
> 
> Conservatism is the most expensive option always.  Ignoring problems is the most costly option.  Continuous lying is a necessity for conservatives as reality is not kind to them because they make everything worse.  For which there is incontrovertible evidence.
Click to expand...


Look at you all bad and shit 

Incontrovertible....did you look that up all by your little self?


----------



## Antares

PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's what I understand.
> 
> Bush had a golden opportunity to get us completely out of debt.  He chose not to.
> 
> Instead,  he launched.. His weath redistribution tax cuts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh the mindset of the idiot liberal. Can you please explain how tax cuts are "wealth redistribution" [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION]?
> 
> How is taking less of what someone *already has* "redistributing" anything?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bush did it by rewarding having wealth over creating it.  The evidence is the huge transfer of wealth up.  The biggest in history.
> 
> But did that satisfy the wealthy?  Not at all.  Now they're eyeing the 15% shared by 80% of Americans and saying we want that too.  And we don't want them to have health insurance or jobs for that matter.  We want it all.  We need slaves to do our work and starving people make the best ones.
> 
> I think that I  speak for the vast majority of middle America when I say fuck off. Stay out of our government.  Not that you'll have any choice come election days.
Click to expand...



You don't speak for anyone little boy.


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know how embarrassing failure is to conservative Republicans.  Now they have to throw their former hero under the bus along with all liberals,  Democrats,  government workers,  union members,  all other races, creeds and nationalities,  immigrants legal and illegal,  the educated,  the middle class,  women,  Senators, scientists and even their own spawn like Romney.  In other words,  most of we,  the people.
> 
> They deny,  because they're incapable of understanding, democracy.  That's why they have zero future in American politics.
> 
> They are the most expensive experiment in US history and the most conclusive.
> 
> Conservatism is the most expensive option always.  Ignoring problems is the most costly option.  Continuous lying is a necessity for conservatives as reality is not kind to them because they make everything worse.  For which there is incontrovertible evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatism is the more efficient means for people to accomplish that which they desire.  Modern Liberalism is the least efficient means to do anything, and merely results in a society filled with frigging spastic retard liars like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ''Conservatism is the more efficient means for people to accomplish that which they desire.''
> 
> If you are a predator,  conservatism is efficient because it promotes helpless prey.  Liberalism evens the playing field.  You hate that.
Click to expand...


By it's very definition, FREEDOM is a "level playing field" you stupid asshat because it prevents someone from impeding on you or holding you back.

Where as liberalism (ie communism) ensures that the field is completely uneven and slanted in favor of the dictator.

Man are you one stupid mother fucker....


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Republican vultures are circling again eyeing everyone's wallets.  Their story?  Trust us.  We're the good guys despite our absolutely disreputable performance.
> 
> They see the middle class exactly as a lion sees a herd of prey.  Lunch to be harvested.
> 
> One can never be too fat.  Besides the kill is fun,  and the meat tasty,  and if God hadn't wanted me to be a predator he wouldn't have given me these teeth and claws.
> 
> Unlike the herds,  *Americans have democracy*.  We can vote the lions out of our business.
> 
> And we will.  Pull their teeth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Folks - you simply cannot make this up.  [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] is the poster boy of the modern day idiot Dumbocrat. Completely uninformed about the most basics of government, economics, and society.
> 
> Case in point - the United States has *never* been a Democracy. We are a Republic.
> 
> Now, it's sad enough that PMZ is ignorant of that basic (yet critical) fact. But what's worse is that he's too fuck'n lazy to do an 1.4 second Google search to verify his information before ignorantly posting it.
> 
> Lazy & Ignorant... like I said, the poster boy of the modern day idiot Dumbocrat.
> 
> (P.S. - after the Obama regime of terror occupied the White House, the American people handed the Dumbocrats one of the biggest ass-kickings in U.S. political history and conservatives now control the House. How is that whole "vote ourselves communism" thing working out for you? )
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Old Rotweiner is back at it again rewriting history.  But,  can we blame him?  He's stuck with a no account political cult based on a foundation of ignorance built by bought and paid for media propaganda.
> 
> So,  yes,  we should hold him accountable for his words and actions.
> 
> And we should vote everybody like him out of our government.  And as consumers,  support only those who love America.
Click to expand...


"Rewriting history"... it is astounding how stupid [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] is. He doesn't even know that is nation is NOT a democracy and never has been... 

Man, this is HUMILIATING for the left. I have to imagine they are all cringing right now and screaming "shut up PMZ - you are embarrassing us".

I simply can't believe this juvenile dumb fuck doesn't know his nation is not a democracy. Maybe he's not old enough to take the civics class reserved for upper classman?


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know how embarrassing failure is to conservative Republicans.  Now they have to throw their former hero under the bus along with all liberals,  Democrats,  government workers,  union members,  all other races, creeds and nationalities,  immigrants legal and illegal,  the educated,  the middle class,  women,  Senators, scientists and even their own spawn like Romney.  In other words,  most of we,  the people.
> 
> They deny,  because they're incapable of understanding, democracy.  That's why they have zero future in American politics.
> 
> They are the most expensive experiment in US history and the most conclusive.
> 
> Conservatism is the most expensive option always.  Ignoring problems is the most costly option.  Continuous lying is a necessity for conservatives as reality is not kind to them because they make everything worse.  For which there is incontrovertible evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatism is the more efficient means for people to accomplish that which they desire.  Modern Liberalism is the least efficient means to do anything, and merely results in a society filled with frigging spastic retard liars like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ''Conservatism is the more efficient means for people to accomplish that which they desire.''
> 
> If you are a predator,  conservatism is efficient because it promotes *helpless prey*.  Liberalism evens the playing field.  You hate that.
Click to expand...


So you admit you look at yourself and your side as HELPLESS? 

I love it when a Dumbocrat has an accidental moment of honesty...


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know how embarrassing failure is to conservative Republicans.  Now they have to throw their former hero under the bus along with all liberals,  Democrats,  government workers,  union members,  all other races, creeds and nationalities,  immigrants legal and illegal,  the educated,  the middle class,  women,  Senators, scientists and even their own spawn like Romney.  In other words,  most of we,  the people.
> 
> They deny,  because they're incapable of understanding, democracy.  That's why they have zero future in American politics.
> 
> They are the most expensive experiment in US history and the most conclusive.
> 
> Conservatism is the most expensive option always.  Ignoring problems is the most costly option.  Continuous lying is a necessity for conservatives as reality is not kind to them because they make everything worse.  For which there is incontrovertible evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatism is the more efficient means for people to accomplish that which they desire.  Modern Liberalism is the least efficient means to do anything, and merely results in a society filled with frigging spastic retard liars like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again,  not a shred of evidence.  You merely repeat the propaganda that you unquestionably bought from the Fox boobs and boobies.  They told you why you should be angry and gave you a scapegoat (everyone outside your cult) and you have so little respect for others that you thought that we would buy that BS too.
> 
> Not a chance.  The rest of us are way smarter than that.
> 
> You had your chance to do good and the people like you but in government did badly.  Very badly.  We'll be paying for generations.
> 
> You are free to spend the rest of your life in your deluded state.  We are free to vote.  Thats the power of the democracy that you deny.
> 
> Keep denying it.
Click to expand...


Bullshit you liar.  Bush was a libtard just like you.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know how embarrassing failure is to conservative Republicans.  Now they have to throw their former hero under the bus along with all liberals,  Democrats,  government workers,  union members,  all other races, creeds and nationalities,  immigrants legal and illegal,  the educated,  the middle class,  women,  Senators, scientists and even their own spawn like Romney.  In other words,  most of we,  the people.
> 
> They deny,  because they're incapable of understanding, democracy.  That's why they have zero future in American politics.
> 
> They are the most expensive experiment in US history and the most conclusive.
> 
> Conservatism is the most expensive option always.  Ignoring problems is the most costly option.  Continuous lying is a necessity for conservatives as reality is not kind to them because they make everything worse.  For which there is incontrovertible evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatism is the more efficient means for people to accomplish that which they desire.  Modern Liberalism is the least efficient means to do anything, and merely results in a society filled with frigging spastic retard liars like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ''Conservatism is the more efficient means for people to accomplish that which they desire.''
> 
> If you are a predator,  conservatism is efficient because it promotes helpless prey.  Liberalism evens the playing field.  You hate that.
Click to expand...


Yeah cause the free market is helpless consumers buying goods from ruthless sellers. ROFL what an idiot.  And you did industrial process improvement for a living?  ROFL I'll bet no one ever saved a dime taking advice from you.


----------



## PMZ

Antares said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> In what delusional world do you live in?  See how much he spent?  See how much debt?  Look at everything you listed ... _Shrub wasn't a conservative_.
> 
> obama is Shrub on steroids ... yet, nary a word from you on the debt _he _has incurred, on the money _he_ has spent, on the power grab_ he_ has gleaned, on reduction of debt under_ his_ administration.
> 
> Please, continue to derp.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know how embarrassing failure is to conservative Republicans.  Now they have to throw their former hero under the bus along with all liberals,  Democrats,  government workers,  union members,  all other races, creeds and nationalities,  immigrants legal and illegal,  the educated,  the middle class,  women,  Senators, scientists and even their own spawn like Romney.  In other words,  most of we,  the people.
> 
> They deny,  because they're incapable of understanding, democracy.  That's why they have zero future in American politics.
> 
> They are the most expensive experiment in US history and the most conclusive.
> 
> Conservatism is the most expensive option always.  Ignoring problems is the most costly option.  Continuous lying is a necessity for conservatives as reality is not kind to them because they make everything worse.  For which there is incontrovertible evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look at you all bad and shit
> 
> Incontrovertible....did you look that up all by your little self?
Click to expand...


Thanks for your deeply informative and we'll researched position.


----------



## PMZ

Antares said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh the mindset of the idiot liberal. Can you please explain how tax cuts are "wealth redistribution" [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION]?
> 
> How is taking less of what someone *already has* "redistributing" anything?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bush did it by rewarding having wealth over creating it.  The evidence is the huge transfer of wealth up.  The biggest in history.
> 
> But did that satisfy the wealthy?  Not at all.  Now they're eyeing the 15% shared by 80% of Americans and saying we want that too.  And we don't want them to have health insurance or jobs for that matter.  We want it all.  We need slaves to do our work and starving people make the best ones.
> 
> I think that I  speak for the vast majority of middle America when I say fuck off. Stay out of our government.  Not that you'll have any choice come election days.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You don't speak for anyone little boy.
Click to expand...


I think that I  speak for the vast majority of middle America when I say fuck off.


----------



## Antares

PMZ said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bush did it by rewarding having wealth over creating it.  The evidence is the huge transfer of wealth up.  The biggest in history.
> 
> But did that satisfy the wealthy?  Not at all.  Now they're eyeing the 15% shared by 80% of Americans and saying we want that too.  And we don't want them to have health insurance or jobs for that matter.  We want it all.  We need slaves to do our work and starving people make the best ones.
> 
> I think that I  speak for the vast majority of middle America when I say fuck off. Stay out of our government.  Not that you'll have any choice come election days.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't speak for anyone little boy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think that I  speak for the vast majority of middle America when I say fuck off.
Click to expand...



Kid I am middle america.....get over yourself.


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatism is the more efficient means for people to accomplish that which they desire.  Modern Liberalism is the least efficient means to do anything, and merely results in a society filled with frigging spastic retard liars like you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ''Conservatism is the more efficient means for people to accomplish that which they desire.''
> 
> If you are a predator,  conservatism is efficient because it promotes helpless prey.  Liberalism evens the playing field.  You hate that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By it's very definition, FREEDOM is a "level playing field" you stupid asshat because it prevents someone from impeding on you or holding you back.
> 
> Where as liberalism (ie communism) ensures that the field is completely uneven and slanted in favor of the dictator.
> 
> Man are you one stupid mother fucker....
Click to expand...


Rotweiner at his best.  Freedom levels the playing field.  Spoken like a true predator. 

In other words those with the least ethical and moral behavior deserve to win. 

Your hero must be Bernie Madoff.


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatism is the more efficient means for people to accomplish that which they desire.  Modern Liberalism is the least efficient means to do anything, and merely results in a society filled with frigging spastic retard liars like you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ''Conservatism is the more efficient means for people to accomplish that which they desire.''
> 
> If you are a predator,  conservatism is efficient because it promotes *helpless prey*.  Liberalism evens the playing field.  You hate that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you admit you look at yourself and your side as HELPLESS?
> 
> I love it when a Dumbocrat has an accidental moment of honesty...
Click to expand...


Democracy empowers we,  the people.  You'll feel that on election day.  A giant foot planted squarely on your ass.  

Let us know how the landing goes.


----------



## PMZ

Antares said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't speak for anyone little boy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that I  speak for the vast majority of middle America when I say fuck off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Kid I am middle america.....get over yourself.
Click to expand...


You'll learn on election day that you're not. If you were you'd hang around with better class of people.  Smarter people who think for themselves.  Puppets need not apply.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatism is the more efficient means for people to accomplish that which they desire.  Modern Liberalism is the least efficient means to do anything, and merely results in a society filled with frigging spastic retard liars like you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ''Conservatism is the more efficient means for people to accomplish that which they desire.''
> 
> If you are a predator,  conservatism is efficient because it promotes helpless prey.  Liberalism evens the playing field.  You hate that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah cause the free market is helpless consumers buying goods from ruthless sellers. ROFL what an idiot.  And you did industrial process improvement for a living?  ROFL I'll be no one ever saved a dime taking advice from you.
Click to expand...


You are not aware of any ruthless sellers?  Ruthless as in make more money regardless of the cost to others? 

You must not get out much.  

Of course,  regulation and competition constrains many of them. Without those forces,  every business would be ruthless.  

What do you think make more money regardless of the cost to others means?


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Folks - you simply cannot make this up.  [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] is the poster boy of the modern day idiot Dumbocrat. Completely uninformed about the most basics of government, economics, and society.
> 
> Case in point - the United States has *never* been a Democracy. We are a Republic.
> 
> Now, it's sad enough that PMZ is ignorant of that basic (yet critical) fact. But what's worse is that he's too fuck'n lazy to do an 1.4 second Google search to verify his information before ignorantly posting it.
> 
> Lazy & Ignorant... like I said, the poster boy of the modern day idiot Dumbocrat.
> 
> (P.S. - after the Obama regime of terror occupied the White House, the American people handed the Dumbocrats one of the biggest ass-kickings in U.S. political history and conservatives now control the House. How is that whole "vote ourselves communism" thing working out for you? )
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rotweiner is back at it again rewriting history.  But,  can we blame him?  He's stuck with a no account political cult based on a foundation of ignorance built by bought and paid for media propaganda.
> 
> So,  yes,  we should hold him accountable for his words and actions.
> 
> And we should vote everybody like him out of our government.  And as consumers,  support only those who love America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Rewriting history"... it is astounding how stupid [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] is. He doesn't even know that is nation is NOT a democracy and never has been...
> 
> Man, this is HUMILIATING for the left. I have to imagine they are all cringing right now and screaming "shut up PMZ - you are embarrassing us".
> 
> I simply can't believe this juvenile dumb fuck doesn't know his nation is not a democracy. Maybe he's not old enough to take the civics class reserved for upper classman?
Click to expand...


Breaking news for Rotweiner.  

Universal suffrage.


----------



## Antares

PMZ said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that I  speak for the vast majority of middle America when I say fuck off.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kid I am middle america.....get over yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You'll learn on election day that you're not. If you were you'd hang around with better class of people.  Smarter people who think for themselves.  Puppets need not apply.
Click to expand...


You ain't my first Rodeo kid.....young uns like you come and go....you don't think for yourself..and thats the funny little elephant in the room....you just spout lefty talking points and pretend to be a badass.

Power to the people and all of that revolutionary bullshit has been the battle cry of you little mindless children throughout history.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatism is the more efficient means for people to accomplish that which they desire.  Modern Liberalism is the least efficient means to do anything, and merely results in a society filled with frigging spastic retard liars like you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again,  not a shred of evidence.  You merely repeat the propaganda that you unquestionably bought from the Fox boobs and boobies.  They told you why you should be angry and gave you a scapegoat (everyone outside your cult) and you have so little respect for others that you thought that we would buy that BS too.
> 
> Not a chance.  The rest of us are way smarter than that.
> 
> You had your chance to do good and the people like you but in government did badly.  Very badly.  We'll be paying for generations.
> 
> You are free to spend the rest of your life in your deluded state.  We are free to vote.  Thats the power of the democracy that you deny.
> 
> Keep denying it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit you liar.  Bush was a libtard just like you.
Click to expand...


You mean like Rush and Beck?  

I don't blame you for throwing him under the bus.  I do blame you for being stupid enough to think that anyone will fall for it.


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> ''Conservatism is the more efficient means for people to accomplish that which they desire.''
> 
> If you are a predator,  conservatism is efficient because it promotes helpless prey.  Liberalism evens the playing field.  You hate that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By it's very definition, FREEDOM is a "level playing field" you stupid asshat because it prevents someone from impeding on you or holding you back.
> 
> Where as liberalism (ie communism) ensures that the field is completely uneven and slanted in favor of the dictator.
> 
> Man are you one stupid mother fucker....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rotweiner at his best.  Freedom levels the playing field.  Spoken like a true predator.
> 
> In other words those with the least ethical and moral behavior deserve to win.
> 
> Your hero must be Bernie Madoff.
Click to expand...


Madoff is a GREAT example. For one, he went to prison for what he did (proving freedom does not mean anarchy). Two, those greedy liberals had the freedom to chose what to do with their money. Those chose to hand it over to a complete stranger out of greed. That's their own problem and they got exactly what they deserved.

Their stupidity did not effect me one bit like you communist stupidity does when Obama fucks up.

Want to try again sparky?


----------



## P@triot

Antares said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kid I am middle america.....get over yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You'll learn on election day that you're not. If you were you'd hang around with better class of people.  Smarter people who think for themselves.  Puppets need not apply.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You ain't my first Rodeo kid.....young uns like you come and go....you don't think for yourself..and thats the funny little elephant in the room....you just spout lefty talking points and pretend to be a badass.
> 
> Power to the people and all of that revolutionary bullshit has been the battle cry of you little mindless children throughout history.
Click to expand...


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bush did it by rewarding having wealth over creating it.  The evidence is the huge transfer of wealth up.  The biggest in history.
> 
> But did that satisfy the wealthy?  Not at all.  Now they're eyeing the 15% shared by 80% of Americans and saying we want that too.  And we don't want them to have health insurance or jobs for that matter.  We want it all.  We need slaves to do our work and starving people make the best ones.
> 
> I think that I  speak for the vast majority of middle America when I say fuck off. Stay out of our government.  Not that you'll have any choice come election days.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't speak for anyone little boy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think that I  speak for the vast majority of middle America when I say fuck off.
Click to expand...


So then why is EVERYONE here supporting Antares and telling YOU to FUCK OFF?

Sorry junior, you're in the minority (the lazy, greedy, immature American who can't think for herself but instead parrots her masters).


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that I  speak for the vast majority of middle America when I say fuck off.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kid I am middle america.....get over yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You'll learn on election day that you're not. If you were you'd hang around with better class of people.  Smarter people who think for themselves.  Puppets need not apply.
Click to expand...


Says the Dumbocrat getting _destroyed_ in a debate because mommy & daddy taught her liberalism and she never dared venture beyond that ideology - even for a moment... 

Now tell us again how the U.S. is a "democracy" in your little mind [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION]...


----------



## Antares

[MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION], you live in a Representative Republic.....just say thank you Antares and go look up what that means.


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rotweiner is back at it again rewriting history.  But,  can we blame him?  He's stuck with a no account political cult based on a foundation of ignorance built by bought and paid for media propaganda.
> 
> So,  yes,  we should hold him accountable for his words and actions.
> 
> And we should vote everybody like him out of our government.  And as consumers,  support only those who love America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Rewriting history"... it is astounding how stupid  [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] is. He doesn't even know that is nation is NOT a democracy and never has been...
> 
> Man, this is HUMILIATING for the left. I have to imagine they are all cringing right now and screaming "shut up PMZ - you are embarrassing us".
> 
> I simply can't believe this juvenile dumb fuck doesn't know his nation is not a democracy. Maybe he's not old enough to take the civics class reserved for upper classman?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Breaking news for Rotweiner.
> 
> Universal suffrage.
Click to expand...


Breaking news for [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION]... we are *not*, not have we _ever_ been, a "democracy". We are a Republic, _stupid_. We elect officials to legislate on our behalf and the minority is protected through a wide range of tools such as the Senate, the electoral college, and the Constitution. In a democracy, majority "mob rule" rules and a vote is taken by the people for every issue.

The fact that you don't even know that much clearly indicates you are woefully unqualified to be here and discussing any of this. But when has ignorance ever stopped a Dumbocrat from opening their mouth?


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> By it's very definition, FREEDOM is a "level playing field" you stupid asshat because it prevents someone from impeding on you or holding you back.
> 
> Where as liberalism (ie communism) ensures that the field is completely uneven and slanted in favor of the dictator.
> 
> Man are you one stupid mother fucker....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rotweiner at his best.  Freedom levels the playing field.  Spoken like a true predator.
> 
> In other words those with the least ethical and moral behavior deserve to win.
> 
> Your hero must be Bernie Madoff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Madoff is a GREAT example. For one, he went to prison for what he did (proving freedom does not mean anarchy). Two, those greedy liberals had the freedom to chose what to do with their money. Those chose to hand it over to a complete stranger out of greed. That's their own problem and they got exactly what they deserved.
> 
> Their stupidity did not effect me one bit like you communist stupidity does when Obama fucks up.
> 
> Want to try again sparky?
Click to expand...


Why did he go to jail? He thought that regulation didn't apply to him. He found out he was wrong. He found out that, in a democracy, the rules favor we the people.

Your hero Romney campaigned on the idea that he only cared about 47% of the population. If we were the plutocracy that you favor, he would have won. Instead he got his ass handed to him. 

People smarter than you (almost everybody) would learn from that. Conservatives are incapable of learning. That's why they screw up everything that they touch. 

And stop thinking that you spell plutocracy,  republic. Nobody thinks that we have a monarch. Be the first conservative to say what you mean, and mean what you say.


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rotweiner at his best.  Freedom levels the playing field.  Spoken like a true predator.
> 
> In other words those with the least ethical and moral behavior deserve to win.
> 
> Your hero must be Bernie Madoff.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Madoff is a GREAT example. For one, he went to prison for what he did (proving freedom does not mean anarchy). Two, those greedy liberals had the freedom to chose what to do with their money. Those chose to hand it over to a complete stranger out of greed. That's their own problem and they got exactly what they deserved.
> 
> Their stupidity did not effect me one bit like you communist stupidity does when Obama fucks up.
> 
> Want to try again sparky?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why did he go to jail? He thought that regulation didn't apply to him. He found out he was wrong. He found out that, in a democracy, the rules favor we the people.
Click to expand...


First of all stupid, we don't have a "democracy". Jesus - Antares even threw you a bone on this one and you still couldn't learn from it?!? 

You are *not* "we the people". You're the fringe minority radical that America _hates_.

"We the people" support and defend the U.S. Constitution while you cry about it like a little girl.


----------



## PMZ

Antares said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kid I am middle america.....get over yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You'll learn on election day that you're not. If you were you'd hang around with better class of people.  Smarter people who think for themselves.  Puppets need not apply.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You ain't my first Rodeo kid.....young uns like you come and go....you don't think for yourself..and thats the funny little elephant in the room....you just spout lefty talking points and pretend to be a badass.
> 
> Power to the people and all of that revolutionary bullshit has been the battle cry of you little mindless children throughout history.
Click to expand...


Well looky here. A badass. I was supporting a family when you were a gleam in your daddy's eye. You're just another cult member mistaking watching TV for thinking. Because you never had any experience thinking. You slept through the fifth grade and decided that seeing as you didn't learn anything then, you already knew everything. 

Prime cult minion.


----------



## P@triot

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Astounding mix of arrogance and ignorance here.
> 
> [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] - please explain to me who the *fuck* are you to tell _another_ business what they "should" cover?!? Obviously they covered everything they should or those 76,000 people wouldn't have done business with them - they would have gone somewhere else.
> 
> Want to try again?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every business is regulated because their one rule,  make more money regardless of the cost to others,  makes regulation and competition absolutely necessary.  And the health care insurance market is about as lacking price competition as any.
> 
> So no,  I don't want to try again.  You need to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By the way - I noticed you were unable to explain why those 76,000 customers didn't go somewhere else if CareFirst was not proving what they "should"?
> 
> You're silence is deafening...
Click to expand...


Still waiting for an answer from [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] on this... 

It exposes her ignorance and she knows it!


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Madoff is a GREAT example. For one, he went to prison for what he did (proving freedom does not mean anarchy). Two, those greedy liberals had the freedom to chose what to do with their money. Those chose to hand it over to a complete stranger out of greed. That's their own problem and they got exactly what they deserved.
> 
> Their stupidity did not effect me one bit like you communist stupidity does when Obama fucks up.
> 
> Want to try again sparky?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why did he go to jail? He thought that regulation didn't apply to him. He found out he was wrong. He found out that, in a democracy, the rules favor we the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First of all stupid, we don't have a "democracy". Jesus - Antares even threw you a bone on this one and you still couldn't learn from it?!?
> 
> You are *not* "we the people". You're the fringe minority radical that America _hates_.
> 
> "We the people" support and defend the U.S. Constitution while you cry about it like a little girl.
Click to expand...


What do you call it when all citizens vote for their governmental representation? When all of their representation vote on laws? When the supreme court votes on adjudication? When juries vote?

""We the people" support and defend the U.S. Constitution". The only true thing that you've posted. We are not about to let the cult of conservatism change that. Ever.


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You'll learn on election day that you're not. If you were you'd hang around with better class of people.  Smarter people who think for themselves.  Puppets need not apply.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You ain't my first Rodeo kid.....young uns like you come and go....you don't think for yourself..and thats the funny little elephant in the room....you just spout lefty talking points and pretend to be a badass.
> 
> Power to the people and all of that revolutionary bullshit has been the battle cry of you little mindless children throughout history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well looky here. A badass. *I was supporting a family* when you were a gleam in your daddy's eye. You're just another cult member mistaking watching TV for thinking. Because you never had any experience thinking. You slept through the fifth grade and decided that seeing as you didn't learn anything then, you already knew everything.
> 
> Prime cult minion.
Click to expand...


Supporting a family?!? You're a fuck'n parasite who can't even support your own conclusions!


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every business is regulated because their one rule,  make more money regardless of the cost to others,  makes regulation and competition absolutely necessary.  And the health care insurance market is about as lacking price competition as any.
> 
> So no,  I don't want to try again.  You need to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By the way - I noticed you were unable to explain why those 76,000 customers didn't go somewhere else if CareFirst was not proving what they "should"?
> 
> You're silence is deafening...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still waiting for an answer from [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] on this...
> 
> It exposes her ignorance and she knows it!
Click to expand...


Some probably did numbnuts. Some probably went with the compliant policies CareFirst had to offer to replace the non compliant policies. This isn't rocket science but certainly seems well beyond you.


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why did he go to jail? He thought that regulation didn't apply to him. He found out he was wrong. He found out that, in a democracy, the rules favor we the people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First of all stupid, we don't have a "democracy". Jesus - Antares even threw you a bone on this one and you still couldn't learn from it?!?
> 
> You are *not* "we the people". You're the fringe minority radical that America _hates_.
> 
> "We the people" support and defend the U.S. Constitution while you cry about it like a little girl.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you call it when all citizens vote for their governmental representation? When all of their representation vote on laws? When the supreme court votes on adjudication? When juries vote?
> 
> ""We the people" support and defend the U.S. Constitution". The only true thing that you've posted. We are not about to let the cult of conservatism change that. Ever.
Click to expand...


Sweetie, you're so fuck'n stupid, you don't even understand that the U.S. Constitution _*is*_ conservative. Everything about it. Limiting the power of government, maximizing the freedom of people.

It was built and designed to protect America from ignorant assholes like _you_...


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> You ain't my first Rodeo kid.....young uns like you come and go....you don't think for yourself..and thats the funny little elephant in the room....you just spout lefty talking points and pretend to be a badass.
> 
> Power to the people and all of that revolutionary bullshit has been the battle cry of you little mindless children throughout history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well looky here. A badass. *I was supporting a family* when you were a gleam in your daddy's eye. You're just another cult member mistaking watching TV for thinking. Because you never had any experience thinking. You slept through the fifth grade and decided that seeing as you didn't learn anything then, you already knew everything.
> 
> Prime cult minion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Supporting a family?!? You're a fuck'n parasite who can't even support your own conclusions!
Click to expand...


Can't wait to see your evidence!


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> By the way - I noticed you were unable to explain why those 76,000 customers didn't go somewhere else if CareFirst was not proving what they "should"?
> 
> You're silence is deafening...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still waiting for an answer from [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] on this...
> 
> It exposes her ignorance and she knows it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some probably did numbnuts. Some probably went with the compliant policies CareFirst had to offer to replace the non compliant policies. This isn't rocket science but certainly seems well beyond you.
Click to expand...


"It isn't rocket science" and yet your dumb-ass can only make up answers with "some probably did". 

We are talking about the 76,000 who *clearly did not leave*. You're now contradicting yourself (like typical idiot Dumbocrats always do).

Game over junior. You lose...


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> First of all stupid, we don't have a "democracy". Jesus - Antares even threw you a bone on this one and you still couldn't learn from it?!?
> 
> You are *not* "we the people". You're the fringe minority radical that America _hates_.
> 
> "We the people" support and defend the U.S. Constitution while you cry about it like a little girl.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you call it when all citizens vote for their governmental representation? When all of their representation vote on laws? When the supreme court votes on adjudication? When juries vote?
> 
> ""We the people" support and defend the U.S. Constitution". The only true thing that you've posted. We are not about to let the cult of conservatism change that. Ever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sweetie, you're so fuck'n stupid, you don't even understand that the U.S. Constitution _*is*_ conservative. Everything about it. Limiting the power of government, maximizing the freedom of people.
> 
> It was built and designed to protect America from ignorant assholes like _you_...
Click to expand...


We have always followed the Constitution exactly the way that it prescribed.


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well looky here. A badass. *I was supporting a family* when you were a gleam in your daddy's eye. You're just another cult member mistaking watching TV for thinking. Because you never had any experience thinking. You slept through the fifth grade and decided that seeing as you didn't learn anything then, you already knew everything.
> 
> Prime cult minion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Supporting a family?!? You're a fuck'n parasite who can't even support your own conclusions!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can't wait to see your evidence!
Click to expand...


I've filled this board with evidence - you just ignore it because you prefer your brainwashed ideology over facts.

Like the fact that the Dumbocrats had complete control over Detroit for 60 years and collapsed it with ignorant socialism - turning it into a 3rd world shit hole by punishing business with high taxes & regulations which chased them away.

Only an asshole like you could blame conservatives for Detroit when the Dumnocrats had _complete_ control over it for 60 years. 

If America wants to know what your special form of stupidity will bring them, all we have to do is hold up pictures of Detroit...


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> ''Conservatism is the more efficient means for people to accomplish that which they desire.''
> 
> If you are a predator,  conservatism is efficient because it promotes helpless prey.  Liberalism evens the playing field.  You hate that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah cause the free market is helpless consumers buying goods from ruthless sellers. ROFL what an idiot.  And you did industrial process improvement for a living?  ROFL I'll be no one ever saved a dime taking advice from you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are not aware of any ruthless sellers?  Ruthless as in make more money regardless of the cost to others?
> 
> You must not get out much.
> 
> Of course,  regulation and competition constrains many of them. Without those forces,  every business would be ruthless.
> 
> What do you think make more money regardless of the cost to others means?
Click to expand...


We have regulations. We have competition. I know your old and all but jesus WTF is wrong with you?


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still waiting for an answer from [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] on this...
> 
> It exposes her ignorance and she knows it!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some probably did numbnuts. Some probably went with the compliant policies CareFirst had to offer to replace the non compliant policies. This isn't rocket science but certainly seems well beyond you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "It isn't rocket science" and yet your dumb-ass can only make up answers with "some probably did".
> 
> We are talking about the 76,000 who *clearly did not leave*. You're now contradicting yourself (like typical idiot Dumbocrats always do).
> 
> Game over junior. You lose...
Click to expand...


You have the typical conservative attitude that whatever you want to be true, must be. It is fundamental to your ignorance. If you were liberal you'd spend more time on evidence and less time on bullshit. But, as a conservative you believe in bullshit. You thrive on it. You get a new load of it every time you're in the Lazy Boy.


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you call it when all citizens vote for their governmental representation? When all of their representation vote on laws? When the supreme court votes on adjudication? When juries vote?
> 
> ""We the people" support and defend the U.S. Constitution". The only true thing that you've posted. We are not about to let the cult of conservatism change that. Ever.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sweetie, you're so fuck'n stupid, you don't even understand that the U.S. Constitution _*is*_ conservative. Everything about it. Limiting the power of government, maximizing the freedom of people.
> 
> It was built and designed to protect America from ignorant assholes like _you_...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have always followed the Constitution exactly the way that it prescribed.
Click to expand...


  

Now you're taking your special kind of stupid to a whole new level.

Where does the Constitution give the federal government the power to force citizens to purchase a good or service?


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah cause the free market is helpless consumers buying goods from ruthless sellers. ROFL what an idiot.  And you did industrial process improvement for a living?  ROFL I'll be no one ever saved a dime taking advice from you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are not aware of any ruthless sellers?  Ruthless as in make more money regardless of the cost to others?
> 
> You must not get out much.
> 
> Of course,  regulation and competition constrains many of them. Without those forces,  every business would be ruthless.
> 
> What do you think make more money regardless of the cost to others means?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have regulations. We have competition. I know your old and all but jesus WTF is wrong with you?
Click to expand...


I knew you'd get it one of these days! Now you can stop peddling conservative bullshit that business doesn't need them.


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some probably did numbnuts. Some probably went with the compliant policies CareFirst had to offer to replace the non compliant policies. This isn't rocket science but certainly seems well beyond you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "It isn't rocket science" and yet your dumb-ass can only make up answers with "some probably did".
> 
> We are talking about the 76,000 who *clearly did not leave*. You're now contradicting yourself (like typical idiot Dumbocrats always do).
> 
> Game over junior. You lose...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have the typical conservative attitude that whatever you want to be true, must be. It is fundamental to your ignorance. If you were liberal you'd spend more time on evidence and less time on bullshit. But, as a conservative you believe in bullshit. You thrive on it. You get a new load of it every time you're in the Lazy Boy.
Click to expand...


I'm the one providing the EVIDENCE asshole and you're the one ignoring it! There were 76,000 people who were still customers of this company until Obamacare ruined it for them.

Like a typical liberal, you eschewed facts and made up a story to cover for your *failed* liberal policy. You claimed these results were because the company was "now forced to provide what they SHOULD have provided all along". That's when I pointed out the flaw in your pathetic "logic" that they wouldn't have remained customers if they weren't receiving what they SHOULD.

Facts. Evidence. You ignore all of the reality in favor of your brainwashed little ideology. You serve your masters well serf.

Now tell us again how the United States is a "democracy"...


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sweetie, you're so fuck'n stupid, you don't even understand that the U.S. Constitution _*is*_ conservative. Everything about it. Limiting the power of government, maximizing the freedom of people.
> 
> It was built and designed to protect America from ignorant assholes like _you_...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have always followed the Constitution exactly the way that it prescribed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now you're taking your special kind of stupid to a whole new level.
> 
> Where does the Constitution give the federal government the power to force citizens to purchase a good or service?
Click to expand...


That's an issue that the Constitution authorizes only the Supreme Court to judge. Is that news to you?


----------



## P@triot

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah cause the free market is helpless consumers buying goods from ruthless sellers. ROFL what an idiot.  And you did industrial process improvement for a living?  ROFL I'll be no one ever saved a dime taking advice from you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are not aware of any ruthless sellers?  Ruthless as in make more money regardless of the cost to others?
> 
> You must not get out much.
> 
> Of course,  regulation and competition constrains many of them. Without those forces,  every business would be ruthless.
> 
> What do you think make more money regardless of the cost to others means?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have regulations. We have competition. I know your old and all but jesus WTF is wrong with you?
Click to expand...


Yes - we have those things. But we don't have is a mechanism for parasites like [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] which allows her to legally confiscate what you earned and which rightfully belongs to you.

And that has her _pissed_. She's furious that the U.S. has *freedom*. She wants Cambodia where everyone starves to death but her fragile little psyche feels better about herself because we're all "equal" as we are brought down to her low class level.


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> "It isn't rocket science" and yet your dumb-ass can only make up answers with "some probably did".
> 
> We are talking about the 76,000 who *clearly did not leave*. You're now contradicting yourself (like typical idiot Dumbocrats always do).
> 
> Game over junior. You lose...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have the typical conservative attitude that whatever you want to be true, must be. It is fundamental to your ignorance. If you were liberal you'd spend more time on evidence and less time on bullshit. But, as a conservative you believe in bullshit. You thrive on it. You get a new load of it every time you're in the Lazy Boy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm the one providing the EVIDENCE asshole and you're the one ignoring it! There were 76,000 people who were still customers of this company until Obamacare ruined it for them.
> 
> Like a typical liberal, you eschewed facts and made up a story to cover for your *failed* liberal policy. You claimed these results were because the company was "now forced to provide what they SHOULD have provided all along". That's when I pointed out the flaw in your pathetic "logic" that they wouldn't have remained customers if they weren't receiving what they SHOULD.
> 
> Facts. Evidence. You ignore all of the reality in favor of your brainwashed little ideology. You serve your masters well serf.
> 
> Now tell us again how the United States is a "democracy"...
Click to expand...


The article that you posted didn't say that. It only said that the pre ACA policy was dropped. It had to be. It was no longer compliant with the law. Did you think that the law was going to exempt old policies?


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have always followed the Constitution exactly the way that it prescribed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now you're taking your special kind of stupid to a whole new level.
> 
> Where does the Constitution give the federal government the power to force citizens to purchase a good or service?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's an issue that the Constitution authorizes only the Supreme Court to judge. Is that news to you?
Click to expand...


Ahahahahahaha! Game over sweetie! Please site for me the section of the U.S. Constitution where it states that the Supreme Court can "judge" what the federal government can or can't do it?

Once again...the facts prove you are *WRONG*!


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are not aware of any ruthless sellers?  Ruthless as in make more money regardless of the cost to others?
> 
> You must not get out much.
> 
> Of course,  regulation and competition constrains many of them. Without those forces,  every business would be ruthless.
> 
> What do you think make more money regardless of the cost to others means?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have regulations. We have competition. I know your old and all but jesus WTF is wrong with you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes - we have those things. But we don't have is a mechanism for parasites like [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] which allows her to legally confiscate what you earned and which rightfully belongs to you.
> 
> And that has her _pissed_. She's furious that the U.S. has *freedom*. She wants Cambodia where everyone starves to death but her fragile little psyche feels better about herself because we're all "equal" as we are brought down to her low class level.
Click to expand...


Tell us about all of the countries in the world that have optional taxes.


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have the typical conservative attitude that whatever you want to be true, must be. It is fundamental to your ignorance. If you were liberal you'd spend more time on evidence and less time on bullshit. But, as a conservative you believe in bullshit. You thrive on it. You get a new load of it every time you're in the Lazy Boy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm the one providing the EVIDENCE asshole and you're the one ignoring it! There were 76,000 people who were still customers of this company until Obamacare ruined it for them.
> 
> Like a typical liberal, you eschewed facts and made up a story to cover for your *failed* liberal policy. You claimed these results were because the company was "now forced to provide what they SHOULD have provided all along". That's when I pointed out the flaw in your pathetic "logic" that they wouldn't have remained customers if they weren't receiving what they SHOULD.
> 
> Facts. Evidence. You ignore all of the reality in favor of your brainwashed little ideology. You serve your masters well serf.
> 
> Now tell us again how the United States is a "democracy"...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The article that you posted didn't say that. It only said that the pre ACA policy was dropped. It had to be. It was no longer compliant with the law. Did you think that the law was going to exempt old policies?
Click to expand...


Why would Obamacare declare any policies "old" and void when Obama claimed the point of Obamacare was to ensure Americans had coverage?!!

Only liberal "logic" would create a law to ensure Americans have health insurance by voiding existing policies and forcing people to lose them...


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now you're taking your special kind of stupid to a whole new level.
> 
> Where does the Constitution give the federal government the power to force citizens to purchase a good or service?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's an issue that the Constitution authorizes only the Supreme Court to judge. Is that news to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ahahahahahaha! Game over sweetie! Please site for me the section of the U.S. Constitution where it states that the Supreme Court can "judge" what the federal government can or can't do it?
> 
> Once again...the facts prove you are *WRONG*!
Click to expand...


Please site for me the section of the U.S. Constitution where it states that the you can "judge" what the federal government can or can't do it?


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm the one providing the EVIDENCE asshole and you're the one ignoring it! There were 76,000 people who were still customers of this company until Obamacare ruined it for them.
> 
> Like a typical liberal, you eschewed facts and made up a story to cover for your *failed* liberal policy. You claimed these results were because the company was "now forced to provide what they SHOULD have provided all along". That's when I pointed out the flaw in your pathetic "logic" that they wouldn't have remained customers if they weren't receiving what they SHOULD.
> 
> Facts. Evidence. You ignore all of the reality in favor of your brainwashed little ideology. You serve your masters well serf.
> 
> Now tell us again how the United States is a "democracy"...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The article that you posted didn't say that. It only said that the pre ACA policy was dropped. It had to be. It was no longer compliant with the law. Did you think that the law was going to exempt old policies?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would Obamacare declare any policies "old" and void when Obama claimed the point of Obamacare was to ensure Americans had coverage?!!
> 
> Only liberal "logic" would create a law to ensure Americans have health insurance by voiding existing policies and forcing people to lose them...
Click to expand...


Only conservative non-thinking would ignore ADEQUATE coverage.


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have regulations. We have competition. I know your old and all but jesus WTF is wrong with you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes - we have those things. But we don't have is a mechanism for parasites like [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] which allows her to legally confiscate what you earned and which rightfully belongs to you.
> 
> And that has her _pissed_. She's furious that the U.S. has *freedom*. She wants Cambodia where everyone starves to death but her fragile little psyche feels better about herself because we're all "equal" as we are brought down to her low class level.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell us about all of the countries in the world that have optional taxes.
Click to expand...


I don't have a problem with Constitutional taxes (ie taxes used to run the 18 enumerated powers of the federal government explicitly described in the U.S. Constitution). Healthcare is *not* one of them sweetie. Neither is welfare. Neither is Social Security. Neither is ANY of the redistribution of wealth socialist entitlements.


----------



## PMZ

Rotweiner is starting to froth at the mouth. That's what happens when people fall blindly  for propaganda that they can't support.


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes - we have those things. But we don't have is a mechanism for parasites like [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] which allows her to legally confiscate what you earned and which rightfully belongs to you.
> 
> And that has her _pissed_. She's furious that the U.S. has *freedom*. She wants Cambodia where everyone starves to death but her fragile little psyche feels better about herself because we're all "equal" as we are brought down to her low class level.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell us about all of the countries in the world that have optional taxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't have a problem with Constitutional taxes (ie taxes used to run the 18 enumerated powers of the federal government explicitly described in the U.S. Constitution). Healthcare is *not* one of them sweetie. Neither is welfare. Neither is Social Security. Neither is ANY of the redistribution of wealth socialist entitlements.
Click to expand...


You say it doesn't. The Supreme Court says it does. I think that you ought to sue. You know, like Republicans did about ACA.


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> The article that you posted didn't say that. It only said that the pre ACA policy was dropped. It had to be. It was no longer compliant with the law. Did you think that the law was going to exempt old policies?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would Obamacare declare any policies "old" and void when Obama claimed the point of Obamacare was to ensure Americans had coverage?!!
> 
> Only liberal "logic" would create a law to ensure Americans have health insurance by voiding existing policies and forcing people to lose them...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only conservative non-thinking would ignore ADEQUATE coverage.
Click to expand...


Really Sally? And who decides what is "adequate"? Obama? _You_? Some unelected bureaucrat in Washington?


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> Rotweiner is starting to froth at the mouth. That's what happens when people fall blindly  for propaganda that they can't support.



Says the asshat getting _*owned*_ with facts. You still haven't told me where in the U.S. Constitution that I can find where it says the the Supreme Court decides whether or not the people can be forced by the federal government to purchase a good or service.

Run liberal run! Change the topic! Use snarky remarks to cover up your ignorance when you can't answer basic questions!


----------



## PMZ

My advice to you Rotweiner is to make a list of all of the countries in the world that you believe have governments better than ours, and visit them. Who knows, you could be happy for once in your life.


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's an issue that the Constitution authorizes only the Supreme Court to judge. Is that news to you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ahahahahahaha! Game over sweetie! Please site for me the section of the U.S. Constitution where it states that the Supreme Court can "judge" what the federal government can or can't do it?
> 
> Once again...the facts prove you are *WRONG*!
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please site for me the section of the U.S. Constitution where it states that the you can "judge" what the federal government can or can't do it?
Click to expand...


Still waiting for a response over here [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION].... 

(You searching hard? Come on - it's a small little document libtard!)


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> My advice to you Rotweiner is to make a list of all of the countries in the world that you believe have governments better than ours, and visit them. Who knows, you could be happy for once in your life.



None! And that's just it. You're the one who craves Cuba, but you won't leave and go experience your socialism first hand. I wonder why that is???


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rotweiner is starting to froth at the mouth. That's what happens when people fall blindly  for propaganda that they can't support.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Says the asshat getting _*owned*_ with facts. You still haven't told me where in the U.S. Constitution that I can find where it says the the Supreme Court decides whether or not the people can be forced by the federal government to purchase a good or service.
> 
> Run liberal run! Change the topic! Use snarky remarks to cover up your ignorance when you can't answer basic questions!
Click to expand...


Have an adult read the following to you.

The Court and Constitutional Interpretation - Supreme Court of the United States


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> My advice to you Rotweiner is to make a list of all of the countries in the world that you believe have governments better than ours, and visit them. Who knows, you could be happy for once in your life.



My advice to you [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] is to stop being a brainwashed ideological serf and actually examine facts and evidence when presented to you.

Like the fact that 76,000 people were perfectly happy with their health insurance (or they would not have stayed with it) and Obamacare forced them to lose their coverage.

Oh, and by the way, what happened to Obama's "promise" of "if you like your coverage, you can keep your coverage"?

Another LIE that you will ignore and - in your panic - attempt to spin.


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> My advice to you Rotweiner is to make a list of all of the countries in the world that you believe have governments better than ours, and visit them. Who knows, you could be happy for once in your life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None! And that's just it. You're the one who craves Cuba, but you won't leave and go experience your socialism first hand. I wonder why that is???
Click to expand...


As much as you hate this country and our government and our President and our Constitution and our people and our culture, and as loudly you whine about it, and now you say that there's none better. 

I agree that there's none better.


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rotweiner is starting to froth at the mouth. That's what happens when people fall blindly  for propaganda that they can't support.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Says the asshat getting _*owned*_ with facts. You still haven't told me where in the U.S. Constitution that I can find where it says the the Supreme Court decides whether or not the people can be forced by the federal government to purchase a good or service.
> 
> Run liberal run! Change the topic! Use snarky remarks to cover up your ignorance when you can't answer basic questions!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have an adult read the following to you.
> 
> The Court and Constitutional Interpretation - Supreme Court of the United States
Click to expand...


It's a very simple question [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] (even for a simpleton like you). What section of the Constitution can I find where it authorizes the Supreme Court to "only decide on whether or not the people can be forced to purchase a good or service". I didn't ask for a website under control of the Obama Administration. I'm asking for the ultimate evidence - the exact section of the Constitution where I can read it for myself.

You can't be this stupid, can you? I mean, you stated that was a fact. So surely you can show me the section of the Constitution which backs up your assertion here?

Unless.....of course....it doesn't exist


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> My advice to you Rotweiner is to make a list of all of the countries in the world that you believe have governments better than ours, and visit them. Who knows, you could be happy for once in your life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None! And that's just it. You're the one who craves Cuba, but you won't leave and go experience your socialism first hand. I wonder why that is???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As much as you hate this country and our government and our President and our Constitution and our people and our culture, and as loudly you whine about it, and now you say that there's none better.
> 
> I agree that there's none better.
Click to expand...


Again, just as you blame Detroit for your Dumbocrat policies, you now blame me for hating the things YOU actually hate. You hate the Constitution. You hate freedom. You hate everything this country was built on. And yet you don't leave and go to beautiful Cuba where you can experience liberal utopia first hand.

There's only one thing you are correct on - I do hate the current president. But that's only because he hates America and the Constitution - trying to replace both with marxism.


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> My advice to you Rotweiner is to make a list of all of the countries in the world that you believe have governments better than ours, and visit them. Who knows, you could be happy for once in your life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My advice to you [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] is to stop being a brainwashed ideological serf and actually examine facts and evidence when presented to you.
> 
> Like the fact that 76,000 people were perfectly happy with their health insurance (or they would not have stayed with it) and Obamacare forced them to lose their coverage.
> 
> Oh, and by the way, what happened to Obama's "promise" of "if you like your coverage, you can keep your coverage"?
> 
> Another LIE that you will ignore and - in your panic - attempt to spin.
Click to expand...


Apparently you interpreted his remarks, however he worded it, to mean that there would be no more changes to health insurance. That if you liked what you had, when he said it, it was yours forever. If you're happy thinking that, feel free. I would personally not consider that top shelf thinking but if you're happy with it, have at it.


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> My advice to you Rotweiner is to make a list of all of the countries in the world that you believe have governments better than ours, and visit them. Who knows, you could be happy for once in your life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None! And that's just it. You're the one who craves Cuba, but you won't leave and go experience your socialism first hand. I wonder why that is???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As much as you hate this country and our government and our President and our Constitution and our people and our culture, and as loudly you whine about it, and now you say that there's none better.
> 
> I agree that there's none better.
Click to expand...


Another picture of Detroit - the city the Dumbocrats collapsed:


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> None! And that's just it. You're the one who craves Cuba, but you won't leave and go experience your socialism first hand. I wonder why that is???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As much as you hate this country and our government and our President and our Constitution and our people and our culture, and as loudly you whine about it, and now you say that there's none better.
> 
> I agree that there's none better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, just as you blame Detroit for your Dumbocrat policies, you now blame me for hating the things YOU actually hate. You hate the Constitution. You hate freedom. You hate everything this country was built on. And yet you don't leave and go to beautiful Cuba where you can experience liberal utopia first hand.
> 
> There's only one thing you are correct on - I do hate the current president. But that's only because he hates America and the Constitution - trying to replace both with marxism.
Click to expand...


All of your posts are here for people to read. That's evidence enough for me.


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> None! And that's just it. You're the one who craves Cuba, but you won't leave and go experience your socialism first hand. I wonder why that is???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As much as you hate this country and our government and our President and our Constitution and our people and our culture, and as loudly you whine about it, and now you say that there's none better.
> 
> I agree that there's none better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another picture of Detroit - the city the Dumbocrats collapsed:
Click to expand...


I agree that Detroit has had some really bad Democrat mayors. If you think that that fact was the only cause of the cities demise, you've earned the title of conservative.


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> My advice to you Rotweiner is to make a list of all of the countries in the world that you believe have governments better than ours, and visit them. Who knows, you could be happy for once in your life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My advice to you [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] is to stop being a brainwashed ideological serf and actually examine facts and evidence when presented to you.
> 
> Like the fact that 76,000 people were perfectly happy with their health insurance (or they would not have stayed with it) and Obamacare forced them to lose their coverage.
> 
> Oh, and by the way, what happened to Obama's "promise" of "if you like your coverage, you can keep your coverage"?
> 
> Another LIE that you will ignore and - in your panic - attempt to spin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently you interpreted his remarks, however he worded it, to mean that there would be no more changes to health insurance. That if you liked what you had, when he said it, it was yours forever. If you're happy thinking that, feel free. I would personally not consider that top shelf thinking but if you're happy with it, have at it.
Click to expand...


And there's the panic-stricken spin! I was waiting for it. Here's the video @PMZ... (I warn you, this is going to sting a bit):

[ame=http://youtu.be/wfl55GgHr5E]"If you like your plan, you can keep your plan." - Barack Obama - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## dblack

PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> My advice to you Rotweiner is to make a list of all of the countries in the world that you believe have governments better than ours, and visit them. Who knows, you could be happy for once in your life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My advice to you [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] is to stop being a brainwashed ideological serf and actually examine facts and evidence when presented to you.
> 
> Like the fact that 76,000 people were perfectly happy with their health insurance (or they would not have stayed with it) and Obamacare forced them to lose their coverage.
> 
> Oh, and by the way, what happened to Obama's "promise" of "if you like your coverage, you can keep your coverage"?
> 
> Another LIE that you will ignore and - in your panic - attempt to spin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently you interpreted his remarks, however he worded it, to mean that there would be no more changes to health insurance. That if you liked what you had, when he said it, it was yours forever. If you're happy thinking that, feel free. I would personally not consider that top shelf thinking but if you're happy with it, have at it.
Click to expand...


It's too bad you're tacking so partisan here. Obama was directly addressing the fears of people who worried that new regulations would disqualify their existing insurance plans - which, for some people, is exactly what happened. If you're not willing to admit that was a flat out lie, then I'm not sure what would qualify.


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Says the asshat getting _*owned*_ with facts. You still haven't told me where in the U.S. Constitution that I can find where it says the the Supreme Court decides whether or not the people can be forced by the federal government to purchase a good or service.
> 
> Run liberal run! Change the topic! Use snarky remarks to cover up your ignorance when you can't answer basic questions!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have an adult read the following to you.
> 
> The Court and Constitutional Interpretation - Supreme Court of the United States
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a very simple question [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] (even for a simpleton like you). What section of the Constitution can I find where it authorizes the Supreme Court to "only decide on whether or not the people can be forced to purchase a good or service". I didn't ask for a website under control of the Obama Administration. I'm asking for the ultimate evidence - the exact section of the Constitution where I can read it for myself.
> 
> You can't be this stupid, can you? I mean, you stated that was a fact. So surely you can show me the section of the Constitution which backs up your assertion here?
> 
> Unless.....of course....it doesn't exist
Click to expand...


I guess you couldn't find an adult that could read? How are you going to learn that way?


----------



## P@triot

*CareFirst says 76,000 customers will lose current coverage due to Obamacare | WashingtonExaminer.com*



[ame=http://youtu.be/wfl55GgHr5E]"If you like your plan, you can keep your plan." - Barack Obama - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have an adult read the following to you.
> 
> The Court and Constitutional Interpretation - Supreme Court of the United States
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a very simple question [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] (even for a simpleton like you). What section of the Constitution can I find where it authorizes the Supreme Court to "only decide on whether or not the people can be forced to purchase a good or service". I didn't ask for a website under control of the Obama Administration. I'm asking for the ultimate evidence - the exact section of the Constitution where I can read it for myself.
> 
> You can't be this stupid, can you? I mean, you stated that was a fact. So surely you can show me the section of the Constitution which backs up your assertion here?
> 
> Unless.....of course....it doesn't exist
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess you couldn't find an adult that could read? How are you going to learn that way?
Click to expand...


Run liberal run! 

I feel sorry for you, so I'll give you another chance. What section of the Constitution can I find where it verifies your assertion that the Supreme Court gets to decide whether or not the American people can be forced to purchase a good or service?

You do realize it makes you look REALLY bad every time you fail to give this simple answer.


----------



## PMZ

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> My advice to you [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] is to stop being a brainwashed ideological serf and actually examine facts and evidence when presented to you.
> 
> Like the fact that 76,000 people were perfectly happy with their health insurance (or they would not have stayed with it) and Obamacare forced them to lose their coverage.
> 
> Oh, and by the way, what happened to Obama's "promise" of "if you like your coverage, you can keep your coverage"?
> 
> Another LIE that you will ignore and - in your panic - attempt to spin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently you interpreted his remarks, however he worded it, to mean that there would be no more changes to health insurance. That if you liked what you had, when he said it, it was yours forever. If you're happy thinking that, feel free. I would personally not consider that top shelf thinking but if you're happy with it, have at it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's too bad you're tacking so partisan here. Obama was directly addressing the fears of people who worried that new regulations would disqualify their existing insurance plans - which, for some people, is exactly what happened. If you're not willing to admit that was a flat out lie, then I'm not sure what would qualify.
Click to expand...


I'm partisan?????????? What are you????????


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a very simple question [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] (even for a simpleton like you). What section of the Constitution can I find where it authorizes the Supreme Court to "only decide on whether or not the people can be forced to purchase a good or service". I didn't ask for a website under control of the Obama Administration. I'm asking for the ultimate evidence - the exact section of the Constitution where I can read it for myself.
> 
> You can't be this stupid, can you? I mean, you stated that was a fact. So surely you can show me the section of the Constitution which backs up your assertion here?
> 
> Unless.....of course....it doesn't exist
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you couldn't find an adult that could read? How are you going to learn that way?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Run liberal run!
> 
> I feel sorry for you, so I'll give you another chance. What section of the Constitution can I find where it verifies your assertion that the Supreme Court gets to decide whether or not the American people can be forced to purchase a good or service?
> 
> You do realize it makes you look REALLY bad every time you fail to give this simple answer.
Click to expand...


I gave you a golden opportunity to learn. You've turned it down. That is exactly what makes you a conservative.


----------



## dblack

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently you interpreted his remarks, however he worded it, to mean that there would be no more changes to health insurance. That if you liked what you had, when he said it, it was yours forever. If you're happy thinking that, feel free. I would personally not consider that top shelf thinking but if you're happy with it, have at it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's too bad you're tacking so partisan here. Obama was directly addressing the fears of people who worried that new regulations would disqualify their existing insurance plans - which, for some people, is exactly what happened. If you're not willing to admit that was a flat out lie, then I'm not sure what would qualify.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm partisan?????????? What are you????????
Click to expand...


Not. Seriously, about the only defense that makes sense in this case is that anyone who bothered to read ACA, or even read a little _about_ ACA, should have known he was lying. Most of us did. I suspect even most of his supporters did and just didn't care. And still don't, apparently.


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> *CareFirst says 76,000 customers will lose current coverage due to Obamacare | WashingtonExaminer.com*
> 
> 
> 
> "If you like your plan, you can keep your plan." - Barack Obama - YouTube



I have to say that you are the prototypical conservative, desperate for a simple, black and white world. And that's exactly what Fox propaganda gives you. 

Most people understood Obama's point. That Obamacare wasn't offering a product for people who had adequate coverage and were happy with the cost and source of it. It absolutely doesn't. It established some minimum coverage standards. It uncovered policies that were inadequate relative to those standards. It required insurers to deliver adequate coverage. Insurance improved. 

Did he choose the best brief way to say that? I thought so. I believe that most people did. 

But, this whole thing has nothing at all to do with that question. 

It has to do with Republicans avoiding accountability for having no solution to, no alternative for, the biggest obstacle in our economy to global competition. They simply have ignored the problem. It's not at all about the American people and our future. They offered no way for themselves to win. They could only try to prevent Democrats from winning. And the American people. 

It's pure politics with no regard at all for America and Americans. 

And it cost them plenty on election day 2012. But even bigger defeats are coming. 

I encourage Republican anger at me. I bring it on. It's the seed of their demise. As propaganda is based on making people angry then giving them a scapegoat, conservatives seeth with anger. And I take advantage of it. 

I don't care about winning here. Just in the voting booth, and conservatives are their own worst enemy there. I just encourage them.


----------



## PMZ

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's too bad you're tacking so partisan here. Obama was directly addressing the fears of people who worried that new regulations would disqualify their existing insurance plans - which, for some people, is exactly what happened. If you're not willing to admit that was a flat out lie, then I'm not sure what would qualify.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm partisan?????????? What are you????????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not. Seriously, about the only defense that makes sense in this case is that anyone who bothered to read ACA, or even read a little _about_ ACA, should have known he was lying. Most of us did. I suspect even most of his supporters did and just didn't care. And still don't, apparently.
Click to expand...


The fact that you label what he said a "lie" is absolutely prejudicial on your part. And you know it. That's why you chose that word. 

A little trick rubbed off from Fox.

Seriously.


----------



## dblack

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm partisan?????????? What are you????????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not. Seriously, about the only defense that makes sense in this case is that anyone who bothered to read ACA, or even read a little _about_ ACA, should have known he was lying. Most of us did. I suspect even most of his supporters did and just didn't care. And still don't, apparently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact that you label what he said a "lie" is absolutely prejudicial on your part. And you know it. That's why you chose that word.
> 
> A little trick rubbed off from Fox.
> 
> Seriously.
Click to expand...


How is that prejudicial? I'm not labeling what he said as a 'lie' because he's Obama, or because he's a Democrat. I'm labeling what said as a lie because I know what he said and the context in which he said it. Just like his claims that the the mandate wasn't a tax. Getting all pissy about it being a lie at this point is kind of silly - everyone who was paying attention knew it at the time. But it's no sillier than denying it.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> *CareFirst says 76,000 customers will lose current coverage due to Obamacare | WashingtonExaminer.com*
> 
> 
> 
> "If you like your plan, you can keep your plan." - Barack Obama - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have to say that you are the prototypical conservative, desperate for a simple, black and white world. And that's exactly what Fox propaganda gives you.
> 
> Most people understood Obama's point. That Obamacare wasn't offering a product for people who had adequate coverage and were happy with the cost and source of it. It absolutely doesn't. It established some minimum coverage standards. It uncovered policies that were inadequate relative to those standards. It required insurers to deliver adequate coverage. Insurance improved.
> 
> Did he choose the best brief way to say that? I thought so. I believe that most people did.
> 
> But, this whole thing has nothing at all to do with that question.
> 
> It has to do with Republicans avoiding accountability for having no solution to, no alternative for, the biggest obstacle in our economy to global competition. They simply have ignored the problem. It's not at all about the American people and our future. They offered no way for themselves to win. They could only try to prevent Democrats from winning. And the American people.
> 
> It's pure politics with no regard at all for America and Americans.
> 
> And it cost them plenty on election day 2012. But even bigger defeats are coming.
> 
> I encourage Republican anger at me. I bring it on. It's the seed of their demise. As propaganda is based on making people angry then giving them a scapegoat, conservatives seeth with anger. And I take advantage of it.
> 
> I don't care about winning here. Just in the voting booth, and conservatives are their own worst enemy there. I just encourage them.
Click to expand...

Lying Troll.  You are nothing, never were anything, and never will be anything.


----------



## RKMBrown

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not. Seriously, about the only defense that makes sense in this case is that anyone who bothered to read ACA, or even read a little _about_ ACA, should have known he was lying. Most of us did. I suspect even most of his supporters did and just didn't care. And still don't, apparently.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that you label what he said a "lie" is absolutely prejudicial on your part. And you know it. That's why you chose that word.
> 
> A little trick rubbed off from Fox.
> 
> Seriously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is that prejudicial? I'm not labeling what he said as a 'lie' because he's Obama, or because he's a Democrat. I'm labeling what said as a lie because I know what he said and the context in which he said it. Just like his claims that the the mandate wasn't a tax. Getting all pissy about it being a lie at this point is kind of silly - everyone who was paying attention knew it at the time. But it's no sillier than denying it.
Click to expand...

He'd feed Obama his dog if Obama told him to.


----------



## PMZ

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not. Seriously, about the only defense that makes sense in this case is that anyone who bothered to read ACA, or even read a little _about_ ACA, should have known he was lying. Most of us did. I suspect even most of his supporters did and just didn't care. And still don't, apparently.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that you label what he said a "lie" is absolutely prejudicial on your part. And you know it. That's why you chose that word.
> 
> A little trick rubbed off from Fox.
> 
> Seriously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is that prejudicial? I'm not labeling what he said as a 'lie' because he's Obama, or because he's a Democrat. I'm labeling what said as a lie because I know what he said and the context in which he said it. Just like his claims that the the mandate wasn't a tax. Getting all pissy about it being a lie at this point is kind of silly - everyone who was paying attention knew it at the time. But it's no sillier than denying it.
Click to expand...


I was paying attention at the time. Most everybody was. And I think that labeling it a lie is perfect political silliness. 

It's as silly as Rotweiners argument that if the Supreme Courts Constitutional responsibilities aren't explicit in one particular section then they're not in the Constitution and therefore whatever he wants as interpretation is as valid as theirs.

The reason that conservatism has failed so spectacularly in practice is that the world isn't a Classic Comicbook. Insisting on gross oversimplifications is, as you say, silly. 

Silly just doesn't cut it in the real world.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that you label what he said a "lie" is absolutely prejudicial on your part. And you know it. That's why you chose that word.
> 
> A little trick rubbed off from Fox.
> 
> Seriously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is that prejudicial? I'm not labeling what he said as a 'lie' because he's Obama, or because he's a Democrat. I'm labeling what said as a lie because I know what he said and the context in which he said it. Just like his claims that the the mandate wasn't a tax. Getting all pissy about it being a lie at this point is kind of silly - everyone who was paying attention knew it at the time. But it's no sillier than denying it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He'd feed Obama his dog if Obama told him to.
Click to expand...


Speaking of political silliness, here's the star of it.


----------



## dblack

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that you label what he said a "lie" is absolutely prejudicial on your part. And you know it. That's why you chose that word.
> 
> A little trick rubbed off from Fox.
> 
> Seriously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is that prejudicial? I'm not labeling what he said as a 'lie' because he's Obama, or because he's a Democrat. I'm labeling what said as a lie because I know what he said and the context in which he said it. Just like his claims that the the mandate wasn't a tax. Getting all pissy about it being a lie at this point is kind of silly - everyone who was paying attention knew it at the time. But it's no sillier than denying it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was paying attention at the time. Most everybody was. And I think that labeling it a lie is perfect political silliness.
> 
> It's as silly as Rotweiners argument that if the Supreme Courts Constitutional responsibilities aren't explicit in one particular section then they're not in the Constitution and therefore whatever he wants as interpretation is as valid as theirs.
> 
> The reason that conservatism has failed so spectacularly in practice is that the world isn't a Classic Comicbook. Insisting on gross oversimplifications is, as you say, silly.
> 
> Silly just doesn't cut it in the real world.
Click to expand...


Well, that's what I mean by 'partisan'. You're so caught up in the us vs. them mentality you're failing to look at things objectively. Sorry, but I have to put you in the same category is Republicans who could never admit Bush lied to justify invading Iraq.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> *CareFirst says 76,000 customers will lose current coverage due to Obamacare | WashingtonExaminer.com*
> 
> 
> 
> "If you like your plan, you can keep your plan." - Barack Obama - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have to say that you are the prototypical conservative, desperate for a simple, black and white world. And that's exactly what Fox propaganda gives you.
> 
> Most people understood Obama's point. That Obamacare wasn't offering a product for people who had adequate coverage and were happy with the cost and source of it. It absolutely doesn't. It established some minimum coverage standards. It uncovered policies that were inadequate relative to those standards. It required insurers to deliver adequate coverage. Insurance improved.
> 
> Did he choose the best brief way to say that? I thought so. I believe that most people did.
> 
> But, this whole thing has nothing at all to do with that question.
> 
> It has to do with Republicans avoiding accountability for having no solution to, no alternative for, the biggest obstacle in our economy to global competition. They simply have ignored the problem. It's not at all about the American people and our future. They offered no way for themselves to win. They could only try to prevent Democrats from winning. And the American people.
> 
> It's pure politics with no regard at all for America and Americans.
> 
> And it cost them plenty on election day 2012. But even bigger defeats are coming.
> 
> I encourage Republican anger at me. I bring it on. It's the seed of their demise. As propaganda is based on making people angry then giving them a scapegoat, conservatives seeth with anger. And I take advantage of it.
> 
> I don't care about winning here. Just in the voting booth, and conservatives are their own worst enemy there. I just encourage them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lying Troll.  You are nothing, never were anything, and never will be anything.
Click to expand...


Evidence shithead, evidence. You never offer any. None. Perhaps among the homeless under the bridge you can get away with that. You're among some adults here. Your playground act just embarrasses your friends. 

Keep it up. You're getting to be my biggest exhibit here.


----------



## PMZ

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is that prejudicial? I'm not labeling what he said as a 'lie' because he's Obama, or because he's a Democrat. I'm labeling what said as a lie because I know what he said and the context in which he said it. Just like his claims that the the mandate wasn't a tax. Getting all pissy about it being a lie at this point is kind of silly - everyone who was paying attention knew it at the time. But it's no sillier than denying it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was paying attention at the time. Most everybody was. And I think that labeling it a lie is perfect political silliness.
> 
> It's as silly as Rotweiners argument that if the Supreme Courts Constitutional responsibilities aren't explicit in one particular section then they're not in the Constitution and therefore whatever he wants as interpretation is as valid as theirs.
> 
> The reason that conservatism has failed so spectacularly in practice is that the world isn't a Classic Comicbook. Insisting on gross oversimplifications is, as you say, silly.
> 
> Silly just doesn't cut it in the real world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, that's what I mean by 'partisan'. You're so caught up in the us vs. them mentality you're failing to look at things objectively. Sorry, but I have to put you in the same category is Republicans who could never admit Bush lied to justify invading Iraq.
Click to expand...


Apparently someone missdefined "objective" to you. It doesn't mean your opinion. In this context it means something like closer to the truth. Unbiased.


----------



## PMZ

Ddddddddddddddvvv


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have to say that you are the prototypical conservative, desperate for a simple, black and white world. And that's exactly what Fox propaganda gives you.
> 
> Most people understood Obama's point. That Obamacare wasn't offering a product for people who had adequate coverage and were happy with the cost and source of it. It absolutely doesn't. It established some minimum coverage standards. It uncovered policies that were inadequate relative to those standards. It required insurers to deliver adequate coverage. Insurance improved.
> 
> Did he choose the best brief way to say that? I thought so. I believe that most people did.
> 
> But, this whole thing has nothing at all to do with that question.
> 
> It has to do with Republicans avoiding accountability for having no solution to, no alternative for, the biggest obstacle in our economy to global competition. They simply have ignored the problem. It's not at all about the American people and our future. They offered no way for themselves to win. They could only try to prevent Democrats from winning. And the American people.
> 
> It's pure politics with no regard at all for America and Americans.
> 
> And it cost them plenty on election day 2012. But even bigger defeats are coming.
> 
> I encourage Republican anger at me. I bring it on. It's the seed of their demise. As propaganda is based on making people angry then giving them a scapegoat, conservatives seeth with anger. And I take advantage of it.
> 
> I don't care about winning here. Just in the voting booth, and conservatives are their own worst enemy there. I just encourage them.
> 
> 
> 
> Lying Troll.  You are nothing, never were anything, and never will be anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evidence shithead, evidence. You never offer any. None. Perhaps among the homeless under the bridge you can get away with that. You're among some adults here. Your playground act just embarrasses your friends.
> 
> Keep it up. You're getting to be my biggest exhibit here.
Click to expand...


I cited my evidence you dumb ass troll it's called quoting.


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> *CareFirst says 76,000 customers will lose current coverage due to Obamacare | WashingtonExaminer.com*
> 
> "If you like your plan, you can keep your plan." - Barack Obama - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have to say that you are the prototypical conservative, desperate for a simple, black and white world. And that's exactly what Fox propaganda gives you.
Click to expand...


I have to say that you are the prototypical idiot Dumbocrat [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION], desperate to defend the indefensible and spin the embarassing failures of your party and their policies. And that's exactly what MSNBC propaganda gives you.



PMZ said:


> Most people understood Obama's point.



Yep. Everyone but your dumb ass. He said over and over and over "*let me be very clear*" followed by "*this is a promise that we will keep to the American people*" followed by "*if you like your plan, you can keep your plan*". This could not be more clear and you know it. Watching you flail around wildly in your partisan hack panic is comical. Obama knowingly and egregious lied to the American people. It was a premeditated lie with the agenda of replacing freedom in the United States with marxism. Because that's what daddy taught him. Just like you.

Thank you for proving here PMZ that not only are you the party that breaks promises, but you're also the party that will lie to the American people and attempt to convince them that no promise was made. Unfortunately for you, your parties LIES are on video for the word to see.



PMZ said:


> That Obamacare wasn't offering a product for people who had adequate coverage and were happy with the cost and source of it.



Exactly - instead it was offering to replace your excellent coverage with shitty, more expensive, marxist coverage so that Obama could win the votes of moron's like you who live as parasites to your fellow citizen.



PMZ said:


> It required insurers to deliver adequate coverage. Insurance improved.



And here we see the utterly absurd spin again. How do you "improve" insurance by forcing people to lose their insurance and then causing the cost of their new insurance to skyrocket as much as 200% of their previous cost?



PMZ said:


> Did he choose the best brief way to say that? I thought so. I believe that most people did.



And here we see the utterly absurd and embarssing spin _again_. He didn't say "let me be brief". In fact, quite the opposite, he said "let me be CLEAR". And he said it over and over and over and over and over and over and over....

Listen you desperate little parasite - he's on video. No matter how hard you try to lie about this, it's there for _everyone_ to see with their own eyes. All you're doing with this desperate campaign of yours is proving your the party which lies'over and over to the American people (compounding Obama's lies with more absurd and egregious lies) and proving that you a person with 0 credibility to be ignored, mocked, and ridiculed (which is why you're getting hammered in this thread stupid).



PMZ said:


> But, this whole thing has nothing at all to do with that question.



You're right - it has to do with parasites like you who want to replace freedom in the United States with communism so you can live as a ward of the state like a fuck'n helpless child.



PMZ said:


> It's pure politics with no regard at all for America and Americans.



Agreed. How sad that the Dumbocrats play such petty politics which destory lives. But then again, the Dumbocrats are the party of the poor so they need to create more and more poor people to vote for them. It's why their policies create such extreme poverty and misery (look no further than Detroit).



PMZ said:


> And it cost them plenty on election day 2012. But even bigger defeats are coming.



Says the Dumbocrat outnumbered 15-1 on USMB. 



PMZ said:


> As propaganda is based on making people angry then giving them a scapegoat, conservatives seeth with anger. And I take advantage of it.



How interesting that the _only_ thing you seem to be informed on is propaganda. Maybe that's because you've realized since you were a child and destroyed in debates by facts that the Dumbocrat party needs propaganda since their beleifs are anti-constitutional and their policies create poverty. Two things impossible to sell to any rational human.



PMZ said:


> I don't care about winning here.



That's because you *can't* win stupid. You're *lying* and you _know_ you're lying. I provide evidence and facts, like a typical idiot Dumbocrat, you ignore both in favor of lies and spins.



PMZ said:


> Just in the voting booth, and conservatives are their own worst enemy there. I just encourage them.



They are so much their "own worst enemy" that they took control of the House and shut down the government while liberals cried like little girls...


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently you interpreted his remarks, however he worded it, to mean that there would be no more changes to health insurance. That if you liked what you had, when he said it, it was yours forever. If you're happy thinking that, feel free. I would personally not consider that top shelf thinking but if you're happy with it, have at it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's too bad you're tacking so partisan here. Obama was directly addressing the fears of people who worried that new regulations would disqualify their existing insurance plans - which, for some people, is exactly what happened. If you're not willing to admit that was a flat out lie, then I'm not sure what would qualify.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm partisan?????????? What are you????????
Click to expand...


What is [MENTION=30065]dblack[/MENTION]? Honest and analytical. Two concepts you can't even begin to fathom - hence you're total shock and bewilderment at him.


----------



## P@triot

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is that prejudicial? I'm not labeling what he said as a 'lie' because he's Obama, or because he's a Democrat. I'm labeling what said as a lie because I know what he said and the context in which he said it. Just like his claims that the the mandate wasn't a tax. Getting all pissy about it being a lie at this point is kind of silly - everyone who was paying attention knew it at the time. But it's no sillier than denying it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was paying attention at the time. Most everybody was. And I think that labeling it a lie is perfect political silliness.
> 
> It's as silly as Rotweiners argument that if the Supreme Courts Constitutional responsibilities aren't explicit in one particular section then they're not in the Constitution and therefore whatever he wants as interpretation is as valid as theirs.
> 
> The reason that conservatism has failed so spectacularly in practice is that the world isn't a Classic Comicbook. Insisting on gross oversimplifications is, as you say, silly.
> 
> Silly just doesn't cut it in the real world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, that's what I mean by 'partisan'. You're so caught up in the us vs. them mentality you're failing to look at things objectively. Sorry, but I have to put you in the same category is Republicans who could never admit Bush lied to justify invading Iraq.
Click to expand...


Says the asshole who can't admit that Obama lied - even though Obama's lies are on video!!!


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> You're among some adults here



He _should_ be among adults. Unfortunately immature, ignorant, and uneducated Dumbocrats like you show up and Nazi salute Obama while making weak attempts to defend the blatant LIES of the regime. "Period"

[ame=http://youtu.be/wfl55GgHr5E]"If you like your plan, you can keep your plan." - Barack Obama - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## emilynghiem

TyroneSlothrop said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Edgetho said:
> 
> 
> 
> *14 Planned Parenthood Organizations Are Obamacare Navigators*
> 
> Pretend you&#8217;re shocked.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - See more at: Weasel Zippers | Scouring the bowels of the internet | Weasel Zippers
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't it amazing that Dumbocrats cried in the streets like little girls over terrorists being interrogated with some slightly (and I stress slightly) harsh tactics, but they celebrate the murder of an American baby?
> 
> I mean, if you value life so much that you weep over a vicious terrorist having water splashed in his face, how the fuck do you celebrate, support, and fund an innocent baby being brutally and horrifically murdered?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what was the name of the baby ?
Click to expand...


Hi Tyrone. In my case, I had named my baby Matthew, and I felt he died and his spirit left me while I was emotionally coerced to have an abortion even though I didn't believe in that and wanted to have and keep the baby as my original intent. My boyfriend threatened to commit suicide if I had and gave the baby up for adoption. 

Nobody "celebrated" this. Instead, everyone was ashamed, and I got blamed for it even though I felt raped, like blaming a victim for something she didn't choose but was forced into.

I am still prochoice and believe that is the only way to take all steps necessary to prevent abortion.  But I totally understand why the prolife advocates protest this issue.

Many abortions happen before the baby's soul enters into the body. But in my case, the baby was already a baby to me. So the baby had to be killed in spirit first before I would consent to go through the abortion afterward. 

I believe I was meant to go through this experience so I could understand both sides of the prochoice prolife issue and not judge people for their beliefs. But try to achieve the goal of preventing ALL abortion from a prochoice approach, which I believe is more constitutional.

You can't imagine my horror when the same prochoice advocates started pushing and defending this ACA mess.  All the arguments about constitutional freedom from govt controls went out the window. So now I'm fighting for prochoice with prolife advocates who seem to have a better grip of the constitution. I am having next to zero luck explaining the concept of constitutional equal choice to my fellow liberal friends who have gone off the deep end with pushing gay marriage through the state and not as a free choice, and now this health care mandate. These things should be kept local and/or private if you want to keep free choice. If you want to delegate something to federal govt that isn't EXPRESSLY stated in the Constitution, it either requires a Constitutional amendment and/or ALL the public (all parties and states, not just one party pushing a biased policy) need to AGREE first since the govt is supposed to represent ALL views. 

I have better success explaining to prolife people why the laws need to include all Views, but am striking out trying to explain this to prochoice people who put party before the Constitution. I think Republicans traditionally have similar difficulty with their far right fringe putting religion before the Constitution. With the leftwing, it is harder to define because their "religion" is secular and uses political language, but is clearly a marked difference in beliefs similar to a political religion. Because it uses political instead of religious language, it is not recognized as a religion, but are the equivalent beliefs.

I normally use either the Constitution and/or Christian principles to "check" people and reach agreement. But with the far left who don't relate to those principles, I either have to make analogies to experiences they understand, or real life examples to make points. 

Tyrone you seem to focus on very succinct points.

Can you help come up with an "analogy" for liberals to understand why pushing this federal mandate on private health insurance goes against free choice?

For example, when my prolife friends didn't understand how can you be against abortion and for prochoice, I explained it using the death penalty. That none of the prolife people want to see people executed; but we want to prevent that by preventing murder, not by banning execution. You can still keep execution as a legal choice "on the books" but never invoke it because murder is prevented. Same with prochoice and preventing abortion without banning it.

Now what is the equivalent of making all people pay for private insurance or pay a fine to govt? I tried using "spiritual healing" that this would save more lives and resources to serve even more people; so why not mandate that through federal govt and make everyone go through that process or pay fines to cover the higher risks and costs of disease? 

Clearly people would NOT agree to mandate that, even after spiritual healing is medically proven to cure disease, because it requires free choice. But if insurance can be mandated when it could or should be a free choice, why not mandate spiritual healing in order to cover even more people?

This analogy is not working because people don't know spiritual healing works and is medically proven.

Can you help me come up with an analogy that would make sense to prochoice or singlepayer advocates?

Can you name something that you believe without question should remain voluntary by nature, but since one group believes it is necessary anyway and the best or only solution, they are mandating it through federal govt while you believe that is an abuse of govt to push this on people who believe in voluntary free choice to pursue, fund and participate in other alternatives?

What about sex? Like no one can have sex unless you PROVE you have means/insurance to pay for the kids who "may result."
And if you have sex without this, then you pay a fine to govt. Is that close? Can you work with that and create a parallel analogy?


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lying Troll.  You are nothing, never were anything, and never will be anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evidence shithead, evidence. You never offer any. None. Perhaps among the homeless under the bridge you can get away with that. You're among some adults here. Your playground act just embarrasses your friends.
> 
> Keep it up. You're getting to be my biggest exhibit here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I cited my evidence you dumb ass troll it's called quoting.
Click to expand...


I see your problem.  Quotes are evidence.  Evidence of what?  Language?


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're among some adults here
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He _should_ be among adults. Unfortunately immature, ignorant, and uneducated Dumbocrats like you show up and Nazi salute Obama while making weak attempts to defend the blatant LIES of the regime. "Period"
> 
> [ame=http://youtu.be/wfl55GgHr5E]"If you like your plan, you can keep your plan." - Barack Obama - YouTube[/ame]
Click to expand...


How come you blindly following Fox propaganda is not both mindless and dysfunctional?


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evidence shithead, evidence. You never offer any. None. Perhaps among the homeless under the bridge you can get away with that. You're among some adults here. Your playground act just embarrasses your friends.
> 
> Keep it up. You're getting to be my biggest exhibit here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I cited my evidence you dumb ass troll it's called quoting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see your problem.  Quotes are evidence.  Evidence of what?  Language?
Click to expand...


Now you can't read your own writing? ROFL


----------



## emilynghiem

Hi PMZ: As a prochoice Democrat, I will try to help "eliminate"  some of these arguments that are partisan-pointed, and try to get to the conflict underneath all that

1. One bias I see YOU have is that you assume "Republicans" did not have "any other solution" and this is FALSE. I know lots of health care solutions promoted by Greens, Democrats, conservative Republicans, and Libertarians that were ignored or dismissed for politicians to push ACA mandates as "the only choice" or "the only way."  

This shows your projected belief against "Republicans" and shows a bias. So if you don't want biases coming up in the arguments, don't come into them with loaded guns like this. 

2. One thing you said was the point was to "improve insurance" by regulating it not to deny existing conditions and thus to cover people who would otherwise be excluded

Even with that intent:

A. this was imposed on insurance with the ADDED CONDITION THAT ALL CITIZENS BE REQUIRED TO BUY PRIVATE INSURANCE. Had the argument or condition/regulation involved 'INSURANCE COMPANIES' ALONE, YES you might be right. They would be forced to find some way to cover all people or they could not serve/sell their services. 

HOWEVER with this added condition to the contract, this involved citizens who DID NOT AGREE to be forced by law to buy such insurance which is not the same as paying for health care. To "improve insurance" would have to occur WITHOUT this contested clause.

You cannot take one point of context and say that it regulated insurance to improve it.
That was only based on a major clause that is contested across the board (nonpartisan by Democrats and Greens and independents who didn't want private insurance involved)

B. In reality people are losing their insurance who had it before. I just heard on the radio a woman in college calling in, saying she lost her insurance right before bone marrow surgery which is time sensitive. She used to be covered under the high risk pool, but under the new rules she was dropped. And she did not have time to go through the website because of glitches, and her surgery was already scheduled. So she had to pay for it herself. if she didn't have that, she would not have insurance to pay for it.

C. Just because insurance is required to cover people doesn't mean it will be affordable or they will come through with the payments.  You are still not covering all people with this plan, nor has any of it been proven better or worse than before, and yet the mandate will be enforced WITHOUT PROOF AND based on "faith" only that it works, similar to religion.

The bias I see that is most dangerous here is not recognizing the faith in insurance/ACA mandates as "religious" but pushing these political beliefs as fact, then arguing that this side or that side is "partisan."

It is one thing to trust or distrust people based on affiliation by party.

It is another thing to be so entrenched in one's partisan-biased views that it becomes a political religion that is not recognized as such. That is the greatest conflict I see here.



PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> *CareFirst says 76,000 customers will lose current coverage due to Obamacare | WashingtonExaminer.com*
> 
> 
> 
> "If you like your plan, you can keep your plan." - Barack Obama - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have to say that you are the prototypical conservative, desperate for a simple, black and white world. And that's exactly what Fox propaganda gives you.
> 
> Most people understood Obama's point. That Obamacare wasn't offering a product for people who had adequate coverage and were happy with the cost and source of it. It absolutely doesn't. It established some minimum coverage standards. It uncovered policies that were inadequate relative to those standards. It required insurers to deliver adequate coverage. Insurance improved.
> 
> Did he choose the best brief way to say that? I thought so. I believe that most people did.
> 
> But, this whole thing has nothing at all to do with that question.
> 
> It has to do with Republicans avoiding accountability for having no solution to, no alternative for, the biggest obstacle in our economy to global competition. They simply have ignored the problem. It's not at all about the American people and our future. They offered no way for themselves to win. They could only try to prevent Democrats from winning. And the American people.
> 
> It's pure politics with no regard at all for America and Americans.
> 
> And it cost them plenty on election day 2012. But even bigger defeats are coming.
> 
> I encourage Republican anger at me. I bring it on. It's the seed of their demise. As propaganda is based on making people angry then giving them a scapegoat, conservatives seeth with anger. And I take advantage of it.
> 
> I don't care about winning here. Just in the voting booth, and conservatives are their own worst enemy there. I just encourage them.
Click to expand...


Here at the end, you seem to admit that you are partisan against Republicans.
So how can you complain about partisan arguments when you were asking for one?


----------



## emilynghiem

Dear Tyrone and PMZ: I see you are both sincerely passionate about this ACA issue
and not letting good solutions you believe in get crushed by what you see as partisan opposition.

May I ask your help to come up with analogy of something equivalent in your beliefs
which you would agree that fed govt could not or should not mandate, but you could
argue that "policies would improve" or "more people would be helped" with such a mandate?

I tried the analogy with spiritual healing, that this is free, safe and  more cost effective, and would save more lives, cuts costs, and even prevent or cure criminal conditions so that more resources could be saved and cover more people's health care, as well as housing and education to reduce the burden on taxpayers WITHOUT charging us more costs as with ACA.

But people do not know how spiritual healing works, or that it is medically proven, and that even if it were scientifically established, it would still require free choice. So that analogy doesn't work but gets sidetracked into having to prove it first, etc.

What about mandates about sex? Wouldn't it be better for public health and safety to require that all people show written proof they both consent to the sex (to reduce rape and/or have written proof it wasn't rape or abuse), have resources to pay for any babies resulting (similar to showing proof of insurance or ability to pay), and/or have no diseases (to cut costs of health care). And if they have sex without showing proof then they pay a fine to federal govt to cover the added costs or risks and/or to pay for all the people who screw up and cost taxpayers for unwanted consequences that otherwise would have been prevented.

That is obviously not a good analogy. But can you change it or replace it with something that would be the same or similar from YOUR viewpoint of why opponents do not want to be required or report to federal govt whether they bought insurance or pay a fine/penalty?

Thanks if you can please help.
I got stuck trying to explain this to Luddly.
You both seem more open to discuss and share ideas, so can you help us?
Thank you!


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> I cited my evidence you dumb ass troll it's called quoting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see your problem.  Quotes are evidence.  Evidence of what?  Language?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you can't read your own writing? ROFL
Click to expand...


Is there a point buried here?


----------



## PMZ

emilynghiem said:


> Hi PMZ: As a prochoice Democrat, I will try to help "eliminate"  some of these arguments that are partisan-pointed, and try to get to the conflict underneath all that
> 
> 1. One bias I see YOU have is that you assume "Republicans" did not have "any other solution" and this is FALSE. I know lots of health care solutions promoted by Greens, Democrats, conservative Republicans, and Libertarians that were ignored or dismissed for politicians to push ACA mandates as "the only choice" or "the only way."
> 
> This shows your projected belief against "Republicans" and shows a bias. So if you don't want biases coming up in the arguments, don't come into them with loaded guns like this.
> 
> 2. One thing you said was the point was to "improve insurance" by regulating it not to deny existing conditions and thus to cover people who would otherwise be excluded
> 
> Even with that intent:
> 
> A. this was imposed on insurance with the ADDED CONDITION THAT ALL CITIZENS BE REQUIRED TO BUY PRIVATE INSURANCE. Had the argument or condition/regulation involved 'INSURANCE COMPANIES' ALONE, YES you might be right. They would be forced to find some way to cover all people or they could not serve/sell their services.
> 
> HOWEVER with this added condition to the contract, this involved citizens who DID NOT AGREE to be forced by law to buy such insurance which is not the same as paying for health care. To "improve insurance" would have to occur WITHOUT this contested clause.
> 
> You cannot take one point of context and say that it regulated insurance to improve it.
> That was only based on a major clause that is contested across the board (nonpartisan by Democrats and Greens and independents who didn't want private insurance involved)
> 
> B. In reality people are losing their insurance who had it before. I just heard on the radio a woman in college calling in, saying she lost her insurance right before bone marrow surgery which is time sensitive. She used to be covered under the high risk pool, but under the new rules she was dropped. And she did not have time to go through the website because of glitches, and her surgery was already scheduled. So she had to pay for it herself. if she didn't have that, she would not have insurance to pay for it.
> 
> C. Just because insurance is required to cover people doesn't mean it will be affordable or they will come through with the payments.  You are still not covering all people with this plan, nor has any of it been proven better or worse than before, and yet the mandate will be enforced WITHOUT PROOF AND based on "faith" only that it works, similar to religion.
> 
> The bias I see that is most dangerous here is not recognizing the faith in insurance/ACA mandates as "religious" but pushing these political beliefs as fact, then arguing that this side or that side is "partisan."
> 
> It is one thing to trust or distrust people based on affiliation by party.
> 
> It is another thing to be so entrenched in one's partisan-biased views that it becomes a political religion that is not recognized as such. That is the greatest conflict I see here.
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> *CareFirst says 76,000 customers will lose current coverage due to Obamacare | WashingtonExaminer.com*
> 
> 
> 
> "If you like your plan, you can keep your plan." - Barack Obama - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have to say that you are the prototypical conservative, desperate for a simple, black and white world. And that's exactly what Fox propaganda gives you.
> 
> Most people understood Obama's point. That Obamacare wasn't offering a product for people who had adequate coverage and were happy with the cost and source of it. It absolutely doesn't. It established some minimum coverage standards. It uncovered policies that were inadequate relative to those standards. It required insurers to deliver adequate coverage. Insurance improved.
> 
> Did he choose the best brief way to say that? I thought so. I believe that most people did.
> 
> But, this whole thing has nothing at all to do with that question.
> 
> It has to do with Republicans avoiding accountability for having no solution to, no alternative for, the biggest obstacle in our economy to global competition. They simply have ignored the problem. It's not at all about the American people and our future. They offered no way for themselves to win. They could only try to prevent Democrats from winning. And the American people.
> 
> It's pure politics with no regard at all for America and Americans.
> 
> And it cost them plenty on election day 2012. But even bigger defeats are coming.
> 
> I encourage Republican anger at me. I bring it on. It's the seed of their demise. As propaganda is based on making people angry then giving them a scapegoat, conservatives seeth with anger. And I take advantage of it.
> 
> I don't care about winning here. Just in the voting booth, and conservatives are their own worst enemy there. I just encourage them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here at the end, you seem to admit that you are partisan against Republicans.
> So how can you complain about partisan arguments when you were asking for one?
Click to expand...


I am partisan in favor of progress for our country.  My experience is that the Republican Party has abandoned that,  simply because their inept performance has put them in survival mode,  and they've abandoned even the pretext of serving the country over serving the party.  I see the evidence of that as overwhelming. 

I am a Republican.  They historically have had a very useful and functional perspective that was a great balance with the Democrat useful and functional perspective. 

That was abandoned when the dixiecrats,  who have always been dysfunctional and anti-American,  left the Democratic Party over the issue of equal rights for everyone,  and joined the GOP.  Thats when they left useful politics behind,  and became anti-American. 

Thats is not blind bias but observable fact for those unbiased. 

There are many parties whose foundation leads them to be against American interests.  Communist for example.  

I see no reason for those interested in our success to support either Communism or Republicanism.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see your problem.  Quotes are evidence.  Evidence of what?  Language?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now you can't read your own writing? ROFL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is there a point buried here?
Click to expand...


You asked for evidence. I quoted it. Then you said you can't understand what I quoted.  What I quoted was you.


----------



## PMZ

emilynghiem said:


> Dear Tyrone and PMZ: I see you are both sincerely passionate about this ACA issue
> and not letting good solutions you believe in get crushed by what you see as partisan opposition.
> 
> May I ask your help to come up with analogy of something equivalent in your beliefs
> which you would agree that fed govt could not or should not mandate, but you could
> argue that "policies would improve" or "more people would be helped" with such a mandate?
> 
> I tried the analogy with spiritual healing, that this is free, safe and  more cost effective, and would save more lives, cuts costs, and even prevent or cure criminal conditions so that more resources could be saved and cover more people's health care, as well as housing and education to reduce the burden on taxpayers WITHOUT charging us more costs as with ACA.
> 
> But people do not know how spiritual healing works, or that it is medically proven, and that even if it were scientifically established, it would still require free choice. So that analogy doesn't work but gets sidetracked into having to prove it first, etc.
> 
> What about mandates about sex? Wouldn't it be better for public health and safety to require that all people show written proof they both consent to the sex (to reduce rape and/or have written proof it wasn't rape or abuse), have resources to pay for any babies resulting (similar to showing proof of insurance or ability to pay), and/or have no diseases (to cut costs of health care). And if they have sex without showing proof then they pay a fine to federal govt to cover the added costs or risks and/or to pay for all the people who screw up and cost taxpayers for unwanted consequences that otherwise would have been prevented.
> 
> That is obviously not a good analogy. But can you change it or replace it with something that would be the same or similar from YOUR viewpoint of why opponents do not want to be required or report to federal govt whether they bought insurance or pay a fine/penalty?
> 
> Thanks if you can please help.
> I got stuck trying to explain this to Luddly.
> You both seem more open to discuss and share ideas, so can you help us?
> Thank you!



First,  I believe that a healthy population is in the country's best interest.  I don't know if that makes it a right or not,  but like education, any goal short of everyone to me is irrational. 

In the past our dysfunctional non- system was to let everyone do what ever they wanted,  at least up to age 65, but die in the streets. That we eliminated by insisting that hospital e rooms take care of everyone. The most expensive least effective approach. 

ACA insists that everyone be responsible for their own health care costs,  subsidizes those who we choose not to pay enough to afford necessities,  and creates a marketplace free of flimflam artists selling inadequate coverage. 
Compared to the rest of the developed world it is the minimum government could and should do. 

It's only a start.  

I believe that 100% of the Republican resistance to it is dirty politics completely devoid of responsibility to the country. Again  their recent performance has them doing whatever can be done,  short of better service to the country,  to avoid extinction. 

Given those beliefs,  would you act any differently than I do?


----------



## PMZ

emilynghiem said:


> Dear Tyrone and PMZ: I see you are both sincerely passionate about this ACA issue
> and not letting good solutions you believe in get crushed by what you see as partisan opposition.
> 
> May I ask your help to come up with analogy of something equivalent in your beliefs
> which you would agree that fed govt could not or should not mandate, but you could
> argue that "policies would improve" or "more people would be helped" with such a mandate?
> 
> I tried the analogy with spiritual healing, that this is free, safe and  more cost effective, and would save more lives, cuts costs, and even prevent or cure criminal conditions so that more resources could be saved and cover more people's health care, as well as housing and education to reduce the burden on taxpayers WITHOUT charging us more costs as with ACA.
> 
> But people do not know how spiritual healing works, or that it is medically proven, and that even if it were scientifically established, it would still require free choice. So that analogy doesn't work but gets sidetracked into having to prove it first, etc.
> 
> What about mandates about sex? Wouldn't it be better for public health and safety to require that all people show written proof they both consent to the sex (to reduce rape and/or have written proof it wasn't rape or abuse), have resources to pay for any babies resulting (similar to showing proof of insurance or ability to pay), and/or have no diseases (to cut costs of health care). And if they have sex without showing proof then they pay a fine to federal govt to cover the added costs or risks and/or to pay for all the people who screw up and cost taxpayers for unwanted consequences that otherwise would have been prevented.
> 
> That is obviously not a good analogy. But can you change it or replace it with something that would be the same or similar from YOUR viewpoint of why opponents do not want to be required or report to federal govt whether they bought insurance or pay a fine/penalty?
> 
> Thanks if you can please help.
> I got stuck trying to explain this to Luddly.
> You both seem more open to discuss and share ideas, so can you help us?
> Thank you!



Sex.  All adults have sex in the way that best fits their needs.  It's as compelling as eating for most.  

The technology is fully available to separate sex and procreation and it is extraordinarily,  but not perfectly, reliable. 

Unfortunately only half of us can get pregnant,  so the responsibility for dealing with ''accidents,'' falls disproportionately on women. 

I think that how each woman/couple deals with their problem has to be theirs.  

Our common and individual goal should be to,  as much as possible,  not have accidents.  That applies to many areas of life.


----------



## PoliticalChic

RDD_1210 said:


> It is sad that this has to happen.
> 
> It's also sad that the GOP has convinced people of "death panels", "losing freedom" and all the other hysterical nonsense that you sheep believe, that have actually made you think you hate a law that is a Republican idea.
> 
> So yeah, it's sad that a campaign needs to be waged to combat such blatant misinformation.





' ...the GOP has convinced people of "death panels",...'

Actually, it quite the reverse.....Obamunists have lied about there being no such thing.




You must have missed this from Stephen Rattner, Obama adviser, in the NYTimes:

"WE need Death Panels.
Well, maybe not death panels, exactly, but unless we start allocating health care resources more prudently  rationing, by its proper name  the exploding cost of Medicare will swamp the federal budget."
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/17/opinion/health-care-reform-beyond-obamacare.html?_r=0



What, exactly, do you think rationing is about?


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now you can't read your own writing? ROFL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is there a point buried here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You asked for evidence. I quoted it. Then you said you can't understand what I quoted.  What I quoted was you.
Click to expand...


I said what I said.  Quoting me adds nothing to that. If you have evidence that what I said was incorrect let's have it.


----------



## PMZ

PoliticalChic said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is sad that this has to happen.
> 
> It's also sad that the GOP has convinced people of "death panels", "losing freedom" and all the other hysterical nonsense that you sheep believe, that have actually made you think you hate a law that is a Republican idea.
> 
> So yeah, it's sad that a campaign needs to be waged to combat such blatant misinformation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ' ...the GOP has convinced people of "death panels",...'
> 
> Actually, it quite the reverse.....Obamunists have lied about there being no such thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You must have missed this from Stephen Rattner, Obama adviser, in the NYTimes:
> 
> "WE need Death Panels.
> Well, maybe not death panels, exactly, but unless we start allocating health care resources more prudently  rationing, by its proper name  the exploding cost of Medicare will swamp the federal budget."
> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/17/opinion/health-care-reform-beyond-obamacare.html?_r=0
> 
> 
> 
> What, exactly, do you think rationing is about?
Click to expand...


All resources are rationed when demand exceeds supply.


----------



## dblack

PMZ said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is sad that this has to happen.
> 
> It's also sad that the GOP has convinced people of "death panels", "losing freedom" and all the other hysterical nonsense that you sheep believe, that have actually made you think you hate a law that is a Republican idea.
> 
> So yeah, it's sad that a campaign needs to be waged to combat such blatant misinformation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ' ...the GOP has convinced people of "death panels",...'
> 
> Actually, it quite the reverse.....Obamunists have lied about there being no such thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You must have missed this from Stephen Rattner, Obama adviser, in the NYTimes:
> 
> "WE need Death Panels.
> Well, maybe not death panels, exactly, but unless we start allocating health care resources more prudently  rationing, by its proper name  the exploding cost of Medicare will swamp the federal budget."
> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/17/opinion/health-care-reform-beyond-obamacare.html?_r=0
> 
> 
> 
> What, exactly, do you think rationing is about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All resources are rationed when demand exceeds supply.
Click to expand...


No, they're not. Rationing isn't just a state of limited availability. It's a system of controlled distribution other than via markets. It usually directed by some authority, rather than voluntary exchange.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is sad that this has to happen.
> 
> It's also sad that the GOP has convinced people of "death panels", "losing freedom" and all the other hysterical nonsense that you sheep believe, that have actually made you think you hate a law that is a Republican idea.
> 
> So yeah, it's sad that a campaign needs to be waged to combat such blatant misinformation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ' ...the GOP has convinced people of "death panels",...'
> 
> Actually, it quite the reverse.....Obamunists have lied about there being no such thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You must have missed this from Stephen Rattner, Obama adviser, in the NYTimes:
> 
> "WE need Death Panels.
> Well, maybe not death panels, exactly, but unless we start allocating health care resources more prudently &#8212; rationing, by its proper name &#8212; the exploding cost of Medicare will swamp the federal budget."
> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/17/opinion/health-care-reform-beyond-obamacare.html?_r=0
> 
> 
> 
> What, exactly, do you think rationing is about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All resources are rationed when demand exceeds supply.
Click to expand...


Bull shit.  Did you not watch what happened at the Walmart the other day when they took the limits off the EBT cards?  The thieves robbed us blind of nearly everything in the stores.  When supplies are handed out for free no amount of supply can satiate the desires of moochers like you.


----------



## PMZ

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> ' ...the GOP has convinced people of "death panels",...'
> 
> Actually, it quite the reverse.....Obamunists have lied about there being no such thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You must have missed this from Stephen Rattner, Obama adviser, in the NYTimes:
> 
> "WE need Death Panels.
> Well, maybe not death panels, exactly, but unless we start allocating health care resources more prudently  rationing, by its proper name  the exploding cost of Medicare will swamp the federal budget."
> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/17/opinion/health-care-reform-beyond-obamacare.html?_r=0
> 
> 
> 
> What, exactly, do you think rationing is about?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All resources are rationed when demand exceeds supply.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they're not. Rationing isn't just a state of limited availability. It's a system of controlled distribution other than via markets. It usually directed by some authority, rather than voluntary exchange.
Click to expand...


I don't have any idea now of what you think ''rationing'' is.  

When demand exceeds supply,  some will get.  Some will not.  How the decision of who is made is rationing.  One way to decide is to favor those who are willing and able to pay more.  Another is greater good.  Rationing rubber to the military over civilian use in WWII is an example of that. Another is disaster triage.  The one with most need but best chance of a positive outcome gets the Dr or operating room or medicine.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> ' ...the GOP has convinced people of "death panels",...'
> 
> Actually, it quite the reverse.....Obamunists have lied about there being no such thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You must have missed this from Stephen Rattner, Obama adviser, in the NYTimes:
> 
> "WE need Death Panels.
> Well, maybe not death panels, exactly, but unless we start allocating health care resources more prudently  rationing, by its proper name  the exploding cost of Medicare will swamp the federal budget."
> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/17/opinion/health-care-reform-beyond-obamacare.html?_r=0
> 
> 
> 
> What, exactly, do you think rationing is about?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All resources are rationed when demand exceeds supply.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bull shit.  Did you not watch what happened at the Walmart the other day when they took the limits off the EBT cards?  The thieves robbed us blind of nearly everything in the stores.  When supplies are handed out for free no amount of supply can satiate the desires of moochers like you.
Click to expand...


Thats rationing based on power and low inhibition.  The basis of most crime. 

Go see the movie Captain Phillips.  You'll learn a lot about the consequences of extreme wealth inequity.


----------



## dblack

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> All resources are rationed when demand exceeds supply.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they're not. Rationing isn't just a state of limited availability. It's a system of controlled distribution other than via markets. It usually directed by some authority, rather than voluntary exchange.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't have any idea now of what you think ''rationing'' is.
> 
> When demand exceeds supply,  some will get.  Some will not.  How the decision of who is made is rationing.  One way to decide is to favor those who are willing and able to pay more.  Another is greater good.  Rationing rubber to the military over civilian use in WWII is an example of that. Another is disaster triage.  The one with most need but best chance of a positive outcome gets the Dr or operating room or medicine.
Click to expand...


Most dictionary definitions make the distinction I'm talking about. There's also a good wikipedia article on it. As I said, it's not just a matter of limited supply. Apologists for state control of markets are fond of pretending that any limited market situation, where not everyone can get what they want or need is the equivalent of rationing, but it's not. Rationing is where some authority supersedes free market decisions with another process. That's the whole point. It's usually implemented during times of emergency to avoid chaos and equalize access to necessary resources.


----------



## PMZ

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, they're not. Rationing isn't just a state of limited availability. It's a system of controlled distribution other than via markets. It usually directed by some authority, rather than voluntary exchange.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have any idea now of what you think ''rationing'' is.
> 
> When demand exceeds supply,  some will get.  Some will not.  How the decision of who is made is rationing.  One way to decide is to favor those who are willing and able to pay more.  Another is greater good.  Rationing rubber to the military over civilian use in WWII is an example of that. Another is disaster triage.  The one with most need but best chance of a positive outcome gets the Dr or operating room or medicine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most dictionary definitions make the distinction I'm talking about. There's also a good wikipedia article on it. As I said, it's not just a matter of limited supply. Apologists for state control of markets are fond of pretending that any limited market situation, where not everyone can get what they want or need is the equivalent of rationing, but it's not. Rationing is where some authority supersedes free market decisions with another process. That's the whole point. It's usually implemented during times of emergency to avoid chaos and equalize access to necessary resources.
Click to expand...


Without limited supply there's no need for rationing. 

''Rationing is where some authority supersedes free market decisions with another process.''

No evidence again!


----------



## PMZ

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, they're not. Rationing isn't just a state of limited availability. It's a system of controlled distribution other than via markets. It usually directed by some authority, rather than voluntary exchange.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have any idea now of what you think ''rationing'' is.
> 
> When demand exceeds supply,  some will get.  Some will not.  How the decision of who is made is rationing.  One way to decide is to favor those who are willing and able to pay more.  Another is greater good.  Rationing rubber to the military over civilian use in WWII is an example of that. Another is disaster triage.  The one with most need but best chance of a positive outcome gets the Dr or operating room or medicine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most dictionary definitions make the distinction I'm talking about. There's also a good wikipedia article on it. As I said, it's not just a matter of limited supply. Apologists for state control of markets are fond of pretending that any limited market situation, where not everyone can get what they want or need is the equivalent of rationing, but it's not. Rationing is where some authority supersedes free market decisions with another process. That's the whole point. It's usually implemented during times of emergency to avoid chaos and equalize access to necessary resources.
Click to expand...


Out of curiosity,  what is your definition of a free market?


----------



## dblack

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have any idea now of what you think ''rationing'' is.
> 
> When demand exceeds supply,  some will get.  Some will not.  How the decision of who is made is rationing.  One way to decide is to favor those who are willing and able to pay more.  Another is greater good.  Rationing rubber to the military over civilian use in WWII is an example of that. Another is disaster triage.  The one with most need but best chance of a positive outcome gets the Dr or operating room or medicine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most dictionary definitions make the distinction I'm talking about. There's also a good wikipedia article on it. As I said, it's not just a matter of limited supply. Apologists for state control of markets are fond of pretending that any limited market situation, where not everyone can get what they want or need is the equivalent of rationing, but it's not. Rationing is where some authority supersedes free market decisions with another process. That's the whole point. It's usually implemented during times of emergency to avoid chaos and equalize access to necessary resources.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Out of curiosity,  what is your definition of a free market?
Click to expand...


Again, I'm content with the usual dictionary definitions and/or wikipedia info. I'm not an anarcho-capitalist or anything unusual.


----------



## dblack

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have any idea now of what you think ''rationing'' is.
> 
> When demand exceeds supply,  some will get.  Some will not.  How the decision of who is made is rationing.  One way to decide is to favor those who are willing and able to pay more.  Another is greater good.  Rationing rubber to the military over civilian use in WWII is an example of that. Another is disaster triage.  The one with most need but best chance of a positive outcome gets the Dr or operating room or medicine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most dictionary definitions make the distinction I'm talking about. There's also a good wikipedia article on it. As I said, it's not just a matter of limited supply. Apologists for state control of markets are fond of pretending that any limited market situation, where not everyone can get what they want or need is the equivalent of rationing, but it's not. Rationing is where some authority supersedes free market decisions with another process. That's the whole point. It's usually implemented during times of emergency to avoid chaos and equalize access to necessary resources.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Without limited supply there's no need for rationing.
> 
> ''Rationing is where some authority supersedes free market decisions with another process.''
> 
> No evidence again!
Click to expand...


WTF? Evidence? Don't you have a web browser or a dictionary? It's just a matter of the definition of the word. The whole idea behind rationing is that it's a control distribution mechanism - ie the opposite of relatively uncontrolled, market-based distribution.


----------



## PMZ

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most dictionary definitions make the distinction I'm talking about. There's also a good wikipedia article on it. As I said, it's not just a matter of limited supply. Apologists for state control of markets are fond of pretending that any limited market situation, where not everyone can get what they want or need is the equivalent of rationing, but it's not. Rationing is where some authority supersedes free market decisions with another process. That's the whole point. It's usually implemented during times of emergency to avoid chaos and equalize access to necessary resources.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Without limited supply there's no need for rationing.
> 
> ''Rationing is where some authority supersedes free market decisions with another process.''
> 
> No evidence again!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WTF? Evidence? Don't you have a web browser or a dictionary? It's just a matter of the definition of the word. The whole idea behind rationing is that it's a control distribution mechanism - ie the opposite of relatively uncontrolled, market-based distribution.
Click to expand...


I agree with you about the dictionary definition but am trying to figure out why it makes sense to anybody to think that some ways to divey up scarce resources is any more or less legitimate than any other?

They're really all different expressions of power. If you can get away with it, you can do it.


----------



## Antares

PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you couldn't find an adult that could read? How are you going to learn that way?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Run liberal run!
> 
> I feel sorry for you, so I'll give you another chance. What section of the Constitution can I find where it verifies your assertion that the Supreme Court gets to decide whether or not the American people can be forced to purchase a good or service?
> 
> You do realize it makes you look REALLY bad every time you fail to give this simple answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I gave you a golden opportunity to learn. You've turned it down. That is exactly what makes you a conservative.
Click to expand...


Too funny.

Obama simply lied, he DID say "Let me be perfectly clear, if you like your plan and your Doctor you will be able to keep them."

No matter how you try and spin it thats what he said and thats what he meant to convey.

I don't think you are stupid, but you've proven to be a liar.


----------



## Antares

PMZ said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is sad that this has to happen.
> 
> It's also sad that the GOP has convinced people of "death panels", "losing freedom" and all the other hysterical nonsense that you sheep believe, that have actually made you think you hate a law that is a Republican idea.
> 
> So yeah, it's sad that a campaign needs to be waged to combat such blatant misinformation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ' ...the GOP has convinced people of "death panels",...'
> 
> Actually, it quite the reverse.....Obamunists have lied about there being no such thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You must have missed this from Stephen Rattner, Obama adviser, in the NYTimes:
> 
> "WE need Death Panels.
> Well, maybe not death panels, exactly, but unless we start allocating health care resources more prudently  rationing, by its proper name  the exploding cost of Medicare will swamp the federal budget."
> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/17/opinion/health-care-reform-beyond-obamacare.html?_r=0
> 
> 
> 
> What, exactly, do you think rationing is about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All resources are rationed when demand exceeds supply.
Click to expand...


Ahh yes...and now you feel qualified to say who lives and who dies.....all in the name of "fairness".


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What, exactly, do you think rationing is about?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All resources are rationed when demand exceeds supply.
Click to expand...


And sadly, Dumbocrat policy ALWAYS ends with demand exceeding supply because Dumbocrat policy punishes the hard working producers and rewards the lazy parasite.

Cuba is the perfect example of PMZ utopia. Fidel Castro implemented every policy that PMZ fantasizes about. The results? 60+ years of poverty and misery.

"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."  

--Winston Churchill


----------



## dblack

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The whole idea behind rationing is that it's a control distribution mechanism - ie the opposite of relatively uncontrolled, market-based distribution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with you about the dictionary definition but am trying to figure out why it makes sense to anybody to think that some ways to divey up scarce resources is any more or less legitimate than any other?
> 
> They're really all different expressions of power. If you can get away with it, you can do it.
Click to expand...


Well, this gets to the key distinction between political and economic power. Economic power precludes coercion. Political power depends on it. No matter how much economic power a business or wealthy individual may wield, they can't (legally) force me to do a damned thing. If I defy the law, on the other hand, the ultimate end is always the barrel of a gun.


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> First,  I believe that a healthy population is in the country's best interest.  I don't know if that makes it a right or not,  but like education, *any goal short of everyone to me is irrational*.



Ahh yes... the "utopia" known as communism. Yes folks, PMZ really is this stupid (but he won't move to Cuba for some odd reason)!



PMZ said:


> In the past our *dysfunctional* non- system was to *let everyone do what ever they wanted*,  at least up to age 65, but die in the streets. That we eliminated by insisting that hospital e rooms take care of everyone.



So *freedom* - ie let everyone do what they want with their own healthcare - is "dysfunctional" in the mind of PMZ. This moron can't get out a single sentence that isn't oozing with communism.



PMZ said:


> ACA insists that everyone be responsible for their own health care costs



Blatant lie and PMZ knows it (the party of propaganda proves it yet again). Since Obamacare has caused costs to skyrocket, how could people who couldn't afford health insurance before suddenly afford it now? 

Furthermore - why did my taxes skyrocket to unfathomable levels for Obamacare if I'm not picking up the tab for parasites like PMZ? Where exactly is they money going?

I've lost track of how many *lies* we've caught [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] in now... 



PMZ said:


> Compared to the rest of the developed world it is the minimum government could and should do.



And this is one of your major problems asshat. We're not the rest of the world. We are America. We are _better_ than the rest of the world. If you want the rest of the world - nobody is stopping you from leaving. That's another beauty of America - the freedom to get the fuck out any time you don't like it.



PMZ said:


> I believe that 100% of the Republican resistance to it is dirty politics completely devoid of responsibility to the country.



I already educated you on this son. The "responsibility" is the 18 enumerated powers delegated to them in the U.S. Constitution (you know, that document you have *never* read?). Beyond that, there is ZERO "responsibility" for the federal government to do shit - and, in fact - it is _illegal_ for them to take responsibility over.



PMZ said:


> Given those beliefs,  would you act any differently than I do?



Why would anybody act like an asshole like you do, regardless of their beliefs? The truth (something you refuse to deal in) is that your angry because you're a useless parasite. You want people to be forced to hand over what they earned to you. It's just a fact. You are what you are - a parasite.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> All resources are rationed when demand exceeds supply.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bull shit.  Did you not watch what happened at the Walmart the other day when they took the limits off the EBT cards?  The thieves robbed us blind of nearly everything in the stores.  When supplies are handed out for free no amount of supply can satiate the desires of moochers like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That&#8217;s rationing based on power and low inhibition.  The basis of most crime.
> 
> Go see the movie Captain Phillips.  You'll learn a lot about the consequences of extreme wealth inequity.
Click to expand...


I watched it.  Great movie.  Yes, it shows the kind of country you want ours to be, Somalia, with the pirates "redistributing" wealth at the point of a gun because their leaders grand plans for "socialism" did not work out as they hoped.

And yes, your power to redistribute my income by force at the voting booth, and your low inhibition to doing so, is the basis of the crime that we are talking about.


----------



## P@triot

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bull shit.  Did you not watch what happened at the Walmart the other day when they took the limits off the EBT cards?  The thieves robbed us blind of nearly everything in the stores.  When supplies are handed out for free no amount of supply can satiate the desires of moochers like you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That&#8217;s rationing based on power and low inhibition.  The basis of most crime.
> 
> Go see the movie Captain Phillips.  You'll learn a lot about the consequences of extreme wealth inequity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I watched it.  Great movie.  Yes, it shows the kind of country you want ours to be, Somalia, with the pirates "redistributing" wealth at the point of a gun because their leaders grand plans for "socialism" did not work out as they hoped.
> 
> And yes, your power to redistribute my income by force at the voting booth, and your low inhibition to doing so, is the basis of the crime that we are talking about.
Click to expand...


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> Go see the movie Captain Phillips.  You'll learn a lot about the consequences of extreme wealth inequity.



Here we see the modern day Dumbocrat threaten violence again to get us to capitulate on their extortion.

First of all [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] - the U.S. has never had "wealth inequality". What we've had - thanks to Dumbocrats like you and Obama - is *effort* *inequality*. While Obama was snorting coke up his nose by the kilo, I was working. While you were drinking case after case of beer in your trailer park, I was working.

Second - in this nation, all of the conservatives are heavily armed while Dumbocrats are defenseless, helpless children. So if you want to act like a Somalian pirate, I have one sincere thing to say to you: *come get some, bitch*...


----------



## RKMBrown

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Go see the movie Captain Phillips.  You'll learn a lot about the consequences of extreme wealth inequity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here we see the modern day Dumbocrat threaten violence again to get us to capitulate on their extortion.
> 
> First of all [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] - the U.S. has never had "wealth inequality". What we've had - thanks to Dumbocrats like you and Obama - is *effort* *inequality*. While Obama was snorting coke up his nose by the kilo, I was working. While you were drinking case after case of beer in your trailer park, I was working.
> 
> Second - in this nation, all of the conservatives are heavily armed while Dumbocrats are defenseless, helpless children. So if you want to act like a Somalian pirate, I have one sincere thing to say to you: *come get some, bitch*...
Click to expand...


I'm thinking Tom Hanks for oscar.. what a performance.


----------



## PMZ

Antares said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Run liberal run!
> 
> I feel sorry for you, so I'll give you another chance. What section of the Constitution can I find where it verifies your assertion that the Supreme Court gets to decide whether or not the American people can be forced to purchase a good or service?
> 
> You do realize it makes you look REALLY bad every time you fail to give this simple answer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I gave you a golden opportunity to learn. You've turned it down. That is exactly what makes you a conservative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Too funny.
> 
> Obama simply lied, he DID say "Let me be perfectly clear, if you like your plan and your Doctor you will be able to keep them."
> 
> No matter how you try and spin it thats what he said and thats what he meant to convey.
> 
> I don't think you are stupid, but you've proven to be a liar.
Click to expand...


Only a conservative would believe that there's only one way to interpret his words and thats the way Fox did.  

Ultimate arrogance and intellectual dishonestly.


----------



## PMZ

Antares said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> ' ...the GOP has convinced people of "death panels",...'
> 
> Actually, it quite the reverse.....Obamunists have lied about there being no such thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You must have missed this from Stephen Rattner, Obama adviser, in the NYTimes:
> 
> "WE need Death Panels.
> Well, maybe not death panels, exactly, but unless we start allocating health care resources more prudently  rationing, by its proper name  the exploding cost of Medicare will swamp the federal budget."
> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/17/opinion/health-care-reform-beyond-obamacare.html?_r=0
> 
> 
> 
> What, exactly, do you think rationing is about?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All resources are rationed when demand exceeds supply.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ahh yes...and now you feel qualified to say who lives and who dies.....all in the name of "fairness".
Click to expand...


Dr's and insurance companies have been doing that for years. So has the military,  drunk and unsafe drivers,  murderers,  police,  courts.  

Not me.


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What, exactly, do you think rationing is about?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All resources are rationed when demand exceeds supply.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And sadly, Dumbocrat policy ALWAYS ends with demand exceeding supply because Dumbocrat policy punishes the hard working producers and rewards the lazy parasite.
> 
> Cuba is the perfect example of PMZ utopia. Fidel Castro implemented every policy that PMZ fantasizes about. The results? 60+ years of poverty and misery.
> 
> "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."
> 
> --Winston Churchill
Click to expand...


Here's the simple evidence of experience.  Democratic administrations have been pretty successful.  Republicans disastrous.  Just look at the billions wasted by the current Republican House and the trillions wasted by the  previous Republican President.  That's why propaganda is the only explanation for supporting the GOP.  You just can't get there through truth.


----------



## Antares

PMZ said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I gave you a golden opportunity to learn. You've turned it down. That is exactly what makes you a conservative.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Too funny.
> 
> Obama simply lied, he DID say "Let me be perfectly clear, if you like your plan and your Doctor you will be able to keep them."
> 
> No matter how you try and spin it thats what he said and thats what he meant to convey.
> 
> I don't think you are stupid, but you've proven to be a liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only a conservative would believe that there's only one way to interpret his words and thats the way Fox did.
> 
> Ultimate arrogance and intellectual dishonestly.
Click to expand...


LOL dumbshit, NBC revealed today that Obama knew...it is posted in the Politics section....you like that Bammy cum do you?


----------



## Antares

PMZ said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> All resources are rationed when demand exceeds supply.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ahh yes...and now you feel qualified to say who lives and who dies.....all in the name of "fairness".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dr's and insurance companies have been doing that for years. So has the military,  drunk and unsafe drivers,  murderers,  police,  courts.
> 
> Not me.
Click to expand...


Supporting it is no different...like I said last night...you are no more than a Dem sloganeer....and you are dismissed.


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> First,  I believe that a healthy population is in the country's best interest.  I don't know if that makes it a right or not,  but like education, *any goal short of everyone to me is irrational*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ahh yes... the "utopia" known as communism. Yes folks, PMZ really is this stupid (but he won't move to Cuba for some odd reason)!
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the past our *dysfunctional* non- system was to *let everyone do what ever they wanted*,  at least up to age 65, but die in the streets. That we eliminated by insisting that hospital e rooms take care of everyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So *freedom* - ie let everyone do what they want with their own healthcare - is "dysfunctional" in the mind of PMZ. This moron can't get out a single sentence that isn't oozing with communism.
> 
> 
> 
> Blatant lie and PMZ knows it (the party of propaganda proves it yet again). Since Obamacare has caused costs to skyrocket, how could people who couldn't afford health insurance before suddenly afford it now?
> 
> Furthermore - why did my taxes skyrocket to unfathomable levels for Obamacare if I'm not picking up the tab for parasites like PMZ? Where exactly is they money going?
> 
> I've lost track of how many *lies* we've caught [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] in now...
> 
> 
> 
> And this is one of your major problems asshat. We're not the rest of the world. We are America. We are _better_ than the rest of the world. If you want the rest of the world - nobody is stopping you from leaving. That's another beauty of America - the freedom to get the fuck out any time you don't like it.
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe that 100% of the Republican resistance to it is dirty politics completely devoid of responsibility to the country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I already educated you on this son. The "responsibility" is the 18 enumerated powers delegated to them in the U.S. Constitution (you know, that document you have *never* read?). Beyond that, there is ZERO "responsibility" for the federal government to do shit - and, in fact - it is _illegal_ for them to take responsibility over.
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Given those beliefs,  would you act any differently than I do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would anybody act like an asshole like you do, regardless of their beliefs? The truth (something you refuse to deal in) is that your angry because you're a useless parasite. You want people to be forced to hand over what they earned to you. It's just a fact. You are what you are - a parasite.
Click to expand...


Nobody can explain this level of delusion any way but ignorance.  And the fact that there are as many people delusional in exactly the same way can only be explained by propaganda. 

Fortunately democracy solves these problems.  Not by eliminating them but rendering them impotent.  

America once again saved by our Constitution and electorate.


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Go see the movie Captain Phillips.  You'll learn a lot about the consequences of extreme wealth inequity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here we see the modern day Dumbocrat threaten violence again to get us to capitulate on their extortion.
> 
> First of all [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] - the U.S. has never had "wealth inequality". What we've had - thanks to Dumbocrats like you and Obama - is *effort* *inequality*. While Obama was snorting coke up his nose by the kilo, I was working. While you were drinking case after case of beer in your trailer park, I was working.
> 
> Second - in this nation, all of the conservatives are heavily armed while Dumbocrats are defenseless, helpless children. So if you want to act like a Somalian pirate, I have one sincere thing to say to you: *come get some, bitch*...
Click to expand...


You sound just like the British before our revolution,  the Versailles royalty before the French Revolution and the Confederacy before the Civil War.  

I don't remember if you saw Captain Phillips or not,  but if you do you'll something about armed rebels vs the US military. 

''the U.S. has never had "wealth inequality"

Pure delusion.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> First,  I believe that a healthy population is in the country's best interest.  I don't know if that makes it a right or not,  but like education, *any goal short of everyone to me is irrational*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ahh yes... the "utopia" known as communism. Yes folks, PMZ really is this stupid (but he won't move to Cuba for some odd reason)!
> 
> 
> 
> So *freedom* - ie let everyone do what they want with their own healthcare - is "dysfunctional" in the mind of PMZ. This moron can't get out a single sentence that isn't oozing with communism.
> 
> 
> 
> Blatant lie and PMZ knows it (the party of propaganda proves it yet again). Since Obamacare has caused costs to skyrocket, how could people who couldn't afford health insurance before suddenly afford it now?
> 
> Furthermore - why did my taxes skyrocket to unfathomable levels for Obamacare if I'm not picking up the tab for parasites like PMZ? Where exactly is they money going?
> 
> I've lost track of how many *lies* we've caught [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] in now...
> 
> 
> 
> And this is one of your major problems asshat. We're not the rest of the world. We are America. We are _better_ than the rest of the world. If you want the rest of the world - nobody is stopping you from leaving. That's another beauty of America - the freedom to get the fuck out any time you don't like it.
> 
> 
> 
> I already educated you on this son. The "responsibility" is the 18 enumerated powers delegated to them in the U.S. Constitution (you know, that document you have *never* read?). Beyond that, there is ZERO "responsibility" for the federal government to do shit - and, in fact - it is _illegal_ for them to take responsibility over.
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Given those beliefs,  would you act any differently than I do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would anybody act like an asshole like you do, regardless of their beliefs? The truth (something you refuse to deal in) is that your angry because you're a useless parasite. You want people to be forced to hand over what they earned to you. It's just a fact. You are what you are - a parasite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody can explain this level of delusion any way but ignorance.  And the fact that there are as many people delusional in exactly the same way can only be explained by propaganda.
> 
> Fortunately democracy solves these problems.  Not by eliminating them but rendering them impotent.
> 
> America once again saved by our Constitution and electorate.
Click to expand...


ROFL I love it when your cognitive dissonance kicks in, you put your hands over your ears and start screaming FOX FOX propaganda propaganda democracy democracy.... ROFL


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I gave you a golden opportunity to learn. You've turned it down. That is exactly what makes you a conservative.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Too funny.
> 
> Obama simply lied, he DID say "Let me be perfectly clear, if you like your plan and your Doctor you will be able to keep them."
> 
> No matter how you try and spin it thats what he said and thats what he meant to convey.
> 
> I don't think you are stupid, but you've proven to be a liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Only a conservative would believe that there's only one way to interpret his words* and thats the way Fox did.
> 
> Ultimate arrogance and intellectual dishonestly.
Click to expand...


Why are you "interpreting" anything? Is Obama not capable of saying exactly what he means, and meaning exactly what he says?

Only a Dumbocrat could listen to a man who is so adamant about a fact that he's practically foaming at the mouth and then declare "there is more than one way to INTERPRET what he said"... 

Words have no meaning to a Dumbocrat


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ahh yes... the "utopia" known as communism. Yes folks, PMZ really is this stupid (but he won't move to Cuba for some odd reason)!
> 
> 
> 
> So *freedom* - ie let everyone do what they want with their own healthcare - is "dysfunctional" in the mind of PMZ. This moron can't get out a single sentence that isn't oozing with communism.
> 
> 
> 
> Blatant lie and PMZ knows it (the party of propaganda proves it yet again). Since Obamacare has caused costs to skyrocket, how could people who couldn't afford health insurance before suddenly afford it now?
> 
> Furthermore - why did my taxes skyrocket to unfathomable levels for Obamacare if I'm not picking up the tab for parasites like PMZ? Where exactly is they money going?
> 
> I've lost track of how many *lies* we've caught [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] in now...
> 
> 
> 
> And this is one of your major problems asshat. We're not the rest of the world. We are America. We are _better_ than the rest of the world. If you want the rest of the world - nobody is stopping you from leaving. That's another beauty of America - the freedom to get the fuck out any time you don't like it.
> 
> 
> 
> I already educated you on this son. The "responsibility" is the 18 enumerated powers delegated to them in the U.S. Constitution (you know, that document you have *never* read?). Beyond that, there is ZERO "responsibility" for the federal government to do shit - and, in fact - it is _illegal_ for them to take responsibility over.
> 
> 
> 
> Why would anybody act like an asshole like you do, regardless of their beliefs? The truth (something you refuse to deal in) is that your angry because you're a useless parasite. You want people to be forced to hand over what they earned to you. It's just a fact. You are what you are - a parasite.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody can explain this level of delusion any way but ignorance.  And the fact that there are as many people delusional in exactly the same way can only be explained by propaganda.
> 
> Fortunately democracy solves these problems.  Not by eliminating them but rendering them impotent.
> 
> America once again saved by our Constitution and electorate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROFL I love it when your cognitive dissonance kicks in, you put your hands over your ears and start screaming FOX FOX propaganda propaganda democracy democracy.... ROFL
Click to expand...


I love democracy.  That's why I continue to live here.  There's no better way to govern than of,  by,  and for the people. All Americans used to know that.  Now a few million hate their country all using exactly the same words.  

How do you explain that except as the effects of propaganda?


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> All resources are rationed when demand exceeds supply.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And sadly, Dumbocrat policy ALWAYS ends with demand exceeding supply because Dumbocrat policy punishes the hard working producers and rewards the lazy parasite.
> 
> Cuba is the perfect example of PMZ utopia. Fidel Castro implemented every policy that PMZ fantasizes about. The results? 60+ years of poverty and misery.
> 
> "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."
> 
> --Winston Churchill
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's the simple evidence of experience.  Democratic administrations have been pretty successful.  Republicans disastrous.  Just look at the billions wasted by the current Republican House and the trillions wasted by the previous Republican President.  That's why propaganda is the only explanation for supporting the GOP.  You just can't get there through truth.
Click to expand...


Sure - if you're goal is collapsing the United States - the Dumbocrats have been _very_ successful. Under George W. Bush, unemployment never went above the 6% range. Under Barack Obama, it's never gone below 8% and was at 10%.

Remember, you already admitted (after a long painful exchange of hammering you with facts) that Dumbocrats collapsed Detroit. Just look at the $7 trillion wasted by Barack Hussien Obama in only 4+ years. More than all presidents in U.S. history combined. The Dumbocrats have forced jobs overseas, caused unemployment to skyrocket, and put more people on food stamps than ever before. And you want to sit here lying and pretend that Dumbocrats have been "pretty successful"? 

The TRUTH is, you're a liar and we've all proven that over and over in this thread (it's why you stand all alone). People loathe liars. And they sure as hell won't stand along side one.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody can explain this level of delusion any way but ignorance.  And the fact that there are as many people delusional in exactly the same way can only be explained by propaganda.
> 
> Fortunately democracy solves these problems.  Not by eliminating them but rendering them impotent.
> 
> America once again saved by our Constitution and electorate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL I love it when your cognitive dissonance kicks in, you put your hands over your ears and start screaming FOX FOX propaganda propaganda democracy democracy.... ROFL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I love democracy.  That's why I continue to live here.  There's no better way to govern than of,  by,  and for the people. All Americans used to know that.  Now a few million hate their country all using exactly the same words.
> 
> How do you explain that except as the effects of propaganda?
Click to expand...


I just did.  You were not listening.  Cognitive dissonance.  Look it up.  Seriously.  Read about it .. think about it.  Then through introspection determine if you are subject to it.  Most humans are.. thus the you are with us or against us view that leads to grouping / teaming into one of the two dominant parties.  Me.. I don't want to be with either of these parties..


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> I don't remember if you saw Captain Phillips or not,  but if you do you'll something about armed rebels vs the US military.



Hey, you're the one who wants to crow about being a "pirate" and threaten us with what happens if we don't hand over our hard earned wealth to meth heads like you.

If you know what happens when threatening the lives of Americans, why are you doing it?


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> Fortunately democracy solves these problems.  Not by eliminating them but rendering them impotent.



And that would explain all of your anger and deranged ideas about turning America into a communist nanny state - because we the people have rendered you impotent.


----------



## PMZ

Antares said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> Too funny.
> 
> Obama simply lied, he DID say "Let me be perfectly clear, if you like your plan and your Doctor you will be able to keep them."
> 
> No matter how you try and spin it thats what he said and thats what he meant to convey.
> 
> I don't think you are stupid, but you've proven to be a liar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only a conservative would believe that there's only one way to interpret his words and thats the way Fox did.
> 
> Ultimate arrogance and intellectual dishonestly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL dumbshit, NBC revealed today that Obama knew...it is posted in the Politics section....you like that Bammy cum do you?
Click to expand...


Another example of the intellectual basis for conservatism.  Sound electable to you?


----------



## PMZ

Antares said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ahh yes...and now you feel qualified to say who lives and who dies.....all in the name of "fairness".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr's and insurance companies have been doing that for years. So has the military,  drunk and unsafe drivers,  murderers,  police,  courts.
> 
> Not me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Supporting it is no different...like I said last night...you are no more than a Dem sloganeer....and you are dismissed.
Click to expand...


The electorate will dismiss you in the only way that counts.


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> Too funny.
> 
> Obama simply lied, he DID say "Let me be perfectly clear, if you like your plan and your Doctor you will be able to keep them."
> 
> No matter how you try and spin it thats what he said and thats what he meant to convey.
> 
> I don't think you are stupid, but you've proven to be a liar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Only a conservative would believe that there's only one way to interpret his words* and thats the way Fox did.
> 
> Ultimate arrogance and intellectual dishonestly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are you "interpreting" anything? Is Obama not capable of saying exactly what he means, and meaning exactly what he says?
> 
> Only a Dumbocrat could listen to a man who is so adamant about a fact that he's practically foaming at the mouth and then declare "there is more than one way to INTERPRET what he said"...
> 
> Words have no meaning to a Dumbocrat
Click to expand...


Truth has no meaning to a Republican.


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> I love democracy.  That's why I continue to live here.  There's no better way to govern than of,  by,  and for the people. All Americans used to know that.  Now a few million hate their country all using exactly the same words.



   

You "love" democracy? Lets take a look at some of PMZ's greatest hits:



PMZ said:


> First,  I believe that a healthy population is in the country's best interest.  I don't know if that makes it a right or not,  but like education, *any goal short of everyone to me is irrational*.





PMZ said:


> In the past our *dysfunctional* non- system was to *let everyone do what ever they wanted*,  at least up to age 65, but die in the streets. That we eliminated by insisting that hospital e rooms take care of everyone.



Yep - you sound like a real "leave the power in the hands of the people" kind of guy to us!


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> And sadly, Dumbocrat policy ALWAYS ends with demand exceeding supply because Dumbocrat policy punishes the hard working producers and rewards the lazy parasite.
> 
> Cuba is the perfect example of PMZ utopia. Fidel Castro implemented every policy that PMZ fantasizes about. The results? 60+ years of poverty and misery.
> 
> "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."
> 
> --Winston Churchill
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the simple evidence of experience.  Democratic administrations have been pretty successful.  Republicans disastrous.  Just look at the billions wasted by the current Republican House and the trillions wasted by the previous Republican President.  That's why propaganda is the only explanation for supporting the GOP.  You just can't get there through truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure - if you're goal is collapsing the United States - the Dumbocrats have been _very_ successful. Under George W. Bush, unemployment never went above the 6% range. Under Barack Obama, it's never gone below 8% and was at 10%.
> 
> Remember, you already admitted (after a long painful exchange of hammering you with facts) that Dumbocrats collapsed Detroit. Just look at the $7 trillion wasted by Barack Hussien Obama in only 4+ years. More than all presidents in U.S. history combined. The Dumbocrats have forced jobs overseas, caused unemployment to skyrocket, and put more people on food stamps than ever before. And you want to sit here lying and pretend that Dumbocrats have been "pretty successful"?
> 
> The TRUTH is, you're a liar and we've all proven that over and over in this thread (it's why you stand all alone). People loathe liars. And they sure as hell won't stand along side one.
Click to expand...


The thing that I like about your posts is that you are completely transparent about your ignorance.  You revel in it.  You are proud of it. 

There are so many accountings on the Internet about the policy causes of all our debt.  You,  however would like to sell to those of your level of ignorance that dates cause debt.  On Jan 20, 2009 all of Bush's policies became Obama's responsibility.  The Great Recession became the Obama recession.  The Bush  wars became the Obama wars.  The Wall Street bankruptcies became the Obama bankruptcies.  The Bush unemployment became the Obama unemployment. 

I don't know anybody who would fall for that but I bet you do. 

More importantly,  the electorate won't.


----------



## Antares

PMZ said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only a conservative would believe that there's only one way to interpret his words and thats the way Fox did.
> 
> Ultimate arrogance and intellectual dishonestly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL dumbshit, NBC revealed today that Obama knew...it is posted in the Politics section....you like that Bammy cum do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another example of the intellectual basis for conservatism.  Sound electable to you?
Click to expand...


Kid I've been eating intellectual children like you for years.

You can't shake me, you can't out think me and you can't deflect...just because you scream "Nuh-Uh" in no way abrogates the the truth...(quick, look up abrogate)....

Precz Cracka lied.....jizz swallowers like you contine to defend....there is nothing new under the sun.

Prez Cracka lied.......is your d**dy proud you went black?


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> I love democracy.  That's why I continue to live here.  There's no better way to govern than of,  by,  and for the people



But...but...you support the government *forcing* the people into Obamacare 

Hardly the shining example of leaving power in the hands of the people.

Once I again I _prove_ to the world that you are a liar who uses propaganda just like your idols - Adolf Hitler and the Nazi's - in a weak attempt to push your socialist agenda.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL I love it when your cognitive dissonance kicks in, you put your hands over your ears and start screaming FOX FOX propaganda propaganda democracy democracy.... ROFL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I love democracy.  That's why I continue to live here.  There's no better way to govern than of,  by,  and for the people. All Americans used to know that.  Now a few million hate their country all using exactly the same words.
> 
> How do you explain that except as the effects of propaganda?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just did.  You were not listening.  Cognitive dissonance.  Look it up.  Seriously.  Read about it .. think about it.  Then through introspection determine if you are subject to it.  Most humans are.. thus the you are with us or against us view that leads to grouping / teaming into one of the two dominant parties.  Me.. I don't want to be with either of these parties..
Click to expand...


Cognitive dissonance is holding two conflicting thoughts at once.  What two conflicting thoughts would you argue that I hold?


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't remember if you saw Captain Phillips or not,  but if you do you'll something about armed rebels vs the US military.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, you're the one who wants to crow about being a "pirate" and threaten us with what happens if we don't hand over our hard earned wealth to meth heads like you.
> 
> If you know what happens when threatening the lives of Americans, why are you doing it?
Click to expand...


The delusion deepens.


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fortunately democracy solves these problems.  Not by eliminating them but rendering them impotent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that would explain all of your anger and deranged ideas about turning America into a communist nanny state - because we the people have rendered you impotent.
Click to expand...


That's the great thing about democracy.  It deals harshly with the delusional.  

I don't know if you're old enough to remember the movie The Manchurian Candidate about the depth to which brain washing can work.  Until I started reading your posts I thought that it was fictional.


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love democracy.  That's why I continue to live here.  There's no better way to govern than of,  by,  and for the people. All Americans used to know that.  Now a few million hate their country all using exactly the same words.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You "love" democracy? Lets take a look at some of PMZ's greatest hits:
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> First,  I believe that a healthy population is in the country's best interest.  I don't know if that makes it a right or not,  but like education, *any goal short of everyone to me is irrational*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the past our *dysfunctional* non- system was to *let everyone do what ever they wanted*,  at least up to age 65, but die in the streets. That we eliminated by insisting that hospital e rooms take care of everyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep - you sound like a real "leave the power in the hands of the people" kind of guy to us!
Click to expand...


I believe in accountability.  Thats how progress comes about.  You believe in irresponsibility because it's what you know.


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the simple evidence of experience.  Democratic administrations have been pretty successful.  Republicans disastrous.  Just look at the billions wasted by the current Republican House and the trillions wasted by the previous Republican President.  That's why propaganda is the only explanation for supporting the GOP.  You just can't get there through truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure - if you're goal is collapsing the United States - the Dumbocrats have been _very_ successful. Under George W. Bush, unemployment never went above the 6% range. Under Barack Obama, it's never gone below 8% and was at 10%.
> 
> Remember, you already admitted (after a long painful exchange of hammering you with facts) that Dumbocrats collapsed Detroit. Just look at the $7 trillion wasted by Barack Hussien Obama in only 4+ years. More than all presidents in U.S. history combined. The Dumbocrats have forced jobs overseas, caused unemployment to skyrocket, and put more people on food stamps than ever before. And you want to sit here lying and pretend that Dumbocrats have been "pretty successful"?
> 
> The TRUTH is, you're a liar and we've all proven that over and over in this thread (it's why you stand all alone). People loathe liars. And they sure as hell won't stand along side one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The thing that I like about your posts is that you are completely transparent about your ignorance.  You revel in it.  You are proud of it.
> 
> There are so many accountings on the Internet about the policy causes of all our debt.  You,  however would like to sell to those of your level of ignorance that dates cause debt.  On Jan 20, 2009 all of Bush's policies became Obama's responsibility.  The Great Recession became the Obama recession.  The Bush  wars became the Obama wars.  The Wall Street bankruptcies became the Obama bankruptcies.  The Bush unemployment became the Obama unemployment.
> 
> I don't know anybody who would fall for that but I bet you do.
> 
> More importantly,  the electorate won't.
Click to expand...


You do realize your false bravado about future elections is not masking your inadequacies or your insecurities, don't you? Quite the contrary, like the immature guy tormented by his small penis going around trying to convince everybody he has a "big dick", you're absurd predictions about future elections are in fact exposing the reality that you are peeing down your leg like a scared dog because the American people have woken up and realized that Dumbocrat policy = poverty. We've seen the Reagan Revolution multiply by the Ron Paul Revolution multiply by the Tea Party. The American people are getting more conservative, not less conservative. Conservative talk has exploded in recent years - with people like Glenn Beck getting ratings through the roof, while liberal talk like MSNBC is struggling to keep even a laughable rating.

Everything you're selling has been tried worldwide and had a failure rate of 100% and the American people know it. Sorry PMZ - but you lose (I'm sure a girl like you is used to that by now though).


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love democracy.  That's why I continue to live here.  There's no better way to govern than of,  by,  and for the people. All Americans used to know that.  Now a few million hate their country all using exactly the same words.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You "love" democracy? Lets take a look at some of PMZ's greatest hits:
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the past our *dysfunctional* non- system was to *let everyone do what ever they wanted*,  at least up to age 65, but die in the streets. That we eliminated by insisting that hospital e rooms take care of everyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep - you sound like a real "leave the power in the hands of the people" kind of guy to us!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe in accountability.  Thats how progress comes about.  You believe in irresponsibility because it's what you know.
Click to expand...


Uh-oh! Somebody is moving the goal posts after I _owned_ them with facts. I thought you believed in "democracy"? Suddenly your new narrative is that you believe in "accountability"? Yeah...see....there is one glaring problem with this new lie of yours [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION]. You spent 10 pages screaming that the successful people in this nation *owe* it to the parasites in this nation to provide for them. Hardly the rhetoric of someone who "believes in accountability".

It's game over son. You've made too many mistakes. You've told so many lies, you can't remember them all and that has exposed the lies. You're a partisan hack and a troll.


----------



## PMZ

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The whole idea behind rationing is that it's a control distribution mechanism - ie the opposite of relatively uncontrolled, market-based distribution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with you about the dictionary definition but am trying to figure out why it makes sense to anybody to think that some ways to divey up scarce resources is any more or less legitimate than any other?
> 
> They're really all different expressions of power. If you can get away with it, you can do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, this gets to the key distinction between political and economic power. Economic power precludes coercion. Political power depends on it. No matter how much economic power a business or wealthy individual may wield, they can't (legally) force me to do a damned thing. If I defy the law, on the other hand, the ultimate end is always the barrel of a gun.
Click to expand...


Of course in a democracy all of that power is in the hands of and under the control of those governed. 

''No matter how much economic power a business or wealthy individual may wield, they can't (legally) force me to do a damned thing.''

True only if you're wealthy.  At the survival level it's a whole different game.  Thats why employers love low minimum wage.


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You "love" democracy? Lets take a look at some of PMZ's greatest hits:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep - you sound like a real "leave the power in the hands of the people" kind of guy to us!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe in accountability.  Thats how progress comes about.  You believe in irresponsibility because it's what you know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh-oh! Somebody is moving the goal posts after I _owned_ them with facts. I thought you believed in "democracy"? Suddenly your new narrative is that you believe in "accountability"? Yeah...see....there is one glaring problem with this new lie of yours [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION]. You spent 10 pages screaming that the successful people in this nation *owe* it to the parasites in this nation to provide for them. Hardly the rhetoric of someone who "believes in accountability".
> 
> It's game over son. You've made too many mistakes. You've told so many lies, you can't remember them all and that has exposed the lies. You're a partisan hack and a troll.
Click to expand...


Did they tell you on Fox that you had to choose between democracy and accountability?  

They lied as usual.


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure - if you're goal is collapsing the United States - the Dumbocrats have been _very_ successful. Under George W. Bush, unemployment never went above the 6% range. Under Barack Obama, it's never gone below 8% and was at 10%.
> 
> Remember, you already admitted (after a long painful exchange of hammering you with facts) that Dumbocrats collapsed Detroit. Just look at the $7 trillion wasted by Barack Hussien Obama in only 4+ years. More than all presidents in U.S. history combined. The Dumbocrats have forced jobs overseas, caused unemployment to skyrocket, and put more people on food stamps than ever before. And you want to sit here lying and pretend that Dumbocrats have been "pretty successful"?
> 
> The TRUTH is, you're a liar and we've all proven that over and over in this thread (it's why you stand all alone). People loathe liars. And they sure as hell won't stand along side one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The thing that I like about your posts is that you are completely transparent about your ignorance.  You revel in it.  You are proud of it.
> 
> There are so many accountings on the Internet about the policy causes of all our debt.  You,  however would like to sell to those of your level of ignorance that dates cause debt.  On Jan 20, 2009 all of Bush's policies became Obama's responsibility.  The Great Recession became the Obama recession.  The Bush  wars became the Obama wars.  The Wall Street bankruptcies became the Obama bankruptcies.  The Bush unemployment became the Obama unemployment.
> 
> I don't know anybody who would fall for that but I bet you do.
> 
> More importantly,  the electorate won't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do realize your false bravado about future elections is not masking your inadequacies or your insecurities, don't you? Quite the contrary, like the immature guy tormented by his small penis going around trying to convince everybody he has a "big dick", you're absurd predictions about future elections are in fact exposing the reality that you are peeing down your leg like a scared dog because the American people have woken up and realized that Dumbocrat policy = poverty. We've seen the Reagan Revolution multiply by the Ron Paul Revolution multiply by the Tea Party. The American people are getting more conservative, not less conservative. Conservative talk has exploded in recent years - with people like Glenn Beck getting ratings through the roof, while liberal talk like MSNBC is struggling to keep even a laughable rating.
> 
> Everything you're selling has been tried worldwide and had a failure rate of 100% and the American people know it. Sorry PMZ - but you lose (I'm sure a girl like you is used to that by now though).
Click to expand...


We'll see won't we.


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You "love" democracy? Lets take a look at some of PMZ's greatest hits:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep - you sound like a real "leave the power in the hands of the people" kind of guy to us!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe in accountability.  Thats how progress comes about.  You believe in irresponsibility because it's what you know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh-oh! Somebody is moving the goal posts after I _owned_ them with facts. I thought you believed in "democracy"? Suddenly your new narrative is that you believe in "accountability"? Yeah...see....there is one glaring problem with this new lie of yours [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION]. You spent 10 pages screaming that the successful people in this nation *owe* it to the parasites in this nation to provide for them. Hardly the rhetoric of someone who "believes in accountability".
> 
> It's game over son. You've made too many mistakes. You've told so many lies, you can't remember them all and that has exposed the lies. You're a partisan hack and a troll.
Click to expand...


''You spent 10 pages screaming that the successful people in this nation *owe* it to the parasites in this nation to provide for them.''

I'm sure that you know that I never said any of that. My remarks are entirely different than what you wish they were.

Let me try short sentences and simple words on you. 

First of all there's no correlation between successful and wealthy. 

Second I believe that the parasites of this nation are the criminals and all we owe them is justice. 

Data shows that the US is extreme compared to history and the current global experience in wealth inequality. 

That is the expected consequence of our capitalism. Thats what capitalism is designed to do.  

History has shown that extreme wealth inequality is unstable. 

Science has correlated extreme wealth inequality with many social dysfunctions that we see in the US today.  And they're growing. 

The only force significantly limiting more extreme wealth inequity growth are progressive taxes. 

It will be somewhere between expensive and disastrous to ignore all of this just like it will be somewhere between expensive and disastrous to ignore AGW. 

You may not agree with any of this but it's all factual.  It's the ultimate inconvenient truth.


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe in accountability.  That&#8217;s how progress comes about.  You believe in irresponsibility because it's what you know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh-oh! Somebody is moving the goal posts after I _owned_ them with facts. I thought you believed in "democracy"? Suddenly your new narrative is that you believe in "accountability"? Yeah...see....there is one glaring problem with this new lie of yours [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION]. You spent 10 pages screaming that the successful people in this nation *owe* it to the parasites in this nation to provide for them. Hardly the rhetoric of someone who "believes in accountability".
> 
> It's game over son. You've made too many mistakes. You've told so many lies, you can't remember them all and that has exposed the lies. You're a partisan hack and a troll.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ''You spent 10 pages screaming that the successful people in this nation *owe* it to the parasites in this nation to provide for them.''
> 
> I'm sure that you know that I never said any of that. My remarks are entirely different than what you wish they were.
> 
> Let me try short sentences and simple words on you.
> 
> First of all there's no correlation between successful and wealthy.
> 
> Second I believe that the parasites of this nation are the criminals and all we owe them is justice.
> 
> Data shows that the US is extreme compared to history and the current global experience in wealth inequality.
> 
> That is the expected consequence of our capitalism. That&#8217;s what capitalism is designed to do.
> 
> History has shown that extreme wealth inequality is unstable.
> 
> Science has correlated extreme wealth inequality with many social dysfunctions that we see in the US today.  And they're growing.
> 
> The only force significantly limiting more extreme wealth inequity growth are progressive taxes.
> 
> It will be somewhere between expensive and disastrous to ignore all of this just like it will be somewhere between expensive and disastrous to ignore AGW.
> 
> You may not agree with any of this but it's all factual.  It's the ultimate inconvenient truth.
Click to expand...


In all of your posts, you've yet to add one single truth. Your a parasite who serves your master by repeating the insane and absurd propaganda spoon fed to you on MSNBC.

The facts are - socialism as a 100% failure rate worldwide. It has never succeeded anywhere. It collapsed the former U.S.S.R. It collapsed Cuba. It collapsed Cambodia. It collapsed Ethiopia. It collapsed Vietnam. It collapsed Germany. It collapsed Greece.

It's remarkable that you doubled-down on the very same contradiction that you already humiliated yourself with once. If you believed in "accountability" you would embrace capitalism and reject socialism.

Like all Dumbocrats - your hypocrisy is only exceeded by your ignorance. You've lost son. Everyone on this thread has torn you to shreds with facts and each time we do you close your eyes and yell "Fox, Fox, Fox".


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> Data shows that the US is extreme compared to history and the current global experience in wealth inequality.
> 
> That is the expected consequence of our capitalism. Thats what capitalism is designed to do.
> 
> History has shown that extreme wealth inequality is unstable.
> 
> Science has correlated extreme wealth inequality with many social dysfunctions that we see in the US today



Very interesting propaganda PMZ. Again though, there is one glaring problem. I've added indisputable evidence - VIDEO - the ultimate damning evidence. In desperation, you scream "Fox, Fox, Fox" and then follow that up with "only a conservative would interpret what he said as actually being what he said" (apparently, when Obama speaks, it is a magic dog whistle which only you can hear... ).

Yet when you throw out your key propaganda of "science" (something you have proven yourself to be far to ignorant to even begin to comprehend), "history" (something you have proven to be completely ignorant of), and "data" (of which you have none), you have yet to add one single, tiny little link backing up your outrageous propaganda.

I can only imagine the frustration you feel at facing a bunch of people intellectually superior and armed with facts. You keep throwing (literal) shit at the wall, but none of it will stick for you.


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uh-oh! Somebody is moving the goal posts after I _owned_ them with facts. I thought you believed in "democracy"? Suddenly your new narrative is that you believe in "accountability"? Yeah...see....there is one glaring problem with this new lie of yours [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION]. You spent 10 pages screaming that the successful people in this nation *owe* it to the parasites in this nation to provide for them. Hardly the rhetoric of someone who "believes in accountability".
> 
> It's game over son. You've made too many mistakes. You've told so many lies, you can't remember them all and that has exposed the lies. You're a partisan hack and a troll.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ''You spent 10 pages screaming that the successful people in this nation *owe* it to the parasites in this nation to provide for them.''
> 
> I'm sure that you know that I never said any of that. My remarks are entirely different than what you wish they were.
> 
> Let me try short sentences and simple words on you.
> 
> First of all there's no correlation between successful and wealthy.
> 
> Second I believe that the parasites of this nation are the criminals and all we owe them is justice.
> 
> Data shows that the US is extreme compared to history and the current global experience in wealth inequality.
> 
> That is the expected consequence of our capitalism. Thats what capitalism is designed to do.
> 
> History has shown that extreme wealth inequality is unstable.
> 
> Science has correlated extreme wealth inequality with many social dysfunctions that we see in the US today.  And they're growing.
> 
> The only force significantly limiting more extreme wealth inequity growth are progressive taxes.
> 
> It will be somewhere between expensive and disastrous to ignore all of this just like it will be somewhere between expensive and disastrous to ignore AGW.
> 
> You may not agree with any of this but it's all factual.  It's the ultimate inconvenient truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In all of your posts, you've yet to add one single truth. Your a parasite who serves your master by repeating the insane and absurd propaganda spoon fed to you on MSNBC.
> 
> The facts are - socialism as a 100% failure rate worldwide. It has never succeeded anywhere. It collapsed the former U.S.S.R. It collapsed Cuba. It collapsed Cambodia. It collapsed Ethiopia. It collapsed Vietnam. It collapsed Germany. It collapsed Greece.
> 
> It's remarkable that you doubled-down on the very same contradiction that you already humiliated yourself with once. If you believed in "accountability" you would embrace capitalism and reject socialism.
> 
> Like all Dumbocrats - your hypocrisy is only exceeded by your ignorance. You've lost son. Everyone on this thread has torn you to shreds with facts and each time we do you close your eyes and yell "Fox, Fox, Fox".
Click to expand...


You're the only one even talking about Marxism. 

Tell the monsters to go back in the closet,  suck hard on your binky,  cuddle with your blanky and close your eyes.


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uh-oh! Somebody is moving the goal posts after I _owned_ them with facts. I thought you believed in "democracy"? Suddenly your new narrative is that you believe in "accountability"? Yeah...see....there is one glaring problem with this new lie of yours [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION]. You spent 10 pages screaming that the successful people in this nation *owe* it to the parasites in this nation to provide for them. Hardly the rhetoric of someone who "believes in accountability".
> 
> It's game over son. You've made too many mistakes. You've told so many lies, you can't remember them all and that has exposed the lies. You're a partisan hack and a troll.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ''You spent 10 pages screaming that the successful people in this nation *owe* it to the parasites in this nation to provide for them.''
> 
> I'm sure that you know that I never said any of that. My remarks are entirely different than what you wish they were.
> 
> Let me try short sentences and simple words on you.
> 
> First of all there's no correlation between successful and wealthy.
> 
> Second I believe that the parasites of this nation are the criminals and all we owe them is justice.
> 
> Data shows that the US is extreme compared to history and the current global experience in wealth inequality.
> 
> That is the expected consequence of our capitalism. Thats what capitalism is designed to do.
> 
> History has shown that extreme wealth inequality is unstable.
> 
> Science has correlated extreme wealth inequality with many social dysfunctions that we see in the US today.  And they're growing.
> 
> The only force significantly limiting more extreme wealth inequity growth are progressive taxes.
> 
> It will be somewhere between expensive and disastrous to ignore all of this just like it will be somewhere between expensive and disastrous to ignore AGW.
> 
> You may not agree with any of this but it's all factual.  It's the ultimate inconvenient truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In all of your posts, you've yet to add one single truth. Your a parasite who serves your master by repeating the insane and absurd propaganda spoon fed to you on MSNBC.
> 
> The facts are - socialism as a 100% failure rate worldwide. It has never succeeded anywhere. It collapsed the former U.S.S.R. It collapsed Cuba. It collapsed Cambodia. It collapsed Ethiopia. It collapsed Vietnam. It collapsed Germany. It collapsed Greece.
> 
> It's remarkable that you doubled-down on the very same contradiction that you already humiliated yourself with once. If you believed in "accountability" you would embrace capitalism and reject socialism.
> 
> Like all Dumbocrats - your hypocrisy is only exceeded by your ignorance. You've lost son. Everyone on this thread has torn you to shreds with facts and each time we do you close your eyes and yell "Fox, Fox, Fox".
Click to expand...


BTW,  name a country in the world today that doesn't own some means of production.


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> On Jan 20, 2009 all of Bush's policies became Obama's responsibility.  The Great Recession became the Obama recession.



And that's the key word, stupid. Obama took a mild "recession" and created the second Great DEPRESSION. They day he took office, unemployment stood at 7.8%. He made it skyrocket to over 10%. After 5 years of recklessly passing out cash to anyone willing to stand in line (GM, Chrysler, Solyndra, etc.), he's never gotten unemployment even close to what it was the day he took office. In fact, he's had to bribe people to drop out of the employment race just to fudge his horrendous unemployment numbers. The real unemployment numbers right now hovers around 14% - 15%. Obama just loves every time he gets to NOT count an unemployed person against unemployment.

Now look - I warn you here PMZ. This is *really* going to sting. Here are the scientific, historical, accurate data from the day Obama assumed office (do you like that, I used all of your propaganda words to put you in your comfort zone):


----------



## P@triot

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> On Jan 20, 2009 all of Bush's policies became Obama's responsibility.  The Great Recession became the Obama recession.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that's the key word, stupid. Obama took a mild "recession" and created the second Great DEPRESSION. They day he took office, unemployment stood at 7.8%. He made it skyrocket to over 10%. After 5 years of recklessly passing out cash to anyone willing to stand in line (GM, Chrysler, Solyndra, etc.), he's never gotten unemployment even close to what it was the day he took office. In fact, he's had to bribe people to drop out of the employment race just to fudge his horrendous unemployment numbers. The real unemployment numbers right now hovers around 14% - 15%. Obama just loves every time he gets to NOT count an unemployed person against unemployment.
> 
> Now look - I warn you here PMZ. This is *really* going to sting. Here are the scientific, historical, accurate data from the day Obama assumed office (do you like that, I used all of your propaganda words to put you in your comfort zone):
Click to expand...


Did you hear that loud "thud" folks? That was me sending PMZ to the floor with a knockout blow!


----------



## P@triot

Post #505


PMZ said:


> The electorate will dismiss you in the only way that counts.



Post #508


PMZ said:


> I don't know anybody who would fall for that but I bet you do.
> 
> More importantly,  the electorate won't.



Well, the electorate you keep crowing about seem to think the Dumbocrats are the most epic failures creating disasters across this country. I mean, the country is headed towards Obamacare, higher taxes, higher unemployment, and less health insurance - all of which sits squarely and indisputably on the shoulders of the Dumbocrats.

*Just 17% of likely U.S. Voters say the country is heading in the right direction, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey for the week ending October 20.*

Right Direction or Wrong Track - Rasmussen Reports?


----------



## P@triot

Rottweiler said:


> Post #505
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> The electorate will dismiss you in the only way that counts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Post #508
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know anybody who would fall for that but I bet you do.
> 
> More importantly,  the electorate won't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, the electorate you keep crowing about seem to think the Dumbocrats are the most epic failures creating disasters across this country. I mean, the country is headed towards Obamacare, higher taxes, higher unemployment, and less health insurance - all of which sits squarely and indisputably on the shoulders of the Dumbocrats.
> 
> *Just 17% of likely U.S. Voters say the country is heading in the right direction, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey for the week ending October 20.*
> 
> Right Direction or Wrong Track - Rasmussen Reports?
Click to expand...


What is the over/under for when PMZ starts claiming that everyone "misinterpreted" Obama's speeches and he was actually trying to _stop_ Obamacare while the GOP were the one's forcing it on the American people?

And of course, he will be screaming "Fox, Fox, Fox" and mumbling something about propaganda while doing so....


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> ''You spent 10 pages screaming that the successful people in this nation *owe* it to the parasites in this nation to provide for them.''
> 
> I'm sure that you know that I never said any of that. My remarks are entirely different than what you wish they were.
> 
> Let me try short sentences and simple words on you.
> 
> First of all there's no correlation between successful and wealthy.
> 
> Second I believe that the parasites of this nation are the criminals and all we owe them is justice.
> 
> Data shows that the US is extreme compared to history and the current global experience in wealth inequality.
> 
> That is the expected consequence of our capitalism. Thats what capitalism is designed to do.
> 
> History has shown that extreme wealth inequality is unstable.
> 
> Science has correlated extreme wealth inequality with many social dysfunctions that we see in the US today.  And they're growing.
> 
> The only force significantly limiting more extreme wealth inequity growth are progressive taxes.
> 
> It will be somewhere between expensive and disastrous to ignore all of this just like it will be somewhere between expensive and disastrous to ignore AGW.
> 
> You may not agree with any of this but it's all factual.  It's the ultimate inconvenient truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In all of your posts, you've yet to add one single truth. Your a parasite who serves your master by repeating the insane and absurd propaganda spoon fed to you on MSNBC.
> 
> The facts are - socialism as a 100% failure rate worldwide. It has never succeeded anywhere. It collapsed the former U.S.S.R. It collapsed Cuba. It collapsed Cambodia. It collapsed Ethiopia. It collapsed Vietnam. It collapsed Germany. It collapsed Greece.
> 
> It's remarkable that you doubled-down on the very same contradiction that you already humiliated yourself with once. If you believed in "accountability" you would embrace capitalism and reject socialism.
> 
> Like all Dumbocrats - your hypocrisy is only exceeded by your ignorance. You've lost son. Everyone on this thread has torn you to shreds with facts and each time we do you close your eyes and yell "Fox, Fox, Fox".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> BTW,  name a country in the world today that doesn't own some means of production.
Click to expand...


BTW, name a country in the world today that has less than 4% unemployment, $0.00 debt, and taxes 10% or less.

The fact that you want to lower the United States to the same misery and poverty as the rest of the world is astounding. We were the greatest nation in the world. If you think what the other nations are doing is so wonderful, why do you refuse to leave the U.S. and go live in any of them?


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why did he go to jail? He thought that regulation didn't apply to him. He found out he was wrong. He found out that, in a democracy, the rules favor we the people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First of all stupid, we don't have a "democracy". Jesus - Antares even threw you a bone on this one and you still couldn't learn from it?!?
> 
> You are *not* "we the people". You're the fringe minority radical that America _hates_.
> 
> "We the people" support and defend the U.S. Constitution while you cry about it like a little girl.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you call it when all citizens vote for their governmental representation? When all of their representation vote on laws?
Click to expand...


It's called a Republic. Democracies don't have representatives. The fact that you specifically cite representatives as part of your defense for wrongfully referring to the United States as a "democracy" is astounding ignorance and just proves that you have no business discussing politics. You don't even know the basics taught to our elementary school children.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love democracy.  That's why I continue to live here.  There's no better way to govern than of,  by,  and for the people. All Americans used to know that.  Now a few million hate their country all using exactly the same words.
> 
> How do you explain that except as the effects of propaganda?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just did.  You were not listening.  Cognitive dissonance.  Look it up.  Seriously.  Read about it .. think about it.  Then through introspection determine if you are subject to it.  Most humans are.. thus the you are with us or against us view that leads to grouping / teaming into one of the two dominant parties.  Me.. I don't want to be with either of these parties..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cognitive dissonance is holding two conflicting thoughts at once.  What two conflicting thoughts would you argue that I hold?
Click to expand...


You'll have to answer for your own personal demons on your own.  And no the definition of cognitive dissonance is not "holding two conflicting thoughts at once."  That would be your brain redefining things again to keep you from realizing your error.  Your mind has put up a block to truth.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just did.  You were not listening.  Cognitive dissonance.  Look it up.  Seriously.  Read about it .. think about it.  Then through introspection determine if you are subject to it.  Most humans are.. thus the you are with us or against us view that leads to grouping / teaming into one of the two dominant parties.  Me.. I don't want to be with either of these parties..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cognitive dissonance is holding two conflicting thoughts at once.  What two conflicting thoughts would you argue that I hold?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You'll have to answer for your own personal demons on your own.  And no the definition of cognitive dissonance is not "holding two conflicting thoughts at once."  That would be your brain redefining things again to keep you from realizing your error.  Your mind has put up a block to truth.
Click to expand...


I guess English is not your first language.


----------



## PMZ

The Rotweiner was shadow boxing and knocked himself out.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cognitive dissonance is holding two conflicting thoughts at once.  What two conflicting thoughts would you argue that I hold?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You'll have to answer for your own personal demons on your own.  And no the definition of cognitive dissonance is not "holding two conflicting thoughts at once."  That would be your brain redefining things again to keep you from realizing your error.  Your mind has put up a block to truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess English is not your first language.
Click to expand...


You guess wrong.  The problem is you are mentally handicapped.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> You'll have to answer for your own personal demons on your own.  And no the definition of cognitive dissonance is not "holding two conflicting thoughts at once."  That would be your brain redefining things again to keep you from realizing your error.  Your mind has put up a block to truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess English is not your first language.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You guess wrong.  The problem is you are mentally handicapped.
Click to expand...


You leave your thinking up to others and I don't.  That's not a handicap for me but freedom.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess English is not your first language.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You guess wrong.  The problem is you are mentally handicapped.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You leave your thinking up to others and I don't.  That's not a handicap for me but freedom.
Click to expand...


Liar.  No one thinks for me.  I challenge everything.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> You guess wrong.  The problem is you are mentally handicapped.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You leave your thinking up to others and I don't.  That's not a handicap for me but freedom.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Liar.  No one thinks for me.  I challenge everything.
Click to expand...


All I hear is Republican propaganda.

 Smart people don't challenge everything.  They listen first,  and ask questions.  They separate reality from wannabes. 

You come across as a self centered blowhard.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You leave your thinking up to others and I don't.  That's not a handicap for me but freedom.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liar.  No one thinks for me.  I challenge everything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All I hear is Republican propaganda.
> 
> Smart people don't challenge everything.  They listen first,  and ask questions.  They separate reality from wannabes.
> 
> You come across as a self centered blowhard.
Click to expand...


Make up your mind retard.  Either I'm "self centered" or "I leave my thinking up to others." Which lie are you sticking with?


----------



## Esmeralda

Rottweiler said:


> How embarassing that the federal government now has to use tax dollars on commercials to promote their catastrophic failures as being a "good" thing...
> 
> Baltimore Ravens Paid to Sell ObamaCare - Fox Nation



There is absolutely nothing unusual in the American government using private citizens to promote programs that are designed to help the public but which the public is hesitant about. It happened with seat belt laws.  It happened with driving and using your cell phone laws. It happened with car-pooling and using the carpool lane.  It has happened with recycling, with littering, etc.  

It has happened many, many times in the past going back to the settling of the West.  Pioneers were wanted and corporations and private citizens were involved in supporting government programs such as homesteading. For example, in the late 1800s, to encourage pioneers to move west, the government gave land grants to the railroads so they would build rail lines westward.  There is nothing new whatsoever in the current administration encouraging people to accept the health program by enlisting the support of private citizens or corporations.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liar.  No one thinks for me.  I challenge everything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All I hear is Republican propaganda.
> 
> Smart people don't challenge everything.  They listen first,  and ask questions.  They separate reality from wannabes.
> 
> You come across as a self centered blowhard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Make up your mind retard.  Either I'm "self centered" or "I leave my thinking up to others." Which lie are you sticking with?
Click to expand...


Both.  The thinking that got your lips and Fox's ass so intimate was their philosophy of self centeredness. Be the best predator that you can be.  We'll help.    

Your ego couldn't resist.


----------



## PMZ

Esmeralda said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> How embarassing that the federal government now has to use tax dollars on commercials to promote their catastrophic failures as being a "good" thing...
> 
> Baltimore Ravens Paid to Sell ObamaCare - Fox Nation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is absolutely nothing unusual in the American government using private citizens to promote programs that are designed to help the public but which the public is hesitant about. It happened with seat belt laws.  It happened with driving and using your cell phone laws. It happened with car-pooling and using the carpool lane.  It has happened with recycling, with littering, etc.
> 
> It has happened many, many times in the past going back to the settling of the West.  Pioneers were wanted and corporations and private citizens were involved in supporting government programs such as homesteading. For example, in the late 1800s, to encourage pioneers to move west, the government gave land grants to the railroads so they would build rail lines westward.  There is nothing new whatsoever in the current administration encouraging people to accept the health program by enlisting the support of private citizens or corporations.
Click to expand...


Progress always overcomes resistance.  Resistance always comes from the fear of the unknown. 

Someday Obamacare will be a widely regarded improvement to our past inept, expensive health care insurance non-system. 

And Republican resistance to progress found puzzling,  at best.


----------



## emilynghiem

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love democracy.  That's why I continue to live here.  There's no better way to govern than of,  by,  and for the people. All Americans used to know that.  Now a few million hate their country all using exactly the same words.
> 
> How do you explain that except as the effects of propaganda?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just did.  You were not listening.  Cognitive dissonance.  Look it up.  Seriously.  Read about it .. think about it.  Then through introspection determine if you are subject to it.  Most humans are.. thus the you are with us or against us view that leads to grouping / teaming into one of the two dominant parties.  Me.. I don't want to be with either of these parties..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cognitive dissonance is holding two conflicting thoughts at once.  What two conflicting thoughts would you argue that I hold?
Click to expand...


Hi PMZ maybe you can help me sort out THIS issue I am having with fellow prochoice Democrats and liberals that is causing ME to suffer "Cognitive Dissonance" trying to figure it out:

1. Luddly also stated very clearly the prochoice stance to keep govt out of private choices

2. Here is a statement from an article where an official said this about blocking Texas bills proposing regulations on clinics:



			
				Lambrecht said:
			
		

> "Today's ruling marks an important victory for Texas women and sends a clear message to lawmakers," Lambrecht said in a statement. *"it is unconstitutional for politicians to pass laws that take personal, private decisions away from women and their doctors."*



My conflicting issue with prochoice advocates is how can we consistently argue for prochoice and against imposition by govt of regulations on medical/health choices that we don't agree with; but then defend ACA when govt imposes regulations on health care choices that "other people disagree with."

Can you please explain this?

The most I could understand is if both sides AGREE to play political football, and whichever team gets the ball and scores get to push THEIR WAY over the other, then they go back and forth this way. 

But it seems CLEAR to me they DON'T agree to play football.
The prochoice people do NOT want to have to block the prolife team everytime they try to score. But they are too happy to celebrate and push for their touchdown when it's prochoice.

The prolife people do NOT agree to leave protection of unborn life to majority rule football.
They put up with it but religiously disagree.

So 
1. how can this ACA mandate be consistent with prochoice beliefs

If you believe in prochoice, how can you justify pushing ACA mandates
that restrict and PENALIZE the free choice of health care?

2. how can "tolerating" majority rule football be consistent with beliefs AGAINST bullying

If you believe Bullying is wrong, how can you play these political games of
bullying by coersion and exclusion.

I ADMIT I am experiencing SEVERE cognitive dissonance because I cannot
align and include and defend ALL my friends' "conflicting" views EQUALLY
who can't agree on supporting VOLUNTARY solutions that would resolve their differences 
so I can support all people EQUALLY by including their respective views without imposing on others.

If I can't resolve this, then I am stuck with laws that keep imposing on one sides' beliefs or the other,
where I cannot help defend, protect and include all beliefs as I believe in doing as a Constitutionalist.

Please help if you can explain or advise how to resolve this "cognitive dissonance"


----------



## emilynghiem

Hi PMZ and Esmeralda: If you are in support of expanding Obamacare to cover all people,
are you okay with mandating that everyone be required to undergo spiritual healing to cure all disease and cut costs in order to serve more people? If you are ok with insurance mandates to cover more people, are you okay with requiring other mandates?

Like spiritual healing as a requirement to cut costs?

Or how about mandates that people show proof they have no VD and have "ability to pay" before they have sex and possibly create a child to raise?

Would you be okay with other mandates that would cut costs and ensure more people are covered?



PMZ said:


> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> How embarassing that the federal government now has to use tax dollars on commercials to promote their catastrophic failures as being a "good" thing...
> 
> Baltimore Ravens Paid to Sell ObamaCare - Fox Nation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is absolutely nothing unusual in the American government using private citizens to promote programs that are designed to help the public but which the public is hesitant about. It happened with seat belt laws.  It happened with driving and using your cell phone laws. It happened with car-pooling and using the carpool lane.  It has happened with recycling, with littering, etc.
> 
> It has happened many, many times in the past going back to the settling of the West.  Pioneers were wanted and corporations and private citizens were involved in supporting government programs such as homesteading. For example, in the late 1800s, to encourage pioneers to move west, the government gave land grants to the railroads so they would build rail lines westward.  There is nothing new whatsoever in the current administration encouraging people to accept the health program by enlisting the support of private citizens or corporations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Progress always overcomes resistance.  Resistance always comes from the fear of the unknown.
> 
> Someday Obamacare will be a widely regarded improvement to our past inept, expensive health care insurance non-system.
> 
> And Republican resistance to progress found puzzling,  at best.
Click to expand...


P.S. The puzzle that challenges me to solve
is finding an "analogy" that liberal prochoice Democrats understand
which is the equivalent to them of imposing insurance mandates against their free choice.

I'm thinking to host a 500-1000 dollar contest to anyone who
can come up with a working analogy that even President Obama
recognizes, and explains the resistance from Republicans and conservatives
in terms that even Democrats understand who want Singlepayer or
universal coverage but can see why ACA mandates are against free choice.

Can you help me? any ideas?
I keep striking out, though I listed examples above of possible analogies
that could be made. What do you think? are any of these even close to explaining?


----------



## Antares

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You leave your thinking up to others and I don't.  That's not a handicap for me but freedom.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liar.  No one thinks for me.  I challenge everything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All I hear is Republican propaganda.
> 
> Smart people don't challenge everything.  They listen first,  and ask questions.  They separate reality from wannabes.
> 
> You come across as a self centered blowhard.
Click to expand...


Classic projection, you just can't make this shit up.


----------



## PMZ

emilynghiem said:


> Hi PMZ and Esmeralda: If you are in support of expanding Obamacare to cover all people,
> are you okay with mandating that everyone be required to undergo spiritual healing to cure all disease and cut costs in order to serve more people? If you are ok with insurance mandates to cover more people, are you okay with requiring other mandates?
> 
> Like spiritual healing as a requirement to cut costs?
> 
> Or how about mandates that people show proof they have no VD and have "ability to pay" before they have sex and possibly create a child to raise?
> 
> Would you be okay with other mandates that would cut costs and ensure more people are covered?
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is absolutely nothing unusual in the American government using private citizens to promote programs that are designed to help the public but which the public is hesitant about. It happened with seat belt laws.  It happened with driving and using your cell phone laws. It happened with car-pooling and using the carpool lane.  It has happened with recycling, with littering, etc.
> 
> It has happened many, many times in the past going back to the settling of the West.  Pioneers were wanted and corporations and private citizens were involved in supporting government programs such as homesteading. For example, in the late 1800s, to encourage pioneers to move west, the government gave land grants to the railroads so they would build rail lines westward.  There is nothing new whatsoever in the current administration encouraging people to accept the health program by enlisting the support of private citizens or corporations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Progress always overcomes resistance.  Resistance always comes from the fear of the unknown.
> 
> Someday Obamacare will be a widely regarded improvement to our past inept, expensive health care insurance non-system.
> 
> And Republican resistance to progress found puzzling,  at best.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> P.S. The puzzle that challenges me to solve
> is finding an "analogy" that liberal prochoice Democrats understand
> which is the equivalent to them of imposing insurance mandates against their free choice.
> 
> I'm thinking to host a 500-1000 dollar contest to anyone who
> can come up with a working analogy that even President Obama
> recognizes, and explains the resistance from Republicans and conservatives
> in terms that even Democrats understand who want Singlepayer or
> universal coverage but can see why ACA mandates are against free choice.
> 
> Can you help me? any ideas?
> I keep striking out, though I listed examples above of possible analogies
> that could be made. What do you think? are any of these even close to explaining?
Click to expand...


I'm not sure that I understand your dilemma.  All laws set responsibilities that establish consequences (accountability) for those who do not abide.  The purpose of those laws are to create freedom for the majority. 

If you choose a behavior that interferes with my freedom by stealing my stuff,  killing me on purpose or by accident,  just as extreme examples,  society imposes on you unpleasant consequences.  Just like responsible parents teach children. 

There are millions of those laws because people are very creative in thinking of ways to prey on their fellow humans. 

One way that people in the past preyed on others is to avoid responsibility for the cost of their own health care.  They discovered that we as a society are adverse to them dying in the street so would pay for their health care when they needed.

A way that insurance companies preyed on people is to not do their job,  spreading risk,  by avoiding insuring anyone with a risk.  A pre existing condition.  

Another predatory action is to employ someone full time without paying them a wage sufficient to live on. 

In service to democracy, the ACA strives to eliminate these and other behaviors that deprive the majority of their right to the pursuit of happiness. 

And it enhances competition in the health care insurance marketplace.  
As I said,  I had trouble understanding clearly enough your question.  

Does this help?


----------



## PMZ

" I'm thinking to host a 500-1000 dollar contest to anyone who can come up with a working analogy that even President Obama recognizes, and explains the resistance from Republicans and conservatives" 

Easy money.  In the early years of the Obama administration,  Republicans realized that the performance of their Bush administration was indefensible.  So they launched a political strategy in the only way they could.  24/7/365 propaganda aimed at making the Obama administration seem even worse. 

Obama realized that our health care delivery and insurance non-system was the biggest obstacle to global competitiveness. He vowed to accomplish what no other President before him had.  Improve our health care cost and effectiveness.  

Republican strategists bet it all on this horse.  They threw up every conceivable obstacle to his success and therefore America's success.  A huge gamble with no way out if they failed. 

They did fail.  They have been searching since for an exit that doesn't exist.  Just like Bush's holy wars.


----------



## P@triot

Ok [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] - even MSNBC is now admitting Obama has been lying to your face for years!!! Looks like you swallowed so much of the propaganda, you are permanently poisoned from it. When even these radical S.O.B's can no longer deny Obama's lies, you know the left is in _serious_ trouble...

Obama knew millions could not keep their health insurance - Investigations

 [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] is officially and _permanently_ my personal USMB bitch...


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> Obama realized that our health care delivery and insurance non-system was the biggest obstacle to global competitiveness. He vowed to accomplish what no other President before him had.  *Improve our health care cost and effectiveness*.



Obama's lapdog [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] - who I have now dubbed "*the propaganda puppy*" is at it again. The data is in and the *facts* show that Obamacare has caused millions to lose their jobs, lose their health insurance, have their hours cut, and all while causing the cost of healthcare & health insurance to skyrocket (in some cases, as much as 200%).


----------



## P@triot

Oh [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] - how humiliating... The propaganda puppy has been rendered impotent by *facts*:

NBC News: Obama Admin. Knew Millions Would Not Be Able to Keep Their Health Insurance for at Least 3 Years, Promised It Anyway | TheBlaze.com


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> All I hear is Republican propaganda.
> 
> Smart people don't challenge everything.  They listen first,  and ask questions.  They separate reality from wannabes.
> 
> You come across as a self centered blowhard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Make up your mind retard.  Either I'm "self centered" or "I leave my thinking up to others." Which lie are you sticking with?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Both.  The thinking that got your lips and Fox's ass so intimate was their philosophy of self centeredness. Be the best predator that you can be.  We'll help.
> 
> Your ego couldn't resist.
Click to expand...

I don't watch Fox you lying retard.


----------



## RKMBrown

emilynghiem said:


> Hi PMZ and Esmeralda: If you are in support of expanding Obamacare to cover all people,
> are you okay with mandating that everyone be required to undergo spiritual healing to cure all disease and cut costs in order to serve more people? If you are ok with insurance mandates to cover more people, are you okay with requiring other mandates?
> 
> Like spiritual healing as a requirement to cut costs?
> 
> Or how about mandates that people show proof they have no VD and have "ability to pay" before they have sex and possibly create a child to raise?
> 
> Would you be okay with other mandates that would cut costs and ensure more people are covered?
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is absolutely nothing unusual in the American government using private citizens to promote programs that are designed to help the public but which the public is hesitant about. It happened with seat belt laws.  It happened with driving and using your cell phone laws. It happened with car-pooling and using the carpool lane.  It has happened with recycling, with littering, etc.
> 
> It has happened many, many times in the past going back to the settling of the West.  Pioneers were wanted and corporations and private citizens were involved in supporting government programs such as homesteading. For example, in the late 1800&#8217;s, to encourage pioneers to move west, the government gave land grants to the railroads so they would build rail lines westward.  There is nothing new whatsoever in the current administration encouraging people to accept the health program by enlisting the support of private citizens or corporations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Progress always overcomes resistance.  Resistance always comes from the fear of the unknown.
> 
> Someday Obamacare will be a widely regarded improvement to our past inept, expensive health care insurance non-system.
> 
> And Republican resistance to progress found puzzling,  at best.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> P.S. The puzzle that challenges me to solve
> is finding an "analogy" that liberal prochoice Democrats understand
> which is the equivalent to them of imposing insurance mandates against their free choice.
> 
> I'm thinking to host a 500-1000 dollar contest to anyone who
> can come up with a working analogy that even President Obama
> recognizes, and explains the resistance from Republicans and conservatives
> in terms that even Democrats understand who want Singlepayer or
> universal coverage but can see why ACA mandates are against free choice.
> 
> Can you help me? any ideas?
> I keep striking out, though I listed examples above of possible analogies
> that could be made. What do you think? are any of these even close to explaining?
Click to expand...


As PMZ has just provided more evidence for, the root of the problem is that some people (authoritarians of both parties) believe that liberty includes the right of an authority to take liberty away simply because the majority demands it. IOW they don't believe in liberty at all, but rather only believe in liberty for their group.  When their group is in the majority they rule as tyrants, and when not they scream tyranny.  Bring this up and they claim you are arguing for lawlessness.  Explain that liberty does not include the liberty to harm others, and they run away screaming and calling you names (exhibiting cognitive dissonance).

As your example provides above these folks are somewhat incapable of making the leap of understanding that in order that they should be free, they need to let others be free.  They can't get there, IMO, because of cognitive dissonance, and/or a fear of loosing their power (authority) over others.   Fear of the unknown.  Fear is the mind killer. (Frank Herbert.)


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Make up your mind retard.  Either I'm "self centered" or "I leave my thinking up to others." Which lie are you sticking with?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Both.  The thinking that got your lips and Fox's ass so intimate was their philosophy of self centeredness. Be the best predator that you can be.  We'll help.
> 
> Your ego couldn't resist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't watch Fox you lying retard.
Click to expand...


You breath it numbnuts.


----------



## PMZ

Here's a quote from the reference above. 

"None of this should come as a shock to the Obama administration. The law states that policies in effect as of March 23, 2010 will be grandfathered, meaning consumers can keep those policies even though they dont meet requirements of the new health care law. But the Department of Health and Human Services then wrote regulations that narrowed that provision, by saying that if any part of a policy was significantly changed since that date  the deductible, co-pay, or benefits, for example  the policy would not be grandfathered."

So the game that insurance companies played is that they tried to avoid responsibility by making major changes to their policy,  voiding their original policy,  but claiming the grandfathering of the original policy. Pretty slick.


----------



## dblack

PMZ said:


> Here's a quote from the reference above.
> 
> "None of this should come as a shock to the Obama administration. The law states that policies in effect as of March 23, 2010 will be grandfathered, meaning consumers can keep those policies even though they dont meet requirements of the new health care law. But the Department of Health and Human Services then wrote regulations that narrowed that provision, by saying that if any part of a policy was significantly changed since that date  the deductible, co-pay, or benefits, for example  the policy would not be grandfathered."
> 
> So the game that insurance companies played is that they tried to avoid responsibility by making major changes to their policy,  voiding their original policy,  but claiming the grandfathering of the original policy. Pretty slick.



Or, they simply realized they could make more money by moving everyone over to the new policies - seems a lot more likely don't it? The bottom line is the bottom line for corporations.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi PMZ and Esmeralda: If you are in support of expanding Obamacare to cover all people,
> are you okay with mandating that everyone be required to undergo spiritual healing to cure all disease and cut costs in order to serve more people? If you are ok with insurance mandates to cover more people, are you okay with requiring other mandates?
> 
> Like spiritual healing as a requirement to cut costs?
> 
> Or how about mandates that people show proof they have no VD and have "ability to pay" before they have sex and possibly create a child to raise?
> 
> Would you be okay with other mandates that would cut costs and ensure more people are covered?
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Progress always overcomes resistance.  Resistance always comes from the fear of the unknown.
> 
> Someday Obamacare will be a widely regarded improvement to our past inept, expensive health care insurance non-system.
> 
> And Republican resistance to progress found puzzling,  at best.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P.S. The puzzle that challenges me to solve
> is finding an "analogy" that liberal prochoice Democrats understand
> which is the equivalent to them of imposing insurance mandates against their free choice.
> 
> I'm thinking to host a 500-1000 dollar contest to anyone who
> can come up with a working analogy that even President Obama
> recognizes, and explains the resistance from Republicans and conservatives
> in terms that even Democrats understand who want Singlepayer or
> universal coverage but can see why ACA mandates are against free choice.
> 
> Can you help me? any ideas?
> I keep striking out, though I listed examples above of possible analogies
> that could be made. What do you think? are any of these even close to explaining?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As PMZ has just provided more evidence for, the root of the problem is that some people (authoritarians of both parties) believe that liberty includes the right of an authority to take liberty away simply because the majority demands it. IOW they don't believe in liberty at all, but rather only believe in liberty for their group.  When their group is in the majority they rule as tyrants, and when not they scream tyranny.  Bring this up and they claim you are arguing for lawlessness.  Explain that liberty does not include the liberty to harm others, and they run away screaming and calling you names (exhibiting cognitive dissonance).
> 
> As your example provides above these folks are somewhat incapable of making the leap of understanding that in order that they should be free, they need to let others be free.  They can't get there, IMO, because of cognitive dissonance, and/or a fear of loosing their power (authority) over others.   Fear of the unknown.  Fear is the mind killer. (Frank Herbert.)
Click to expand...


Conservatives love to use the word "liberty"  as a stand in for irresponsibility.  It sounds so noble.  

But animals live with an abundance of liberty and zero responsibility other than survival.  Can't we just live like animals? 

Of course we can and have but left it behind when we found things that work much better. 

Now conservatives want to return to those thrilling days of yesteryear and go back to the caves.  Or at least they want others to.  

For themselves though they can't get along any more without their fashionable and comfortable stuff.  Lavish stuff.  Abundant stuff. 

So they'll keep their mcmansions and the 99% can have the caves.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Both.  The thinking that got your lips and Fox's ass so intimate was their philosophy of self centeredness. Be the best predator that you can be.  We'll help.
> 
> Your ego couldn't resist.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't watch Fox you lying retard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You breath it numbnuts.
Click to expand...


You say that like exhibiting predatory behavior is a bad thing.  Can you explain to the class what happens in the animal kingdom when there are no predators?


----------



## P@triot

RKMBrown said:


> *As PMZ has just provided more evidence for, the root of the problem is that some people (authoritarians of both parties) believe that liberty includes the right of an authority to take liberty away simply because the majority demands it*. IOW they don't believe in liberty at all, but rather only believe in liberty for their group.  When their group is in the majority they rule as tyrants, and when not they scream tyranny.  Bring this up and they claim you are arguing for lawlessness.  Explain that liberty does not include the liberty to harm others, and they run away screaming and calling you names (exhibiting cognitive dissonance).
> 
> As your example provides above these folks are somewhat incapable of making the leap of understanding that in order that they should be free, they need to let others be free.  They can't get there, IMO, because of cognitive dissonance, and/or a fear of loosing their power (authority) over others.   Fear of the unknown.  Fear is the mind killer. (Frank Herbert.)


----------



## P@triot

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't watch Fox you lying retard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You breath it numbnuts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You say that like exhibiting predatory behavior is a bad thing.  Can you explain to the class what happens in the animal kingdom when there are no predators?
Click to expand...


Oh don't worry about that RKMB - people like PMZ know all about population control. One of their idols - Joseph Stalin - taught them _all_ about eliminating 20 million of their fellow citizens.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi PMZ and Esmeralda: If you are in support of expanding Obamacare to cover all people,
> are you okay with mandating that everyone be required to undergo spiritual healing to cure all disease and cut costs in order to serve more people? If you are ok with insurance mandates to cover more people, are you okay with requiring other mandates?
> 
> Like spiritual healing as a requirement to cut costs?
> 
> Or how about mandates that people show proof they have no VD and have "ability to pay" before they have sex and possibly create a child to raise?
> 
> Would you be okay with other mandates that would cut costs and ensure more people are covered?
> 
> 
> 
> P.S. The puzzle that challenges me to solve
> is finding an "analogy" that liberal prochoice Democrats understand
> which is the equivalent to them of imposing insurance mandates against their free choice.
> 
> I'm thinking to host a 500-1000 dollar contest to anyone who
> can come up with a working analogy that even President Obama
> recognizes, and explains the resistance from Republicans and conservatives
> in terms that even Democrats understand who want Singlepayer or
> universal coverage but can see why ACA mandates are against free choice.
> 
> Can you help me? any ideas?
> I keep striking out, though I listed examples above of possible analogies
> that could be made. What do you think? are any of these even close to explaining?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As PMZ has just provided more evidence for, the root of the problem is that some people (authoritarians of both parties) believe that liberty includes the right of an authority to take liberty away simply because the majority demands it. IOW they don't believe in liberty at all, but rather only believe in liberty for their group.  When their group is in the majority they rule as tyrants, and when not they scream tyranny.  Bring this up and they claim you are arguing for lawlessness.  Explain that liberty does not include the liberty to harm others, and they run away screaming and calling you names (exhibiting cognitive dissonance).
> 
> As your example provides above these folks are somewhat incapable of making the leap of understanding that in order that they should be free, they need to let others be free.  They can't get there, IMO, because of cognitive dissonance, and/or a fear of loosing their power (authority) over others.   Fear of the unknown.  Fear is the mind killer. (Frank Herbert.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Conservatives love to use the word "liberty"  as a stand in for irresponsibility.  It sounds so noble.
> 
> But animals live with an abundance of liberty and zero responsibility other than survival.  Can't we just live like animals?
> 
> Of course we can and have but left it behind when we found things that work much better.
> 
> Now conservatives want to return to those thrilling days of yesteryear and go back to the caves.  Or at least they want others to.
> 
> For themselves though they can't get along any more without their fashionable and comfortable stuff.  Lavish stuff.  Abundant stuff.
> 
> So they'll keep their mcmansions and the 99% can have the caves.
Click to expand...


See [MENTION=22295]emilynghiem[/MENTION], as I said, bring up liberty and they claim you are arguing for lawlessness.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't watch Fox you lying retard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You breath it numbnuts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You say that like exhibiting predatory behavior is a bad thing.  Can you explain to the class what happens in the animal kingdom when there are no predators?
Click to expand...


This is the argument that says poverty is good for people who aren't me.  I do them a favor by taking their money and keeping them poor,  barefoot and pregnant.  It's the least I can do.


----------



## P@triot

Ok [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] - even MSNBC is now admitting Obama has been lying to your face for years!!! Looks like you swallowed so much of the propaganda, you are permanently poisoned from it. When even these radical S.O.B's can no longer deny Obama's lies, you know the left is in _serious_ trouble...

Obama knew millions could not keep their health insurance - Investigations

 [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] is officially and _permanently_ my personal USMB bitch...



[ame=http://youtu.be/wfl55GgHr5E]"If you like your plan, you can keep your plan." - Barack Obama - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You breath it numbnuts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You say that like exhibiting predatory behavior is a bad thing.  Can you explain to the class what happens in the animal kingdom when there are no predators?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is the argument that says poverty is good for people who aren't me.  I do them a favor by taking their money and keeping them poor,  barefoot and pregnant.  It's the least I can do.
Click to expand...


You didn't answer his question. *What happens in the animal kingdom when there are no predators?* Come on PMZ - this is a very simple and straight forward question.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You breath it numbnuts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You say that like exhibiting predatory behavior is a bad thing.  Can you explain to the class what happens in the animal kingdom when there are no predators?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is the argument that says poverty is good for people who aren't me.  I do them a favor by taking their money and keeping them poor,  barefoot and pregnant.  It's the least I can do.
Click to expand...


No it's not. This is the argument that says there are all types of people in this world and you can't force everyone to act like you want them to act like, nor should you.  Your illusion of control over your world is just that, an illusion.  You see a wolf and you see an ugly beast that eats meat for a living.  I see a cunning animal that hunts in groups to live.  You see horror, I see natures way, I see balance.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> You say that like exhibiting predatory behavior is a bad thing.  Can you explain to the class what happens in the animal kingdom when there are no predators?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the argument that says poverty is good for people who aren't me.  I do them a favor by taking their money and keeping them poor,  barefoot and pregnant.  It's the least I can do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it's not. This is the argument that says there are all types of people in this world and you can't force everyone to act like you want them to act like.  Your illusion of control over your world is just that, an illusion.
Click to expand...


I don't want control.  I want cooperation and collaboration,  responsibility and accountability,  as they have clearly demonstrated more progress for everyone. 

I want the country to run like a very successful and large and ethical non-profit corporation.


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> You say that like exhibiting predatory behavior is a bad thing.  Can you explain to the class what happens in the animal kingdom when there are no predators?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the argument that says poverty is good for people who aren't me.  I do them a favor by taking their money and keeping them poor,  barefoot and pregnant.  It's the least I can do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You didn't answer his question. *What happens in the animal kingdom when there are no predators?* Come on PMZ - this is a very simple and straight forward question.
Click to expand...


No,  it's an idiotic and irrelevant question.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the argument that says poverty is good for people who aren't me.  I do them a favor by taking their money and keeping them poor,  barefoot and pregnant.  It's the least I can do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it's not. This is the argument that says there are all types of people in this world and you can't force everyone to act like you want them to act like.  Your illusion of control over your world is just that, an illusion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't want control.  I want cooperation and collaboration,  responsibility and accountability,  as they have clearly demonstrated more progress for everyone.
> 
> I want the country to run like a very successful and large and ethical non-profit corporation.
Click to expand...


>> I don't want control.  I want cooperation and collaboration,  responsibility and accountability,  as they have clearly demonstrated more progress for everyone. 

How do you force cooperation and collaboration without control?

>> I want the country to run like a very successful and large and ethical non-profit corporation.

Then you'll have to learn to let go, because you won't have any success in this country by redistributing success.  All redistribution does is eliminate all incentive for success and ethics.

If you want ethics pass ethics laws.  If you want success, stop punishing success, nay, encourage it nurture it, applaud it.  Denigrating success, penalizing success, vilifying profit, rofl... yeah that's not gonna work.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the argument that says poverty is good for people who aren't me.  I do them a favor by taking their money and keeping them poor,  barefoot and pregnant.  It's the least I can do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't answer his question. *What happens in the animal kingdom when there are no predators?* Come on PMZ - this is a very simple and straight forward question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No,  it's an idiotic and irrelevant question.
Click to expand...


You brought predators up, it's very relevant.  I'm sure you understand that predators are the natural result of millions of years of evolution.  I'm sure you understand that if you kill off the predators, other predators have to be introduced or there will be over population, followed by starvation and  famine, and the prey will become weak and die.  I assume you also know that Humans are predators.  If this is news to you... sorry.

Who told you life should be easy?


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the argument that says poverty is good for people who aren't me.  I do them a favor by taking their money and keeping them poor,  barefoot and pregnant.  It's the least I can do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it's not. This is the argument that says there are all types of people in this world and you can't force everyone to act like you want them to act like.  Your illusion of control over your world is just that, an illusion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't want control.  I want cooperation and collaboration,  responsibility and accountability,  as they have clearly demonstrated more progress for everyone.
> 
> I want the country to run like a very successful and large and ethical non-profit corporation.
Click to expand...


And there you have it folks... pure, unadulterated communism.

Fuck the individual in favor of the collective.

It's got a failure rate of 100% worldwide. But that doesn't stop PMZ from pushing it here in America. Un-fucking-believable...


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> I don't want control.  I want cooperation and collaboration,  responsibility and accountability,  as they have clearly demonstrated more progress for everyone.
> 
> I want the country to run like a very successful and large and ethical non-profit corporation.



Do you know what I want [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION]? *Freedom*. Freedom from you. Freedom from your control-freak ways. Freedom from your communism.

But like any control-freak Adolf-Hitler-wanna-be, you don't care what I want. It's only what YOU want. And what you want is everything that I have earned.

The problem for you though is that the Constitution says I get to have what I want and you don't. Hence your anger and your need for propaganda.


----------



## Dude111

Rottweiler said:
			
		

> How embarassing that the federal government now has to use tax dollars on commercials to promote their catastrophic failures as being a "good" thing...


They are trying EVERYTHING to force everyone under one bubble!!!!


----------



## Antares

PMZ said:


> Here's a quote from the reference above.
> 
> "None of this should come as a shock to the Obama administration. The law states that policies in effect as of March 23, 2010 will be grandfathered, meaning consumers can keep those policies even though they dont meet requirements of the new health care law. But the Department of Health and Human Services then wrote regulations that narrowed that provision, by saying that if any part of a policy was significantly changed since that date  the deductible, co-pay, or benefits, for example  the policy would not be grandfathered."
> 
> So the game that insurance companies played is that they tried to avoid responsibility by making major changes to their policy,  voiding their original policy,  but claiming the grandfathering of the original policy. Pretty slick.



*
"None of this should come as a shock to the Obama administration. The law states that policies in effect as of March 23, 2010 will be grandfathered, meaning consumers can keep those policies even though they dont meet requirements of the new health care law. *

For one year "numbnuts", the plans are only excepted for compliance for ONE you are ignorant of the Law.

*So the game that insurance companies played is that they tried to avoid responsibility by making major changes to their policy,  voiding their original policy,  but claiming the grandfathering of the original policy.*

So in your world actually complying with the Law is a game the Insurance Companies played....you van't make this shit up.

The ACA demands the changes be made to be "compliant", the cancellations being felt right now are the result of said compliance.

Just thank me and move on.


----------



## P@triot

Antares said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a quote from the reference above.
> 
> "None of this should come as a shock to the Obama administration. The law states that policies in effect as of March 23, 2010 will be grandfathered, meaning consumers can keep those policies even though they dont meet requirements of the new health care law. But the Department of Health and Human Services then wrote regulations that narrowed that provision, by saying that if any part of a policy was significantly changed since that date  the deductible, co-pay, or benefits, for example  the policy would not be grandfathered."
> 
> So the game that insurance companies played is that they tried to avoid responsibility by making major changes to their policy,  voiding their original policy,  but claiming the grandfathering of the original policy. Pretty slick.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> "None of this should come as a shock to the Obama administration. The law states that policies in effect as of March 23, 2010 will be grandfathered, meaning consumers can keep those policies even though they dont meet requirements of the new health care law. *
> 
> For one year "numbnuts", the plans are only excepted for compliance for ONE you are ignorant of the Law.
> 
> *So the game that insurance companies played is that they tried to avoid responsibility by making major changes to their policy,  voiding their original policy,  but claiming the grandfathering of the original policy.*
> 
> So in your world actually complying with the Law is a game the Insurance Companies played....you van't make this shit up.
> 
> The ACA demands the changes be made to be "compliant", the cancellations being felt right now are the result of said compliance.
> 
> Just thank me and move on.
Click to expand...


No matter what the facts prove, what the research yields, what the data indicates, what the science reveals, or what the history shows - [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] will continue to be the consummate propaganda puppy for the party. Her desire to lay claim to what you have earned is far too strong for her to ever allow logic and reason to prevail.


----------



## Mojo2

Rottweiler said:


> As the Dumbocrats on USMB love to crow about - Obamacare was passed into law by Congress, signed into law by the president, and upheld by the Supreme Court. So _why_ exactly does the federal government have to piss away billions to *promote* an existing law?!? Has this _ever_ been done with any other law in U.S. _history_?
> 
> They begged the NBA to help promote it and the NBA said yes. They begged the NFL to help promote it, and the NFL told them to go fuck themselves (doh!). So why are they so desperate to reach people through Hollywood and sports? Because even the Dumbocrats know this is a miserable failure, and they _know_ it is going to be repealed eventually unless they can do major damage control and brainwash the masses (especially the young and impressionable - hence the NBA, NFL, etc.) that this is a "good" thing.
> 
> Super Bowl champ Baltimore Ravens getting paid $130,000 to promote Obamacare | WashingtonExaminer.com



The thing to also keep in mind is the ultimate objective of Obamacare from the President's perspective is to successfully put the government in the driver's seat.

We would no longer be a nation, of, by and for the people.

It would be "of and by the people, but FOR the government elites." 

For our history challenged fellow posters, EVERY government wants to make themselves your bosses and you their subjects.

That is what Obama wants to achieve.

Okay.

Back to your debate.


----------



## PMZ

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a quote from the reference above.
> 
> "None of this should come as a shock to the Obama administration. The law states that policies in effect as of March 23, 2010 will be grandfathered, meaning consumers can keep those policies even though they dont meet requirements of the new health care law. But the Department of Health and Human Services then wrote regulations that narrowed that provision, by saying that if any part of a policy was significantly changed since that date  the deductible, co-pay, or benefits, for example  the policy would not be grandfathered."
> 
> So the game that insurance companies played is that they tried to avoid responsibility by making major changes to their policy,  voiding their original policy,  but claiming the grandfathering of the original policy. Pretty slick.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or, they simply realized they could make more money by moving everyone over to the new policies - seems a lot more likely don't it? The bottom line is the bottom line for corporations.
Click to expand...


Make more money regardless of the cost to others.


----------



## dblack

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a quote from the reference above.
> 
> "None of this should come as a shock to the Obama administration. The law states that policies in effect as of March 23, 2010 will be &#8220;grandfathered,&#8221; meaning consumers can keep those policies even though they don&#8217;t meet requirements of the new health care law. But the Department of Health and Human Services then wrote regulations that narrowed that provision, by saying that if any part of a policy was significantly changed since that date &#8212; the deductible, co-pay, or benefits, for example &#8212; the policy would not be grandfathered."
> 
> So the game that insurance companies played is that they tried to avoid responsibility by making major changes to their policy,  voiding their original policy,  but claiming the grandfathering of the original policy. Pretty slick.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or, they simply realized they could make more money by moving everyone over to the new policies - seems a lot more likely don't it? The bottom line is the bottom line for corporations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Make more money regardless of the cost to others.
Click to expand...


Sure. This is exactly what I saw coming and why I've been opposed to ACA from the start. It's all about feeding unwilling victims to corporate insurance. All in the name of feel-good "health care reform". Sick, twisted shit.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> As PMZ has just provided more evidence for, the root of the problem is that some people (authoritarians of both parties) believe that liberty includes the right of an authority to take liberty away simply because the majority demands it. IOW they don't believe in liberty at all, but rather only believe in liberty for their group.  When their group is in the majority they rule as tyrants, and when not they scream tyranny.  Bring this up and they claim you are arguing for lawlessness.  Explain that liberty does not include the liberty to harm others, and they run away screaming and calling you names (exhibiting cognitive dissonance).
> 
> As your example provides above these folks are somewhat incapable of making the leap of understanding that in order that they should be free, they need to let others be free.  They can't get there, IMO, because of cognitive dissonance, and/or a fear of loosing their power (authority) over others.   Fear of the unknown.  Fear is the mind killer. (Frank Herbert.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives love to use the word "liberty"  as a stand in for irresponsibility.  It sounds so noble.
> 
> But animals live with an abundance of liberty and zero responsibility other than survival.  Can't we just live like animals?
> 
> Of course we can and have but left it behind when we found things that work much better.
> 
> Now conservatives want to return to those thrilling days of yesteryear and go back to the caves.  Or at least they want others to.
> 
> For themselves though they can't get along any more without their fashionable and comfortable stuff.  Lavish stuff.  Abundant stuff.
> 
> So they'll keep their mcmansions and the 99% can have the caves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See [MENTION=22295]emilynghiem[/MENTION], as I said, bring up liberty and they claim you are arguing for lawlessness.
Click to expand...


Explain why,  as the freest people to ever walk the earth,  you're concerned about more liberty.


----------



## dblack

PMZ said:


> Explain why,  as the freest people to ever walk the earth, you're concerned about more liberty.



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ZFRmVFn7WM]America is not the greatest country in the world - The Newsroom 1x01 - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it's not. This is the argument that says there are all types of people in this world and you can't force everyone to act like you want them to act like.  Your illusion of control over your world is just that, an illusion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't want control.  I want cooperation and collaboration,  responsibility and accountability,  as they have clearly demonstrated more progress for everyone.
> 
> I want the country to run like a very successful and large and ethical non-profit corporation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> >> I don't want control.  I want cooperation and collaboration,  responsibility and accountability,  as they have clearly demonstrated more progress for everyone.
> 
> How do you force cooperation and collaboration without control?
> 
> Corporations do it every day.  I thought that you are supposed to know something about business.
> 
> >> I want the country to run like a very successful and large and ethical non-profit corporation.
> 
> Then you'll have to learn to let go, because you won't have any success in this country by redistributing success.  All redistribution does is eliminate all incentive for success and ethics.
> 
> If you want ethics pass ethics laws.  If you want success, stop punishing success, nay, encourage it nurture it, applaud it.  Denigrating success, penalizing success, vilifying profit, rofl... yeah that's not gonna work.
Click to expand...


People who are good at what they do,  and are interested in accomplishment,  don't do it for the money,  but because they've been taught responsibility. I know too many retired people working for free to fall for the John Galt blackmail story. 

People who only do what pays the most,  we can get along fine without. 

Nobody gets punished for success.


----------



## PMZ

Dude111 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How embarassing that the federal government now has to use tax dollars on commercials to promote their catastrophic failures as being a "good" thing...
> 
> 
> 
> They are trying EVERYTHING to force everyone under one bubble!!!!
Click to expand...


Most of us are already born under one bubble.  AMERICA.  If you want out, go.


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't want control.  I want cooperation and collaboration,  responsibility and accountability,  as they have clearly demonstrated more progress for everyone.
> 
> I want the country to run like a very successful and large and ethical non-profit corporation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know what I want [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION]? *Freedom*. Freedom from you. Freedom from your control-freak ways. Freedom from your communism.
> 
> But like any control-freak Adolf-Hitler-wanna-be, you don't care what I want. It's only what YOU want. And what you want is everything that I have earned.
> 
> The problem for you though is that the Constitution says I get to have what I want and you don't. Hence your anger and your need for propaganda.
Click to expand...


You've never read one word from me not supporting the Constitution. You want to have a different Constitution that says what you wish ours said.


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it's not. This is the argument that says there are all types of people in this world and you can't force everyone to act like you want them to act like.  Your illusion of control over your world is just that, an illusion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't want control.  I want cooperation and collaboration,  responsibility and accountability,  as they have clearly demonstrated more progress for everyone.
> 
> I want the country to run like a very successful and large and ethical non-profit corporation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And there you have it folks... pure, unadulterated communism.
> 
> Fuck the individual in favor of the collective.
> 
> It's got a failure rate of 100% worldwide. But that doesn't stop PMZ from pushing it here in America. Un-fucking-believable...
Click to expand...


Apparently reading comprehension is large among your shortcomings.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't answer his question. *What happens in the animal kingdom when there are no predators?* Come on PMZ - this is a very simple and straight forward question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No,  it's an idiotic and irrelevant question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You brought predators up, it's very relevant.  I'm sure you understand that predators are the natural result of millions of years of evolution.  I'm sure you understand that if you kill off the predators, other predators have to be introduced or there will be over population, followed by starvation and  famine, and the prey will become weak and die.  I assume you also know that Humans are predators.  If this is news to you... sorry.
> 
> Who told you life should be easy?
Click to expand...


What does any of that have to with humanity?


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't want control.  I want cooperation and collaboration,  responsibility and accountability,  as they have clearly demonstrated more progress for everyone.
> 
> I want the country to run like a very successful and large and ethical non-profit corporation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know what I want [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION]? *Freedom*. Freedom from you. Freedom from your control-freak ways. Freedom from your communism.
> 
> But like any control-freak Adolf-Hitler-wanna-be, you don't care what I want. It's only what YOU want. And what you want is everything that I have earned.
> 
> The problem for you though is that the Constitution says I get to have what I want and you don't. Hence your anger and your need for propaganda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've never read one word from me not supporting the Constitution. You want to have a different Constitution that says what you wish ours said.
Click to expand...


I didn't? That's funny, I specifically recall you claiming that the Supreme Court is empowered to decide whether or not the federal government has the power to force citizens to purchase a good or service. But like all Dumbocrats, when asked for the section of the Constitution which empowers the Supreme Court to make this distinction, you could not provide an answer.

The absolute truth is - you have *never* read the U.S. Constitution. And we both know it. If you had, you would know that the Supreme Court cannot interpret the Constitution itself. That is just a simple, undeniable, indisputable fact.


----------



## PMZ

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or, they simply realized they could make more money by moving everyone over to the new policies - seems a lot more likely don't it? The bottom line is the bottom line for corporations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Make more money regardless of the cost to others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure. This is exactly what I saw coming and why I've been opposed to ACA from the start. It's all about feeding unwilling victims to corporate insurance. All in the name of feel-good "health care reform". Sick, twisted shit.
Click to expand...


You prefer paying the medical bills for the irresponsible? 

If so,  feel free to do it.  Write a big check to a hospital emergency unit.  Tell them to use it to pay the bills of the uninsured. 

Those of us who prefer personal responsibility and accountability won't object.


----------



## dblack

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Make more money regardless of the cost to others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. This is exactly what I saw coming and why I've been opposed to ACA from the start. It's all about feeding unwilling victims to corporate insurance. All in the name of feel-good "health care reform". Sick, twisted shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You prefer paying the medical bills for the irresponsible?
> 
> If so,  feel free to do it.  Write a big check to a hospital emergency unit.  Tell them to use it to pay the bills of the uninsured.
> 
> Those of us who prefer personal responsibility and accountability won't object.
Click to expand...


PPACA has exactly nothing to do with personal responsibility.

[EDIT] But, to answer your question, even though it's a false dilemma, I'd rather pay the bills for the 'irresponsible' than be tied to a lifetime of tribute to the very corporations that created our health care problems in the first place.


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know what I want [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION]? *Freedom*. Freedom from you. Freedom from your control-freak ways. Freedom from your communism.
> 
> But like any control-freak Adolf-Hitler-wanna-be, you don't care what I want. It's only what YOU want. And what you want is everything that I have earned.
> 
> The problem for you though is that the Constitution says I get to have what I want and you don't. Hence your anger and your need for propaganda.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've never read one word from me not supporting the Constitution. You want to have a different Constitution that says what you wish ours said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't? That's funny, I specifically recall you claiming that the Supreme Court is empowered to decide whether or not the federal government has the power to force citizens to purchase a good or service. But like all Dumbocrats, when asked for the section of the Constitution which empowers the Supreme Court to make this distinction, you could not provide an answer.
> 
> The absolute truth is - you have *never* read the U.S. Constitution. And we both know it. If you had, you would know that the Supreme Court cannot interpret the Constitution itself. That is just a simple, undeniable, indisputable fact.
Click to expand...


Again,  the reading comprehension limitation.  Not my problem.


----------



## PMZ

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. This is exactly what I saw coming and why I've been opposed to ACA from the start. It's all about feeding unwilling victims to corporate insurance. All in the name of feel-good "health care reform". Sick, twisted shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You prefer paying the medical bills for the irresponsible?
> 
> If so,  feel free to do it.  Write a big check to a hospital emergency unit.  Tell them to use it to pay the bills of the uninsured.
> 
> Those of us who prefer personal responsibility and accountability won't object.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> PPACA has exactly nothing to do with personal responsibility.
> 
> [EDIT] But, to answer your question, even though it's a false dilemma, I'd rather pay the bills for the 'irresponsible' than be tied to a lifetime of tribute to the very corporations that created our health care problems in the first place.
Click to expand...


"PPACA has exactly nothing to do with personal responsibility."

Explain to me how making people accountable for paying for their own personal health care is not personal responsibility.


----------



## dblack

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You prefer paying the medical bills for the irresponsible?
> 
> If so,  feel free to do it.  Write a big check to a hospital emergency unit.  Tell them to use it to pay the bills of the uninsured.
> 
> Those of us who prefer personal responsibility and accountability won't object.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PPACA has exactly nothing to do with personal responsibility.
> 
> [EDIT] But, to answer your question, even though it's a false dilemma, I'd rather pay the bills for the 'irresponsible' than be tied to a lifetime of tribute to the very corporations that created our health care problems in the first place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "PPACA has exactly nothing to do with personal responsibility."
> 
> Explain to me how making people accountable for paying for their own personal health care is not personal responsibility.
Click to expand...


PPACA doesn't make people accountable for paying for their own health care. It does the opposite. It forces them to buy insurance.


----------



## PMZ

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. This is exactly what I saw coming and why I've been opposed to ACA from the start. It's all about feeding unwilling victims to corporate insurance. All in the name of feel-good "health care reform". Sick, twisted shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You prefer paying the medical bills for the irresponsible?
> 
> If so,  feel free to do it.  Write a big check to a hospital emergency unit.  Tell them to use it to pay the bills of the uninsured.
> 
> Those of us who prefer personal responsibility and accountability won't object.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> PPACA has exactly nothing to do with personal responsibility.
> 
> [EDIT] But, to answer your question, even though it's a false dilemma, I'd rather pay the bills for the 'irresponsible' than be tied to a lifetime of tribute to the very corporations that created our health care problems in the first place.
Click to expand...


"lifetime of tribute to the very corporations that created our health care problems in the first place."

Which corporations are you accusing of creating our health care problems in the first place? 

Health care delivery or insurance  or both?


----------



## dblack

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You prefer paying the medical bills for the irresponsible?
> 
> If so,  feel free to do it.  Write a big check to a hospital emergency unit.  Tell them to use it to pay the bills of the uninsured.
> 
> Those of us who prefer personal responsibility and accountability won't object.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PPACA has exactly nothing to do with personal responsibility.
> 
> [EDIT] But, to answer your question, even though it's a false dilemma, I'd rather pay the bills for the 'irresponsible' than be tied to a lifetime of tribute to the very corporations that created our health care problems in the first place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "lifetime of tribute to the very corporations that created our health care problems in the first place."
> 
> Which corporations are you accusing of creating our health care problems in the first place?
> 
> Health care delivery or insurance  or both?
Click to expand...


Well, both, but insurance primarily. They were facilitated by ill-conceived government policy, so I can't lay all the blame at their feet, but over-insurance has been the principal driver of health care inflation.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives love to use the word "liberty"  as a stand in for irresponsibility.  It sounds so noble.
> 
> But animals live with an abundance of liberty and zero responsibility other than survival.  Can't we just live like animals?
> 
> Of course we can and have but left it behind when we found things that work much better.
> 
> Now conservatives want to return to those thrilling days of yesteryear and go back to the caves.  Or at least they want others to.
> 
> For themselves though they can't get along any more without their fashionable and comfortable stuff.  Lavish stuff.  Abundant stuff.
> 
> So they'll keep their mcmansions and the 99% can have the caves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See [MENTION=22295]emilynghiem[/MENTION], as I said, bring up liberty and they claim you are arguing for lawlessness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Explain why,  as the freest people to ever walk the earth,  you're concerned about more liberty.
Click to expand...

I'm not concerned a bit.  Millions of Americans died for the freedoms that we enjoy.  Freedoms that you urinate on.  Freedoms that I am willing to kill and die for.  I don't think you understand what you are up against.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't want control.  I want cooperation and collaboration,  responsibility and accountability,  as they have clearly demonstrated more progress for everyone.
> 
> I want the country to run like a very successful and large and ethical non-profit corporation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >> I don't want control.  I want cooperation and collaboration,  responsibility and accountability,  as they have clearly demonstrated more progress for everyone.
> 
> How do you force cooperation and collaboration without control?
> 
> Corporations do it every day.  I thought that you are supposed to know something about business.
> 
> >> I want the country to run like a very successful and large and ethical non-profit corporation.
> 
> Then you'll have to learn to let go, because you won't have any success in this country by redistributing success.  All redistribution does is eliminate all incentive for success and ethics.
> 
> If you want ethics pass ethics laws.  If you want success, stop punishing success, nay, encourage it nurture it, applaud it.  Denigrating success, penalizing success, vilifying profit, rofl... yeah that's not gonna work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People who are good at what they do,  and are interested in accomplishment,  don't do it for the money,  but because they've been taught responsibility. I know too many retired people working for free to fall for the John Galt blackmail story.
> 
> People who only do what pays the most,  we can get along fine without.
> 
> Nobody gets punished for success.
Click to expand...

You still don't get it.  I don't think you will ever get it.  It's not about the money for anyone but YOU.  For the rest of us we work and earn a living as a part of our life.  For you it's not about living it's about fucking people over to take from them what they have done, to take their life and freedoms from them, cause you get off on it, cause you are a servant of Satan.  You are nothing but a petty piece of shit.  A moron that is not worthy of the air you breathe.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> See [MENTION=22295]emilynghiem[/MENTION], as I said, bring up liberty and they claim you are arguing for lawlessness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Explain why,  as the freest people to ever walk the earth,  you're concerned about more liberty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not concerned a bit.  Millions of Americans died for the freedoms that we enjoy.  Freedoms that you urinate on.  Freedoms that I am willing to kill and die for.  I don't think you understand what you are up against.
Click to expand...


I do understand.  It's not about everyone's freedom in your mind,  but yours.  

I'm a fan of everyone's freedom. 

You see,  you're an asshole. You don't deserve what you have,  much less more. 

But the world is full of responsible,  caring,  collaborative and cooperative people. Those are the people who deserve more because they give more.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Explain why,  as the freest people to ever walk the earth,  you're concerned about more liberty.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not concerned a bit.  Millions of Americans died for the freedoms that we enjoy.  Freedoms that you urinate on.  Freedoms that I am willing to kill and die for.  I don't think you understand what you are up against.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do understand.  It's not about everyone's freedom in your mind,  but yours.
> 
> I'm a fan of everyone's freedom.
> 
> You see,  you're an asshole. You don't deserve what you have,  much less more.
> 
> But the world is full of responsible,  caring,  collaborative and cooperative people. Those are the people who deserve more because they give more.
Click to expand...


I know scum like you who use other people's income to substitute for your charity.  You want what I have, come take it ass hole, my dogs are hungry.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> >> I don't want control.  I want cooperation and collaboration,  responsibility and accountability,  as they have clearly demonstrated more progress for everyone.
> 
> How do you force cooperation and collaboration without control?
> 
> Corporations do it every day.  I thought that you are supposed to know something about business.
> 
> >> I want the country to run like a very successful and large and ethical non-profit corporation.
> 
> Then you'll have to learn to let go, because you won't have any success in this country by redistributing success.  All redistribution does is eliminate all incentive for success and ethics.
> 
> If you want ethics pass ethics laws.  If you want success, stop punishing success, nay, encourage it nurture it, applaud it.  Denigrating success, penalizing success, vilifying profit, rofl... yeah that's not gonna work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People who are good at what they do,  and are interested in accomplishment,  don't do it for the money,  but because they've been taught responsibility. I know too many retired people working for free to fall for the John Galt blackmail story.
> 
> People who only do what pays the most,  we can get along fine without.
> 
> Nobody gets punished for success.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You still don't get it.  I don't think you will ever get it.  It's not about the money for anyone but YOU.  For the rest of us we work and earn a living as a part of our life.  For you it's not about living it's about fucking people over to take from them what they have done, to take their life and freedoms from them, cause you get off on it, cause you are a servant of Satan.  You are nothing but a petty piece of shit.  A moron that is not worthy of the air you breathe.
Click to expand...


" For the rest of us we work and earn a living as a part of our life."

Exactly what I did. And the entire middle class does.  Every day of their lives. 

"For you it's not about living it's about fucking people over to take from them what they have done,"

Not at all. I'm completely into people living successful lives.  And if they gather some wealth while being successful,  great. 

The rest of your post is just you being an asshole.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> " For the rest of us we work and earn a living as a part of our life."
> 
> Exactly what I did. And the entire middle class does.  Every day of their lives.
> 
> "For you it's not about living it's about fucking people over to take from them what they have done,"
> 
> Not at all. I'm completely into people living successful lives.  And if they gather some wealth while being successful,  great.



Then why do almost every one of your posts indicate the exact opposite?


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> " For the rest of us we work and earn a living as a part of our life."
> 
> Exactly what I did. And the entire middle class does.  Every day of their lives.
> 
> "For you it's not about living it's about fucking people over to take from them what they have done,"
> 
> Not at all. I'm completely into people living successful lives.  And if they gather some wealth while being successful,  great.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why do almost every one of your posts indicate the exact opposite?
Click to expand...


That's not the way that they're written.  It's the way that you choose to interpret them because you'd like to assume that everyone is just like you.  

I'm entirely different than you.  It's like the old saw.  Liberals and conservatives want the same things.  Liberals want them for everyone.


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Explain why,  as the freest people to ever walk the earth,  you're concerned about more liberty.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not concerned a bit.  Millions of Americans died for the freedoms that we enjoy.  Freedoms that you urinate on.  Freedoms that I am willing to kill and die for.  I don't think you understand what you are up against.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do understand.  It's not about everyone's freedom in your mind,  but yours.
> 
> I'm a fan of everyone's freedom.
> 
> You see,  you're an asshole. You don't deserve what you have, much less more.
> 
> But the world is full of responsible,  caring,  collaborative and cooperative people. Those are the people who deserve more because they give more.
Click to expand...


And here we see the communist enraged that someone was successful in life.

RKMB deserves everything he has because he *earned* it. A concept a parasite like you simply can't understand.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not concerned a bit.  Millions of Americans died for the freedoms that we enjoy.  Freedoms that you urinate on.  Freedoms that I am willing to kill and die for.  I don't think you understand what you are up against.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do understand.  It's not about everyone's freedom in your mind,  but yours.
> 
> I'm a fan of everyone's freedom.
> 
> You see,  you're an asshole. You don't deserve what you have,  much less more.
> 
> But the world is full of responsible,  caring,  collaborative and cooperative people. Those are the people who deserve more because they give more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know scum like you who use other people's income to substitute for your charity.  You want what I have, come take it ass hole, my dogs are hungry.
Click to expand...


The idea that anyone wants what you have is your ego desperate for attention.  The truth is that your life is a failure to most.  You define success as rich.  Most people define it as happy.  We pity you because you sacrificed the important for the trivial.


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> " For the rest of us we work and earn a living as a part of our life."
> 
> Exactly what I did. And the entire middle class does.  Every day of their lives.
> 
> "For you it's not about living it's about fucking people over to take from them what they have done,"
> 
> Not at all. I'm completely into people living successful lives.  And if they gather some wealth while being successful,  great.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why do almost every one of your posts indicate the exact opposite?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not the way that they're written.  It's the way that you choose to interpret them because you'd like to assume that everyone is just like you.
> 
> I'm entirely different than you.  It's like the old saw.  Liberals and conservatives want the same things.  Liberals want them for everyone.
Click to expand...


That's *exactly* how they are written. In post after post after post, you display rage over capitalism, personal responsibility, and freedom.

When those words come back to bite you in the ass, you absurdly declare "but....but....but....I'm just misunderstood"


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do understand.  It's not about everyone's freedom in your mind,  but yours.
> 
> I'm a fan of everyone's freedom.
> 
> You see,  you're an asshole. You don't deserve what you have,  much less more.
> 
> But the world is full of responsible,  caring,  collaborative and cooperative people. Those are the people who deserve more because they give more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know scum like you who use other people's income to substitute for your charity.  You want what I have, come take it ass hole, my dogs are hungry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The idea that anyone wants what you have is your ego desperate for attention.  The truth is that your life is a failure to most.  You define success as rich.  Most people define it as happy.  We pity you because you sacrificed the important for the trivial.
Click to expand...


So what does it say about you that you cannot find wealth _or_ happiness?


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> See [MENTION=22295]emilynghiem[/MENTION], as I said, bring up liberty and they claim you are arguing for lawlessness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Explain why,  as the freest people to ever walk the earth,  you're concerned about more liberty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not concerned a bit.  Millions of Americans died for the freedoms that we enjoy.  Freedoms that you urinate on.  Freedoms that I am willing to kill and die for.  I don't think you understand what you are up against.
Click to expand...


You're looking for freedom from responsibility. It's an illusion.  Humanity doesn't work that way.


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> People who are good at what they do,  and are interested in accomplishment,  don't do it for the money,  but because they've been taught responsibility. I know too many retired people working for free to fall for the John Galt blackmail story.
> 
> People who only do what pays the most,  we can get along fine without.
> 
> Nobody gets punished for success.
> 
> 
> 
> You still don't get it.  I don't think you will ever get it.  It's not about the money for anyone but YOU.  For the rest of us we work and earn a living as a part of our life.  For you it's not about living it's about fucking people over to take from them what they have done, to take their life and freedoms from them, cause you get off on it, cause you are a servant of Satan.  You are nothing but a petty piece of shit.  A moron that is not worthy of the air you breathe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> " For the rest of us we work and earn a living as a part of our life."
> 
> *Exactly what I did*. And the entire middle class does.  Every day of their lives.
> 
> "For you it's not about living it's about fucking people over to take from them what they have done,"
> 
> Not at all. I'm completely into people living successful lives.  And if they gather some wealth while being successful,  great.
> 
> The rest of your post is just you being an asshole.
Click to expand...


And there you have it folks. The reason PMZ is so hateful and angry is because he couldn't carry his weight and lost his job. Now he hates everyone and everything that isn't pure communism...


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Explain why,  as the freest people to ever walk the earth,  you're concerned about more liberty.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not concerned a bit.  Millions of Americans died for the freedoms that we enjoy.  Freedoms that you urinate on.  Freedoms that I am willing to kill and die for.  I don't think you understand what you are up against.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're looking for freedom from responsibility. It's an illusion.  Humanity doesn't work that way.
Click to expand...


He has no "responsibility" to parasites such as you. And that's what pisses you off about freedom. That you can't force him to pay your way through life.


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> You still don't get it.  I don't think you will ever get it.  It's not about the money for anyone but YOU.  For the rest of us we work and earn a living as a part of our life.  For you it's not about living it's about fucking people over to take from them what they have done, to take their life and freedoms from them, cause you get off on it, cause you are a servant of Satan.  You are nothing but a petty piece of shit.  A moron that is not worthy of the air you breathe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> " For the rest of us we work and earn a living as a part of our life."
> 
> *Exactly what I did*. And the entire middle class does.  Every day of their lives.
> 
> "For you it's not about living it's about fucking people over to take from them what they have done,"
> 
> Not at all. I'm completely into people living successful lives.  And if they gather some wealth while being successful,  great.
> 
> The rest of your post is just you being an asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And there you have it folks. The reason PMZ is so hateful and angry is because he couldn't carry his weight and lost his job. Now he hates everyone and everything that isn't pure communism...
Click to expand...


This is what it would take for you to not feel like an asshole.  Tough break.  None of it is true. 

Feel free to make it up as you are desperate.  But realize that it's all a lie because you don't know me at all.  And nobody who does would describe me that way.


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> " For the rest of us we work and earn a living as a part of our life."
> 
> *Exactly what I did*. And the entire middle class does.  Every day of their lives.
> 
> "For you it's not about living it's about fucking people over to take from them what they have done,"
> 
> Not at all. I'm completely into people living successful lives.  And if they gather some wealth while being successful,  great.
> 
> The rest of your post is just you being an asshole.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And there you have it folks. The reason PMZ is so hateful and angry is because he couldn't carry his weight and lost his job. Now he hates everyone and everything that isn't pure communism...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is what it would take for you to not feel like an asshole.  Tough break.  None of it is true.
> 
> Feel free to make it up as you are desperate.  But realize that it's all a lie because you don't know me at all.  And nobody who does would describe me that way.
Click to expand...


"Exactly what I *did*". Did. Past tense comrade. As in, you no longer work because you didn't carry you own weight, and now the world is to blame for _your_ failures.

And the only asshole here is _you_. All of us love the United States. You hate it. All of us love the Constitution. You hate it. All of us love capitalism. You hate it. Like all Dumbocrats - you're full of hate and anger because of envy.

You need to find God, son. Find some peace. Let go of all of that anger. Stop worrying about what other people have. If you spent half as much time bettering yourself as you do hating successful people, you'd be a multi-millionaire by now.


----------



## P@triot

You know it's completely fallen apart when even MSNBC is airing a montage of Obama's bumbling incompetence...

[ame=http://youtu.be/8xSoSaJqbas]Morning Joe montage shows White House denying knowledge of various scandals - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## jon_berzerk

Rottweiler said:


> You know it's completely fallen apart when even MSNBC is airing a montage of Obama's bumbling incompetence...
> 
> Morning Joe montage shows White House denying knowledge of various scandals - YouTube



as joe was telling his shocked panel of libs

*you have a know nothing drone dropping wire tapping president *

--LOL


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> And there you have it folks. The reason PMZ is so hateful and angry is because he couldn't carry his weight and lost his job. Now he hates everyone and everything that isn't pure communism...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is what it would take for you to not feel like an asshole.  Tough break.  None of it is true.
> 
> Feel free to make it up as you are desperate.  But realize that it's all a lie because you don't know me at all.  And nobody who does would describe me that way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Exactly what I *did*". Did. Past tense comrade. As in, you no longer work because you didn't carry you own weight, and now the world is to blame for _your_ failures.
> 
> And the only asshole here is _you_. All of us love the United States. You hate it. All of us love the Constitution. You hate it. All of us love capitalism. You hate it. Like all Dumbocrats - you're full of hate and anger because of envy.
> 
> You need to find God, son. Find some peace. Let go of all of that anger. Stop worrying about what other people have. If you spent half as much time bettering yourself as you do hating successful people, you'd be a multi-millionaire by now.
Click to expand...


This ought to be preserved someplace.  Rotweiner advising to let go of anger and find God.


----------



## PMZ

Conservatives are average people at war with that fact.  

So they mentally build themselves up and tear others down. And never reckon with the reality that nothing changed as a result.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> Conservatives are average people at war with that fact.
> 
> So they mentally build themselves up and tear others down. And never reckon with the reality that nothing changed as a result.



Now you refer to yourself as "facts?"  What meds are you on?

You think we should mentally tear ourselves down?  You think suggesting improvements that are universally known to work for you is tearing you down?

As to your "reality" that you are a brick wall that is unchangeable, oh don't worry we have ways to fix that too.  Hunger is a good motivator.  You just don't have the proper motivation yet.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives are average people at war with that fact.
> 
> So they mentally build themselves up and tear others down. And never reckon with the reality that nothing changed as a result.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now you refer to yourself as "facts?"  What meds are you on?
> 
> You think we should mentally tear ourselves down?  You think suggesting improvements that are universally known to work for you is tearing you down?
> 
> As to your "reality" that you are a brick wall that is unchangeable, oh don't worry we have ways to fix that too.  Hunger is a good motivator.  You just don't have the proper motivation yet.
Click to expand...


I would like to admit your post into evidence as proof of everything that I said except for 'average'.  

You've a long way to go to get there.


----------



## PMZ

Hi Every year virtually every health care insurance policy turns over a new leaf.  Why?  Because every year health care delivery changes.  New diagnostics,  new treatments,  new pathenogens,  new hospitals,  new Dr's,  new education.  

To write and maintain a new policy for longer than a year would be risky for insurance companies and they hate risk. They want all risk to be covered by their premiums so that they don't carry any. 

Companies that still offer health care insurance as part of compensation typically put a lot if effort into optimizing their health care dollars and that's to the benefit of their employees. 

Now that businesses have apparently lost the handle on growth,  many are lowering compensation by backing away from health care insurance and passing back the research responsibilities to individuals. 

The flimflam artists selling the insurance love that. 

Then Obama stepped in and while giving them more customers,  took away many of their flimflam tools by standardizing what they could sell and what information they had to present,  in a common format,  to researching potential customers. 

Is this good or bad for health insurance businesses? 

IMO,  good for the good ones,  and bad for the bad ones. 

Competition at work.


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> Hi Every year virtually every health care insurance policy turns over a new leaf.  Why?  Because every year health care delivery changes.  New diagnostics,  new treatments,  new pathenogens,  new hospitals,  new Dr's,  new education.
> 
> To write and maintain a new policy for longer than a year would be risky for insurance companies and they hate risk. They want all risk to be covered by their premiums so that they don't carry any.
> 
> Companies that still offer health care insurance as part of compensation typically put a lot if effort into optimizing their health care dollars and that's to the benefit of their employees.
> 
> Now that businesses have apparently lost the handle on growth,  many are lowering compensation by backing away from health care insurance and passing back the research responsibilities to individuals.
> 
> The flimflam artists selling the insurance love that.
> 
> *Then Obama stepped in and while giving them more customers,  took away many of their flimflam tools by standardizing what they could sell and what information they had to present,  in a common format,  to researching potential customers*.
> 
> Is this good or bad for health insurance businesses?
> 
> IMO,  good for the good ones,  and bad for the bad ones.
> 
> Competition at work.



1.) What you're saying (again) is that liberals are helpless children - unable to sort out and understand policies like a basic adult.

2.) Obama had *no* authority to step in and do anything. He _still_ does not have the authority. Anyone claiming otherwise is astoundingly ignorant of the Constitution and is the equivalent of citing the jury which allowed O.J. to walk as "proof" that murder is now legal. Just because somebody violates a law and gets away with it does not suddenly change that law which was violated. Connect all 9 Supreme Court Justices to a polygraph and ask them if Obamacare is legal under penalty of perjury - I *guarantee* you all 9 will say unequivocally NO. The Constitution doesn't change simply because actual Supreme Court Judges have been replaced with radical liberals who act as political activists instead of unbiased justices.

3.) In the end, Obamacare has caused millions to lose their jobs, or to lose their health insurance, or to have their hours cut back, or to not be hired in the first place. In short, it has done what Dumbocrat policy _always_ does - create failure, misery, and loss of jobs.


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> Conservatives are average people at war with that fact.
> 
> So they mentally build themselves up and tear others down. And never reckon with the reality that nothing changed as a result.



I actually agree with [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] here. Conservatives _are_ average people.

While Dumbocrats are unhinged radicals at war _with_ *facts*. As PMZ has proven dozens and dozens of times in this thread, they will lies about _anything_ (even when it's on video!!!) to convince people that a fact is not really a fact.

When Obama is on video over and over, adamant with the "guarantee" that you can keep your doctor and you can keep your plan, and you have the astounding stupidity to say "well you conservatives are dumb - you just didn't 'interpret' what he was saying correctly" - well, you expose yourself as an ignorant propaganda hack with absolutely no credibility.

Then you're "shocked" when people "tear you down"? Really? People hate liars. If you can't have an honest conversation about what actually happened, no one is going to show you any respect. And why should they? You don't deserve it. Liars don't deserve anything.


----------



## JakeStarkey

*The glaring evidence that Obamacare is a catastrophic FAILURE continues to mount*

OP fail.


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Every year virtually every health care insurance policy turns over a new leaf.  Why?  Because every year health care delivery changes.  New diagnostics,  new treatments,  new pathenogens,  new hospitals,  new Dr's,  new education.
> 
> To write and maintain a new policy for longer than a year would be risky for insurance companies and they hate risk. They want all risk to be covered by their premiums so that they don't carry any.
> 
> Companies that still offer health care insurance as part of compensation typically put a lot if effort into optimizing their health care dollars and that's to the benefit of their employees.
> 
> Now that businesses have apparently lost the handle on growth,  many are lowering compensation by backing away from health care insurance and passing back the research responsibilities to individuals.
> 
> The flimflam artists selling the insurance love that.
> 
> *Then Obama stepped in and while giving them more customers,  took away many of their flimflam tools by standardizing what they could sell and what information they had to present,  in a common format,  to researching potential customers*.
> 
> Is this good or bad for health insurance businesses?
> 
> IMO,  good for the good ones,  and bad for the bad ones.
> 
> Competition at work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.) What you're saying (again) is that liberals are helpless children - unable to sort out and understand policies like a basic adult.
> 
> 2.) Obama had *no* authority to step in and do anything. He _still_ does not have the authority. Anyone claiming otherwise is astoundingly ignorant of the Constitution and is the equivalent of citing the jury which allowed O.J. to walk as "proof" that murder is now legal. Just because somebody violates a law and gets away with it does not suddenly change that law which was violated. Connect all 9 Supreme Court Justices to a polygraph and ask them if Obamacare is legal under penalty of perjury - I *guarantee* you all 9 will say unequivocally NO. The Constitution doesn't change simply because actual Supreme Court Judges have been replaced with radical liberals who act as political activists instead of unbiased justices.
> 
> 3.) In the end, Obamacare has caused millions to lose their jobs, or to lose their health insurance, or to have their hours cut back, or to not be hired in the first place. In short, it has done what Dumbocrat policy _always_ does - create failure, misery, and loss of jobs.
Click to expand...


Speaking of flimflam. 

Zero evidence.  100% what you wish was true because the Fox boobs and boobies told you to.  

I'll say one thing.  You're loyal to conservative belief that all problems are unsolvable. 

You want mankind to not only live like animals but think like them too.

Speaking for myself and most voters,  no thanks.  No matter what stories you make up,  Obamacare is progress.  Your bogieman is toothless not to mention imaginary. 

I am amazed, if all of you are captains of business, that businesses aren't doing much worse than they are.


----------



## Antares

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Explain why,  as the freest people to ever walk the earth,  you're concerned about more liberty.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not concerned a bit.  Millions of Americans died for the freedoms that we enjoy.  Freedoms that you urinate on.  Freedoms that I am willing to kill and die for.  I don't think you understand what you are up against.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're looking for freedom from responsibility. It's an illusion.  Humanity doesn't work that way.
Click to expand...


You are not my responsibility kid, pay your own way.


----------



## Antares

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Explain why,  as the freest people to ever walk the earth,  you're concerned about more liberty.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not concerned a bit.  Millions of Americans died for the freedoms that we enjoy.  Freedoms that you urinate on.  Freedoms that I am willing to kill and die for.  I don't think you understand what you are up against.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do understand.  It's not about everyone's freedom in your mind,  but yours.
> 
> I'm a fan of everyone's freedom.
> 
> You see,  you're an asshole. You don't deserve what you have,  much less more.
> 
> But the world is full of responsible,  caring,  collaborative and cooperative people. Those are the people who deserve more because they give more.
Click to expand...


Lol....anybody who qoutes Franken as a source is a moron.


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know scum like you who use other people's income to substitute for your charity.  You want what I have, come take it ass hole, my dogs are hungry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The idea that anyone wants what you have is your ego desperate for attention.  The truth is that your life is a failure to most.  You define success as rich.  Most people define it as happy.  We pity you because you sacrificed the important for the trivial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what does it say about you that you cannot find wealth _or_ happiness?
Click to expand...


What does it say about you?


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> You still don't get it.  I don't think you will ever get it.  It's not about the money for anyone but YOU.  For the rest of us we work and earn a living as a part of our life.  For you it's not about living it's about fucking people over to take from them what they have done, to take their life and freedoms from them, cause you get off on it, cause you are a servant of Satan.  You are nothing but a petty piece of shit.  A moron that is not worthy of the air you breathe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> " For the rest of us we work and earn a living as a part of our life."
> 
> *Exactly what I did*. And the entire middle class does.  Every day of their lives.
> 
> "For you it's not about living it's about fucking people over to take from them what they have done,"
> 
> Not at all. I'm completely into people living successful lives.  And if they gather some wealth while being successful,  great.
> 
> The rest of your post is just you being an asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And there you have it folks. The reason PMZ is so hateful and angry is because he couldn't carry his weight and lost his job. Now he hates everyone and everything that isn't pure communism...
Click to expand...


What you wish was true. It's not.  What is true is that you are a certified asshole.


----------



## PMZ

Antares said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not concerned a bit.  Millions of Americans died for the freedoms that we enjoy.  Freedoms that you urinate on.  Freedoms that I am willing to kill and die for.  I don't think you understand what you are up against.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're looking for freedom from responsibility. It's an illusion.  Humanity doesn't work that way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are not my responsibility kid, pay your own way.
Click to expand...


Don't need anything from you gramps.


----------



## JakeStarkey

TPM motto: "mankind should not only live like animals but think like them too."


----------



## PMZ

Antares said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not concerned a bit.  Millions of Americans died for the freedoms that we enjoy.  Freedoms that you urinate on.  Freedoms that I am willing to kill and die for.  I don't think you understand what you are up against.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do understand.  It's not about everyone's freedom in your mind,  but yours.
> 
> I'm a fan of everyone's freedom.
> 
> You see,  you're an asshole. You don't deserve what you have,  much less more.
> 
> But the world is full of responsible,  caring,  collaborative and cooperative people. Those are the people who deserve more because they give more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol....anybody who qoutes Franken as a source is a moron.
Click to expand...


Anybody who let's Rush do his thinking for him is beyond help.


----------



## Antares

PMZ said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're looking for freedom from responsibility. It's an illusion.  Humanity doesn't work that way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are not my responsibility kid, pay your own way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't need anything from you gramps.
Click to expand...


You are in dire need of an education...it is embarrassing watching you twist as you do.


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Every year virtually every health care insurance policy turns over a new leaf.  Why?  Because every year health care delivery changes.  New diagnostics,  new treatments,  new pathenogens,  new hospitals,  new Dr's,  new education.
> 
> To write and maintain a new policy for longer than a year would be risky for insurance companies and they hate risk. They want all risk to be covered by their premiums so that they don't carry any.
> 
> Companies that still offer health care insurance as part of compensation typically put a lot if effort into optimizing their health care dollars and that's to the benefit of their employees.
> 
> Now that businesses have apparently lost the handle on growth,  many are lowering compensation by backing away from health care insurance and passing back the research responsibilities to individuals.
> 
> The flimflam artists selling the insurance love that.
> 
> *Then Obama stepped in and while giving them more customers,  took away many of their flimflam tools by standardizing what they could sell and what information they had to present,  in a common format,  to researching potential customers*.
> 
> Is this good or bad for health insurance businesses?
> 
> IMO,  good for the good ones,  and bad for the bad ones.
> 
> Competition at work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.) What you're saying (again) is that liberals are helpless children - unable to sort out and understand policies like a basic adult.
> 
> 2.) Obama had *no* authority to step in and do anything. He _still_ does not have the authority. Anyone claiming otherwise is astoundingly ignorant of the Constitution and is the equivalent of citing the jury which allowed O.J. to walk as "proof" that murder is now legal. Just because somebody violates a law and gets away with it does not suddenly change that law which was violated. Connect all 9 Supreme Court Justices to a polygraph and ask them if Obamacare is legal under penalty of perjury - I *guarantee* you all 9 will say unequivocally NO. The Constitution doesn't change simply because actual Supreme Court Judges have been replaced with radical liberals who act as political activists instead of unbiased justices.
> 
> 3.) In the end, Obamacare has caused millions to lose their jobs, or to lose their health insurance, or to have their hours cut back, or to not be hired in the first place. In short, it has done what Dumbocrat policy _always_ does - create failure, misery, and loss of jobs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Speaking of flimflam.
> 
> Zero evidence.  100% what you wish was true because the Fox boobs and boobies told you to.
> 
> I'll say one thing.  You're loyal to conservative belief that all problems are unsolvable.
> 
> You want mankind to not only live like animals but think like them too.
> 
> Speaking for myself and most voters,  no thanks.  No matter what stories you make up,  Obamacare is progress.  Your bogieman is toothless not to mention imaginary.
> 
> I am amazed, if all of you are captains of business, that businesses aren't doing much worse than they are.
Click to expand...


I've provided evidence. Volumes of evidence. Evidence which you _know_ is true. Which is why you can't dispute any of it and instead nonsensically yell "Fox, Fox, Fox".

And you want to know something _really_ funny? I have a secret. I almost _never_ watch Fox News or get anything from their website. And I have *never* heard Rush Limbaugh on the radio. Never. I couldn't even tell you if he's on in my area, and if he is, what station. 

Oops! Once again junior, you lose. If you're going to lie, you have to come up with something better. You're so lazy, you won't even take the time to come up with _good_ lies.


----------



## PMZ

Antares said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are not my responsibility kid, pay your own way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't need anything from you gramps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are in dire need of an education...it is embarrassing watching you twist as you do.
Click to expand...


Do you really consider your GED an education?  I guess compared to most Conservatives, maybe so.  But to be a conservative no education is required.  Just watch,  listen and repeat.


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.) What you're saying (again) is that liberals are helpless children - unable to sort out and understand policies like a basic adult.
> 
> 2.) Obama had *no* authority to step in and do anything. He _still_ does not have the authority. Anyone claiming otherwise is astoundingly ignorant of the Constitution and is the equivalent of citing the jury which allowed O.J. to walk as "proof" that murder is now legal. Just because somebody violates a law and gets away with it does not suddenly change that law which was violated. Connect all 9 Supreme Court Justices to a polygraph and ask them if Obamacare is legal under penalty of perjury - I *guarantee* you all 9 will say unequivocally NO. The Constitution doesn't change simply because actual Supreme Court Judges have been replaced with radical liberals who act as political activists instead of unbiased justices.
> 
> 3.) In the end, Obamacare has caused millions to lose their jobs, or to lose their health insurance, or to have their hours cut back, or to not be hired in the first place. In short, it has done what Dumbocrat policy _always_ does - create failure, misery, and loss of jobs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of flimflam.
> 
> Zero evidence.  100% what you wish was true because the Fox boobs and boobies told you to.
> 
> I'll say one thing.  You're loyal to conservative belief that all problems are unsolvable.
> 
> You want mankind to not only live like animals but think like them too.
> 
> Speaking for myself and most voters,  no thanks.  No matter what stories you make up,  Obamacare is progress.  Your bogieman is toothless not to mention imaginary.
> 
> I am amazed, if all of you are captains of business, that businesses aren't doing much worse than they are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've provided evidence. Volumes of evidence. Evidence which you _know_ is true. Which is why you can't dispute any of it and instead nonsensically yell "Fox, Fox, Fox".
> 
> And you want to know something _really_ funny? I have a secret. I almost _never_ watch Fox News or get anything from their website. And I have *never* heard Rush Limbaugh on the radio. Never. I couldn't even tell you if he's on in my area, and if he is, what station.
> 
> Oops! Once again junior, you lose. If you're going to lie, you have to come up with something better. You're so lazy, you won't even take the time to come up with _good_ lies.
Click to expand...


It is not possible to be as stupid as you demonstrate without media help.


----------



## PMZ

The civilized world has watched for decades fascinated by our inept health care system floundering in results while priced sky high. They wondered: this is not rocket science.  There are numerous demonstrably better approaches all over the world.  Just copy one! 

Most would now say that Obamacare was a start,  but a timid one,  compared to all of the real solutions around the world. 

Then the Republican fanaticism to prevent progress became evident and the world realized.  It's not Americans that can't solve problems,  it's Republicans.


----------



## Antares

PMZ said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't need anything from you gramps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are in dire need of an education...it is embarrassing watching you twist as you do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you really consider your GED an education?  I guess compared to most Conservatives, maybe so.  But to be a conservative no education is required.  Just watch,  listen and repeat.
Click to expand...


You poor child, you actually think that just because you can repeat all of those silly talking points you are intelligent......I blame those who raised you...the problem with Progressives is that they mistake ideology for intelligence and truth....the truth  about progressivism is that it lives in a closed society and believes that it is superior to all else..you all think that "But for the grace of god go I".....about all who they look down their noses at.

Like I said, you and those like you are a dime a dozen 

Quetion...how much extra do you send in in taxes?


----------



## PMZ

Antares said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are in dire need of an education...it is embarrassing watching you twist as you do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you really consider your GED an education?  I guess compared to most Conservatives, maybe so.  But to be a conservative no education is required.  Just watch,  listen and repeat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You poor child, you actually think that just because you can repeat all of those silly talking points you are intelligent......I blame those who raised you...the problem with Progressives is that they mistake ideology for intelligence and truth....the truth  about progressivism is that it lives in a closed society and believes that it is superior to all else..you all think that "But for the grace of god go I".....about all who they look down their noses at.
> 
> Like I said, you and those like you are a dime a dozen
> 
> Quetion...how much extra do you send in in taxes?
Click to expand...


How come you didn't include any content in your post?


----------



## Antares

PMZ said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you really consider your GED an education?  I guess compared to most Conservatives, maybe so.  But to be a conservative no education is required.  Just watch,  listen and repeat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You poor child, you actually think that just because you can repeat all of those silly talking points you are intelligent......I blame those who raised you...the problem with Progressives is that they mistake ideology for intelligence and truth....the truth  about progressivism is that it lives in a closed society and believes that it is superior to all else..you all think that "But for the grace of god go I".....about all who they look down their noses at.
> 
> Like I said, you and those like you are a dime a dozen
> 
> Quetion...how much extra do you send in in taxes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How come you didn't include any content in your post?
Click to expand...



Plenty of content there honey 

No, how much extra money do YOU send in at tax time?


----------



## PMZ

" how much extra do you send in in taxes?" 

Good example of grossly over simplified black and white conservative non thinking.  

You're either the kind of person who considers taxes illegal  government seizure of your personal assets,  or you send them extra money that you don't owe.  

Apparently this level of thinking is sufficient to run a business.


----------



## PMZ

Antares said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> You poor child, you actually think that just because you can repeat all of those silly talking points you are intelligent......I blame those who raised you...the problem with Progressives is that they mistake ideology for intelligence and truth....the truth  about progressivism is that it lives in a closed society and believes that it is superior to all else..you all think that "But for the grace of god go I".....about all who they look down their noses at.
> 
> Like I said, you and those like you are a dime a dozen
> 
> Quetion...how much extra do you send in in taxes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How come you didn't include any content in your post?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Plenty of content there honey
> 
> No, how much extra money do YOU send in at tax time?
Click to expand...


Don't see any.  Can you point it out?


----------



## Antares

PMZ said:


> " how much extra do you send in in taxes?"
> 
> Good example of grossly over simplified black and white conservative non thinking.
> 
> You're either the kind of person who considers taxes illegal  government seizure of your personal assets,  or you send them extra money that you don't owe.
> 
> Apparently this level of thinking is sufficient to run a business.



(smile) The mentally challenged believe deflection is an effective debate tool.

You send nothing extra in...you are just another selfish little girrl who thinks everyone ELSE should pay more.

You lose kid....a dime a dozen...yessireeee


----------



## PMZ

Antares said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> " how much extra do you send in in taxes?"
> 
> Good example of grossly over simplified black and white conservative non thinking.
> 
> You're either the kind of person who considers taxes illegal  government seizure of your personal assets,  or you send them extra money that you don't owe.
> 
> Apparently this level of thinking is sufficient to run a business.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (smile) The mentally challenged believe deflection is an effective debate tool.
> 
> You send nothing extra in...you are just another selfish little girrl who thinks everyone ELSE should pay more.
> 
> You lose kid....a dime a dozen...yessireeee
Click to expand...


Sounds like you consider grossly over simplified black and white conservative non thinking to be as good as it gets.  

What kind of people do you hang around with?


----------



## Antares

PMZ said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> " how much extra do you send in in taxes?"
> 
> Good example of grossly over simplified black and white conservative non thinking.
> 
> You're either the kind of person who considers taxes illegal  government seizure of your personal assets,  or you send them extra money that you don't owe.
> 
> Apparently this level of thinking is sufficient to run a business.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (smile) The mentally challenged believe deflection is an effective debate tool.
> 
> You send nothing extra in...you are just another selfish little girrl who thinks everyone ELSE should pay more.
> 
> You lose kid....a dime a dozen...yessireeee
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds like you consider grossly over simplified black and white conservative non thinking to be as good as it gets.
> 
> What kind of people do you hang around with?
Click to expand...


You don't actually believe YOU need to pay more.....I get it.

You are a hypocrite.


----------



## PMZ

Antares said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> (smile) The mentally challenged believe deflection is an effective debate tool.
> 
> You send nothing extra in...you are just another selfish little girrl who thinks everyone ELSE should pay more.
> 
> You lose kid....a dime a dozen...yessireeee
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like you consider grossly over simplified black and white conservative non thinking to be as good as it gets.
> 
> What kind of people do you hang around with?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't actually believe YOU need to pay more.....I get it.
> 
> You are a hypocrite.
Click to expand...


I don't believe anybody should pay anybody,  ever, more than they owe.


----------



## dblack

PMZ said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like you consider grossly over simplified black and white conservative non thinking to be as good as it gets.
> 
> What kind of people do you hang around with?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't actually believe YOU need to pay more.....I get it.
> 
> You are a hypocrite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't believe anybody should pay anybody,  ever, more than they owe.
Click to expand...


Do you think we 'owe' insurance companies?


----------



## PMZ

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't actually believe YOU need to pay more.....I get it.
> 
> You are a hypocrite.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe anybody should pay anybody,  ever, more than they owe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you think we 'owe' insurance companies?
Click to expand...


I think that their policy holders owe them their premiums in return for spreading real world,  clearly understood risks among all of their policy holders.


----------



## dblack

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe anybody should pay anybody,  ever, more than they owe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think we 'owe' insurance companies?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think that their policy holders owe them their premiums in return for spreading real world,  clearly understood risks among all of their policy holders.
Click to expand...


That's a dodge. Your solution isn't about responsibility. It isn't about paying what you owe. It's about forcing everyone else to support your idea of a 'shared' solution.


----------



## PMZ

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think we 'owe' insurance companies?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that their policy holders owe them their premiums in return for spreading real world,  clearly understood risks among all of their policy holders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a dodge. Your solution isn't about responsibility. It isn't about paying what you owe. It's about forcing everyone else to support your idea of a 'shared' solution.
Click to expand...


I have no idea what you're saying. 

What's my solution?  Who do I owe? What shared solution? What am I dodging?


----------



## dblack

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that their policy holders owe them their premiums in return for spreading real world,  clearly understood risks among all of their policy holders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a dodge. Your solution isn't about responsibility. It isn't about paying what you owe. It's about forcing everyone else to support your idea of a 'shared' solution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no idea what you're saying.
> 
> What's my solution?  Who do I owe? What shared solution? What am I dodging?
Click to expand...


You're pretending ACA enforces responsibility, that it ensures that we pay what we owe. How, exactly? It doesn't do anything to require that we pay our bills. It just forces us to buy insurance from government appointed vendors. Insurance is not health care. it's not responsbility. it is the opposite. Responsibility is accepting the consequences of your decisions. Insurance is avoiding the consequences of your decisions, paying for the privilege of having no responsibility.


----------



## PMZ

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's a dodge. Your solution isn't about responsibility. It isn't about paying what you owe. It's about forcing everyone else to support your idea of a 'shared' solution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no idea what you're saying.
> 
> What's my solution?  Who do I owe? What shared solution? What am I dodging?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're pretending ACA enforces responsibility, that it ensures that we pay what we owe. How, exactly? It doesn't do anything to require that we pay our bills. It just forces us to buy insurance from government appointed vendors. Insurance is not health care. it's not responsbility. it is the opposite. Responsibility is accepting the consequences of your decisions. Insurance is avoiding the consequences of your decisions, paying for the privilege of having no responsibility.
Click to expand...


When you pay your health care premiums how many people's treatments were covered?  You have no idea. Yours certainly.  But how about the 25 year old who was so convinced he was immortal until the car accident.  The hospital didn't turn him away,  they fixed him and added his cost to yours. 

Personal responsibility advocates would say it would be better if the 25 year old took responsibility for his health care costs.  

And what's this "government appointed vendors"? 

"Insurance is not health care. it's not responsbility. it is the opposite. Responsibility is accepting the consequences of your decisions."

WTF? When you pay insurance premiums the entire point is that the insurance company is being paid to spread risk.  You are paying a fixed premium that covers your costs be they lower,  average,  or unaffordable by you. 

It's the most responsible thing.


----------



## dblack

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no idea what you're saying.
> 
> What's my solution?  Who do I owe? What shared solution? What am I dodging?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're pretending ACA enforces responsibility, that it ensures that we pay what we owe. How, exactly? It doesn't do anything to require that we pay our bills. It just forces us to buy insurance from government appointed vendors. Insurance is not health care. it's not responsbility. it is the opposite. Responsibility is accepting the consequences of your decisions. Insurance is avoiding the consequences of your decisions, paying for the privilege of having no responsibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you pay your health care premiums how many people's treatments were covered?  You have no idea. Yours certainly.  But how about the 25 year old who was so convinced he was immortal until the car accident.  The hospital didn't turn him away,  they fixed him and added his cost to yours.
Click to expand...


Maybe they did, maybe they didn't. The only thing requiring that this happens is an ill-conceived regulation (EMTALA). The way to deal with ill-conceived regulations is to repeal them - not double down on the stupid with even more idiotic regulation.



> Personal responsibility advocates would say it would be better if the 25 year old took responsibility for his health care costs.



Again, insurance isn't 'responsibility'. It's just insurance.



> And what's this "government appointed vendors"?



The government mandates 'minumum coverage' requirements and sets up exchanges for the corporations who lobbied them.



> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Insurance is not health care. it's not responsbility. it is the opposite. Responsibility is accepting the consequences of your decisions."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WTF? When you pay insurance premiums the entire point is that the insurance company is being paid to spread risk. You are paying a fixed premium that covers your costs be they lower,  average,  or unaffordable by you.
> 
> It's the most responsible thing.
Click to expand...


No. Insurance is paying to avoid responsibility. Real responsibility would be paying for the health care expenses you incur - not 'spreading the risk' on others.


----------



## PMZ

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're pretending ACA enforces responsibility, that it ensures that we pay what we owe. How, exactly? It doesn't do anything to require that we pay our bills. It just forces us to buy insurance from government appointed vendors. Insurance is not health care. it's not responsbility. it is the opposite. Responsibility is accepting the consequences of your decisions. Insurance is avoiding the consequences of your decisions, paying for the privilege of having no responsibility.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you pay your health care premiums how many people's treatments were covered?  You have no idea. Yours certainly.  But how about the 25 year old who was so convinced he was immortal until the car accident.  The hospital didn't turn him away,  they fixed him and added his cost to yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe they did, maybe they didn't. The only thing requiring that this happens is an ill-conceived regulation (EMTALA). The way to deal with ill-conceived regulations is to repeal them - not double down on the stupid with even more idiotic regulation.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, insurance isn't 'responsibility'. It's just insurance.
> 
> 
> 
> The government mandates 'minumum coverage' requirements and sets up exchanges for the corporations who lobbied them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Insurance is not health care. it's not responsbility. it is the opposite. Responsibility is accepting the consequences of your decisions."
> 
> WTF? When you pay insurance premiums the entire point is that the insurance company is being paid to spread risk. You are paying a fixed premium that covers your costs be they lower,  average,  or unaffordable by you.
> 
> It's the most responsible thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. Insurance is paying to avoid responsibility. Real responsibility would be paying for the health care expenses you incur - not 'spreading the risk' on others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're absolutely wrong.
> 
> If you can afford to cover the worst case cost scenario of health care,  auto collision,  auto liability,  home replacement,  loss of life,  etc costs,  don't buy insurance.  If you can't,  you pay for the average loss in all those things and the insurance company uses the excess premiums paid by the luckier than average to pay the claims of those more unlucky than average.
> 
> Thats what insurance does!
Click to expand...


----------



## PMZ

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you pay your health care premiums how many people's treatments were covered?  You have no idea. Yours certainly.  But how about the 25 year old who was so convinced he was immortal until the car accident.  The hospital didn't turn him away,  they fixed him and added his cost to yours.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe they did, maybe they didn't. The only thing requiring that this happens is an ill-conceived regulation (EMTALA). The way to deal with ill-conceived regulations is to repeal them - not double down on the stupid with even more idiotic regulation.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, insurance isn't 'responsibility'. It's just insurance.
> 
> 
> 
> The government mandates 'minumum coverage' requirements and sets up exchanges for the corporations who lobbied them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. Insurance is paying to avoid responsibility. Real responsibility would be paying for the health care expenses you incur - not 'spreading the risk' on others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're absolutely wrong.
> 
> If you can afford to cover the worst case cost scenario of health care,  auto collision,  auto liability,  home replacement,  loss of life,  etc costs,  don't buy insurance.  If you can't,  you pay for the average loss in all those things and the insurance company uses the excess premiums paid by the luckier than average to pay the claims of those more unlucky than average.
> 
> Thats what insurance does!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've been to countries where people have no option but die in the streets.  They don't go quietly into that good night. They will,  like all of us,  do whatever it takes to survive. I would not choose to live in a country like that.
Click to expand...


----------



## dblack

PMZ said:


> I've been to countries where people have no option but die in the streets.  They don't go quietly into that good night. They will,  like all of us,  do whatever it takes to survive. I would not choose to live in a country like that.



Dragons at the gate.


----------



## jon_berzerk

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've been to countries where people have no option but die in the streets.  They don't go quietly into that good night. They will,  like all of us,  do whatever it takes to survive. I would not choose to live in a country like that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragons at the gate.
Click to expand...


well at least it is reassuring  to know according to Kathleen Sebelius

that men often need *maternity care *

--LOL


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't need anything from you gramps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are in dire need of an education...it is embarrassing watching you twist as you do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you really consider your GED an education?  I guess compared to most Conservatives, maybe so.  But to be a conservative no education is required.  Just watch,  listen and repeat.
Click to expand...


Says the man who can't hold a job so he wants communism so the government will force conservatives to pay for him...


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> " how much extra do you send in in taxes?"
> 
> Good example of grossly over simplified black and white conservative non thinking.
> 
> You're either the kind of person who considers taxes illegal  government seizure of your personal assets,  or you send them extra money that you don't owe.
> 
> Apparently this level of thinking is sufficient to run a business.



In other words - PMZ will *never* work to be part of the solution himself. Instead, he wants to _force_ you to provide the solution for him.

And how funny is it that even simple black & white solutions scare him? Like a typical libtard Dumbocrat, he feels the "solution" can _only_ come from a 2,500 page government bill... 

Antares just exposed your hypocrisy junior. You're a parasite who only takes from the system. You *never* give back. You buffoon's crave all of the spending but never send any extra tax revenue to the government to help pay for it all.


----------



## P@triot

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're pretending ACA enforces responsibility, that it ensures that we pay what we owe. How, exactly? It doesn't do anything to require that we pay our bills. It just forces us to buy insurance from government appointed vendors. Insurance is not health care. it's not responsbility. it is the opposite. Responsibility is accepting the consequences of your decisions. Insurance is avoiding the consequences of your decisions, paying for the privilege of having no responsibility.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you pay your health care premiums how many people's treatments were covered?  You have no idea. Yours certainly.  But how about the 25 year old who was so convinced he was immortal until the car accident.  The hospital didn't turn him away,  they fixed him and added his cost to yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe they did, maybe they didn't. *The only thing requiring that this happens is an ill-conceived regulation (EMTALA). The way to deal with ill-conceived regulations is to repeal them - not double down on the stupid with even more idiotic regulation*.
Click to expand...


  

The problem is, the ignorant Dumbocrat only knows one thing: when their policy fails, it's only because they didn't go far enough with their policy 

They will *never* examine the results if their ideology and accept it is a failed ideology.


----------



## dblack

Rottweiler said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you pay your health care premiums how many people's treatments were covered?  You have no idea. Yours certainly.  But how about the 25 year old who was so convinced he was immortal until the car accident.  The hospital didn't turn him away,  they fixed him and added his cost to yours.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe they did, maybe they didn't. *The only thing requiring that this happens is an ill-conceived regulation (EMTALA). The way to deal with ill-conceived regulations is to repeal them - not double down on the stupid with even more idiotic regulation*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is, the ignorant Dumbocrat only knows one thing: when their policy fails, it's only because they didn't go far enough with their policy
> 
> They will *never* examine the results if their ideology and accept it is a failed ideology.
Click to expand...


If two wrongs don't make a right, try three!


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> I've been to countries where people have no option but die in the streets.  They don't go quietly into that good night. They will,  like all of us,  do whatever it takes to survive. I would not choose to live in a country like that.



Good - then get the fuck out of America (since you hate everything about it anyway). Someone's irresponsibility is *not* my problem junior.

You and your Dumbocrat pals pretend to care so much - yet *none* of you will start your own insurance company to cover these people _or_ create a charity which covers everything for these people. I wonder why that is?


----------



## PMZ

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've been to countries where people have no option but die in the streets.  They don't go quietly into that good night. They will,  like all of us,  do whatever it takes to survive. I would not choose to live in a country like that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragons at the gate.
Click to expand...


The dragons are those who'd consider such places civilized.


----------



## PMZ

jon_berzerk said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've been to countries where people have no option but die in the streets.  They don't go quietly into that good night. They will,  like all of us,  do whatever it takes to survive. I would not choose to live in a country like that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragons at the gate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well at least it is reassuring  to know according to Kathleen Sebelius
> 
> that men often need *maternity care *
> 
> --LOL
Click to expand...


My family needed maternity care.


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are in dire need of an education...it is embarrassing watching you twist as you do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you really consider your GED an education?  I guess compared to most Conservatives, maybe so.  But to be a conservative no education is required.  Just watch,  listen and repeat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says the man who can't hold a job so he wants communism so the government will force conservatives to pay for him...
Click to expand...


Other way around numbnuts.  I've worked since 12. I'm retired and spending my time preventing conservatives from tearing down all that we built.  The difficulty is that conservatives are zombies.  Unthinking destroyers of progress,  set on making all of us the same. 

Won't happen on my watch.


----------



## emilynghiem

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> As PMZ has just provided more evidence for, the root of the problem is that some people (authoritarians of both parties) believe that liberty includes the right of an authority to take liberty away simply because the majority demands it. IOW they don't believe in liberty at all, but rather only believe in liberty for their group.  When their group is in the majority they rule as tyrants, and when not they scream tyranny.  Bring this up and they claim you are arguing for lawlessness.  Explain that liberty does not include the liberty to harm others, and they run away screaming and calling you names (exhibiting cognitive dissonance).
> 
> As your example provides above these folks are somewhat incapable of making the leap of understanding that in order that they should be free, they need to let others be free.  They can't get there, IMO, because of cognitive dissonance, and/or a fear of loosing their power (authority) over others.   Fear of the unknown.  Fear is the mind killer. (Frank Herbert.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives love to use the word "liberty"  as a stand in for irresponsibility.  It sounds so noble.
> 
> But animals live with an abundance of liberty and zero responsibility other than survival.  Can't we just live like animals?
> 
> Of course we can and have but left it behind when we found things that work much better.
> 
> Now conservatives want to return to those thrilling days of yesteryear and go back to the caves.  Or at least they want others to.
> 
> For themselves though they can't get along any more without their fashionable and comfortable stuff.  Lavish stuff.  Abundant stuff.
> 
> So they'll keep their mcmansions and the 99% can have the caves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See [MENTION=22295]emilynghiem[/MENTION], as I said, bring up liberty and they claim you are arguing for lawlessness.
Click to expand...


Hi PMZ and RKMBrown:
Wow! PMZ this sounds like when conservatives argue that the "prochoice" advocates want freedom with no responsibility!

Do you agree with that PMZ? That prochoice means not wanting responsibility?
Not caring if women get maimed abused or killed by botched abortionists?
So as long as WE GET WHAT WE WANT from the law, too bad if other people get hurt?

No, I don't think so. I am guessing if you are prochoice like me, that's not the same as wanting to push pro-abortion irreponsibly "just because we don't want govt to criminalize abortion". That's not the same, and I hope you are with me on this.


----------



## emilynghiem

PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you really consider your GED an education?  I guess compared to most Conservatives, maybe so.  But to be a conservative no education is required.  Just watch,  listen and repeat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Says the man who can't hold a job so he wants communism so the government will force conservatives to pay for him...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Other way around numbnuts.  I've worked since 12. I'm retired and spending my time preventing conservatives from tearing down all that we built.  The difficulty is that conservatives are zombies.  Unthinking destroyers of progress,  set on making all of us the same.
> 
> Won't happen on my watch.
Click to expand...


Hi PMZ I relate to you on this note.

I've been working two jobs since 2008, using my salary to pay on credit card debts I lent to nonprofits almost destroyed by Democrat corruption and abuses in two Black districts in Houston.

You can blame either the Democrats directly or the Republicans indirectly for why we're not getting help to solve these problems, and nonprofit volunteers are having to do all the work.

The Democrats pimp the community and churches for their votes and money to run for  office, but won't go against developers gutting these communities at taxpayers expense. So they blame the poor for welfare when the tax money is actually going to the wealthy to take over the land.

So that is one lie.

The other is that it is the Democrat politicians who are selling out the poor to developers to  run, get, and keep their offices. 

So blaming this on Republicans is a lie.

Both sides only point out what is convenient for their arguments.

First it is the Democrats pimping their own people especially poor Blacks.
Secondly the Republicans who "claim" to support charter schools, vouchers, and independent business solutions taking back control from govt WON'T step in and help invest in solutions that would end this nightmare.

They only complain and blame Democrats for political points, but won't fix it.
Instead they pimp THAT problem to run for office also.

So it is like the days of slavery all over again.

The Blacks enslaved other Blacks first.
Then sold them to the Whites a second time.

Here, the Democrats pimp their own poor supporters for votes and money to campaign.
And then the Republicans pimp that problem to get their money and candidates in office.

In the meantime the volunteers working two jobs each like slaves to fix the problems caused by this govt and political abuse get no help because all the money is going into political campaigns blaming the other party. 

PMZ I hope you see both sides and not just one.

We are being pimped twice, while the two pimps argue and blame the other.

House slaves vs. Field slaves = poor vs rich = pitting Democrats against Republicans

In the meantime we are all slaves to political hijacking of government as long as
we stay divided wasting resources "blaming the other party"

40% tax rate going to govt while we only keep 60%
means 2/5 slave and 3/5 free. so we are slaves to govt,
while the politics keeps us divided as house slave vs field slave
so we never unite and overthrow the corruption on both sides!


----------



## PMZ

emilynghiem said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives love to use the word "liberty"  as a stand in for irresponsibility.  It sounds so noble.
> 
> But animals live with an abundance of liberty and zero responsibility other than survival.  Can't we just live like animals?
> 
> Of course we can and have but left it behind when we found things that work much better.
> 
> Now conservatives want to return to those thrilling days of yesteryear and go back to the caves.  Or at least they want others to.
> 
> For themselves though they can't get along any more without their fashionable and comfortable stuff.  Lavish stuff.  Abundant stuff.
> 
> So they'll keep their mcmansions and the 99% can have the caves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See [MENTION=22295]emilynghiem[/MENTION], as I said, bring up liberty and they claim you are arguing for lawlessness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hi PMZ and RKMBrown:
> Wow! PMZ this sounds like when conservatives argue that the "prochoice" advocates want freedom with no responsibility!
> 
> Do you agree with that PMZ? That prochoice means not wanting responsibility?
> Not caring if women get maimed abused or killed by botched abortionists?
> So as long as WE GET WHAT WE WANT from the law, too bad if other people get hurt?
> 
> No, I don't think so. I am guessing if you are prochoice like me, that's not the same as wanting to push pro-abortion irreponsibly "just because we don't want govt to criminalize abortion". That's not the same, and I hope you are with me on this.
Click to expand...


I think that if men, including priests, as minor stakeholders in this issue,  got out of the way,  women would unanimously decide pro choice. 

I'd support their decision based on practical terms.


----------



## PMZ

emilynghiem said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Says the man who can't hold a job so he wants communism so the government will force conservatives to pay for him...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Other way around numbnuts.  I've worked since 12. I'm retired and spending my time preventing conservatives from tearing down all that we built.  The difficulty is that conservatives are zombies.  Unthinking destroyers of progress,  set on making all of us the same.
> 
> Won't happen on my watch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hi PMZ I relate to you on this note.
> 
> I've been working two jobs since 2008, using my salary to pay on credit card debts I lent to nonprofits almost destroyed by Democrat corruption and abuses in two Black districts in Houston.
> 
> You can blame either the Democrats directly or the Republicans indirectly for why we're not getting help to solve these problems, and nonprofit volunteers are having to do all the work.
> 
> The Democrats pimp the community and churches for their votes and money to run for  office, but won't go against developers gutting these communities at taxpayers expense. So they blame the poor for welfare when the tax money is actually going to the wealthy to take over the land.
> 
> So that is one lie.
> 
> The other is that it is the Democrat politicians who are selling out the poor to developers to  run, get, and keep their offices.
> 
> So blaming this on Republicans is a lie.
> 
> Both sides only point out what is convenient for their arguments.
> 
> First it is the Democrats pimping their own people especially poor Blacks.
> Secondly the Republicans who "claim" to support charter schools, vouchers, and independent business solutions taking back control from govt WON'T step in and help invest in solutions that would end this nightmare.
> 
> They only complain and blame Democrats for political points, but won't fix it.
> Instead they pimp THAT problem to run for office also.
> 
> So it is like the days of slavery all over again.
> 
> The Blacks enslaved other Blacks first.
> Then sold them to the Whites a second time.
> 
> Here, the Democrats pimp their own poor supporters for votes and money to campaign.
> And then the Republicans pimp that problem to get their money and candidates in office.
> 
> In the meantime the volunteers working two jobs each like slaves to fix the problems caused by this govt and political abuse get no help because all the money is going into political campaigns blaming the other party.
> 
> PMZ I hope you see both sides and not just one.
> 
> We are being pimped twice, while the two pimps argue and blame the other.
> 
> House slaves vs. Field slaves = poor vs rich = pitting Democrats against Republicans
> 
> In the meantime we are all slaves to political hijacking of government as long as
> we stay divided wasting resources "blaming the other party"
> 
> 40% tax rate going to govt while we only keep 60%
> means 2/5 slave and 3/5 free. so we are slaves to govt,
> while the politics keeps us divided as house slave vs field slave
> so we never unite and overthrow the corruption on both sides!
Click to expand...


Well thought out and conducted research has been aimed at exactly the issues that you are very rightfully concerned about.  

Intuitively, most people fix the blame for those problems on poverty.  Conservatives fix the blame on lack of work ethic caused by welfare. 

But research finds no correlation there,  but,  instead, with extreme wealth distribution.  In other words poverty is quite tolerable when everybody suffers.  What's intolerable is poverty in the midst of plenty. Most of the social ills that we see grow as the Gini Coefficient declines (a measure of more extreme wealth distribution). 

That all says that the problem is hard to solve.  The combination of welfare and progressive taxes is a step in the right direction but not a very effective step by observation of today's results.  

Got any good ideas?


----------



## Spoonman

so this week already i have heard from 3 business associates who have had their healthcare cancelled.  Two were never able to access the system and get information online. The on I spoke to this morning finally got his options via phone.  his previous plan was $500 a month with a $5000 deductable.  the best he could get now was $750 a month with a $6200 deductable.   I'm sure glad we reformed the healthcare industry


----------



## PMZ

Spoonman said:


> so this week already i have heard from 3 business associates who have had their healthcare cancelled.  Two were never able to access the system and get information online. The on I spoke to this morning finally got his options via phone.  his previous plan was $500 a month with a $5000 deductable.  the best he could get now was $750 a month with a $6200 deductable.   I'm sure glad we reformed the healthcare industry



How many years have you not had to "renew",  in other words agree to a new policy?  I never have not had to.

Keep in mind that insurance companies are businesses following the one rule of business.  Make more money regardless of the cost to others.


----------



## emilynghiem

PMZ said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> See [MENTION=22295]emilynghiem[/MENTION], as I said, bring up liberty and they claim you are arguing for lawlessness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi PMZ and RKMBrown:
> Wow! PMZ this sounds like when conservatives argue that the "prochoice" advocates want freedom with no responsibility!
> 
> Do you agree with that PMZ? That prochoice means not wanting responsibility?
> Not caring if women get maimed abused or killed by botched abortionists?
> So as long as WE GET WHAT WE WANT from the law, too bad if other people get hurt?
> 
> No, I don't think so. I am guessing if you are prochoice like me, that's not the same as wanting to push pro-abortion irreponsibly "just because we don't want govt to criminalize abortion". That's not the same, and I hope you are with me on this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think that if men, including priests, as minor stakeholders in this issue,  got out of the way,  women would unanimously decide pro choice.
> 
> I'd support their decision based on practical terms.
Click to expand...


I agree with you that uniting the women will lead to solving this problem that will continue affecting women more than men until we fix it ourselves. 

I also believe the same solutions will solve the conflicts over ACA which has become a bullying game between parties and men who don't want to back down.

Do you see the same solutions and unity solving one problem as the key to the other?

Wouldn't the same solutions of investing resources directly into better services, and preventing poverty/abuse/crime/disease to cut the costs to taxpayers overall, end up serving more of the population and provide better choices instead of trying to impose these politically?


----------



## PMZ

emilynghiem said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi PMZ and RKMBrown:
> Wow! PMZ this sounds like when conservatives argue that the "prochoice" advocates want freedom with no responsibility!
> 
> Do you agree with that PMZ? That prochoice means not wanting responsibility?
> Not caring if women get maimed abused or killed by botched abortionists?
> So as long as WE GET WHAT WE WANT from the law, too bad if other people get hurt?
> 
> No, I don't think so. I am guessing if you are prochoice like me, that's not the same as wanting to push pro-abortion irreponsibly "just because we don't want govt to criminalize abortion". That's not the same, and I hope you are with me on this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that if men, including priests, as minor stakeholders in this issue,  got out of the way,  women would unanimously decide pro choice.
> 
> I'd support their decision based on practical terms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree with you that uniting the women will lead to solving this problem that will continue affecting women more than men until we fix it ourselves.
> 
> I also believe the same solutions will solve the conflicts over ACA which has become a bullying game between parties and men who don't want to back down.
> 
> Do you see the same solutions and unity solving one problem as the key to the other?
> 
> Wouldn't the same solutions of investing resources directly into better services, and preventing poverty/abuse/crime/disease to cut the costs to taxpayers overall, end up serving more of the population and provide better choices instead of trying to impose these politically?
Click to expand...


According to the research, being poor among way more than plenty is the problem. 

It's a business problem more than a government problem but very difficult nonetheless. 

If there was a living wage job for  everyone, the problems would go away in time. 

Of course there always has been and always will be criminals but most people would take the security of a job rather than the insecurity of poverty. 

Is full employment possible?  

I don't know,  given that we've moved to a global economy.  It's certainly much harder to achieve now. 

I see that what's going on here and now is probably about the best that we can practically do,  but progress will be slow.  

Over the next 100 years energy will become what limits progress. And AGW will become a very costly consequence of that slow progress.  Much upcoming trauma could have been mitigated but we chose not to.


----------



## emilynghiem

PMZ said:


> Well thought out and conducted research has been aimed at exactly the issues that you are very rightfully concerned about.
> 
> Intuitively, most people fix the blame for those problems on poverty.  Conservatives fix the blame on lack of work ethic caused by welfare.
> 
> But research finds no correlation there,  but,  instead, with extreme wealth distribution.  In other words poverty is quite tolerable when everybody suffers.  What's intolerable is poverty in the midst of plenty. Most of the social ills that we see grow as the Gini Coefficient declines (a measure of more extreme wealth distribution).
> 
> That all says that the problem is hard to solve.  The combination of welfare and progressive taxes is a step in the right direction but not a very effective step by observation of today's results.
> 
> Got any good ideas?



Very well said! I admire and respect your ability to summarize a lot in precise points.

Yes. I have compiled the best solutions I found from different sources. And combined them in a "campus model" for breaking the cycle of poverty by teaching sustainable income and business skills.

A. the major difference in mentality between the "rich and poor" is the abundance mentality vs scarcity mentality. It makes the difference between owning property and investing in business to serve others vs. renting and depending on others for housing/jobs. 

B. So the plan is to set up campuses to mentor people to grow from renting themselves, to owning to renting to others. This can include not only residential (from houses to apts) but also business management (from small business to larger complexes or conglomerates)

EX: Lifestyles Unlimited teaches and mentors individual investors in forming LLC groups to start with houses and move up to apt complexes so they generate their own income passively and can retire without depending on 401K or govt: Real Estate Investing Education and Mentoring | Lifestyles Unlimited

C. This can be tied to govt based on the model developed by residents of the public housing in the historic district of Freedmen's Town http://www.houstonprogressive.org/campus94.html

Also, by teaching this model to Vets, they can be mentored in teams to own and manage their own Vet housing and health programs WITHOUT depending on govt or charity:
Freedmen's Town Historic Churches and Vet Housing

D. Other things I added to this
1. Restitution for crimes or abuses by govt/corporations etc. to pay back taxpayers
using these models to reform immigration issues and prisons that are costing taxpayers,
and collecting restitution from wrongdoers to fund these programs to correct problems

Earned Amnesty

2. Since there is a time gap between jobs and reforms needed NOW, the taxes we already paid in the past, and the time it will take to collect restitution back from the wrongdoers,
using this model of independent currency to issue notes against debts and damages
to taxpayers, to microlend into financing solutions, and holding wrongdoers to pay off notes
Ithaca Hours - Local Currency - Ithaca, New York or Home
Paul Glover of the Greens who mentors communities to manage their own currency
already supports this idea of using it for govt restitution owed to taxpayers. We can
use that to fund health care reforms as well as other prison/immigration reforms,
just based on the corrupt war spending alone that was in the millions if not billions.

3. For the foreign debts owed to China we can translate those into credits toward development work that China needs to convert slave labor factories into schools/hospitals
so that medical care and other social services are provided through educational facilities, workstudy jobs or internships etc

music video for Sustainable Campus converting sweatshop labor to workstudy jobs

4. Government internships and training leaders for office or jobs

By investing CAMPAIGN funds directly into setting up such housing/business coops, then candidates or interns can gain work experience and/or educational credits for their resume. instead of paying for empty campaign promises and millions for media bashing,
that money can go directly into solutions and jobs for candidates to develop/demonstrate real life leadership skills in project management, govt/business administration, finance etc.


----------



## emilynghiem

PMZ said:
			
		

> RE: Is full employment possible?



Yes, if we quit wasting billions on prisons and use those resources and facilities to set up schools and teaching hospitals to serve the public at the same cost we already pay now in taxes.
Exception would be for ill or disabled people, but their care can be included in the training of medical or social service interns who earn their education by serving the poor and low income.

The above campus model can be applied to convert prisons and slave labor factories into schools
where workers can start with work-study wages at maybe 5 an hour or barter for room/board if they owe for past crimes and paying off restitution.
And they work themselves up depending on what course credits or work credits they have earned towards either restitution or their education etc.

If this is overseen by legitimate church and nonprofits and the security is done by govt/military, then the church/state can work together to
make sure there are no abuses of workers or prisoners.

So even if people are not at a skills or educational level of being independent,
they can be enrolled in some kind of school program while they work themselves up the scale.

In the meantime, if Vets have jobs patrolling areas such as around the border while they manage
teams of 10 houses with workers/students, then this is training the people to manage small business communities in a campus setting.
Even if groups of 10 or 20 students are dependent on being supervised while they live in dorms while working and training,
the people managing them are receiving training also, to set up and run their own business communities and replicate the model.

This can develop self-governing city-states along the border and replace high crime areas of poverty and abuse.
And training real community management will allow more people to run for office with hands on experience.
More minorities can access training and develop skills in self-government, rather than only candidates winning office who can collect millions of campaign money from corporate interests.


----------



## Spoonman

PMZ said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> so this week already i have heard from 3 business associates who have had their healthcare cancelled.  Two were never able to access the system and get information online. The on I spoke to this morning finally got his options via phone.  his previous plan was $500 a month with a $5000 deductable.  the best he could get now was $750 a month with a $6200 deductable.   I'm sure glad we reformed the healthcare industry
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many years have you not had to "renew",  in other words agree to a new policy?  I never have not had to.
> 
> Keep in mind that insurance companies are businesses following the one rule of business.  Make more money regardless of the cost to others.
Click to expand...


all i do is elect participants in my plan.  other then that i don't do anything else


----------



## PMZ

emilynghiem said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well thought out and conducted research has been aimed at exactly the issues that you are very rightfully concerned about.
> 
> Intuitively, most people fix the blame for those problems on poverty.  Conservatives fix the blame on lack of work ethic caused by welfare.
> 
> But research finds no correlation there,  but,  instead, with extreme wealth distribution.  In other words poverty is quite tolerable when everybody suffers.  What's intolerable is poverty in the midst of plenty. Most of the social ills that we see grow as the Gini Coefficient declines (a measure of more extreme wealth distribution).
> 
> That all says that the problem is hard to solve.  The combination of welfare and progressive taxes is a step in the right direction but not a very effective step by observation of today's results.
> 
> Got any good ideas?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Very well said! I admire and respect your ability to summarize a lot in precise points.
> 
> Yes. I have compiled the best solutions I found from different sources. And combined them in a "campus model" for breaking the cycle of poverty by teaching sustainable income and business skills.
> 
> A. the major difference in mentality between the "rich and poor" is the abundance mentality vs scarcity mentality. It makes the difference between owning property and investing in business to serve others vs. renting and depending on others for housing/jobs.
> 
> B. So the plan is to set up campuses to mentor people to grow from renting themselves, to owning to renting to others. This can include not only residential (from houses to apts) but also business management (from small business to larger complexes or conglomerates)
> 
> EX: Lifestyles Unlimited teaches and mentors individual investors in forming LLC groups to start with houses and move up to apt complexes so they generate their own income passively and can retire without depending on 401K or govt: Real Estate Investing Education and Mentoring | Lifestyles Unlimited
> 
> C. This can be tied to govt based on the model developed by residents of the public housing in the historic district of Freedmen's Town http://www.houstonprogressive.org/campus94.html
> 
> Also, by teaching this model to Vets, they can be mentored in teams to own and manage their own Vet housing and health programs WITHOUT depending on govt or charity:
> Freedmen's Town Historic Churches and Vet Housing
> 
> D. Other things I added to this
> 1. Restitution for crimes or abuses by govt/corporations etc. to pay back taxpayers
> using these models to reform immigration issues and prisons that are costing taxpayers,
> and collecting restitution from wrongdoers to fund these programs to correct problems
> 
> Earned Amnesty
> 
> 2. Since there is a time gap between jobs and reforms needed NOW, the taxes we already paid in the past, and the time it will take to collect restitution back from the wrongdoers,
> using this model of independent currency to issue notes against debts and damages
> to taxpayers, to microlend into financing solutions, and holding wrongdoers to pay off notes
> Ithaca Hours - Local Currency - Ithaca, New York or Home
> Paul Glover of the Greens who mentors communities to manage their own currency
> already supports this idea of using it for govt restitution owed to taxpayers. We can
> use that to fund health care reforms as well as other prison/immigration reforms,
> just based on the corrupt war spending alone that was in the millions if not billions.
> 
> 3. For the foreign debts owed to China we can translate those into credits toward development work that China needs to convert slave labor factories into schools/hospitals
> so that medical care and other social services are provided through educational facilities, workstudy jobs or internships etc
> 
> music video for Sustainable Campus converting sweatshop labor to workstudy jobs
> 
> 4. Government internships and training leaders for office or jobs
> 
> By investing CAMPAIGN funds directly into setting up such housing/business coops, then candidates or interns can gain work experience and/or educational credits for their resume. instead of paying for empty campaign promises and millions for media bashing,
> that money can go directly into solutions and jobs for candidates to develop/demonstrate real life leadership skills in project management, govt/business administration, finance etc.
Click to expand...


Very ambitious and well thought out program. 

I think that moving people from renting to owning their residence will be real progress in suburban and rural neighborhoods but cities right now are full of deteriorating multiple residential units.  Moving up from renting one unit to owning a multiple unit building is quite a jump. Maybe some sort of cooperative ownership like condos. 

I personally don't think that we need more business owners.  I think that we need better business owners focused on growth that benefits everyone instead of looting the workers just because they can get away with it.  

Our past is full of such people and we need to better our education system so that our future will be equally fortunate. 

We also need to rethink business from the standpoint of global competition and global markets. There needs to be collaboration between countries in place of competition (either you or I win,  not both). I think that organized religion is the biggest obstacle to this but hopefully that will continue to decline.


----------



## Spoonman

PMZ said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well thought out and conducted research has been aimed at exactly the issues that you are very rightfully concerned about.
> 
> Intuitively, most people fix the blame for those problems on poverty.  Conservatives fix the blame on lack of work ethic caused by welfare.
> 
> But research finds no correlation there,  but,  instead, with extreme wealth distribution.  In other words poverty is quite tolerable when everybody suffers.  What's intolerable is poverty in the midst of plenty. Most of the social ills that we see grow as the Gini Coefficient declines (a measure of more extreme wealth distribution).
> 
> That all says that the problem is hard to solve.  The combination of welfare and progressive taxes is a step in the right direction but not a very effective step by observation of today's results.
> 
> Got any good ideas?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Very well said! I admire and respect your ability to summarize a lot in precise points.
> 
> Yes. I have compiled the best solutions I found from different sources. And combined them in a "campus model" for breaking the cycle of poverty by teaching sustainable income and business skills.
> 
> A. the major difference in mentality between the "rich and poor" is the abundance mentality vs scarcity mentality. It makes the difference between owning property and investing in business to serve others vs. renting and depending on others for housing/jobs.
> 
> B. So the plan is to set up campuses to mentor people to grow from renting themselves, to owning to renting to others. This can include not only residential (from houses to apts) but also business management (from small business to larger complexes or conglomerates)
> 
> EX: Lifestyles Unlimited teaches and mentors individual investors in forming LLC groups to start with houses and move up to apt complexes so they generate their own income passively and can retire without depending on 401K or govt: Real Estate Investing Education and Mentoring | Lifestyles Unlimited
> 
> C. This can be tied to govt based on the model developed by residents of the public housing in the historic district of Freedmen's Town http://www.houstonprogressive.org
> 
> Also, by teaching this model to Vets, they can be mentored in teams to own and manage their own Vet housing and health programs WITHOUT depending on govt or charity:
> Freedmen's Town Historic Churches and Vet Housing
> 
> D. Other things I added to this
> 1. Restitution for crimes or abuses by govt/corporations etc. to pay back taxpayers
> using these models to reform immigration issues and prisons that are costing taxpayers,
> and collecting restitution from wrongdoers to fund these programs to correct problems
> 
> Earned Amnesty
> 
> 2. Since there is a time gap between jobs and reforms needed NOW, the taxes we already paid in the past, and the time it will take to collect restitution back from the wrongdoers,
> using this model of independent currency to issue notes against debts and damages
> to taxpayers, to microlend into financing solutions, and holding wrongdoers to pay off notes
> Ithaca Hours - Local Currency - Ithaca, New York or Home
> Paul Glover of the Greens who mentors communities to manage their own currency
> already supports this idea of using it for govt restitution owed to taxpayers. We can
> use that to fund health care reforms as well as other prison/immigration reforms,
> just based on the corrupt war spending alone that was in the millions if not billions.
> 
> 3. For the foreign debts owed to China we can translate those into credits toward development work that China needs to convert slave labor factories into schools/hospitals
> so that medical care and other social services are provided through educational facilities, workstudy jobs or internships etc
> 
> music video for Sustainable Campus converting sweatshop labor to workstudy jobs
> 
> 4. Government internships and training leaders for office or jobs
> 
> By investing CAMPAIGN funds directly into setting up such housing/business coops, then candidates or interns can gain work experience and/or educational credits for their resume. instead of paying for empty campaign promises and millions for media bashing,
> that money can go directly into solutions and jobs for candidates to develop/demonstrate real life leadership skills in project management, govt/business administration, finance etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Very ambitious and well thought out program.
> 
> I think that moving people from renting to owning their residence will be real progress in suburban and rural neighborhoods but cities right now are full of deteriorating multiple residential units.  Moving up from renting one unit to owning a multiple unit building is quite a jump. Maybe some sort of cooperative ownership like condos.
> 
> I personally don't think that we need more business owners.  I think that we need better business owners focused on growth that benefits everyone instead of looting the workers just because they can get away with it.
> 
> Our past is full of such people and we need to better our education system so that our future will be equally fortunate.
> 
> We also need to rethink business from the standpoint of global competition and global markets. There needs to be collaboration between countries in place of competition (either you or I win,  not both). I think that organized religion is the biggest obstacle to this but hopefully that will continue to decline.
Click to expand...


oh yea, religion is the problem    the first things dictators do to gain total control is destroy organized religion, disarm the public, and turn neighbor against neighbor through a fear and rewards approach.


----------



## PMZ

emilynghiem said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RE: Is full employment possible?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, if we quit wasting billions on prisons and use those resources and facilities to set up schools and teaching hospitals to serve the public at the same cost we already pay now in taxes.
> Exception would be for ill or disabled people, but their care can be included in the training of medical or social service interns who earn their education by serving the poor and low income.
> 
> The above campus model can be applied to convert prisons and slave labor factories into schools
> where workers can start with work-study wages at maybe 5 an hour or barter for room/board if they owe for past crimes and paying off restitution.
> And they work themselves up depending on what course credits or work credits they have earned towards either restitution or their education etc.
> 
> If this is overseen by legitimate church and nonprofits and the security is done by govt/military, then the church/state can work together to
> make sure there are no abuses of workers or prisoners.
> 
> So even if people are not at a skills or educational level of being independent,
> they can be enrolled in some kind of school program while they work themselves up the scale.
> 
> In the meantime, if Vets have jobs patrolling areas such as around the border while they manage
> teams of 10 houses with workers/students, then this is training the people to manage small business communities in a campus setting.
> Even if groups of 10 or 20 students are dependent on being supervised while they live in dorms while working and training,
> the people managing them are receiving training also, to set up and run their own business communities and replicate the model.
> 
> This can develop self-governing city-states along the border and replace high crime areas of poverty and abuse.
> And training real community management will allow more people to run for office with hands on experience.
> More minorities can access training and develop skills in self-government, rather than only candidates winning office who can collect millions of campaign money from corporate interests.
Click to expand...


Just curious.  Are your ideas modeled after Israel? 

I've never been there but it seems like a similar culture to your vision.


----------



## PMZ

Spoonman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very well said! I admire and respect your ability to summarize a lot in precise points.
> 
> Yes. I have compiled the best solutions I found from different sources. And combined them in a "campus model" for breaking the cycle of poverty by teaching sustainable income and business skills.
> 
> A. the major difference in mentality between the "rich and poor" is the abundance mentality vs scarcity mentality. It makes the difference between owning property and investing in business to serve others vs. renting and depending on others for housing/jobs.
> 
> B. So the plan is to set up campuses to mentor people to grow from renting themselves, to owning to renting to others. This can include not only residential (from houses to apts) but also business management (from small business to larger complexes or conglomerates)
> 
> EX: Lifestyles Unlimited teaches and mentors individual investors in forming LLC groups to start with houses and move up to apt complexes so they generate their own income passively and can retire without depending on 401K or govt: Real Estate Investing Education and Mentoring | Lifestyles Unlimited
> 
> C. This can be tied to govt based on the model developed by residents of the public housing in the historic district of Freedmen's Town http://www.houstonprogressive.org
> 
> Also, by teaching this model to Vets, they can be mentored in teams to own and manage their own Vet housing and health programs WITHOUT depending on govt or charity:
> Freedmen's Town Historic Churches and Vet Housing
> 
> D. Other things I added to this
> 1. Restitution for crimes or abuses by govt/corporations etc. to pay back taxpayers
> using these models to reform immigration issues and prisons that are costing taxpayers,
> and collecting restitution from wrongdoers to fund these programs to correct problems
> 
> Earned Amnesty
> 
> 2. Since there is a time gap between jobs and reforms needed NOW, the taxes we already paid in the past, and the time it will take to collect restitution back from the wrongdoers,
> using this model of independent currency to issue notes against debts and damages
> to taxpayers, to microlend into financing solutions, and holding wrongdoers to pay off notes
> Ithaca Hours - Local Currency - Ithaca, New York or Home
> Paul Glover of the Greens who mentors communities to manage their own currency
> already supports this idea of using it for govt restitution owed to taxpayers. We can
> use that to fund health care reforms as well as other prison/immigration reforms,
> just based on the corrupt war spending alone that was in the millions if not billions.
> 
> 3. For the foreign debts owed to China we can translate those into credits toward development work that China needs to convert slave labor factories into schools/hospitals
> so that medical care and other social services are provided through educational facilities, workstudy jobs or internships etc
> 
> music video for Sustainable Campus converting sweatshop labor to workstudy jobs
> 
> 4. Government internships and training leaders for office or jobs
> 
> By investing CAMPAIGN funds directly into setting up such housing/business coops, then candidates or interns can gain work experience and/or educational credits for their resume. instead of paying for empty campaign promises and millions for media bashing,
> that money can go directly into solutions and jobs for candidates to develop/demonstrate real life leadership skills in project management, govt/business administration, finance etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Very ambitious and well thought out program.
> 
> I think that moving people from renting to owning their residence will be real progress in suburban and rural neighborhoods but cities right now are full of deteriorating multiple residential units.  Moving up from renting one unit to owning a multiple unit building is quite a jump. Maybe some sort of cooperative ownership like condos.
> 
> I personally don't think that we need more business owners.  I think that we need better business owners focused on growth that benefits everyone instead of looting the workers just because they can get away with it.
> 
> Our past is full of such people and we need to better our education system so that our future will be equally fortunate.
> 
> We also need to rethink business from the standpoint of global competition and global markets. There needs to be collaboration between countries in place of competition (either you or I win,  not both). I think that organized religion is the biggest obstacle to this but hopefully that will continue to decline.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> oh yea, religion is the problem    the first things dictators do to gain total control is destroy organized religion, disarm the public, and turn neighbor against neighbor through a fear and rewards approach.
Click to expand...


There is only a few dictatorships left in the world,  the biggest being the Catholic Church. 

Actually what most fledgling dictatorships do is to arm their supporters. 

 Fox News is the best current best example of propaganda aimed at "turn neighbor against neighbor through a fear and rewards approach."


----------



## PMZ

PMZ said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very ambitious and well thought out program.
> 
> I think that moving people from renting to owning their residence will be real progress in suburban and rural neighborhoods but cities right now are full of deteriorating multiple residential units.  Moving up from renting one unit to owning a multiple unit building is quite a jump. Maybe some sort of cooperative ownership like condos.
> 
> I personally don't think that we need more business owners.  I think that we need better business owners focused on growth that benefits everyone instead of looting the workers just because they can get away with it.
> 
> Our past is full of such people and we need to better our education system so that our future will be equally fortunate.
> 
> We also need to rethink business from the standpoint of global competition and global markets. There needs to be collaboration between countries in place of competition (either you or I win,  not both). I think that organized religion is the biggest obstacle to this but hopefully that will continue to decline.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oh yea, religion is the problem    the first things dictators do to gain total control is destroy organized religion, disarm the public, and turn neighbor against neighbor through a fear and rewards approach.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are only a few dictatorships left in the world,  the biggest being the Catholic Church.
> 
> Actually what most fledgling dictatorships do is to arm their supporters.
> 
> Fox News is the best current best example of propaganda aimed at "turn neighbor against neighbor through a fear and rewards approach."
Click to expand...


----------



## Spoonman

PMZ said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> oh yea, religion is the problem    the first things dictators do to gain total control is destroy organized religion, disarm the public, and turn neighbor against neighbor through a fear and rewards approach.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are only a few dictatorships left in the world,  the biggest being the Catholic Church.
> 
> Actually what most fledgling dictatorships do is to arm their supporters.
> 
> Fox News is the best current best example of propaganda aimed at "turn neighbor against neighbor through a fear and rewards approach."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> remind me what country the catholic church is currently running
Click to expand...


----------



## PMZ

Spoonman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are only a few dictatorships left in the world,  the biggest being the Catholic Church.
> 
> Actually what most fledgling dictatorships do is to arm their supporters.
> 
> Fox News is the best current best example of propaganda aimed at "turn neighbor against neighbor through a fear and rewards approach."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> remind me what country the catholic church is currently running
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Catholic Church.
Click to expand...


----------



## PMZ

PMZ said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> remind me what country the catholic church is currently running
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Catholic Church.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From the country of Vatican City.
Click to expand...


----------



## emilynghiem

PMZ said:


> A.
> If you choose a behavior that interferes with my freedom by stealing my stuff,  killing me on purpose or by accident,  just as extreme examples,  society imposes on you unpleasant consequences.  Just like responsible parents teach children.
> 
> There are millions of those laws because people are very creative in thinking of ways to prey on their fellow humans.
> 
> One way that people in the past preyed on others is to avoid responsibility for the cost of their own health care.  They discovered that we as a society are adverse to them dying in the street so would pay for their health care when they needed.
> 
> B.
> A way that insurance companies preyed on people is to not do their job,  spreading risk,  by avoiding insuring anyone with a risk.  A pre existing condition.
> 
> Another predatory action is to employ someone full time without paying them a wage sufficient to live on.
> 
> In service to democracy, the ACA strives to eliminate these and other behaviors that deprive the majority of their right to the pursuit of happiness.
> 
> And it enhances competition in the health care insurance marketplace.
> As I said,  I had trouble understanding clearly enough your question.
> 
> Does this help?



OK let me try to address A and B

A1. If the point is to hold people responsible for paying for their health care, 
--> why not let them do so in the manner they choose instead of insurance only.

A2. Since dictating that insurance/govt only is "taking away" their freedom without any proof they committed a crime (ie collective punishment, punishing those who WERE paying for themselves and others as well, by assuming ALL people needed this penalty/mandate)
Then isn't the resulting OUTCRY the "unpleasant consequence" of violating rights and freedoms of lawabiding citizens without due process by removing their freedom by govt?

B. If the "insurance companies" are the ones at fault
then why punish the citizens by making us buy into and pay into this system?

this reminds me of when I was arguing about collective punishment and war.

The war against Iraq govt and terrorists ended up hurting the lawabiding citizens
and victims of these corrupt and abusive militants who hijacked their govt from them.

I don't believe in collective punishment, but *holding the actual wrongdoers responsible NOT punishing the victims!
* (ie by taking rights/freedoms away from the individuals due to the abuses of the wrongdoers)

Otherwise, it causes the protests and disruptions as in A. Because it is assuming and punishing citizens who did not commit the offenses along with the ones who did; and all people have the right to "due process" BEFORE having rights/freedoms taken away by govt.

Instead of allowing and rewarding other choices for "people to pay for their own health care" the only choices enforced were either (a). buy private insurance which isn't guaranteed to cover ALL costs or ALL people yet it is mandated by govt (b). pay fines/penalty to govt (c). belong to a qualifying religious organization since 1999

Because imposing this mandate violated the rights of citizens who did not consent to this "private business contract with insurance companies" forced by govt under penalty of law,
that is why we are seeing the outcries.

You can say that these people still have the right to petition and change the law.
But that is after the fact. It is still being imposed in the meantime. So we do not have equal rights or protections under the law. The people who consent to the contract have their interests represented; while the ones who do not are now forced to go through legal or legislative measures to "get their freedoms back". So this is not equal.

What would be equal is putting the ACA on hold until all sides agree, and are represented.

The main argument against this is that ALL laws should be done that way.
And yes, they should.

Only if people AGREE to majority rule making something law should that stand by consent.

If they did NOT agree but wanted to resolve conflicts first before passing a law,
then the law should not be enforced without first resolving those conflicts/objections first.

that WOULD be more consistent with equal protection of the laws / equal representation.
we have not been following the laws but were bypassing consent by majority rule.
And it has been escalating and escalating. Roe v Wade and gay marriage is another such issue that has never been resolved. Immigration and the death penalty. Now the ACA.

It doesn't make it right just because we violated the consent of the governed in the past.

We are down to admitting we need to stop drowning people as witches as a test of guilt, just because we did all the others that way.


----------



## Spoonman

PMZ said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Catholic Church.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From the country of Vatican City.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i knew you were a hack.  next
Click to expand...


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no idea what you're saying.
> 
> What's my solution?  Who do I owe? What shared solution? What am I dodging?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're pretending ACA enforces responsibility, that it ensures that we pay what we owe. How, exactly? It doesn't do anything to require that we pay our bills. It just forces us to buy insurance from government appointed vendors. Insurance is not health care. it's not responsbility. it is the opposite. Responsibility is accepting the consequences of your decisions. Insurance is avoiding the consequences of your decisions, paying for the privilege of having no responsibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you pay your health care premiums how many people's treatments were covered?  You have no idea. Yours certainly.  But how about the 25 year old who was so convinced he was immortal until the car accident.  The hospital didn't turn him away,  they fixed him and added his cost to yours.
> 
> Personal responsibility advocates would say it would be better if the 25 year old took responsibility for his health care costs.
> 
> And what's this "government appointed vendors"?
> 
> "Insurance is not health care. it's not responsbility. it is the opposite. Responsibility is accepting the consequences of your decisions."
> 
> WTF? When you pay insurance premiums the entire point is that the insurance company is being paid to spread risk.  You are paying a fixed premium that covers your costs be they lower,  average,  or unaffordable by you.
> 
> It's the most responsible thing.
Click to expand...


By your analogy if I don't have an insurance policy for my car and I crash it, the responsible thing is for me to get insurance after the fact so I can get my car repaired by the money other policy holders provide for me, thus only costing me pennies on the dollar to get my repair done.  You think that might piss other the other policy holders who thus end up having to pay twice as much for insurance so they can cover jerks that are uninsured and for whom the law forces the insurance companies to cover after the fact?  

Hmm... I'd say that's one helluva effed up system you got there. Sort of like having a system where everyone gets the same grade no matter what they do in life, you get an F.  Why F? Why can't I have an A?  Easy... (0+100)/2 = 50.  All we need is half of the people (democrats) to sit on their ass and do nothing thus forcing the people rowing to fail along with them.


----------



## emilynghiem

PMZ said:


> I am partisan in favor of progress for our country.  My experience is that the Republican Party has abandoned that,  simply because their inept performance has put them in survival mode,  and they've abandoned even the pretext of serving the country over serving the party.  I see the evidence of that as overwhelming.
> 
> I am a Republican.  They historically have had a very useful and functional perspective that was a great balance with the Democrat useful and functional perspective.
> 
> That was abandoned when the dixiecrats,  who have always been dysfunctional and anti-American,  left the Democratic Party over the issue of equal rights for everyone,  and joined the GOP.  Thats when they left useful politics behind,  and became anti-American.
> 
> Thats is not blind bias but observable fact for those unbiased.
> 
> There are many parties whose foundation leads them to be against American interests.  Communist for example.
> 
> I see no reason for those interested in our success to support either Communism or Republicanism.



PMZ this is wonderful! Part of the reform plans, to set up vet housing with home health interns, was written by another community leader I volunteer with who is a Republican. she would certainly appreciate more support to get her plans to national attention.

Can you please help? Please see pdf file for Vet Housing authored by Gladys House
Freedmen's Town Historic Churches and Vet Housing

May I email you or contact you about how we could work together?
And propose alternatives to ACA that opponents can fund voluntarily without conflict?

Thanks! Gladys could sure use help from fellow Republicans who understand the
issues in depth as you do. This is amazing, thank you for sharing in detail.


----------



## emilynghiem

PMZ said:


> WTF? When you pay insurance premiums the entire point is that the insurance company is being paid to spread risk.  You are paying a fixed premium that covers your costs be they lower,  average,  or unaffordable by you.
> 
> It's the most responsible thing.



Hi PMZ it's still not the federal govt's place to impose buying private insurance.

It is more responsible not to have sex if you can't afford the pregnancy or baby.

but it's not federal govt's place to impose laws penalizing you for having sex
"unless you show advance proof" you can pay for a baby if pregnancy occurs.

that would be the most responsible thing, but not govt's place to mandate.


----------



## Spoonman

can you imagine if the ACA had been launched by Bush.  the problems with the website. the number of people being dropped. the admission of his health care chief after the fact they knew 93 million people would lose their coverage. after they have been denying that all along.  the sticker shock.  the low participation.    

Do you think the liberals would have been bashing bush?   do you think the liberals would have been critical of a democratic congress trying to stop the plan?


----------



## dblack

emilynghiem said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> WTF? When you pay insurance premiums the entire point is that the insurance company is being paid to spread risk.  You are paying a fixed premium that covers your costs be they lower,  average,  or unaffordable by you.
> 
> It's the most responsible thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi PMZ it's still not the federal govt's place to impose buying private insurance.
> 
> It is more responsible not to have sex if you can't afford the pregnancy or baby.
> 
> but it's not federal govt's place to impose laws penalizing you for having sex
> "unless you show advance proof" you can pay for a baby if pregnancy occurs.
> 
> that would be the most responsible thing, but not govt's place to mandate.
Click to expand...


Exactly. Its disturbing just how much 'guilty-until-proven-innocent' presumptions are being adopted in government these days.


----------



## PMZ

emilynghiem said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> A.
> If you choose a behavior that interferes with my freedom by stealing my stuff,  killing me on purpose or by accident,  just as extreme examples,  society imposes on you unpleasant consequences.  Just like responsible parents teach children.
> 
> There are millions of those laws because people are very creative in thinking of ways to prey on their fellow humans.
> 
> One way that people in the past preyed on others is to avoid responsibility for the cost of their own health care.  They discovered that we as a society are adverse to them dying in the street so would pay for their health care when they needed.
> 
> B.
> A way that insurance companies preyed on people is to not do their job,  spreading risk,  by avoiding insuring anyone with a risk.  A pre existing condition.
> 
> Another predatory action is to employ someone full time without paying them a wage sufficient to live on.
> 
> In service to democracy, the ACA strives to eliminate these and other behaviors that deprive the majority of their right to the pursuit of happiness.
> 
> And it enhances competition in the health care insurance marketplace.
> As I said,  I had trouble understanding clearly enough your question.
> 
> Does this help?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK let me try to address A and B
> 
> A1. If the point is to hold people responsible for paying for their health care,
> --> why not let them do so in the manner they choose instead of insurance only.
> 
> A2. Since dictating that insurance/govt only is "taking away" their freedom without any proof they committed a crime (ie collective punishment, punishing those who WERE paying for themselves and others as well, by assuming ALL people needed this penalty/mandate)
> Then isn't the resulting OUTCRY the "unpleasant consequence" of violating rights and freedoms of lawabiding citizens without due process by removing their freedom by govt?
> 
> B. If the "insurance companies" are the ones at fault
> then why punish the citizens by making us buy into and pay into this system?
> 
> this reminds me of when I was arguing about collective punishment and war.
> 
> The war against Iraq govt and terrorists ended up hurting the lawabiding citizens
> and victims of these corrupt and abusive militants who hijacked their govt from them.
> 
> I don't believe in collective punishment, but *holding the actual wrongdoers responsible NOT punishing the victims!
> * (ie by taking rights/freedoms away from the individuals due to the abuses of the wrongdoers)
> 
> Otherwise, it causes the protests and disruptions as in A. Because it is assuming and punishing citizens who did not commit the offenses along with the ones who did; and all people have the right to "due process" BEFORE having rights/freedoms taken away by govt.
> 
> Instead of allowing and rewarding other choices for "people to pay for their own health care" the only choices enforced were either (a). buy private insurance which isn't guaranteed to cover ALL costs or ALL people yet it is mandated by govt (b). pay fines/penalty to govt (c). belong to a qualifying religious organization since 1999
> 
> Because imposing this mandate violated the rights of citizens who did not consent to this "private business contract with insurance companies" forced by govt under penalty of law,
> that is why we are seeing the outcries.
> 
> You can say that these people still have the right to petition and change the law.
> But that is after the fact. It is still being imposed in the meantime. So we do not have equal rights or protections under the law. The people who consent to the contract have their interests represented; while the ones who do not are now forced to go through legal or legislative measures to "get their freedoms back". So this is not equal.
> 
> What would be equal is putting the ACA on hold until all sides agree, and are represented.
> 
> The main argument against this is that ALL laws should be done that way.
> And yes, they should.
> 
> Only if people AGREE to majority rule making something law should that stand by consent.
> 
> If they did NOT agree but wanted to resolve conflicts first before passing a law,
> then the law should not be enforced without first resolving those conflicts/objections first.
> 
> that WOULD be more consistent with equal protection of the laws / equal representation.
> we have not been following the laws but were bypassing consent by majority rule.
> And it has been escalating and escalating. Roe v Wade and gay marriage is another such issue that has never been resolved. Immigration and the death penalty. Now the ACA.
> 
> It doesn't make it right just because we violated the consent of the governed in the past.
> 
> We are down to admitting we need to stop drowning people as witches as a test of guilt, just because we did all the others that way.
Click to expand...


We insist on drivers having liability insurance so they can't impose the consequences of their irresponsibility on others don't we? 

Every single law ever passed imposes responsibility on those who would impose their irresponsibility on others,  given the chance. If they continue to choose irresponsibility,  the law imposes consequences. 

You people act like Obamacare is the first law ever passed.  

Freedom from responsibility is only allowing the irresponsible to prey on the responsible.  It lowers the freedom of the majority in service of a minority.  

This is like a civics 101 class.  Didn't you people go to school?


----------



## PMZ

Spoonman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> From the country of Vatican City.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i knew you were a hack.  next
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Learning is hard,  isn't it.
Click to expand...


----------



## dblack

PMZ said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> A.
> If you choose a behavior that interferes with my freedom by stealing my stuff,  killing me on purpose or by accident,  just as extreme examples,  society imposes on you unpleasant consequences.  Just like responsible parents teach children.
> 
> There are millions of those laws because people are very creative in thinking of ways to prey on their fellow humans.
> 
> One way that people in the past preyed on others is to avoid responsibility for the cost of their own health care.  They discovered that we as a society are adverse to them dying in the street so would pay for their health care when they needed.
> 
> B.
> A way that insurance companies preyed on people is to not do their job,  spreading risk,  by avoiding insuring anyone with a risk.  A pre existing condition.
> 
> Another predatory action is to employ someone full time without paying them a wage sufficient to live on.
> 
> In service to democracy, the ACA strives to eliminate these and other behaviors that deprive the majority of their right to the pursuit of happiness.
> 
> And it enhances competition in the health care insurance marketplace.
> As I said,  I had trouble understanding clearly enough your question.
> 
> Does this help?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK let me try to address A and B
> 
> A1. If the point is to hold people responsible for paying for their health care,
> --> why not let them do so in the manner they choose instead of insurance only.
> 
> A2. Since dictating that insurance/govt only is "taking away" their freedom without any proof they committed a crime (ie collective punishment, punishing those who WERE paying for themselves and others as well, by assuming ALL people needed this penalty/mandate)
> Then isn't the resulting OUTCRY the "unpleasant consequence" of violating rights and freedoms of lawabiding citizens without due process by removing their freedom by govt?
> 
> B. If the "insurance companies" are the ones at fault
> then why punish the citizens by making us buy into and pay into this system?
> 
> this reminds me of when I was arguing about collective punishment and war.
> 
> The war against Iraq govt and terrorists ended up hurting the lawabiding citizens
> and victims of these corrupt and abusive militants who hijacked their govt from them.
> 
> I don't believe in collective punishment, but *holding the actual wrongdoers responsible NOT punishing the victims!
> * (ie by taking rights/freedoms away from the individuals due to the abuses of the wrongdoers)
> 
> Otherwise, it causes the protests and disruptions as in A. Because it is assuming and punishing citizens who did not commit the offenses along with the ones who did; and all people have the right to "due process" BEFORE having rights/freedoms taken away by govt.
> 
> Instead of allowing and rewarding other choices for "people to pay for their own health care" the only choices enforced were either (a). buy private insurance which isn't guaranteed to cover ALL costs or ALL people yet it is mandated by govt (b). pay fines/penalty to govt (c). belong to a qualifying religious organization since 1999
> 
> Because imposing this mandate violated the rights of citizens who did not consent to this "private business contract with insurance companies" forced by govt under penalty of law,
> that is why we are seeing the outcries.
> 
> You can say that these people still have the right to petition and change the law.
> But that is after the fact. It is still being imposed in the meantime. So we do not have equal rights or protections under the law. The people who consent to the contract have their interests represented; while the ones who do not are now forced to go through legal or legislative measures to "get their freedoms back". So this is not equal.
> 
> What would be equal is putting the ACA on hold until all sides agree, and are represented.
> 
> The main argument against this is that ALL laws should be done that way.
> And yes, they should.
> 
> Only if people AGREE to majority rule making something law should that stand by consent.
> 
> If they did NOT agree but wanted to resolve conflicts first before passing a law,
> then the law should not be enforced without first resolving those conflicts/objections first.
> 
> that WOULD be more consistent with equal protection of the laws / equal representation.
> we have not been following the laws but were bypassing consent by majority rule.
> And it has been escalating and escalating. Roe v Wade and gay marriage is another such issue that has never been resolved. Immigration and the death penalty. Now the ACA.
> 
> It doesn't make it right just because we violated the consent of the governed in the past.
> 
> We are down to admitting we need to stop drowning people as witches as a test of guilt, just because we did all the others that way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We insist on drivers having liability insurance so they can't impose the consequences of their irresponsibility on others don't we?
Click to expand...


That's wrong as well. For the same reasons.



> Every single law ever passed imposes responsibility on those who would impose their irresponsibility on others,  given the chance. If they continue to choose irresponsibility,  the law imposes consequences.



Not having someone else's idea of 'adequate' insurance coverage doesn't impose anything on anyone. Racking up bills and not paying them does. You're working on the assumption those are equivalent, but they aren't.


----------



## PMZ

emilynghiem said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> WTF? When you pay insurance premiums the entire point is that the insurance company is being paid to spread risk.  You are paying a fixed premium that covers your costs be they lower,  average,  or unaffordable by you.
> 
> It's the most responsible thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi PMZ it's still not the federal govt's place to impose buying private insurance.
> 
> It is more responsible not to have sex if you can't afford the pregnancy or baby.
> 
> but it's not federal govt's place to impose laws penalizing you for having sex
> "unless you show advance proof" you can pay for a baby if pregnancy occurs.
> 
> that would be the most responsible thing, but not govt's place to mandate.
Click to expand...


"it's still not the federal govt's place to impose"

You do realize I'm sure,  that you are welcome to this opinion. 

If you'd like to make it meaningful,  the process is to ammend our Constitution,  of course changing it to a different Constitution. 

Have at it.


----------



## PMZ

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK let me try to address A and B
> 
> A1. If the point is to hold people responsible for paying for their health care,
> --> why not let them do so in the manner they choose instead of insurance only.
> 
> A2. Since dictating that insurance/govt only is "taking away" their freedom without any proof they committed a crime (ie collective punishment, punishing those who WERE paying for themselves and others as well, by assuming ALL people needed this penalty/mandate)
> Then isn't the resulting OUTCRY the "unpleasant consequence" of violating rights and freedoms of lawabiding citizens without due process by removing their freedom by govt?
> 
> B. If the "insurance companies" are the ones at fault
> then why punish the citizens by making us buy into and pay into this system?
> 
> this reminds me of when I was arguing about collective punishment and war.
> 
> The war against Iraq govt and terrorists ended up hurting the lawabiding citizens
> and victims of these corrupt and abusive militants who hijacked their govt from them.
> 
> I don't believe in collective punishment, but *holding the actual wrongdoers responsible NOT punishing the victims!
> * (ie by taking rights/freedoms away from the individuals due to the abuses of the wrongdoers)
> 
> Otherwise, it causes the protests and disruptions as in A. Because it is assuming and punishing citizens who did not commit the offenses along with the ones who did; and all people have the right to "due process" BEFORE having rights/freedoms taken away by govt.
> 
> Instead of allowing and rewarding other choices for "people to pay for their own health care" the only choices enforced were either (a). buy private insurance which isn't guaranteed to cover ALL costs or ALL people yet it is mandated by govt (b). pay fines/penalty to govt (c). belong to a qualifying religious organization since 1999
> 
> Because imposing this mandate violated the rights of citizens who did not consent to this "private business contract with insurance companies" forced by govt under penalty of law,
> that is why we are seeing the outcries.
> 
> You can say that these people still have the right to petition and change the law.
> But that is after the fact. It is still being imposed in the meantime. So we do not have equal rights or protections under the law. The people who consent to the contract have their interests represented; while the ones who do not are now forced to go through legal or legislative measures to "get their freedoms back". So this is not equal.
> 
> What would be equal is putting the ACA on hold until all sides agree, and are represented.
> 
> The main argument against this is that ALL laws should be done that way.
> And yes, they should.
> 
> Only if people AGREE to majority rule making something law should that stand by consent.
> 
> If they did NOT agree but wanted to resolve conflicts first before passing a law,
> then the law should not be enforced without first resolving those conflicts/objections first.
> 
> that WOULD be more consistent with equal protection of the laws / equal representation.
> we have not been following the laws but were bypassing consent by majority rule.
> And it has been escalating and escalating. Roe v Wade and gay marriage is another such issue that has never been resolved. Immigration and the death penalty. Now the ACA.
> 
> It doesn't make it right just because we violated the consent of the governed in the past.
> 
> We are down to admitting we need to stop drowning people as witches as a test of guilt, just because we did all the others that way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We insist on drivers having liability insurance so they can't impose the consequences of their irresponsibility on others don't we?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's wrong as well. For the same reasons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every single law ever passed imposes responsibility on those who would impose their irresponsibility on others,  given the chance. If they continue to choose irresponsibility,  the law imposes consequences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not having someone else's idea of 'adequate' insurance coverage doesn't impose anything on anyone. Racking up bills and not paying them does. You're working on the assumption those are equivalent, but they aren't.
Click to expand...


Are you saying that we each ought to have the freedom to determine how effective the brakes should be on our cars?  

What about all the casualties of inadequate brakes?  Don't they have rights?


----------



## PMZ

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK let me try to address A and B
> 
> A1. If the point is to hold people responsible for paying for their health care,
> --> why not let them do so in the manner they choose instead of insurance only.
> 
> A2. Since dictating that insurance/govt only is "taking away" their freedom without any proof they committed a crime (ie collective punishment, punishing those who WERE paying for themselves and others as well, by assuming ALL people needed this penalty/mandate)
> Then isn't the resulting OUTCRY the "unpleasant consequence" of violating rights and freedoms of lawabiding citizens without due process by removing their freedom by govt?
> 
> B. If the "insurance companies" are the ones at fault
> then why punish the citizens by making us buy into and pay into this system?
> 
> this reminds me of when I was arguing about collective punishment and war.
> 
> The war against Iraq govt and terrorists ended up hurting the lawabiding citizens
> and victims of these corrupt and abusive militants who hijacked their govt from them.
> 
> I don't believe in collective punishment, but *holding the actual wrongdoers responsible NOT punishing the victims!
> * (ie by taking rights/freedoms away from the individuals due to the abuses of the wrongdoers)
> 
> Otherwise, it causes the protests and disruptions as in A. Because it is assuming and punishing citizens who did not commit the offenses along with the ones who did; and all people have the right to "due process" BEFORE having rights/freedoms taken away by govt.
> 
> Instead of allowing and rewarding other choices for "people to pay for their own health care" the only choices enforced were either (a). buy private insurance which isn't guaranteed to cover ALL costs or ALL people yet it is mandated by govt (b). pay fines/penalty to govt (c). belong to a qualifying religious organization since 1999
> 
> Because imposing this mandate violated the rights of citizens who did not consent to this "private business contract with insurance companies" forced by govt under penalty of law,
> that is why we are seeing the outcries.
> 
> You can say that these people still have the right to petition and change the law.
> But that is after the fact. It is still being imposed in the meantime. So we do not have equal rights or protections under the law. The people who consent to the contract have their interests represented; while the ones who do not are now forced to go through legal or legislative measures to "get their freedoms back". So this is not equal.
> 
> What would be equal is putting the ACA on hold until all sides agree, and are represented.
> 
> The main argument against this is that ALL laws should be done that way.
> And yes, they should.
> 
> Only if people AGREE to majority rule making something law should that stand by consent.
> 
> If they did NOT agree but wanted to resolve conflicts first before passing a law,
> then the law should not be enforced without first resolving those conflicts/objections first.
> 
> that WOULD be more consistent with equal protection of the laws / equal representation.
> we have not been following the laws but were bypassing consent by majority rule.
> And it has been escalating and escalating. Roe v Wade and gay marriage is another such issue that has never been resolved. Immigration and the death penalty. Now the ACA.
> 
> It doesn't make it right just because we violated the consent of the governed in the past.
> 
> We are down to admitting we need to stop drowning people as witches as a test of guilt, just because we did all the others that way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We insist on drivers having liability insurance so they can't impose the consequences of their irresponsibility on others don't we?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's wrong as well. For the same reasons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every single law ever passed imposes responsibility on those who would impose their irresponsibility on others,  given the chance. If they continue to choose irresponsibility,  the law imposes consequences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not having someone else's idea of 'adequate' insurance coverage doesn't impose anything on anyone. Racking up bills and not paying them does. You're working on the assumption those are equivalent, but they aren't.
Click to expand...


Actually they are functionally equivalent.  Both are strategies to dump the cost of your health care on others.


----------



## PMZ

I've never seen so many conservatives anxious to pay someone else's bills.


----------



## dblack

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not having someone else's idea of 'adequate' insurance coverage doesn't impose anything on anyone. Racking up bills and not paying them does. You're working on the assumption those are equivalent, but they aren't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually they are functionally equivalent.  Both are strategies to dump the cost of your health care on others.
Click to expand...


Nah... they're just not. Just because someone doesn't have as much insurance as you think they ought to doesn't mean they're doing you any harm, or that they will.


----------



## emilynghiem

PMZ said:


> We insist on drivers having liability insurance so they can't impose the consequences of their irresponsibility on others don't we?
> 
> Every single law ever passed imposes responsibility on those who would impose their irresponsibility on others,  given the chance. If they continue to choose irresponsibility,  the law imposes consequences.
> 
> You people act like Obamacare is the first law ever passed.
> 
> Freedom from responsibility is only allowing the irresponsible to prey on the responsible.  It lowers the freedom of the majority in service of a minority.
> 
> This is like a civics 101 class.  Didn't you people go to school?



Hi PMZ:
1. driving a car on state roads is an optional privilege. so you enter a contract and agree to that with your license and laws of the state. insurance is required by the state, by agreement among the people who vote on that. 

this was imposed through Congress and federal govt without vote by the people.

2. some states do have option to show ability to pay as a CHOICE instead of insurance.
so that is what these opponents are asking for, is the same freedom as before to cover their health care OTHER WAYS

3. people are paying for their own insurance to cover the liability if they hit other people.
you are NOT required to buy insurance coverage to cover your own car. You have a CHOICE to buy additional insurance, or pay for this yourself.

And I am not paying for insurance so "other people can get coverage for their cars without paying for their insurance" -- I am responsible for costs of damages *I* incur to others

However, this does bring up a serious point I believe should be addressed to pay for health care: currently lawabiding taxpayers are charged the costs of crimes committed by wrongdoers who never  pay this back. surely we could use money spent on health care, education housing and food for offenders, and set up restitution for this to be paid back to pay for LAWABIDING citizens willing to work to pay back welfare until they stabilize. So

4. BTW I do believe we SHOULD hold citizens responsible for costs if they commit premeditated crimes, similar to paying for damaging someone else's car

I don't mind exploring this option if you are interested

Why not have citizens sign contracts upon turning legal at 18, that they agree to be  financially responsible for X Y Z costs if they commit premeditated crimes, and spell out those costs. such as $5 million if you murder someone and are convicted as a premeditated crime, etc. or $50,000 a year for incarceration etc.

And each citizen agrees to work X years of labor to pay back the $5 million or whatever est. cost to the victims/survivors/taxpayers for their crimes.

So it would be like holding people responsible if THEY cause a wreck.

Why not hold people responsible for shootouts that put victims in the hospital or morgue,
and sign agreements in advance that if you cannot afford to pay for your crimes, then you agree to "trade places" in labor factories to work off your debts while workers who would LOVE to have your citizenship take your place so they can work an honest living while you serve your sentence working in prison. 

Why not hold people responsible for the costs of crime and health care?
And use that money saved or paid back, instead of charging taxpayers more?


----------



## emilynghiem

PMZ said:


> Are you saying that we each ought to have the freedom to determine how effective the brakes should be on our cars?
> 
> What about all the casualties of inadequate brakes?  Don't they have rights?



We follow the Constitution to agree WHICH of these laws are decided at the state level, WHICH at the federal level, and WHICH are private to be determined by business choices.

The key is we AGREE which level of law has authority over which issue.

With ACA we do not agree. People are using the federal govt as their substitute "church" to push their beliefs that could be pursued through their party or other political/business/charity affiliation. We do not all "agree" to stretch the Constitution
to 'give' this authority to federal govt.

If people do not CONSENT to change the contract, then it is unlawful to do so to THIS extent, and would require either Constitutional amendment or direct vote on state laws.
But is unconstitutional to change the Constitution to this degree, where the dispute is clearly RELIGIOUS in nature. The differences are basically between political religions.

If people AGREED to those changes, sure, you can make all the laws you want to; on whatever level the parties to the contract all AGREE is appropriate, local state or federal.


----------



## emilynghiem

PMZ said:


> " I'm thinking to host a 500-1000 dollar contest to anyone who can come up with a working analogy that even President Obama recognizes, and explains the resistance from Republicans and conservatives"
> 
> Easy money.  In the early years of the Obama administration,  Republicans realized that the performance of their Bush administration was indefensible.  So they launched a political strategy in the only way they could.  24/7/365 propaganda aimed at making the Obama administration seem even worse.
> 
> Obama realized that our health care delivery and insurance non-system was the biggest obstacle to global competitiveness. He vowed to accomplish what no other President before him had.  Improve our health care cost and effectiveness.
> 
> Republican strategists bet it all on this horse.  They threw up every conceivable obstacle to his success and therefore America's success.  A huge gamble with no way out if they failed.
> 
> They did fail.  They have been searching since for an exit that doesn't exist.  Just like Bush's holy wars.



Hi PMZ: What I mean is an analogy where Obama admits the ACA is unconstitutional.
And explains to LIBERALS or ACA SUPPORTERS in terms THOSE PEOPLE GET.
So EVEN THE SUPPORTERS agree it is "unconstitutional to impose X by federal govt."

Did the other analogy work for you?
When I compared the "responsibility of being able to pay for pregnancy/child BEFORE having sex"?
Just because it is the more responsible thing to do 
DOES NOT GIVE federal govt authority to impose a mandate
REQUIRING that citizens show proof of ability to pay BEFORE having sex.

What do you think of this analogy?
Do you see what I am asking?

Thanks, PMZ
It is good to know there are Republicans who support ACA and see the good purpose.
Now, if we can just achieve that same good purpose WITHOUT imposing insurance
mandates, we'd be in business! Let's work on it, I am happy to keep troubleshooting the different conflicts with you, and I APPRECIATE YOUR REPLIES THANK YOU!

Please keep replying, I know we can use your feedback to resolve all these issues!


----------



## emilynghiem

PMZ said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> WTF? When you pay insurance premiums the entire point is that the insurance company is being paid to spread risk.  You are paying a fixed premium that covers your costs be they lower,  average,  or unaffordable by you.
> 
> It's the most responsible thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi PMZ it's still not the federal govt's place to impose buying private insurance.
> 
> It is more responsible not to have sex if you can't afford the pregnancy or baby.
> 
> but it's not federal govt's place to impose laws penalizing you for having sex
> "unless you show advance proof" you can pay for a baby if pregnancy occurs.
> 
> that would be the most responsible thing, but not govt's place to mandate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "it's still not the federal govt's place to impose"
> 
> You do realize I'm sure,  that you are welcome to this opinion.
> 
> If you'd like to make it meaningful,  the process is to ammend our Constitution,  of course changing it to a different Constitution.
> 
> Have at it.
Click to expand...


??? what about the analogy of federal govt imposing the mandate about sex?

That was the point of this, did you answer that?

by your answer, if some majority decided to pass a mandate requiring citizens
to show proof of ability to pay for a pregnancy/baby before having sex, or else
pay a penalty to govt to cover the costs,

then would your answer be:
"go pass a Constitutional amendment to overturn this law imposed by federal govt"

Would you really accept the law just because it was passed by majority rule?
or would you say it was outside federal authority to pass such a law?


----------



## RKMBrown

emilynghiem said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am partisan in favor of progress for our country.  My experience is that the Republican Party has abandoned that,  simply because their inept performance has put them in survival mode,  and they've abandoned even the pretext of serving the country over serving the party.  I see the evidence of that as overwhelming.
> 
> I am a Republican.  They historically have had a very useful and functional perspective that was a great balance with the Democrat useful and functional perspective.
> 
> That was abandoned when the dixiecrats,  who have always been dysfunctional and anti-American,  left the Democratic Party over the issue of equal rights for everyone,  and joined the GOP.  That&#8217;s when they left useful politics behind,  and became anti-American.
> 
> That&#8217;s is not blind bias but observable fact for those unbiased.
> 
> There are many parties whose foundation leads them to be against American interests.  Communist for example.
> 
> I see no reason for those interested in our success to support either Communism or Republicanism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ this is wonderful! Part of the reform plans, to set up vet housing with home health interns, was written by another community leader I volunteer with who is a Republican. she would certainly appreciate more support to get her plans to national attention.
> 
> Can you please help? Please see pdf file for Vet Housing authored by Gladys House
> Freedmen's Town Historic Churches and Vet Housing
> 
> May I email you or contact you about how we could work together?
> And propose alternatives to ACA that opponents can fund voluntarily without conflict?
> 
> Thanks! Gladys could sure use help from fellow Republicans who understand the
> issues in depth as you do. This is amazing, thank you for sharing in detail.
Click to expand...


Don't fall for it.  The guy knows what to say to draw you in... then a min later he's back to full on Marxist views.  The guy is a quintessential 74year old neo-con dixiecrat with marxist leanings claiming to be a republican while complaining about neo-con dixiecrats.  Yet nearly every opinion he provides is a party plank of the democrat party that would be blessed by Marx himself.

PMZ may actually be bi-polar.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> A.
> If you choose a behavior that interferes with my freedom by stealing my stuff,  killing me on purpose or by accident,  just as extreme examples,  society imposes on you unpleasant consequences.  Just like responsible parents teach children.
> 
> There are millions of those laws because people are very creative in thinking of ways to prey on their fellow humans.
> 
> One way that people in the past preyed on others is to avoid responsibility for the cost of their own health care.  They discovered that we as a society are adverse to them dying in the street so would pay for their health care when they needed.
> 
> B.
> A way that insurance companies preyed on people is to not do their job,  spreading risk,  by avoiding insuring anyone with a risk.  A pre existing condition.
> 
> Another predatory action is to employ someone full time without paying them a wage sufficient to live on.
> 
> In service to democracy, the ACA strives to eliminate these and other behaviors that deprive the majority of their right to the pursuit of happiness.
> 
> And it enhances competition in the health care insurance marketplace.
> As I said,  I had trouble understanding clearly enough your question.
> 
> Does this help?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK let me try to address A and B
> 
> A1. If the point is to hold people responsible for paying for their health care,
> --> why not let them do so in the manner they choose instead of insurance only.
> 
> A2. Since dictating that insurance/govt only is "taking away" their freedom without any proof they committed a crime (ie collective punishment, punishing those who WERE paying for themselves and others as well, by assuming ALL people needed this penalty/mandate)
> Then isn't the resulting OUTCRY the "unpleasant consequence" of violating rights and freedoms of lawabiding citizens without due process by removing their freedom by govt?
> 
> B. If the "insurance companies" are the ones at fault
> then why punish the citizens by making us buy into and pay into this system?
> 
> this reminds me of when I was arguing about collective punishment and war.
> 
> The war against Iraq govt and terrorists ended up hurting the lawabiding citizens
> and victims of these corrupt and abusive militants who hijacked their govt from them.
> 
> I don't believe in collective punishment, but *holding the actual wrongdoers responsible NOT punishing the victims!
> * (ie by taking rights/freedoms away from the individuals due to the abuses of the wrongdoers)
> 
> Otherwise, it causes the protests and disruptions as in A. Because it is assuming and punishing citizens who did not commit the offenses along with the ones who did; and all people have the right to "due process" BEFORE having rights/freedoms taken away by govt.
> 
> Instead of allowing and rewarding other choices for "people to pay for their own health care" the only choices enforced were either (a). buy private insurance which isn't guaranteed to cover ALL costs or ALL people yet it is mandated by govt (b). pay fines/penalty to govt (c). belong to a qualifying religious organization since 1999
> 
> Because imposing this mandate violated the rights of citizens who did not consent to this "private business contract with insurance companies" forced by govt under penalty of law,
> that is why we are seeing the outcries.
> 
> You can say that these people still have the right to petition and change the law.
> But that is after the fact. It is still being imposed in the meantime. So we do not have equal rights or protections under the law. The people who consent to the contract have their interests represented; while the ones who do not are now forced to go through legal or legislative measures to "get their freedoms back". So this is not equal.
> 
> What would be equal is putting the ACA on hold until all sides agree, and are represented.
> 
> The main argument against this is that ALL laws should be done that way.
> And yes, they should.
> 
> Only if people AGREE to majority rule making something law should that stand by consent.
> 
> If they did NOT agree but wanted to resolve conflicts first before passing a law,
> then the law should not be enforced without first resolving those conflicts/objections first.
> 
> that WOULD be more consistent with equal protection of the laws / equal representation.
> we have not been following the laws but were bypassing consent by majority rule.
> And it has been escalating and escalating. Roe v Wade and gay marriage is another such issue that has never been resolved. Immigration and the death penalty. Now the ACA.
> 
> It doesn't make it right just because we violated the consent of the governed in the past.
> 
> We are down to admitting we need to stop drowning people as witches as a test of guilt, just because we did all the others that way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We insist on drivers having liability insurance so they can't impose the consequences of their irresponsibility on others don't we?
> 
> Every single law ever passed imposes responsibility on those who would impose their irresponsibility on others,  given the chance. If they continue to choose irresponsibility,  the law imposes consequences.
> 
> You people act like Obamacare is the first law ever passed.
> 
> Freedom from responsibility is only allowing the irresponsible to prey on the responsible.  It lowers the freedom of the majority in service of a minority.
> 
> This is like a civics 101 class.  Didn't you people go to school?
Click to expand...


Are you incapable of discerning the difference between liability insurance and personal health care insurance?  Granted the broken law that says hospitals must provide free care sets up the broken situation where not having personal health insurance is a risk to the rest of us.  But that's not what ACA is, is it?  ACA is not a law that makes us all have insurance to cover Hospital Emergencies, it is?

Two wrongs do not make a right.


----------



## emilynghiem

RKMBrown said:


> Don't fall for it.  The guy knows what to say to draw you in... then a min later he's back to full on Marxist views.  The guy is a quintessential 74year old neo-con dixiecrat with marxist leanings claiming to be a republican while complaining about neo-con dixiecrats.  Yet nearly every opinion he provides is a party plank of the democrat party that would be blessed by Marx himself.
> 
> PMZ may actually be bi-polar.



Hmmm, PMZ and I may be lost twins separated at birth!
People say "no way" can I be a progressive prochoice Democrat
when I sound like a conservative Constitutionalist.

We may be yin and yang.
If so, this could either go in circles or
"BANG" we could be like "matter meeting anti-matter"
and reality could implode on itself, creating a whole new world of possibilities....

PMZ are you a Marxist? Are you affiliated in any way with Dr. David Michael Smith?


----------



## dblack

emilynghiem said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi PMZ it's still not the federal govt's place to impose buying private insurance.
> 
> It is more responsible not to have sex if you can't afford the pregnancy or baby.
> 
> but it's not federal govt's place to impose laws penalizing you for having sex
> "unless you show advance proof" you can pay for a baby if pregnancy occurs.
> 
> that would be the most responsible thing, but not govt's place to mandate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "it's still not the federal govt's place to impose"
> 
> You do realize I'm sure,  that you are welcome to this opinion.
> 
> If you'd like to make it meaningful,  the process is to ammend our Constitution,  of course changing it to a different Constitution.
> 
> Have at it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ??? what about the analogy of federal govt imposing the mandate about sex?
> 
> That was the point of this, did you answer that?
> 
> by your answer, if some majority decided to pass a mandate requiring citizens
> to show proof of ability to pay for a pregnancy/baby before having sex, or else
> pay a penalty to govt to cover the costs,
> 
> then would your answer be:
> "go pass a Constitutional amendment to overturn this law imposed by federal govt"
> 
> Would you really accept the law just because it was passed by majority rule?
> or would you say it was outside federal authority to pass such a law?
Click to expand...


The sex analogy is quite appropriate, and highlights a real danger in making our freedoms dependent on our ability to insure others against the associated risks. 

In my view, one of the primary functions of government is to manage and regulate the risks that the mutual exercise of our freedoms presents in a pluralistic society. It's not always necessary for someone to be harmed to warrant laws controlling certain behaviors. If an activity presents too much of a threat, we make it illegal (driving too fast through residential areas, for example). The key point here is that such decisions are the proper purview of government, not private concerns. 

I think the move to 'outsource' this management of risk to private corporations, to tie our rights to our ability maintain an insurance policy, is a dangerous trend. Some states are pursuing this avenue regarding risks presented by gun ownership, or consumption of alcohol - requiring that gun owners or bar operators maintain insurance covering potential damages. This sets up insurance adjusters as the arbiters of our rights, rather than police and judges. It also makes our rights a function of how much insurance we can afford. All of this flies in the face of he fundamental concepts of equal protection and equal rights.


----------



## RKMBrown

emilynghiem said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't fall for it.  The guy knows what to say to draw you in... then a min later he's back to full on Marxist views.  The guy is a quintessential 74year old neo-con dixiecrat with marxist leanings claiming to be a republican while complaining about neo-con dixiecrats.  Yet nearly every opinion he provides is a party plank of the democrat party that would be blessed by Marx himself.
> 
> PMZ may actually be bi-polar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm, PMZ and I may be lost twins separated at birth!
> People say "no way" can I be a progressive prochoice Democrat
> when I sound like a conservative Constitutionalist.
> 
> We may be yin and yang.
> If so, this could either go in circles or
> "BANG" we could be like "matter meeting anti-matter"
> and reality could implode on itself, creating a whole new world of possibilities....
> 
> PMZ are you a Marxist? Are you affiliated in any way with Dr. David Michael Smith?
Click to expand...


It is true that many the differences of ideology between individuals can be explained away by the terminology one is saddled with.  However, not in this case I don't think...  You and PMZ appear to me to be complete opposites.  But I welcome the effort of a closet libertarian, such as yourself, in attempting to right PMZ's ship so to speak.  Hope you don't mind me calling your views on liberty as not dissimilar from that of libertarian views.  You try the subtle approach   Let's see if that works.


----------



## RKMBrown

dblack said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> "it's still not the federal govt's place to impose"
> 
> You do realize I'm sure,  that you are welcome to this opinion.
> 
> If you'd like to make it meaningful,  the process is to ammend our Constitution,  of course changing it to a different Constitution.
> 
> Have at it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ??? what about the analogy of federal govt imposing the mandate about sex?
> 
> That was the point of this, did you answer that?
> 
> by your answer, if some majority decided to pass a mandate requiring citizens
> to show proof of ability to pay for a pregnancy/baby before having sex, or else
> pay a penalty to govt to cover the costs,
> 
> then would your answer be:
> "go pass a Constitutional amendment to overturn this law imposed by federal govt"
> 
> Would you really accept the law just because it was passed by majority rule?
> or would you say it was outside federal authority to pass such a law?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The sex analogy is quite appropriate, and highlights a real danger in making our freedoms dependent on our ability to insure others against the associated risks.
> 
> In my view, one of the primary functions of government is to manage and regulate the risks that the mutual exercise of our freedoms presents in a pluralistic society. It's not always necessary for someone to be harmed to warrant laws controlling certain behaviors. If an activity presents too much of a threat, we make it illegal (driving too fast through residential areas, for example). The key point here is that such decisions are the proper purview of government, not private concerns.
> 
> I think the move to 'outsource' this management of risk to private corporations, to tie our rights to our ability maintain an insurance policy, is a dangerous trend. Some states are pursuing this avenue regarding risks presented by gun ownership, or consumption of alcohol - requiring that gun owners or bar operators maintain insurance covering potential damages. This sets up insurance adjusters as the arbiters of our rights, rather than police and judges. It also makes our rights a function of how much insurance we can afford. All of this flies in the face of he fundamental concepts of equal protection and equal rights.
Click to expand...


It also points out that all laws and government actions have recursive repercussions throughout society.  We have a law that it is illegal to murder people, this causes us to form a justice system, we have to fund that justice system.  Essentially, taxes paid and spent on the justice system is a form of insurance against any one of us committing murder for the purpose of putting us away if we do.  What would be better is a system where all of the assets of guilty people are used to fund the system thus not penalizing the innocent.  But there we have it, our system is somewhat backwards in so far as we have decided to punish the innocent with taxes as well as the guilty. Worse, if you are rich you get punished progressively for our wars on drugs, gangs, gun crime, etc.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> ??? what about the analogy of federal govt imposing the mandate about sex?
> 
> That was the point of this, did you answer that?
> 
> by your answer, if some majority decided to pass a mandate requiring citizens
> to show proof of ability to pay for a pregnancy/baby before having sex, or else
> pay a penalty to govt to cover the costs,
> 
> then would your answer be:
> "go pass a Constitutional amendment to overturn this law imposed by federal govt"
> 
> Would you really accept the law just because it was passed by majority rule?
> or would you say it was outside federal authority to pass such a law?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The sex analogy is quite appropriate, and highlights a real danger in making our freedoms dependent on our ability to insure others against the associated risks.
> 
> In my view, one of the primary functions of government is to manage and regulate the risks that the mutual exercise of our freedoms presents in a pluralistic society. It's not always necessary for someone to be harmed to warrant laws controlling certain behaviors. If an activity presents too much of a threat, we make it illegal (driving too fast through residential areas, for example). The key point here is that such decisions are the proper purview of government, not private concerns.
> 
> I think the move to 'outsource' this management of risk to private corporations, to tie our rights to our ability maintain an insurance policy, is a dangerous trend. Some states are pursuing this avenue regarding risks presented by gun ownership, or consumption of alcohol - requiring that gun owners or bar operators maintain insurance covering potential damages. This sets up insurance adjusters as the arbiters of our rights, rather than police and judges. It also makes our rights a function of how much insurance we can afford. All of this flies in the face of he fundamental concepts of equal protection and equal rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It also points out that all laws and government actions have recursive repercussions throughout society.  We have a law that it is illegal to murder people, this causes us to form a justice system, we have to fund that justice system.  Essentially, taxes paid and spent on the justice system is a form of insurance against any one of us committing murder for the purpose of putting us away if we do.  What would be better is a system where all of the assets of guilty people are used to fund the system thus not penalizing the innocent.  But there we have it, our system is somewhat backwards in so far as we have decided to punish the innocent with taxes as well as the guilty. Worse, if you are rich you get punished progressively for our wars on drugs, gangs, gun crime, etc.
Click to expand...


Why does nobody here take the obvious solution to the problems that you can't stop whining about?  

Move!  Dead simple.  Dead effective.  No risk. All your problems solved.


----------



## PMZ

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not having someone else's idea of 'adequate' insurance coverage doesn't impose anything on anyone. Racking up bills and not paying them does. You're working on the assumption those are equivalent, but they aren't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually they are functionally equivalent.  Both are strategies to dump the cost of your health care on others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nah... they're just not. Just because someone doesn't have as much insurance as you think they ought to doesn't mean they're doing you any harm, or that they will.
Click to expand...


Clearly your position is that if someone takes the risk of no insurance and lucks out,  no harm no foul.  Of course you have to ignore the others.   If you want to voluntarily pay other people's health care bills,  feel free.  More power to you.  You're reward will come in heaven.  

Just don't complain about welfare out of one side of your mouth and deny Obamacare out of the other.


----------



## PMZ

dblack said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> "it's still not the federal govt's place to impose"
> 
> You do realize I'm sure,  that you are welcome to this opinion.
> 
> If you'd like to make it meaningful,  the process is to ammend our Constitution,  of course changing it to a different Constitution.
> 
> Have at it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ??? what about the analogy of federal govt imposing the mandate about sex?
> 
> That was the point of this, did you answer that?
> 
> by your answer, if some majority decided to pass a mandate requiring citizens
> to show proof of ability to pay for a pregnancy/baby before having sex, or else
> pay a penalty to govt to cover the costs,
> 
> then would your answer be:
> "go pass a Constitutional amendment to overturn this law imposed by federal govt"
> 
> Would you really accept the law just because it was passed by majority rule?
> or would you say it was outside federal authority to pass such a law?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The sex analogy is quite appropriate, and highlights a real danger in making our freedoms dependent on our ability to insure others against the associated risks.
> 
> In my view, one of the primary functions of government is to manage and regulate the risks that the mutual exercise of our freedoms presents in a pluralistic society. It's not always necessary for someone to be harmed to warrant laws controlling certain behaviors. If an activity presents too much of a threat, we make it illegal (driving too fast through residential areas, for example). The key point here is that such decisions are the proper purview of government, not private concerns.
> 
> I think the move to 'outsource' this management of risk to private corporations, to tie our rights to our ability maintain an insurance policy, is a dangerous trend. Some states are pursuing this avenue regarding risks presented by gun ownership, or consumption of alcohol - requiring that gun owners or bar operators maintain insurance covering potential damages. This sets up insurance adjusters as the arbiters of our rights, rather than police and judges. It also makes our rights a function of how much insurance we can afford. All of this flies in the face of he fundamental concepts of equal protection and equal rights.
Click to expand...


If you put the rest of us at risk for paying your bills,  that's plain old irresponsibility.  No other way to look at it. 

Why should I be responsible so that you can be irresponsible?


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> The sex analogy is quite appropriate, and highlights a real danger in making our freedoms dependent on our ability to insure others against the associated risks.
> 
> In my view, one of the primary functions of government is to manage and regulate the risks that the mutual exercise of our freedoms presents in a pluralistic society. It's not always necessary for someone to be harmed to warrant laws controlling certain behaviors. If an activity presents too much of a threat, we make it illegal (driving too fast through residential areas, for example). The key point here is that such decisions are the proper purview of government, not private concerns.
> 
> I think the move to 'outsource' this management of risk to private corporations, to tie our rights to our ability maintain an insurance policy, is a dangerous trend. Some states are pursuing this avenue regarding risks presented by gun ownership, or consumption of alcohol - requiring that gun owners or bar operators maintain insurance covering potential damages. This sets up insurance adjusters as the arbiters of our rights, rather than police and judges. It also makes our rights a function of how much insurance we can afford. All of this flies in the face of he fundamental concepts of equal protection and equal rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It also points out that all laws and government actions have recursive repercussions throughout society.  We have a law that it is illegal to murder people, this causes us to form a justice system, we have to fund that justice system.  Essentially, taxes paid and spent on the justice system is a form of insurance against any one of us committing murder for the purpose of putting us away if we do.  What would be better is a system where all of the assets of guilty people are used to fund the system thus not penalizing the innocent.  But there we have it, our system is somewhat backwards in so far as we have decided to punish the innocent with taxes as well as the guilty. Worse, if you are rich you get punished progressively for our wars on drugs, gangs, gun crime, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why does nobody here take the obvious solution to the problems that you can't stop whining about?
> 
> Move!  Dead simple.  Dead effective.  No risk. All your problems solved.
Click to expand...

Easiest way to tell you have a coward in a corner... They start begging you to leave.


----------



## dblack

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually they are functionally equivalent.  Both are strategies to dump the cost of your health care on others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nah... they're just not. Just because someone doesn't have as much insurance as you think they ought to doesn't mean they're doing you any harm, or that they will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clearly your position is that if someone takes the risk of no insurance and lucks out,  no harm no foul.  Of course you have to ignore the others.   If you want to voluntarily pay other people's health care bills,  feel free.  More power to you.  You're reward will come in heaven.
> 
> Just don't complain about welfare out of one side of your mouth and deny Obamacare out of the other.
Click to expand...


Going without insurance presents no risk to anyone else. The risk is that you might get ill and not be able to afford health care. It only becomes a problem for others if they are forced to pay your bills. *The problem is the policies that force others to pay your bills.* We need to address those instead of going down this road of mandated insurance.

Once again, I'd like to hear what prevents the logic you're using from being applied to any other risky choices that might impact others in similar fashion. Start with emily's example regarding sexual activity. is that different in your view? If not, do you honestly want to live in a society where we are required to carry insurance for anything we do that might put us in a position to need help or charity?


----------



## jon_berzerk

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nah... they're just not. Just because someone doesn't have as much insurance as you think they ought to doesn't mean they're doing you any harm, or that they will.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly your position is that if someone takes the risk of no insurance and lucks out,  no harm no foul.  Of course you have to ignore the others.   If you want to voluntarily pay other people's health care bills,  feel free.  More power to you.  You're reward will come in heaven.
> 
> Just don't complain about welfare out of one side of your mouth and deny Obamacare out of the other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Going without insurance presents no risk to anyone else. The risk is that you might get ill and not be able to afford health care. It only becomes a problem for others if they are forced to pay your bills. *The problem is the policies that force others to pay your bills.* We need to address those instead of going down this road of mandated insurance.
> 
> Once again, I'd like to hear what prevents the logic you're using from being applied to any other risky choices that might impact others in similar fashion. Start with emily's example regarding sexual activity. is that different in your view? If not, do you honestly want to live in a society where we are required to carry insurance for anything we do that might put us in a position to need help or charity?
Click to expand...


well from the healthcare standpoint it is all subject to government management


----------



## P@triot

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nah... they're just not. Just because someone doesn't have as much insurance as you think they ought to doesn't mean they're doing you any harm, or that they will.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly your position is that if someone takes the risk of no insurance and lucks out,  no harm no foul.  Of course you have to ignore the others.   If you want to voluntarily pay other people's health care bills,  feel free.  More power to you.  You're reward will come in heaven.
> 
> Just don't complain about welfare out of one side of your mouth and deny Obamacare out of the other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Going without insurance presents no risk to anyone else. The risk is that you might get ill and not be able to afford health care. It only becomes a problem for others if they are forced to pay your bills. *The problem is the policies that force others to pay your bills.* We need to address those instead of going down this road of mandated insurance.
> 
> Once again, I'd like to hear what prevents *the logic you're using* from being applied to any other risky choices that might impact others in similar fashion. Start with emily's example regarding sexual activity. is that different in your view? If not, do you honestly want to live in a society where we are required to carry insurance for anything we do that might put us in a position to need help or charity?
Click to expand...


You think PMZ is using _logic_? 

Dumbicrats don't use logic (which is why they get annihilated in a debate with conservatives). They use irrational emotion. They _feel_ about an issue, they don't _think_ about an issue. And that is exactly why their policies are such catastrophic disasters.


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> We insist on drivers having liability insurance so they can't impose the consequences of their irresponsibility on others don't we?
> 
> This is like a civics 101 class.  Didn't you people go to school?



Once again [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] displays _astounding_ ignorance of the U.S. Constitution. Clearly he never took Civics 101. Is it too late for us to sign him up? We can even split the cost just to educate this buffoon (hell, he expects us to cover the cost for him in life with everything else).

The fact that you don't understand the different between *state* government and *federal* government is simply unbelievable.

Republican Mitt Romney instituted "Romneycare" at the state level and it was perfectly legal. Obama _illegally_ tried to take his concept to the federal level.

PMZ, sweetie, even Democrats are tearing you apart here. Do you notice you are 100% alone? Everyone who has weighed in as agreed that you are completely wrong (and astoundingly ignorant). Doesn't that tell you something?


----------



## P@triot

Spoonman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> i knew you were a hack.  next
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Learning is hard,  isn't it.
Click to expand...


Actually, not at all. But the fact that you believe it is explains a *lot*!


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> WTF? When you pay insurance premiums the entire point is that the insurance company is being paid to spread risk.  You are paying a fixed premium that covers your costs be they lower,  average,  or unaffordable by you.
> 
> It's the most responsible thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi PMZ it's still not the federal govt's place to impose buying private insurance.
> 
> It is more responsible not to have sex if you can't afford the pregnancy or baby.
> 
> but it's not federal govt's place to impose laws penalizing you for having sex
> "unless you show advance proof" you can pay for a baby if pregnancy occurs.
> 
> that would be the most responsible thing, but not govt's place to mandate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "it's still not the federal govt's place to impose"
> 
> You do realize I'm sure,  that you are welcome to this opinion.
> 
> If you'd like to make it meaningful,  the process is to ammend our Constitution,  of course changing it to a different Constitution.
> 
> Have at it.
Click to expand...


Yet _again_ [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] displaying the highest form of ignorance about the U.S. Constitution (which he has *never* read).

The federal government was delegated 18 enumerated powers by the states (look it up junior). Healthcare is *not* one of those powers.

Therefore, if you want the federal government controlling healthcare or imposing requirements on the people, _you_ need to get the U.S. Constitution amended.

Good luck with that junior...


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> Are you saying that we each ought to have the freedom to determine how effective the brakes should be on our cars?
> 
> What about all the casualties of inadequate brakes?  Don't they have rights?



The Constitution guaranteed us *freedom*, stupid. It did *not* guarantee us safety.

If freedom scares you so much, Cuba is waiting...


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> Just don't complain about welfare out of one side of your mouth and deny Obamacare out of the other.



Well, considering Obamacare *is* welfare, you sound like an irrational buffoon here.

Your entire position is that people who could not afford to pay for their own healthcare or pay for their own healthcare insurance were cheating the system and that's why Obamacare was needed (a disingenuous position to say the least since you live for people to cheat the system being that you're a die-hard marxist and all).

So if they couldn't afford insurance *before* Obamacare, how can they afford insurance *after* Obamacare by forcing them to purchase what they couldn't afford?!? 

The answer of course is that Obamacare has devasted this nation with hundreds of billions in new taxes to pay for someone else's healthcare. It is the very definition of welfare.

Yes folks, [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] really is that stupid....


----------



## dblack

PMZ is honestly arguing a position based on a different set of assumptions - assumptions that many, if not most, voters share. I see no point in partisan or personal attacks. Give it a break, eh?


----------



## RKMBrown

dblack said:


> PMZ is honestly arguing a position based on a different set of assumptions - assumptions that many, if not most, voters share. I see no point in partisan or personal attacks. Give it a break, eh?



Honestly?  He says he's a republican, but his positions are authoritarian and also well to the left of most socialists and democrats.  He says he follows the constitution, but as far as can be seen he only follows it to find something to urinate on.


----------



## dblack

RKMBrown said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ is honestly arguing a position based on a different set of assumptions - assumptions that many, if not most, voters share. I see no point in partisan or personal attacks. Give it a break, eh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Honestly?  He says he's a republican, but his positions are both authoritarian and also well to the left of most socialists and democrats.
Click to expand...


His positions are approximately the same as Romney's.


----------



## RKMBrown

dblack said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ is honestly arguing a position based on a different set of assumptions - assumptions that many, if not most, voters share. I see no point in partisan or personal attacks. Give it a break, eh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Honestly?  He says he's a republican, but his positions are both authoritarian and also well to the left of most socialists and democrats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> His positions are approximately the same as Romney's.
Click to expand...


First off that is a lie.  Second, while one of his positions is somewhat similar to Romney's state position that Mitt held as Governor for a Democrat State, Romney was never a proponent of pushing Romney Care as a federal mandate.  Do you not understand the difference between Federal management of health care and State management of health care?


----------



## dblack

RKMBrown said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Honestly?  He says he's a republican, but his positions are both authoritarian and also well to the left of most socialists and democrats.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> His positions are approximately the same as Romney's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First off that is a lie.  Second, while one of his positions is somewhat similar to Romney's state postion, Romney was never a proponent of pushing Romney Care as a federal mandate.  Do you not understand the difference between Federal management of health care and State management of health care?
Click to expand...


Sure, I get it. But the principle is the same, just a matter of scope. Romney's arguments for his state program were pretty much the same as PMZ is presenting here. 

Anyway, you're missing the point of my comment. The partisan pissing match is just silly. Let's talk about the ideas involved and leave cartoonish lambasting out of it. Pretty please?


----------



## RKMBrown

dblack said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> His positions are approximately the same as Romney's.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First off that is a lie.  Second, while one of his positions is somewhat similar to Romney's state postion, Romney was never a proponent of pushing Romney Care as a federal mandate.  Do you not understand the difference between Federal management of health care and State management of health care?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, I get it. But the principle is the same, just a matter of scope. Romney's arguments for his state program were pretty much the same as PMZ is presenting here.
> 
> Anyway, you're missing the point of my comment. The partisan pissing match is just silly. Let's talk about the ideas involved and leave cartoonish lambasting out of it. Pretty please?
Click to expand...


No it's not the same.  Not even close. No it's not just a matter of scope.  The differences between them are night and day, and the results are night and day.  Structurally they had some of the same basic construction, but Obama built a partisan attack on the American People, vs Romney's bipartisan agreement in a democrat state.  The important parts are completely different.  Obama's plan is lies built on lies arranged to destroy our health care system.  He said so himself.  Presumably so that the next democrat dictator could save the day with single payer.

I'm willing to bury the hatchet.  You'll have to talk to PMZ though he's the troll here.


----------



## PMZ

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nah... they're just not. Just because someone doesn't have as much insurance as you think they ought to doesn't mean they're doing you any harm, or that they will.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly your position is that if someone takes the risk of no insurance and lucks out,  no harm no foul.  Of course you have to ignore the others.   If you want to voluntarily pay other people's health care bills,  feel free.  More power to you.  You're reward will come in heaven.
> 
> Just don't complain about welfare out of one side of your mouth and deny Obamacare out of the other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Going without insurance presents no risk to anyone else. The risk is that you might get ill and not be able to afford health care. It only becomes a problem for others if they are forced to pay your bills. *The problem is the policies that force others to pay your bills.* We need to address those instead of going down this road of mandated insurance.
> 
> Once again, I'd like to hear what prevents the logic you're using from being applied to any other risky choices that might impact others in similar fashion. Start with emily's example regarding sexual activity. is that different in your view? If not, do you honestly want to live in a society where we are required to carry insurance for anything we do that might put us in a position to need help or charity?
Click to expand...


I think that I've explained about 100 times here that I have experience with countries that can only afford letting people die in the streets.  What that leads to is unacceptable to me and most Americans.  

The fact that people like you,  Americans,  are even willing to consider it is appalling,  and is huge evidence at how fall we've fallen as a country from the scourge of conservatism.


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly your position is that if someone takes the risk of no insurance and lucks out,  no harm no foul.  Of course you have to ignore the others.   If you want to voluntarily pay other people's health care bills,  feel free.  More power to you.  You're reward will come in heaven.
> 
> Just don't complain about welfare out of one side of your mouth and deny Obamacare out of the other.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Going without insurance presents no risk to anyone else. The risk is that you might get ill and not be able to afford health care. It only becomes a problem for others if they are forced to pay your bills. *The problem is the policies that force others to pay your bills.* We need to address those instead of going down this road of mandated insurance.
> 
> Once again, I'd like to hear what prevents *the logic you're using* from being applied to any other risky choices that might impact others in similar fashion. Start with emily's example regarding sexual activity. is that different in your view? If not, do you honestly want to live in a society where we are required to carry insurance for anything we do that might put us in a position to need help or charity?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You think PMZ is using _logic_?
> 
> Dumbicrats don't use logic (which is why they get annihilated in a debate with conservatives). They use irrational emotion. They _feel_ about an issue, they don't _think_ about an issue. And that is exactly why their policies are such catastrophic disasters.
Click to expand...


It's not a surprise to anyone that you can't recognize logic.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly your position is that if someone takes the risk of no insurance and lucks out,  no harm no foul.  Of course you have to ignore the others.   If you want to voluntarily pay other people's health care bills,  feel free.  More power to you.  You're reward will come in heaven.
> 
> Just don't complain about welfare out of one side of your mouth and deny Obamacare out of the other.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Going without insurance presents no risk to anyone else. The risk is that you might get ill and not be able to afford health care. It only becomes a problem for others if they are forced to pay your bills. *The problem is the policies that force others to pay your bills.* We need to address those instead of going down this road of mandated insurance.
> 
> Once again, I'd like to hear what prevents the logic you're using from being applied to any other risky choices that might impact others in similar fashion. Start with emily's example regarding sexual activity. is that different in your view? If not, do you honestly want to live in a society where we are required to carry insurance for anything we do that might put us in a position to need help or charity?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think that I've explained about 100 times here that I have experience with countries that can only afford letting people die in the streets.  What that leads to is unacceptable to me and most Americans.
> 
> The fact that people like you,  Americans,  are even willing to consider it is appalling,  and is huge evidence at how fall we've fallen as a country from the scourge of conservatism.
Click to expand...


See dblack?  Anything other than PMZ is in absolute control and we are accused of killing people in the streets.  Because prior to OCA we were letting people die in the streets right PMZ?  PMZ is nothing more than an authoritarian socialist troll.


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> We insist on drivers having liability insurance so they can't impose the consequences of their irresponsibility on others don't we?
> 
> This is like a civics 101 class.  Didn't you people go to school?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] displays _astounding_ ignorance of the U.S. Constitution. Clearly he never took Civics 101. Is it too late for us to sign him up? We can even split the cost just to educate this buffoon (hell, he expects us to cover the cost for him in life with everything else).
> 
> The fact that you don't understand the different between *state* government and *federal* government is simply unbelievable.
> 
> Republican Mitt Romney instituted "Romneycare" at the state level and it was perfectly legal. Obama _illegally_ tried to take his concept to the federal level.
> 
> PMZ, sweetie, even Democrats are tearing you apart here. Do you notice you are 100% alone? Everyone who has weighed in as agreed that you are completely wrong (and astoundingly ignorant). Doesn't that tell you something?
Click to expand...


I think that the Rotweiner continues to pretend that he lives in a country where each of us has our own Constitution that says whatever we want it to. 

Aren't we glad that the founders were smarter than Rotweiner?  Of course so is a box of hammers.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> It also points out that all laws and government actions have recursive repercussions throughout society.  We have a law that it is illegal to murder people, this causes us to form a justice system, we have to fund that justice system.  Essentially, taxes paid and spent on the justice system is a form of insurance against any one of us committing murder for the purpose of putting us away if we do.  What would be better is a system where all of the assets of guilty people are used to fund the system thus not penalizing the innocent.  But there we have it, our system is somewhat backwards in so far as we have decided to punish the innocent with taxes as well as the guilty. Worse, if you are rich you get punished progressively for our wars on drugs, gangs, gun crime, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why does nobody here take the obvious solution to the problems that you can't stop whining about?
> 
> Move!  Dead simple.  Dead effective.  No risk. All your problems solved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Easiest way to tell you have a coward in a corner... They start begging you to leave.
Click to expand...


Such a simple,  free market solution to your incessant whining.  But,  obviously,  your purpose is not to solve your problem but to be a problem to others.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ is honestly arguing a position based on a different set of assumptions - assumptions that many, if not most, voters share. I see no point in partisan or personal attacks. Give it a break, eh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Honestly?  He says he's a republican, but his positions are authoritarian and also well to the left of most socialists and democrats.  He says he follows the constitution, but as far as can be seen he only follows it to find something to urinate on.
Click to expand...


Everyone in the world,  with the possible exception of the Taliban,  is to the left of American media extreme conservatives.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why does nobody here take the obvious solution to the problems that you can't stop whining about?
> 
> Move!  Dead simple.  Dead effective.  No risk. All your problems solved.
> 
> 
> 
> Easiest way to tell you have a coward in a corner... They start begging you to leave.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Such a simple,  free market solution to your incessant whining.  But,  obviously,  your purpose is not to solve your problem but to be a problem to others.
Click to expand...


That's right PMZ, a part of my purpose is to stop people like you so that I will leave my children a country that is better than the one your generation left us.


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying that we each ought to have the freedom to determine how effective the brakes should be on our cars?
> 
> What about all the casualties of inadequate brakes?  Don't they have rights?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution guaranteed us *freedom*, stupid. It did *not* guarantee us safety.
> 
> If freedom scares you so much, Cuba is waiting...
Click to expand...


The Constitution doesn't apply to you.  Only to our Federal Government.  It spells out,  among other things,  areas of life that they have to stay out of.  So they have.  You don't get to write your own Constitution.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ is honestly arguing a position based on a different set of assumptions - assumptions that many, if not most, voters share. I see no point in partisan or personal attacks. Give it a break, eh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Honestly?  He says he's a republican, but his positions are authoritarian and also well to the left of most socialists and democrats.  He says he follows the constitution, but as far as can be seen he only follows it to find something to urinate on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everyone in the world,  with the possible exception of the Taliban,  is to the left of American media extreme conservatives.
Click to expand...


You say that like you hate America.  Do you have any proof you are American?


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying that we each ought to have the freedom to determine how effective the brakes should be on our cars?
> 
> What about all the casualties of inadequate brakes?  Don't they have rights?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution guaranteed us *freedom*, stupid. It did *not* guarantee us safety.
> 
> If freedom scares you so much, Cuba is waiting...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Constitution doesn't apply to you.  Only to our Federal Government.  It spells out,  among other things,  areas of life that they have to stay out of.  So they have.  You don't get to write your own Constitution.
Click to expand...


ROFL... ok that was the dumbest statement EVER RECORDED IN AMERICAN HISTORY...  Gratz!


----------



## PMZ

dblack said:


> PMZ is honestly arguing a position based on a different set of assumptions - assumptions that many, if not most, voters share. I see no point in partisan or personal attacks. Give it a break, eh?



The fact that conservatives have been largely fired from government and replaced by we who believe in progress is pretty solid evidence that more Americans agree with me than you all.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Honestly?  He says he's a republican, but his positions are both authoritarian and also well to the left of most socialists and democrats.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> His positions are approximately the same as Romney's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First off that is a lie.  Second, while one of his positions is somewhat similar to Romney's state position that Mitt held as Governor for a Democrat State, Romney was never a proponent of pushing Romney Care as a federal mandate.  Do you not understand the difference between Federal management of health care and State management of health care?
Click to expand...


" Do you not understand the difference between Federal management of health care and State management of health care?"

I don't.  Can you explain the effective difference?


----------



## PMZ

dblack said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ is honestly arguing a position based on a different set of assumptions - assumptions that many, if not most, voters share. I see no point in partisan or personal attacks. Give it a break, eh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Honestly?  He says he's a republican, but his positions are both authoritarian and also well to the left of most socialists and democrats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> His positions are approximately the same as Romney's.
Click to expand...


Some are,  most aren't.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Going without insurance presents no risk to anyone else. The risk is that you might get ill and not be able to afford health care. It only becomes a problem for others if they are forced to pay your bills. *The problem is the policies that force others to pay your bills.* We need to address those instead of going down this road of mandated insurance.
> 
> Once again, I'd like to hear what prevents the logic you're using from being applied to any other risky choices that might impact others in similar fashion. Start with emily's example regarding sexual activity. is that different in your view? If not, do you honestly want to live in a society where we are required to carry insurance for anything we do that might put us in a position to need help or charity?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that I've explained about 100 times here that I have experience with countries that can only afford letting people die in the streets.  What that leads to is unacceptable to me and most Americans.
> 
> The fact that people like you,  Americans,  are even willing to consider it is appalling,  and is huge evidence at how fall we've fallen as a country from the scourge of conservatism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See dblack?  Anything other than PMZ is in absolute control and we are accused of killing people in the streets.  Because prior to OCA we were letting people die in the streets right PMZ?  PMZ is nothing more than an authoritarian socialist troll.
Click to expand...


No we weren't.  We were treating them for 'free' in hospital emergency rooms.  

Did you really think it was free?  It's the most expensive least effective treatment possible.


----------



## PMZ

U 





RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution guaranteed us *freedom*, stupid. It did *not* guarantee us safety.
> 
> If freedom scares you so much, Cuba is waiting...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution doesn't apply to you.  Only to our Federal Government.  It spells out,  among other things,  areas of life that they have to stay out of.  So they have.  You don't get to write your own Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROFL... ok that was the dumbest statement EVER RECORDED IN AMERICAN HISTORY...  Gratz!
Click to expand...


Prove me wrong. A good place to start would be a conviction of someone for violating the Constitution.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Honestly?  He says he's a republican, but his positions are authoritarian and also well to the left of most socialists and democrats.  He says he follows the constitution, but as far as can be seen he only follows it to find something to urinate on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone in the world,  with the possible exception of the Taliban,  is to the left of American media extreme conservatives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You say that like you hate America.  Do you have any proof you are American?
Click to expand...


Yes.


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> We insist on drivers having liability insurance so they can't impose the consequences of their irresponsibility on others don't we?
> 
> This is like a civics 101 class.  Didn't you people go to school?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] displays _astounding_ ignorance of the U.S. Constitution. Clearly he never took Civics 101. Is it too late for us to sign him up? We can even split the cost just to educate this buffoon (hell, he expects us to cover the cost for him in life with everything else).
> 
> The fact that you don't understand the different between *state* government and *federal* government is simply unbelievable.
> 
> Republican Mitt Romney instituted "Romneycare" at the state level and it was perfectly legal. Obama _illegally_ tried to take his concept to the federal level.
> 
> PMZ, sweetie, even Democrats are tearing you apart here. Do you notice you are 100% alone? Everyone who has weighed in as agreed that you are completely wrong (and astoundingly ignorant). Doesn't that tell you something?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think that the Rotweiner continues to pretend that he lives in a country where each of us has our own Constitution that says whatever we want it to.
> 
> Aren't we glad that the founders were smarter than Rotweiner?  Of course so is a box of hammers.
Click to expand...


So you are admitting that you don't know the difference between the federal government and state government?


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] displays _astounding_ ignorance of the U.S. Constitution. Clearly he never took Civics 101. Is it too late for us to sign him up? We can even split the cost just to educate this buffoon (hell, he expects us to cover the cost for him in life with everything else).
> 
> The fact that you don't understand the different between *state* government and *federal* government is simply unbelievable.
> 
> Republican Mitt Romney instituted "Romneycare" at the state level and it was perfectly legal. Obama _illegally_ tried to take his concept to the federal level.
> 
> PMZ, sweetie, even Democrats are tearing you apart here. Do you notice you are 100% alone? Everyone who has weighed in as agreed that you are completely wrong (and astoundingly ignorant). Doesn't that tell you something?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that the Rotweiner continues to pretend that he lives in a country where each of us has our own Constitution that says whatever we want it to.
> 
> Aren't we glad that the founders were smarter than Rotweiner?  Of course so is a box of hammers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are admitting that you don't know the difference between the federal government and state government?
Click to expand...


That's not what I said,  is it.


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying that we each ought to have the freedom to determine how effective the brakes should be on our cars?
> 
> What about all the casualties of inadequate brakes?  Don't they have rights?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution guaranteed us *freedom*, stupid. It did *not* guarantee us safety.
> 
> If freedom scares you so much, Cuba is waiting...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Constitution doesn't apply to you.  Only to our Federal Government.  It spells out,  among other things,  areas of life that they have to stay out of.  So they have.  You don't get to write your own Constitution.
Click to expand...


So the 1st Amendment (freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom of religion) is for the federal government and not for me? 

So the 2nd Amendment (right of the *people* to keep and bear arms) is for the federal government and not for me? 

So the 3rd Amendment (no soldier shall be quartered in my home without my permission) is not for me?!? 

You continue to prove over and over that you're too lazy to read the Constitution


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> U
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution doesn't apply to you.  Only to our Federal Government.  It spells out,  among other things,  areas of life that they have to stay out of.  So they have.  You don't get to write your own Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL... ok that was the dumbest statement EVER RECORDED IN AMERICAN HISTORY...  Gratz!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Prove me wrong. A good place to start would be a conviction of someone for violating the Constitution.
Click to expand...


The Green River Killer murdered 42 people over 3 decades before he was convicted. So it's your position then that murder was legal during those decades since he wasn't convicted?

And *nobody* has been convicted for the murders of Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman. So you believe those murders were also "legal"?!? 

PMZ - taking stupidity to new levels since her birth!


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution guaranteed us *freedom*, stupid. It did *not* guarantee us safety.
> 
> If freedom scares you so much, Cuba is waiting...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution doesn't apply to you.  Only to our Federal Government.  It spells out,  among other things,  areas of life that they have to stay out of.  So they have.  You don't get to write your own Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the 1st Amendment (freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom of religion) is for the federal government and not for me?
> 
> So the 2nd Amendment (right of the *people* to keep and bear arms) is for the federal government and not for me?
> 
> So the 3rd Amendment (no soldier shall be quartered in my home without my permission) is not for me?!?
> 
> You continue to prove over and over that you're too lazy to read the Constitution
Click to expand...


And you continue to prove over and over that you're too lazy to think. 

All of those are prohibitions to government from regulating.


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that the Rotweiner continues to pretend that he lives in a country where each of us has our own Constitution that says whatever we want it to.
> 
> Aren't we glad that the founders were smarter than Rotweiner?  Of course so is a box of hammers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are admitting that you don't know the difference between the federal government and state government?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not what I said,  is it.
Click to expand...


That's *exactly* what you said since you claim Obamacare is Constitutionally legal. The Constitution specifically cites the 18 enumerated powers of the federal government (delegated to them by the states) - and healthcare is *not* one of those powers. The fact that you don't know says it all...


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you are admitting that you don't know the difference between the federal government and state government?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what I said,  is it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's *exactly* what you said since you claim Obamacare is Constitutionally legal. The Constitution specifically cites the 18 enumerated powers of the federal government (delegated to them by the states) - and healthcare is *not* one of those powers. The fact that you don't know says it all...
Click to expand...


What I say about Constitutionality is as irrelevant as what you say.  

It was the fact that SCOTUS said that it was Constitutional that counts.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> His positions are approximately the same as Romney's.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First off that is a lie.  Second, while one of his positions is somewhat similar to Romney's state position that Mitt held as Governor for a Democrat State, Romney was never a proponent of pushing Romney Care as a federal mandate.  Do you not understand the difference between Federal management of health care and State management of health care?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> " Do you not understand the difference between Federal management of health care and State management of health care?"
> 
> I don't.  Can you explain the effective difference?
Click to expand...


Sure.  States have traditionally managed the health insurance in each state. The Federal government has not.  We have many different states, each state has different issues, different rates, and different plans.  Some states have a large population of illegal immigrants, other states do not.  Some states have a higher cost of living than other states.  Some states are more conservative than other states when it comes to government managed systems.  

We have a republic of states.  The reason it's a republic is that we have different views on how to get things done, such as this, in each state and also by historical basis and for efficiency reasons.  Some states are rural, some are industrial.  Some states have ports, some do not.  Some states have a very high average income some do not.

In short, what's good for NYC is not necessarily good for a Small Town in Texas.  Generally the states understand this.  Federal programs treat individuals who live in small towns and unincorporated areas like they do in big cities.  States understand the issues of their citizens and more importantly are responsible to their citizens.  The feds are only responsible to the politicians in DC who are elected by the majority.  Big difference.

Another example... would you want your fire department and police force run by the feds?  Or do you prefer they report to your city?


----------



## P@triot

dblack said:


> PMZ is honestly arguing a position based on a different set of assumptions - assumptions that many, if not most, voters share. I see no point in partisan or personal attacks. Give it a break, eh?



PMZ is _knowingly_ *lying*. How many people share in his lies and ignorant views is completely irrelevant. After all, many people in Nazi, Germany shared Adolf Hitlers "assumptions". How did that work out?

Why don't _you_ give it a rest tolerating lies and illegal activity?


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what I said,  is it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's *exactly* what you said since you claim Obamacare is Constitutionally legal. The Constitution specifically cites the 18 enumerated powers of the federal government (delegated to them by the states) - and healthcare is *not* one of those powers. The fact that you don't know says it all...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I say about Constitutionality is as irrelevant as what you say.
> 
> It was the fact that SCOTUS said that it was Constitutional that counts.
Click to expand...


So if the Supreme Court decided tomorrow that you no longer had 1st Amendment rights, you would consider that "constitutional" and you comply immediately by permanently shutting the fuck up? Really?


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that I've explained about 100 times here that I have experience with countries that can only afford letting people die in the streets.  What that leads to is unacceptable to me and most Americans.
> 
> The fact that people like you,  Americans,  are even willing to consider it is appalling,  and is huge evidence at how fall we've fallen as a country from the scourge of conservatism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See dblack?  Anything other than PMZ is in absolute control and we are accused of killing people in the streets.  Because prior to OCA we were letting people die in the streets right PMZ?  PMZ is nothing more than an authoritarian socialist troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No we weren't.  We were treating them for 'free' in hospital emergency rooms.
> 
> Did you really think it was free?  It's the most expensive least effective treatment possible.
Click to expand...


As I stated before the solution to the hospital problem was 1) making them pay for their stay in the emergency room or send them to a free hospital/clinic, just as was done before or 2) force people to have, at a minimum, emergency care insurance to cover their stay at the hospital.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> First off that is a lie.  Second, while one of his positions is somewhat similar to Romney's state position that Mitt held as Governor for a Democrat State, Romney was never a proponent of pushing Romney Care as a federal mandate.  Do you not understand the difference between Federal management of health care and State management of health care?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> " Do you not understand the difference between Federal management of health care and State management of health care?"
> 
> I don't.  Can you explain the effective difference?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure.  States have traditionally managed the health insurance in each state. The Federal government has not.  We have many different states, each state has different issues, different rates, and different plans.  Some states have a large population of illegal immigrants, other states do not.  Some states have a higher cost of living than other states.  Some states are more conservative than other states when it comes to government managed systems.
> 
> We have a republic of states.  The reason it's a republic is that we have different views on how to get things done, such as this, in each state and also by historical basis and for efficiency reasons.  Some states are rural, some are industrial.  Some states have ports, some do not.  Some states have a very high average income some do not.
> 
> In short, what's good for NYC is not necessarily good for a Small Town in Texas.  Generally the states understand this.  Federal programs treat individuals who live in small towns and unincorporated areas like they do in big cities.  States understand the issues of their citizens and more importantly are responsible to their citizens.  The feds are only responsible to the politicians in DC who are elected by the majority.  Big difference.
> 
> Another example... would you want your fire department and police force run by the feds?  Or do you prefer they report to your city?
Click to expand...


Our Founders had a choice between emulating the small,  independent countries of Europe,  or the strong Union.  So did Lincoln. 

I personally think that they made the right choice.


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution doesn't apply to you.  Only to our Federal Government.  It spells out,  among other things,  areas of life that they have to stay out of.  So they have.  You don't get to write your own Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the 1st Amendment (freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom of religion) is for the federal government and not for me?
> 
> So the 2nd Amendment (right of the *people* to keep and bear arms) is for the federal government and not for me?
> 
> So the 3rd Amendment (no soldier shall be quartered in my home without my permission) is not for me?!?
> 
> You continue to prove over and over that you're too lazy to read the Constitution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you continue to prove over and over that you're too lazy to think.
> 
> All of those are prohibitions to government from regulating.
Click to expand...


Right - for *me*. They prohibit government for *me*. So I can enjoy freedom - not so govenrment can. 

I can see now why you crave marxism. You simply don't have the mental capacity to survive on your own.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> See dblack?  Anything other than PMZ is in absolute control and we are accused of killing people in the streets.  Because prior to OCA we were letting people die in the streets right PMZ?  PMZ is nothing more than an authoritarian socialist troll.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No we weren't.  We were treating them for 'free' in hospital emergency rooms.
> 
> Did you really think it was free?  It's the most expensive least effective treatment possible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I stated before the solution to the hospital problem was 1) making them pay for their stay in the emergency room or send them to a free hospital/clinic, just as was done before or 2) force people to have, at a minimum, emergency care insurance to cover their stay at the hospital.
Click to expand...


I think that there are always people who need to be led into responsibility.  Given that,  why not lead them to the most effective responsibility?


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> U
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution doesn't apply to you.  Only to our Federal Government.  It spells out,  among other things,  areas of life that they have to stay out of.  So they have.  You don't get to write your own Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL... ok that was the dumbest statement EVER RECORDED IN AMERICAN HISTORY...  Gratz!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Prove me wrong. A good place to start would be a conviction of someone for violating the Constitution.
Click to expand...


Sorry, I should have been more specific.  You said, "[t]he Constitution doesn't apply to you."  

apply - verb : to cause (force, pressure, etc.) to have an effect or to be felt. (Websters)

There are really just to many places in the Constitution where it lays out how the constitution applies to the people, hundreds.  But I'll just leave you with the opening sentence:



> *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.



Perhaps you meant to say the bill of rights is a set of restrictions that mostly apply to the federal government and federal government workers, and also a set of statements about liberty that apply to the people.

Or maybe you did not mean to use the word apply at all.


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's *exactly* what you said since you claim Obamacare is Constitutionally legal. The Constitution specifically cites the 18 enumerated powers of the federal government (delegated to them by the states) - and healthcare is *not* one of those powers. The fact that you don't know says it all...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What I say about Constitutionality is as irrelevant as what you say.
> 
> It was the fact that SCOTUS said that it was Constitutional that counts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if the Supreme Court decided tomorrow that you no longer had 1st Amendment rights, you would consider that "constitutional" and you comply immediately by permanently shutting the fuck up? Really?
Click to expand...


If the government revolts from their service to us,  our protection is to fire them.  That revolt has never happened.  They have always complied with their bylaws.  

If,  if,  if. 

I think that our plate is overflowing with real problems. We don't need to make up additional  ones.


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ is honestly arguing a position based on a different set of assumptions - assumptions that many, if not most, voters share. I see no point in partisan or personal attacks. Give it a break, eh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ is _knowingly_ *lying*. How many people share in his lies and ignorant views is completely irrelevant. After all, many people in Nazi, Germany shared Adolf Hitlers "assumptions". How did that work out?
> 
> Why don't _you_ give it a rest tolerating lies and illegal activity?
Click to expand...


Show me a lie Adolf.  Your ignorance is not me lying.


----------



## Peterf

RDD_1210 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is sad that this has to happen.
> 
> It's also sad that the GOP has convinced people of "death panels", "losing freedom" and all the other hysterical nonsense that you sheep believe, that have actually made you think you hate a law that is a Republican idea.
> 
> So yeah, it's sad that a campaign needs to be waged to combat such blatant misinformation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wait - let me get this straight - you believe you're not losing freedom under Obamacare [MENTION=23461]RDD_1210[/MENTION]?!?
> 
> The federal government now *forces* you to make a purchase. How is that *not* losing freedom in your mind? I can't wait to hear this absurd explanation.
> 
> By the way - "death panels" are a 100% certainty and now that they've passed Obamacare, the left has even admitted as much. Perhaps you need to wake up to reality? When the federal government has limited funds and unlimited health issues to address, they will have to decide who gets treatment and who doesn't (just like the do in Canada, just like they do in England, just like they do in <insert idiot socialized medicine nation here>, etc.).
> 
> You are one willfully ignorant buffoon, aren't you? Oh well, ignorance is bliss I guess...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama should make a law saying breathing oxygen is mandated. You idiots would hold your breath while claiming your freedoms are being taken away.
Click to expand...


I am but a foreigner so I missed the passing of the amendment to the US constitution which now allows the President to make laws as the fancy takes him.   Sounds a bit like a dictatorship to me - but you seem to like it RDD 1210 so it must be OK:


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> No we weren't.  We were treating them for 'free' in hospital emergency rooms.
> 
> Did you really think it was free?  It's the most expensive least effective treatment possible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I stated before the solution to the hospital problem was 1) making them pay for their stay in the emergency room or send them to a free hospital/clinic, just as was done before or 2) force people to have, at a minimum, emergency care insurance to cover their stay at the hospital.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think that there are always people who need to be led into responsibility.  Given that,  why not lead them to the most effective responsibility?
Click to expand...


But that's not what ACA does. Nor is insurance the most effective responsibility.  HSA accounts where we each manage our own heath care via free markets and free decisions that we make with our own doctors is the best and most efficient means for people with the ability to make rational decisions. 

Again, I would not have fought some basic insurance minimum managed by each state to cover the federally mandated hospital emergent care.  Just as we cover inoculations via state programs.  

However, ACA is not about leading people into responsibility.  It's about free subsidized health care for the 51% and Illegals that were not previously covered by Medicare,  Medicaid, and Military veteran benefits.  In short it's about destroying our health care system entirely by swamping it.  People who have no income or desire to work will be lining up for free artificial limbs.  People who have worked their entire lives will be asked to fork over their income and assets to pay for the other people and get in line with them to spend their money on elective procedures.


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I say about Constitutionality is as irrelevant as what you say.
> 
> It was the fact that SCOTUS said that it was Constitutional that counts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if the Supreme Court decided tomorrow that you no longer had 1st Amendment rights, you would consider that "constitutional" and you comply immediately by permanently shutting the fuck up? Really?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the government revolts from their service to us,  our protection is to fire them.  That revolt has never happened.  They have always complied with their bylaws.
> 
> If,  if,  if.
> 
> I think that our plate is overflowing with real problems. We don't need to make up additional  ones.
Click to expand...


First of all genius, we cannot "fire" them. Nobody can fire Barack Obama idiot. He has 4 years of guaranteed employment (unlike those of us in the real world) unless the Congress decides to properly impeach him for his endless violations of the Constitution.

Second - you didn't answer the question. If the Supreme Court rules tomorrow that you no longer have any 1st Amendment rights, does that make it so?


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ is honestly arguing a position based on a different set of assumptions - assumptions that many, if not most, voters share. I see no point in partisan or personal attacks. Give it a break, eh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ is _knowingly_ *lying*. How many people share in his lies and ignorant views is completely irrelevant. After all, many people in Nazi, Germany shared Adolf Hitlers "assumptions". How did that work out?
> 
> Why don't _you_ give it a rest tolerating lies and illegal activity?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Show me a lie Adolf.  Your ignorance is not me lying.
Click to expand...


You're entire participation in this thread has been one knowing lie after another. You know damn well that the federal government has no power to control costs of anything. You know damn well that the federal government has no power to force citizens to purchase anything. You know damn well that you're a devout marxist who feels entitled to what other people earn.

I could go on and on but everyone here knows that you've *lied* in _every_ single post you've made.


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> Your hero Romney campaigned on the idea that he only cared about 47% of the population. If we were the plutocracy that you favor, he would have won.



Here is a _blatant_ *lie*. Romney never campaigned on a platform the he "cared" about anyone. Furthermore, even if he had, then the number would have been 53% dumb-ass because he was talking about the 47% that he couldn't win over 

You're so dumb, you can't even get your *lies* right. Here is his quote genius:

"There are 47% of the people who will vote for the president no matter what ... who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims. ... These are people who pay no income tax. ... and so my job is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives," Romney said.

There you go [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] - I just *proved* you *lied*.


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why did he go to jail? He thought that regulation didn't apply to him. He found out he was wrong. He found out that, in a democracy, the rules favor we the people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First of all stupid, we don't have a "democracy". Jesus - Antares even threw you a bone on this one and you still couldn't learn from it?!?
> 
> You are *not* "we the people". You're the fringe minority radical that America _hates_.
> 
> "We the people" support and defend the U.S. Constitution while you cry about it like a little girl.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you call it when all citizens vote for their governmental representation? When all of their representation vote on laws? When the supreme court votes on adjudication? When juries vote?
Click to expand...


Even after being shown indisputable evidence, the typical Dumbocrat pathological liar doubles-down on his lies and falsely claims (again) that the U.S. is a "democracy". We are a REPUBLIC and any basic web search in the world proves that he is *lying*.


----------



## PMZ

My 





Peterf said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wait - let me get this straight - you believe you're not losing freedom under Obamacare [MENTION=23461]RDD_1210[/MENTION]?!?
> 
> The federal government now *forces* you to make a purchase. How is that *not* losing freedom in your mind? I can't wait to hear this absurd explanation.
> 
> By the way - "death panels" are a 100% certainty and now that they've passed Obamacare, the left has even admitted as much. Perhaps you need to wake up to reality? When the federal government has limited funds and unlimited health issues to address, they will have to decide who gets treatment and who doesn't (just like the do in Canada, just like they do in England, just like they do in , etc.).
> 
> You are one willfully ignorant buffoon, aren't you? Oh well, ignorance is bliss I guess...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obama should make a law saying breathing oxygen is mandated. You idiots would hold your breath while claiming your freedoms are being taken away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am but a foreigner so I missed the passing of the amendment to the US constitution which now allows the President to make laws as the fancy takes him.   Sounds a bit like a dictatorship to me - but you seem to like it RDD 1210 so it must be OK:
Click to expand...


It would be a dictatorship and that's why our Constitution prohibits it.  We,  at least the majority of us,  hold lawmakers accountable for their legislative results.  We're about to fire a bunch who don't believe in the organization that they asked us to elect them to.  Government. 

Cleaning house we yanks call it.

More properly,  cleaning House.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> " Do you not understand the difference between Federal management of health care and State management of health care?"
> 
> I don't.  Can you explain the effective difference?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure.  States have traditionally managed the health insurance in each state. The Federal government has not.  We have many different states, each state has different issues, different rates, and different plans.  Some states have a large population of illegal immigrants, other states do not.  Some states have a higher cost of living than other states.  Some states are more conservative than other states when it comes to government managed systems.
> 
> We have a republic of states.  The reason it's a republic is that we have different views on how to get things done, such as this, in each state and also by historical basis and for efficiency reasons.  Some states are rural, some are industrial.  Some states have ports, some do not.  Some states have a very high average income some do not.
> 
> In short, what's good for NYC is not necessarily good for a Small Town in Texas.  Generally the states understand this.  Federal programs treat individuals who live in small towns and unincorporated areas like they do in big cities.  States understand the issues of their citizens and more importantly are responsible to their citizens.  The feds are only responsible to the politicians in DC who are elected by the majority.  Big difference.
> 
> Another example... would you want your fire department and police force run by the feds?  Or do you prefer they report to your city?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our Founders had a choice between emulating the small,  independent countries of Europe,  or the strong Union.  So did Lincoln.
> 
> I personally think that they made the right choice.
Click to expand...


I would not compare what the founders did, with what Lincoln did.  You could compare the founders to the confederates if you like, but what Lincoln did was what the King of England tried to do and failed.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure.  States have traditionally managed the health insurance in each state. The Federal government has not.  We have many different states, each state has different issues, different rates, and different plans.  Some states have a large population of illegal immigrants, other states do not.  Some states have a higher cost of living than other states.  Some states are more conservative than other states when it comes to government managed systems.
> 
> We have a republic of states.  The reason it's a republic is that we have different views on how to get things done, such as this, in each state and also by historical basis and for efficiency reasons.  Some states are rural, some are industrial.  Some states have ports, some do not.  Some states have a very high average income some do not.
> 
> In short, what's good for NYC is not necessarily good for a Small Town in Texas.  Generally the states understand this.  Federal programs treat individuals who live in small towns and unincorporated areas like they do in big cities.  States understand the issues of their citizens and more importantly are responsible to their citizens.  The feds are only responsible to the politicians in DC who are elected by the majority.  Big difference.
> 
> Another example... would you want your fire department and police force run by the feds?  Or do you prefer they report to your city?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our Founders had a choice between emulating the small,  independent countries of Europe,  or the strong Union.  So did Lincoln.
> 
> I personally think that they made the right choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would not compare what the founders did, with what Lincoln did.  You could compare the founders to the confederates if you like, but what Lincoln did was what the King of England tried to do and failed.
Click to expand...


Lincoln preserved what the founders founded.  Just as Obama is now.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Founders had a choice between emulating the small,  independent countries of Europe,  or the strong Union.  So did Lincoln.
> 
> I personally think that they made the right choice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would not compare what the founders did, with what Lincoln did.  You could compare the founders to the confederates if you like, but what Lincoln did was what the King of England tried to do and failed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lincoln preserved what the founders founded.  Just as Obama is now.
Click to expand...


Preserved at the cost of how many lives?  Yeah Lincoln preserved the union by starting a bloody civil war and using hundreds of thousands of European conscripts who killed Americans for $.

What is Obama preserving again?  I thought he said he was gonna "CHANGE" everything about this country.  Your idea of "preserving" and mine are on two completely different planets.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would not compare what the founders did, with what Lincoln did.  You could compare the founders to the confederates if you like, but what Lincoln did was what the King of England tried to do and failed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln preserved what the founders founded.  Just as Obama is now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Preserved at the cost of how many lives?  Yeah Lincoln preserved the union by starting a bloody civil war and using hundreds of thousands of European conscripts who killed Americans for $.
> 
> What is Obama preserving again?  I thought he said he was gonna "CHANGE" everything about this country.  Your idea of "preserving" and mine are on two completely different planets.
Click to expand...


The Confederacy started the war.  

Just like Lincoln,  Obama started with the hand that he was dealt and ended up with a much better country than what he inherited. 

That's what we have to expect from politics.  Progress.  Stasis is not possible or desirable.


----------



## dblack

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nah... they're just not. Just because someone doesn't have as much insurance as you think they ought to doesn't mean they're doing you any harm, or that they will.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly your position is that if someone takes the risk of no insurance and lucks out,  no harm no foul.  Of course you have to ignore the others.   If you want to voluntarily pay other people's health care bills,  feel free.  More power to you.  You're reward will come in heaven.
> 
> Just don't complain about welfare out of one side of your mouth and deny Obamacare out of the other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Going without insurance presents no risk to anyone else. The risk is that you might get ill and not be able to afford health care. It only becomes a problem for others if they are forced to pay your bills. *The problem is the policies that force others to pay your bills.* We need to address those instead of going down this road of mandated insurance.
> 
> Once again, I'd like to hear what prevents the logic you're using from being applied to any other risky choices that might impact others in similar fashion. Start with emily's example regarding sexual activity. is that different in your view? If not, do you honestly want to live in a society where we are required to carry insurance for anything we do that might put us in a position to need help or charity?
Click to expand...


My apologies for interrupting the partisan pissing match, but...

PMZ - I'm wondering if you'd be interested in returning to this issue, as I think it's the most interesting bit of the thread.

It seems to me that part and parcel of running a welfare state is the risk that taxpayers will be tapped for the costs of irresponsible behavior. You seem to be suggesting that the mere existence of such welfare programs can be used as a justification to limit our rights, even if we've never utilized the the welfare 'offered', and I find that quite troubling. I see no limiting principle on your argument here, and no reason it couldn't or wouldn't be applied to the example emily raised, or any other activity that might put us in a position to need public assistance. Do you?

Regarding emily's question about 'sex insurance', children born to parents without adequate financial resources represents a huge burden on the welfare state. Wouldn't it make just as much sense to require a similar guard against these people "forcing" others to pay for their mistakes? If not, how is it different? Why shouldn't people be required to carry insurance, or otherwise prove financial responsibility, before they're allowed to have sex?


----------



## PMZ

dblack said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly your position is that if someone takes the risk of no insurance and lucks out,  no harm no foul.  Of course you have to ignore the others.   If you want to voluntarily pay other people's health care bills,  feel free.  More power to you.  You're reward will come in heaven.
> 
> Just don't complain about welfare out of one side of your mouth and deny Obamacare out of the other.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Going without insurance presents no risk to anyone else. The risk is that you might get ill and not be able to afford health care. It only becomes a problem for others if they are forced to pay your bills. *The problem is the policies that force others to pay your bills.* We need to address those instead of going down this road of mandated insurance.
> 
> Once again, I'd like to hear what prevents the logic you're using from being applied to any other risky choices that might impact others in similar fashion. Start with emily's example regarding sexual activity. is that different in your view? If not, do you honestly want to live in a society where we are required to carry insurance for anything we do that might put us in a position to need help or charity?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My apologies for interrupting the partisan pissing match, but...
> 
> PMZ - I'm wondering if you'd be interested in returning to this issue, as I think it's the most interesting bit of the thread.
> 
> It seems to me that part and parcel of running a welfare state is the risk that taxpayers will be tapped for the costs of irresponsible behavior. You seem to be suggesting that the mere existence of such welfare programs can be used as a justification to limit our rights, even if we've never utilized the the welfare 'offered', and I find that quite troubling. I see no limiting principle on your argument here, and no reason it couldn't or wouldn't be applied to the example emily raised, or any other activity that might put us in a position to need public assistance. Do you?
> 
> Regarding emily's question about 'sex insurance', children born to parents without adequate financial resources represents a huge burden on the welfare state. Wouldn't it make just as much sense to require a similar guard against these people "forcing" others to pay for their mistakes? If not, how is it different? Why shouldn't be people be required to carry insurance, or otherwise prove financial responsibility, before they're allowed to have sex?
Click to expand...


One thing that we both would wholeheartedly agree on is that all of the world's problems stem from irresponsibility. If people were not so inclined to impose on others almost all of mankind would live happily ever after. 

But there's no way around free will. 
Government is mankind's invention to insist on a level of responsibility that allows progress even though halting. 

Government standardizes responsibility through laws that impose consequences,  in addition to natural consequences,  for behavior deemed too irresponsible in terms of impact on others.

Despite all of that though there is still irresponsible behavior as well as mis- and good fortune. 

Civilization has generally accepted that we are better off if we spread the consequences of mis- and good fortune across the population,  just as insurance spreads the cost consequences of it. 

Not a necessity but,  arguably,  supportive of the greatest good. 

The problem,  IMO,  that you bring up is the overlap between the greater good of spreading good and mis- fortune across the population,  and dealing with irresponsibility.  

I,  personally,  don't see a magic bullet.  We try to deal with irresponsibility by our laws that make it criminal and that certainly works to a degree. But it's silly to ever expect anything close to perfection. 

I personally would not choose to live in a world that made no attempt to spread good and mis- fortune and let only natural consequences have their way. If you die on the streets,  regardless of the cause or your situation,  that's only your problem.  The true law of the jungle that we chose to leave behind. 

Nor would I chose a world wherein the law was the sole arbiter of responsibility.  

We're in the middle of that road and thats typically,  IMO,  the best place to be.  

If half the people think that our laws are too lenient,  and half too lax,  that's probably about where we should be.


----------



## RKMBrown

dblack said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly your position is that if someone takes the risk of no insurance and lucks out,  no harm no foul.  Of course you have to ignore the others.   If you want to voluntarily pay other people's health care bills,  feel free.  More power to you.  You're reward will come in heaven.
> 
> Just don't complain about welfare out of one side of your mouth and deny Obamacare out of the other.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Going without insurance presents no risk to anyone else. The risk is that you might get ill and not be able to afford health care. It only becomes a problem for others if they are forced to pay your bills. *The problem is the policies that force others to pay your bills.* We need to address those instead of going down this road of mandated insurance.
> 
> Once again, I'd like to hear what prevents the logic you're using from being applied to any other risky choices that might impact others in similar fashion. Start with emily's example regarding sexual activity. is that different in your view? If not, do you honestly want to live in a society where we are required to carry insurance for anything we do that might put us in a position to need help or charity?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My apologies for interrupting the partisan pissing match, but...
> 
> PMZ - I'm wondering if you'd be interested in returning to this issue, as I think it's the most interesting bit of the thread.
> 
> It seems to me that part and parcel of running a welfare state is the risk that taxpayers will be tapped for the costs of irresponsible behavior. You seem to be suggesting that the mere existence of such welfare programs can be used as a justification to limit our rights, even if we've never utilized the the welfare 'offered', and I find that quite troubling. I see no limiting principle on your argument here, and no reason it couldn't or wouldn't be applied to the example emily raised, or any other activity that might put us in a position to need public assistance. Do you?
> 
> Regarding emily's question about 'sex insurance', children born to parents without adequate financial resources represents a huge burden on the welfare state. Wouldn't it make just as much sense to require a similar guard against these people "forcing" others to pay for their mistakes? If not, how is it different? Why shouldn't people be required to carry insurance, or otherwise prove financial responsibility, before they're allowed to have sex?
Click to expand...

dblack... I think you are confused.  We already use Medicaid as "sex insurance" for the poor.  And Obamacare already provides sex insurance through subsidies for middle class and lower income earners up to 4x the poverty level for those who were not already covered by Medicaid. 

Thus the taxpayer is already being mandated to pay for sex insurance for 51% of the nation.  Further, it is now unlawful (correct me if I'm wrong) to offer health care plans that do not cover "sex insurance."  Thus while you can get away with not having it you will have to pay a fine that is then used to pay for it anyway.

Food insurance (EBT, and other programs, check), rent insurance (state and federal programs for that, check), utilities insurance (state and federal programs for that, check), health care insurance (medicaid, and Obamacare, check), communications (Cable tv, internet, cell phones, computers, state and federal programs, check check check...), education (check),...

Sort of hard to come up with an example of something that is not already covered.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Going without insurance presents no risk to anyone else. The risk is that you might get ill and not be able to afford health care. It only becomes a problem for others if they are forced to pay your bills. *The problem is the policies that force others to pay your bills.* We need to address those instead of going down this road of mandated insurance.
> 
> Once again, I'd like to hear what prevents the logic you're using from being applied to any other risky choices that might impact others in similar fashion. Start with emily's example regarding sexual activity. is that different in your view? If not, do you honestly want to live in a society where we are required to carry insurance for anything we do that might put us in a position to need help or charity?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My apologies for interrupting the partisan pissing match, but...
> 
> PMZ - I'm wondering if you'd be interested in returning to this issue, as I think it's the most interesting bit of the thread.
> 
> It seems to me that part and parcel of running a welfare state is the risk that taxpayers will be tapped for the costs of irresponsible behavior. You seem to be suggesting that the mere existence of such welfare programs can be used as a justification to limit our rights, even if we've never utilized the the welfare 'offered', and I find that quite troubling. I see no limiting principle on your argument here, and no reason it couldn't or wouldn't be applied to the example emily raised, or any other activity that might put us in a position to need public assistance. Do you?
> 
> Regarding emily's question about 'sex insurance', children born to parents without adequate financial resources represents a huge burden on the welfare state. Wouldn't it make just as much sense to require a similar guard against these people "forcing" others to pay for their mistakes? If not, how is it different? Why shouldn't be people be required to carry insurance, or otherwise prove financial responsibility, before they're allowed to have sex?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One thing that we both would wholeheartedly agree on is that all of the world's problems stem from irresponsibility. If people were not so inclined to impose on others almost all of mankind would live happily ever after.
> 
> But there's no way around free will.
> Government is mankind's invention to insist on a level of responsibility that allows progress even though halting.
> 
> Government standardizes responsibility through laws that impose consequences,  in addition to natural consequences,  for behavior deemed too irresponsible in terms of impact on others.
> 
> Despite all of that though there is still irresponsible behavior as well as mis- and good fortune.
> 
> Civilization has generally accepted that we are better off if we spread the consequences of mis- and good fortune across the population,  just as insurance spreads the cost consequences of it.
> 
> Not a necessity but,  arguably,  supportive of the greatest good.
> 
> The problem,  IMO,  that you bring up is the overlap between the greater good of spreading good and mis- fortune across the population,  and dealing with irresponsibility.
> 
> I,  personally,  don't see a magic bullet.  We try to deal with irresponsibility by our laws that make it criminal and that certainly works to a degree. But it's silly to ever expect anything close to perfection.
> 
> I personally would not choose to live in a world that made no attempt to spread good and mis- fortune and let only natural consequences have their way. If you die on the streets,  regardless of the cause or your situation,  that's only your problem.  The true law of the jungle that we chose to leave behind.
> 
> Nor would I chose a world wherein the law was the sole arbiter of responsibility.
> 
> We're in the middle of that road and thats typically,  IMO,  the best place to be.
> 
> If half the people think that our laws are too lenient,  and half too lax,  that's probably about where we should be.
Click to expand...


And you are an idiot because you believe that everyone that earns more than 4x the poverty level (or 90k or 150k or 250k or whatever other arbitrary number you socialists are using this week) does not deserve his income and only got it through ill gotten gains.


----------



## dblack

RKMBrown said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Going without insurance presents no risk to anyone else. The risk is that you might get ill and not be able to afford health care. It only becomes a problem for others if they are forced to pay your bills. *The problem is the policies that force others to pay your bills.* We need to address those instead of going down this road of mandated insurance.
> 
> Once again, I'd like to hear what prevents the logic you're using from being applied to any other risky choices that might impact others in similar fashion. Start with emily's example regarding sexual activity. is that different in your view? If not, do you honestly want to live in a society where we are required to carry insurance for anything we do that might put us in a position to need help or charity?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My apologies for interrupting the partisan pissing match, but...
> 
> PMZ - I'm wondering if you'd be interested in returning to this issue, as I think it's the most interesting bit of the thread.
> 
> It seems to me that part and parcel of running a welfare state is the risk that taxpayers will be tapped for the costs of irresponsible behavior. You seem to be suggesting that the mere existence of such welfare programs can be used as a justification to limit our rights, even if we've never utilized the the welfare 'offered', and I find that quite troubling. I see no limiting principle on your argument here, and no reason it couldn't or wouldn't be applied to the example emily raised, or any other activity that might put us in a position to need public assistance. Do you?
> 
> Regarding emily's question about 'sex insurance', children born to parents without adequate financial resources represents a huge burden on the welfare state. Wouldn't it make just as much sense to require a similar guard against these people "forcing" others to pay for their mistakes? If not, how is it different? Why shouldn't people be required to carry insurance, or otherwise prove financial responsibility, before they're allowed to have sex?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dblack... I think you are confused.  We already use Medicaid as "sex insurance" for the poor.  And Obamacare already provides sex insurance through subsidies for middle class and lower income earners up to 4x the poverty level for those who were not already covered by Medicaid.
> 
> Thus the taxpayer is already being mandated to pay for sex insurance for 51% of the nation.  Further, it is now unlawful (correct me if I'm wrong) to offer health care plans that do not cover "sex insurance."  Thus while you can get away with not having it you will have to pay a fine that is then used to pay for it anyway.
> 
> Food insurance (EBT, and other programs, check), rent insurance (state and federal programs for that, check), utilities insurance (state and federal programs for that, check), health care insurance (medicaid, and Obamacare, check), communications (Cable tv, internet, cell phones, computers, state and federal programs, check check check...), education (check),...
> 
> Sort of hard to come up with an example of something that is not already covered.
Click to expand...


What??

You're completely missing the point. PMZ, and others, are arguing that because we have safety nets covering people who can't afford health care they can, in effect, force other people to pay their way. And they're using that as justification for forced insurance covering such situations. 

But we have lots of other similar safety nets, and I'm asking what's different about those? You can make the same argument for food, rent, children, etc - all the other expenses that can be pushed off on the welfare state. It seems like a dangerous precedent to use the potential need for public assistance as an excuse for mandated insurance.


----------



## RKMBrown

dblack said:


> What??
> 
> You're completely missing the point. PMZ, and others, are arguing that because we have safety nets covering people who can't afford health care they can, in effect, force other people to pay their way. And they're using that as justification for forced insurance covering such situations.
> 
> But we have lots of other similar safety nets, and I'm asking what's different about those? You can make the same argument for food, rent, children, etc - all the other expenses that can be pushed off on the welfare state. It seems like a dangerous precedent to use the potential need for public assistance as an excuse for mandated insurance.



Yeah, I simply pointed out that your argument, in the form of a question was moot.

His argument is circular... thus false by construction.  Your argument that his argument might lead to other justifications, ignores the fact that all the other situations were already covered as well as the one he provided, and also ignored the circular issue in his argument.

"because we have safety nets covering people who can't afford health care they can, in effect, force other people to pay their way"

Means the same as:

"Because we already have safety nets covering people who can't afford health care we can force other people to pay for these already existing safety nets." 

This is the classic circular argument.  He is defending what he's doing by saying he's already doing it.

Your argument by contrast is thus, asking him why if he thinks he can do what he's already doing he can't just keep doing what he's already doing.

The circular argument is what feeds socialism until it snowballs into unsustainable socialism.  The socialist will argue the only way to fix socialism is to try harder with more socialism.  This works right up till you run out of people that like to work for pennies on the dollar while others sit on their fat asses laughing at them.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Going without insurance presents no risk to anyone else. The risk is that you might get ill and not be able to afford health care. It only becomes a problem for others if they are forced to pay your bills. *The problem is the policies that force others to pay your bills.* We need to address those instead of going down this road of mandated insurance.
> 
> Once again, I'd like to hear what prevents the logic you're using from being applied to any other risky choices that might impact others in similar fashion. Start with emily's example regarding sexual activity. is that different in your view? If not, do you honestly want to live in a society where we are required to carry insurance for anything we do that might put us in a position to need help or charity?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My apologies for interrupting the partisan pissing match, but...
> 
> PMZ - I'm wondering if you'd be interested in returning to this issue, as I think it's the most interesting bit of the thread.
> 
> It seems to me that part and parcel of running a welfare state is the risk that taxpayers will be tapped for the costs of irresponsible behavior. You seem to be suggesting that the mere existence of such welfare programs can be used as a justification to limit our rights, even if we've never utilized the the welfare 'offered', and I find that quite troubling. I see no limiting principle on your argument here, and no reason it couldn't or wouldn't be applied to the example emily raised, or any other activity that might put us in a position to need public assistance. Do you?
> 
> Regarding emily's question about 'sex insurance', children born to parents without adequate financial resources represents a huge burden on the welfare state. Wouldn't it make just as much sense to require a similar guard against these people "forcing" others to pay for their mistakes? If not, how is it different? Why shouldn't people be required to carry insurance, or otherwise prove financial responsibility, before they're allowed to have sex?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dblack... I think you are confused.  We already use Medicaid as "sex insurance" for the poor.  And Obamacare already provides sex insurance through subsidies for middle class and lower income earners up to 4x the poverty level for those who were not already covered by Medicaid.
> 
> Thus the taxpayer is already being mandated to pay for sex insurance for 51% of the nation.  Further, it is now unlawful (correct me if I'm wrong) to offer health care plans that do not cover "sex insurance."  Thus while you can get away with not having it you will have to pay a fine that is then used to pay for it anyway.
> 
> Food insurance (EBT, and other programs, check), rent insurance (state and federal programs for that, check), utilities insurance (state and federal programs for that, check), health care insurance (medicaid, and Obamacare, check), communications (Cable tv, internet, cell phones, computers, state and federal programs, check check check...), education (check),...
> 
> Sort of hard to come up with an example of something that is not already covered.
Click to expand...


I say,  let's shoot the poor and the wealthy and keep only the wealth creators.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Going without insurance presents no risk to anyone else. The risk is that you might get ill and not be able to afford health care. It only becomes a problem for others if they are forced to pay your bills. *The problem is the policies that force others to pay your bills.* We need to address those instead of going down this road of mandated insurance.
> 
> Once again, I'd like to hear what prevents the logic you're using from being applied to any other risky choices that might impact others in similar fashion. Start with emily's example regarding sexual activity. is that different in your view? If not, do you honestly want to live in a society where we are required to carry insurance for anything we do that might put us in a position to need help or charity?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My apologies for interrupting the partisan pissing match, but...
> 
> PMZ - I'm wondering if you'd be interested in returning to this issue, as I think it's the most interesting bit of the thread.
> 
> It seems to me that part and parcel of running a welfare state is the risk that taxpayers will be tapped for the costs of irresponsible behavior. You seem to be suggesting that the mere existence of such welfare programs can be used as a justification to limit our rights, even if we've never utilized the the welfare 'offered', and I find that quite troubling. I see no limiting principle on your argument here, and no reason it couldn't or wouldn't be applied to the example emily raised, or any other activity that might put us in a position to need public assistance. Do you?
> 
> Regarding emily's question about 'sex insurance', children born to parents without adequate financial resources represents a huge burden on the welfare state. Wouldn't it make just as much sense to require a similar guard against these people "forcing" others to pay for their mistakes? If not, how is it different? Why shouldn't people be required to carry insurance, or otherwise prove financial responsibility, before they're allowed to have sex?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dblack... I think you are confused.  We already use Medicaid as "sex insurance" for the poor.  And Obamacare already provides sex insurance through subsidies for middle class and lower income earners up to 4x the poverty level for those who were not already covered by Medicaid.
> 
> Thus the taxpayer is already being mandated to pay for sex insurance for 51% of the nation.  Further, it is now unlawful (correct me if I'm wrong) to offer health care plans that do not cover "sex insurance."  Thus while you can get away with not having it you will have to pay a fine that is then used to pay for it anyway.
> 
> Food insurance (EBT, and other programs, check), rent insurance (state and federal programs for that, check), utilities insurance (state and federal programs for that, check), health care insurance (medicaid, and Obamacare, check), communications (Cable tv, internet, cell phones, computers, state and federal programs, check check check...), education (check),...
> 
> Sort of hard to come up with an example of something that is not already covered.
Click to expand...


Mr Brown has one solution to all problems.  Keep the poor barefoot and pregnant and most of all poorer,  and give to the wealthy, the 15% of the wealth that, somehow,  slipped away from the wealthy and is now shared by 80% of Americans. 

Sounds like a return to slavery,  doesn't it?


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> I say,  let's shoot the poor and the wealthy and keep only the wealth creators.



Yeah and being an "engineer" I've heard that argument plenty of times.  One needs to be careful of the tendency to over value oneself in the grand scheme of things. How about we not shoot anyone, and let everyone live the fullest of their own potential through their own efforts?


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> My apologies for interrupting the partisan pissing match, but...
> 
> PMZ - I'm wondering if you'd be interested in returning to this issue, as I think it's the most interesting bit of the thread.
> 
> It seems to me that part and parcel of running a welfare state is the risk that taxpayers will be tapped for the costs of irresponsible behavior. You seem to be suggesting that the mere existence of such welfare programs can be used as a justification to limit our rights, even if we've never utilized the the welfare 'offered', and I find that quite troubling. I see no limiting principle on your argument here, and no reason it couldn't or wouldn't be applied to the example emily raised, or any other activity that might put us in a position to need public assistance. Do you?
> 
> Regarding emily's question about 'sex insurance', children born to parents without adequate financial resources represents a huge burden on the welfare state. Wouldn't it make just as much sense to require a similar guard against these people "forcing" others to pay for their mistakes? If not, how is it different? Why shouldn't people be required to carry insurance, or otherwise prove financial responsibility, before they're allowed to have sex?
> 
> 
> 
> dblack... I think you are confused.  We already use Medicaid as "sex insurance" for the poor.  And Obamacare already provides sex insurance through subsidies for middle class and lower income earners up to 4x the poverty level for those who were not already covered by Medicaid.
> 
> Thus the taxpayer is already being mandated to pay for sex insurance for 51% of the nation.  Further, it is now unlawful (correct me if I'm wrong) to offer health care plans that do not cover "sex insurance."  Thus while you can get away with not having it you will have to pay a fine that is then used to pay for it anyway.
> 
> Food insurance (EBT, and other programs, check), rent insurance (state and federal programs for that, check), utilities insurance (state and federal programs for that, check), health care insurance (medicaid, and Obamacare, check), communications (Cable tv, internet, cell phones, computers, state and federal programs, check check check...), education (check),...
> 
> Sort of hard to come up with an example of something that is not already covered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mr Brown has one solution to all problems.  Keep the poor barefoot and pregnant and most of all poorer,  and give to the wealthy, the 15% of the wealth that, somehow,  slipped away from the wealthy and is now shared by 80% of Americans.
> 
> Sounds like a return to slavery,  doesn't it?
Click to expand...


Why is all this shit coming out of your mouth? What are they feeding you at the "home?"


----------



## beagle9

dblack said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> My apologies for interrupting the partisan pissing match, but...
> 
> PMZ - I'm wondering if you'd be interested in returning to this issue, as I think it's the most interesting bit of the thread.
> 
> It seems to me that part and parcel of running a welfare state is the risk that taxpayers will be tapped for the costs of irresponsible behavior. You seem to be suggesting that the mere existence of such welfare programs can be used as a justification to limit our rights, even if we've never utilized the the welfare 'offered', and I find that quite troubling. I see no limiting principle on your argument here, and no reason it couldn't or wouldn't be applied to the example emily raised, or any other activity that might put us in a position to need public assistance. Do you?
> 
> Regarding emily's question about 'sex insurance', children born to parents without adequate financial resources represents a huge burden on the welfare state. Wouldn't it make just as much sense to require a similar guard against these people "forcing" others to pay for their mistakes? If not, how is it different? Why shouldn't people be required to carry insurance, or otherwise prove financial responsibility, before they're allowed to have sex?
> 
> 
> 
> dblack... I think you are confused.  We already use Medicaid as "sex insurance" for the poor.  And Obamacare already provides sex insurance through subsidies for middle class and lower income earners up to 4x the poverty level for those who were not already covered by Medicaid.
> 
> Thus the taxpayer is already being mandated to pay for sex insurance for 51% of the nation.  Further, it is now unlawful (correct me if I'm wrong) to offer health care plans that do not cover "sex insurance."  Thus while you can get away with not having it you will have to pay a fine that is then used to pay for it anyway.
> 
> Food insurance (EBT, and other programs, check), rent insurance (state and federal programs for that, check), utilities insurance (state and federal programs for that, check), health care insurance (medicaid, and Obamacare, check), communications (Cable tv, internet, cell phones, computers, state and federal programs, check check check...), education (check),...
> 
> Sort of hard to come up with an example of something that is not already covered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What??
> 
> You're completely missing the point. PMZ, and others, are arguing that because we have safety nets covering people who can't afford health care they can, in effect, force other people to pay their way. And they're using that as justification for forced insurance covering such situations.
> 
> But we have lots of other similar safety nets, and I'm asking what's different about those? You can make the same argument for food, rent, children, etc - all the other expenses that can be pushed off on the welfare state. It seems like a dangerous precedent to use the potential need for public assistance as an excuse for mandated insurance.
Click to expand...

  A letter I got in the mail today is this... I will write it just like it is written for all to see, and then I want your comments in respect to where this post and thread is at now.. This is from Blue Cross Blue Shield (BCBS) to me as a worker with this coverage through my employer.  Thanks

*NOTICE OF REINSURANCE FEE'S*

Effective January 1st, 2014. The ACA will require all health insurance/care providers to collect a payment known as a "reinsurance fee", and this on behalf of the federal government. These payments will fund a transitional reinsurance program that aims to stabilize the market by paying insurers that cover high risk individuals. 

To comply with the ACA requirement, BCBS will calculate reinsurance fee's into your premium rate at the amount of $ 9.12 per employee per month (PEPM).  This change will be reflected in your bill for 2014.

As a group with an anniversary date of February 1, 2014 or later, we want to ensure that you are aware of this off anniversary change and why it was occurring. Please keep in mind that reinsurance fee's are collected on behalf of the federal government: Blue Cross Blue Shield will not profit from these *contributions.*

For more information about this fee, and the transitional reinsurance program, please visit http://www.cms.gov/cciio/resources/files/downloads/3rs-final-rule.pdf.

If you have any questions pertaining to your BCBS bill, please contact your BCBS representative.

So here I am after all this time watching my health care go higher and higher, where as I was hoping that my insurance bill as a working contributing citizen would finally get some relief in the whole thing sooner or later, now here I am getting hammered yet again and again in all of this mess. WOW!

I make less than 50,000 dollars a year now, and I have worked all my life contributing as a working man to my country, family and friends, only to get screwed into the ground for it all in the end. All I ask is for some sense to become the norm again for us working people in this nation, instead of us being asked now to carry such a heavy load. I have done what I was supposed to do in life, and it appears that that was the wrong thing to do in life, because now I am the fool for it all. As if I haven't been duped by all of this in the past, it seems to be getting worse and worse now.

How much more can the real working people stand in this nation ? It's so sad now ! Think about the feds waste in this nation, and then think about how it's never enough what goes on with us who are working to cover it all.


----------



## RKMBrown

beagle9 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> dblack... I think you are confused.  We already use Medicaid as "sex insurance" for the poor.  And Obamacare already provides sex insurance through subsidies for middle class and lower income earners up to 4x the poverty level for those who were not already covered by Medicaid.
> 
> Thus the taxpayer is already being mandated to pay for sex insurance for 51% of the nation.  Further, it is now unlawful (correct me if I'm wrong) to offer health care plans that do not cover "sex insurance."  Thus while you can get away with not having it you will have to pay a fine that is then used to pay for it anyway.
> 
> Food insurance (EBT, and other programs, check), rent insurance (state and federal programs for that, check), utilities insurance (state and federal programs for that, check), health care insurance (medicaid, and Obamacare, check), communications (Cable tv, internet, cell phones, computers, state and federal programs, check check check...), education (check),...
> 
> Sort of hard to come up with an example of something that is not already covered.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What??
> 
> You're completely missing the point. PMZ, and others, are arguing that because we have safety nets covering people who can't afford health care they can, in effect, force other people to pay their way. And they're using that as justification for forced insurance covering such situations.
> 
> But we have lots of other similar safety nets, and I'm asking what's different about those? You can make the same argument for food, rent, children, etc - all the other expenses that can be pushed off on the welfare state. It seems like a dangerous precedent to use the potential need for public assistance as an excuse for mandated insurance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A letter I got in the mail today is this... I will write it just like it is written for all to see, and then I want your comments in respect to where this post and thread is at now.. This is from Blue Cross Blue Shield (BCBS) to me as a worker with this coverage through my employer.  Thanks
> 
> *NOTICE OF REINSURANCE FEE'S*
> 
> Effective January 1st, 2014. The ACA will require all health insurance/care providers to collect a payment known as a "reinsurance fee", and this on behalf of the federal government. These payments will fund a transitional reinsurance program that aims to stabilize the market by paying insurers that cover high risk individuals.
> 
> To comply with the ACA requirement, BCBS will calculate reinsurance fee's into your premium rate at the amount of $ 9.12 per employee per month (PEPM).  This change will be reflected in your bill for 2014.
> 
> As a group with an anniversary date of February 1, 2014 or later, we want to ensure that you are aware of this off anniversary change and why it was occurring. Please keep in mind that reinsurance fee's are collected on behalf of the federal government: Blue Cross Blue Shield will not profit from these *contributions.*
> 
> For more information about this fee, and the transitional reinsurance program, please visit http://www.cms.gov/cciio/resources/files/downloads/3rs-final-rule.pdf.
> 
> If you have any questions pertaining to your BCBS bill, please contact your BCBS representative.
> 
> So here I am after all this time watching my health care go higher and higher, where as I was hoping that my insurance bill as a working contributing citizen would finally get some relief in the whole thing sooner or later, getting hammered yet again and again in all of this mess.
> 
> Now I make less than 50,000 dollars a year now, and I have worked all my life contributing as a working man to my country, family and friends, only to get screwed into the ground for it all in the end. All I ask is for some sense to become the norm again for us working people in this nation, instead of us being asked now to carry such a heavy load. I have done what I was supposed to do in life, and it appears that that was the wrong thing to do in life, because now I am the fool for it all. As if I haven't been duped by all of this in the past, it seems to be getting worse and worse now.
> 
> How much more can the real working people stand in this nation ? It's so sad now ! Think about the feds waste in this nation, and then think about how it's never enough what goes on with us who are working to cover it all.
Click to expand...


SS started at 2% now it's 15%... just sayin this 10 a month thing is just the start of a long run of a ton of increases.  If all you got was an extra 10 you are lucky.  Many folks are going from 450 a month to 1200 a month... we are gonna be so screwed with this.  But Obama will tell you to smile and be happy because your 50k is within the 4x of poverty number so you will be approved for the subsidies if you move to the health exchange.

Like you I'm amazed more people haven't gone postal on our government, like the TSA killer did this morning and the IRS killer did in austin a couple years back when he flew a plane into the IRS building.


----------



## beagle9

RKMBrown said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> What??
> 
> You're completely missing the point. PMZ, and others, are arguing that because we have safety nets covering people who can't afford health care they can, in effect, force other people to pay their way. And they're using that as justification for forced insurance covering such situations.
> 
> But we have lots of other similar safety nets, and I'm asking what's different about those? You can make the same argument for food, rent, children, etc - all the other expenses that can be pushed off on the welfare state. It seems like a dangerous precedent to use the potential need for public assistance as an excuse for mandated insurance.
> 
> 
> 
> A letter I got in the mail today is this... I will write it just like it is written for all to see, and then I want your comments in respect to where this post and thread is at now.. This is from Blue Cross Blue Shield (BCBS) to me as a worker with this coverage through my employer.  Thanks
> 
> *NOTICE OF REINSURANCE FEE'S*
> 
> Effective January 1st, 2014. The ACA will require all health insurance/care providers to collect a payment known as a "reinsurance fee", and this on behalf of the federal government. These payments will fund a transitional reinsurance program that aims to stabilize the market by paying insurers that cover high risk individuals.
> 
> To comply with the ACA requirement, BCBS will calculate reinsurance fee's into your premium rate at the amount of $ 9.12 per employee per month (PEPM).  This change will be reflected in your bill for 2014.
> 
> As a group with an anniversary date of February 1, 2014 or later, we want to ensure that you are aware of this off anniversary change and why it was occurring. Please keep in mind that reinsurance fee's are collected on behalf of the federal government: Blue Cross Blue Shield will not profit from these *contributions.*
> 
> For more information about this fee, and the transitional reinsurance program, please visit http://www.cms.gov/cciio/resources/files/downloads/3rs-final-rule.pdf.
> 
> If you have any questions pertaining to your BCBS bill, please contact your BCBS representative.
> 
> So here I am after all this time watching my health care go higher and higher, where as I was hoping that my insurance bill as a working contributing citizen would finally get some relief in the whole thing sooner or later, getting hammered yet again and again in all of this mess.
> 
> Now I make less than 50,000 dollars a year now, and I have worked all my life contributing as a working man to my country, family and friends, only to get screwed into the ground for it all in the end. All I ask is for some sense to become the norm again for us working people in this nation, instead of us being asked now to carry such a heavy load. I have done what I was supposed to do in life, and it appears that that was the wrong thing to do in life, because now I am the fool for it all. As if I haven't been duped by all of this in the past, it seems to be getting worse and worse now.
> 
> How much more can the real working people stand in this nation ? It's so sad now ! Think about the feds waste in this nation, and then think about how it's never enough what goes on with us who are working to cover it all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> SS started at 2% now it's 15%... just sayin this 10 a month thing is just the start of a long run of a ton of increases.  If all you got was an extra 10 you are lucky.  Many folks are going from 450 a month to 1200 a month... we are gonna be so screwed with this.  But Obama will tell you to smile and be happy because your 50k is within the 4x of poverty number so you will be approved for the subsidies if you move to the health exchange.
> 
> Like you I'm amazed more people haven't gone postal on our government, like the TSA killer did this morning and the IRS killer did in austin a couple years back when he flew a plane into the IRS building.
Click to expand...

Are these exchanges now allowing for what the repubs were wanting all along, the buying of ones insurance across state lines now ? If so how come the repubs couldn't get this done when they suggested it as a better solution to the rising cost of health care plans for so many back in the day ?


----------



## RKMBrown

beagle9 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A letter I got in the mail today is this... I will write it just like it is written for all to see, and then I want your comments in respect to where this post and thread is at now.. This is from Blue Cross Blue Shield (BCBS) to me as a worker with this coverage through my employer.  Thanks
> 
> *NOTICE OF REINSURANCE FEE'S*
> 
> Effective January 1st, 2014. The ACA will require all health insurance/care providers to collect a payment known as a "reinsurance fee", and this on behalf of the federal government. These payments will fund a transitional reinsurance program that aims to stabilize the market by paying insurers that cover high risk individuals.
> 
> To comply with the ACA requirement, BCBS will calculate reinsurance fee's into your premium rate at the amount of $ 9.12 per employee per month (PEPM).  This change will be reflected in your bill for 2014.
> 
> As a group with an anniversary date of February 1, 2014 or later, we want to ensure that you are aware of this off anniversary change and why it was occurring. Please keep in mind that reinsurance fee's are collected on behalf of the federal government: Blue Cross Blue Shield will not profit from these *contributions.*
> 
> For more information about this fee, and the transitional reinsurance program, please visit http://www.cms.gov/cciio/resources/files/downloads/3rs-final-rule.pdf.
> 
> If you have any questions pertaining to your BCBS bill, please contact your BCBS representative.
> 
> So here I am after all this time watching my health care go higher and higher, where as I was hoping that my insurance bill as a working contributing citizen would finally get some relief in the whole thing sooner or later, getting hammered yet again and again in all of this mess.
> 
> Now I make less than 50,000 dollars a year now, and I have worked all my life contributing as a working man to my country, family and friends, only to get screwed into the ground for it all in the end. All I ask is for some sense to become the norm again for us working people in this nation, instead of us being asked now to carry such a heavy load. I have done what I was supposed to do in life, and it appears that that was the wrong thing to do in life, because now I am the fool for it all. As if I haven't been duped by all of this in the past, it seems to be getting worse and worse now.
> 
> How much more can the real working people stand in this nation ? It's so sad now ! Think about the feds waste in this nation, and then think about how it's never enough what goes on with us who are working to cover it all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SS started at 2% now it's 15%... just sayin this 10 a month thing is just the start of a long run of a ton of increases.  If all you got was an extra 10 you are lucky.  Many folks are going from 450 a month to 1200 a month... we are gonna be so screwed with this.  But Obama will tell you to smile and be happy because your 50k is within the 4x of poverty number so you will be approved for the subsidies if you move to the health exchange.
> 
> Like you I'm amazed more people haven't gone postal on our government, like the TSA killer did this morning and the IRS killer did in austin a couple years back when he flew a plane into the IRS building.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are these exchanges now allowing for what the repubs were wanting all along, the buying of ones insurance across state lines now ? If so how come the repubs couldn't get this done when they suggested it as a better solution to the rising cost of health care plans for so many back in the day ?
Click to expand...


I don't think so.

I don't think buying policies across state lines ever made sense at all.  Different states have different laws regarding health care.  And different regions have different costs based on where you live.  

The problem with costs was never a matter of state lines, the problem was bad management by state and federal regulations that ran the costs of health care up.  For example states that forced insurance to cover pregnancy, where before it was optional.  For example, states that forced insurance to cover depression, thus leading to an "epidemic" of depression.


----------



## beagle9

RKMBrown said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> What??
> 
> You're completely missing the point. PMZ, and others, are arguing that because we have safety nets covering people who can't afford health care they can, in effect, force other people to pay their way. And they're using that as justification for forced insurance covering such situations.
> 
> But we have lots of other similar safety nets, and I'm asking what's different about those? You can make the same argument for food, rent, children, etc - all the other expenses that can be pushed off on the welfare state. It seems like a dangerous precedent to use the potential need for public assistance as an excuse for mandated insurance.
> 
> 
> 
> A letter I got in the mail today is this... I will write it just like it is written for all to see, and then I want your comments in respect to where this post and thread is at now.. This is from Blue Cross Blue Shield (BCBS) to me as a worker with this coverage through my employer.  Thanks
> 
> *NOTICE OF REINSURANCE FEE'S*
> 
> Effective January 1st, 2014. The ACA will require all health insurance/care providers to collect a payment known as a "reinsurance fee", and this on behalf of the federal government. These payments will fund a transitional reinsurance program that aims to stabilize the market by paying insurers that cover high risk individuals.
> 
> To comply with the ACA requirement, BCBS will calculate reinsurance fee's into your premium rate at the amount of $ 9.12 per employee per month (PEPM).  This change will be reflected in your bill for 2014.
> 
> As a group with an anniversary date of February 1, 2014 or later, we want to ensure that you are aware of this off anniversary change and why it was occurring. Please keep in mind that reinsurance fee's are collected on behalf of the federal government: Blue Cross Blue Shield will not profit from these *contributions.*
> 
> For more information about this fee, and the transitional reinsurance program, please visit http://www.cms.gov/cciio/resources/files/downloads/3rs-final-rule.pdf.
> 
> If you have any questions pertaining to your BCBS bill, please contact your BCBS representative.
> 
> So here I am after all this time watching my health care go higher and higher, where as I was hoping that my insurance bill as a working contributing citizen would finally get some relief in the whole thing sooner or later, getting hammered yet again and again in all of this mess.
> 
> Now I make less than 50,000 dollars a year now, and I have worked all my life contributing as a working man to my country, family and friends, only to get screwed into the ground for it all in the end. All I ask is for some sense to become the norm again for us working people in this nation, instead of us being asked now to carry such a heavy load. I have done what I was supposed to do in life, and it appears that that was the wrong thing to do in life, because now I am the fool for it all. As if I haven't been duped by all of this in the past, it seems to be getting worse and worse now.
> 
> How much more can the real working people stand in this nation ? It's so sad now ! Think about the feds waste in this nation, and then think about how it's never enough what goes on with us who are working to cover it all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> SS started at 2% now it's 15%... just sayin this 10 a month thing is just the start of a long run of a ton of increases.  If all you got was an extra 10 you are lucky.  Many folks are going from 450 a month to 1200 a month... we are gonna be so screwed with this.  But Obama will tell you to smile and be happy because your 50k is within the 4x of poverty number so you will be approved for the subsidies if you move to the health exchange.
> 
> Like you I'm amazed more people haven't gone postal on our government, like the TSA killer did this morning and the IRS killer did in austin a couple years back when he flew a plane into the IRS building.
Click to expand...

Below the poverty line at around 50,000 or less eh ? 

So I could go to the web site and look at these exchanges you say, and then I can apply for subsidies, and even get a new plan that fits maybe, therefore making me a government healthcare welfare recipient now ? 

So instead of a positive I become a negative on the system along with so many more, even when I am doing ok working and paying my bills now ?  I mean as long as they don't keep going higher and higher and higher because the government or insurance companies are making it this way, then I will be alright just as I always have been. I just want to be treated fair and get a just plan that is right for workers like me, no more and no less.

I worked hard in my life, and me and my wife did the right things in our lives, but fast as a speeding bullet we are quickly being threatened to have nothing to show for it, and that is unacceptable is what I think.


----------



## dblack

beagle9 said:


> A letter I got in the mail today is this... I will write it just like it is written for all to see, and then I want your comments in respect to where this post and thread is at now.. This is from Blue Cross Blue Shield (BCBS) to me as a worker with this coverage through my employer.  Thanks
> 
> ...



I'm not really sure what you want me to comment on. I think ACA is a first class scam, a ploy by the insurance industry to keep their fingers in every single health care transaction.


----------



## beagle9

dblack said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A letter I got in the mail today is this... I will write it just like it is written for all to see, and then I want your comments in respect to where this post and thread is at now.. This is from Blue Cross Blue Shield (BCBS) to me as a worker with this coverage through my employer.  Thanks
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not really sure what you want me to comment on. I think ACA is a first class scam, a ploy by the insurance industry to keep their fingers in every single health care transaction.
Click to expand...

Here is my current plan now. I have a 10,000 dollar deductible for this plan WHY ? If I had my family on with me it would be a $20,000 dollar deductible.. WOW!

RK Brown said it wasn't to bad that they only raised it $10.00 more a week for this reinsurance fee to the federal government , but what he don't understand is that this ten dollars hike is on top of the rates that have been raised already on me within this re-enrollment schedule. How much higher can all this go, and why doesn't this system work like the credit system works, where as if I have been a healthy individual over the years, and I haven't abused the system at all, then why can't I have a health credit rating score that is second to none just like my credit score in life is ? Then with this health credit rating score, how come it doesn't come with huge discounts for a person like me who plays by the rules of staying healthy in life, instead of throwing me into the sea with all those who had abused themselves and horded their money (never paying into anything, much less a bill that they would get if they got sick or something), and all due to medical issues in which they may have created themselves due to their hap hazard lifestyles lived in their life ?


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say,  let's shoot the poor and the wealthy and keep only the wealth creators.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah and being an "engineer" I've heard that argument plenty of times.  One needs to be careful of the tendency to over value oneself in the grand scheme of things. How about we not shoot anyone, and let everyone live the fullest of their own potential through their own efforts?
Click to expand...


Because the wealthy can't live with the poor,  and the poor with the wealthy.  Too much whining going on that amounts to nothing.  The middle class does all of the work and creates all of the wealth.  We don't need either category.  Why not just keep all of the wealth that we create?


----------



## RKMBrown

beagle9 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A letter I got in the mail today is this... I will write it just like it is written for all to see, and then I want your comments in respect to where this post and thread is at now.. This is from Blue Cross Blue Shield (BCBS) to me as a worker with this coverage through my employer.  Thanks
> 
> *NOTICE OF REINSURANCE FEE'S*
> 
> Effective January 1st, 2014. The ACA will require all health insurance/care providers to collect a payment known as a "reinsurance fee", and this on behalf of the federal government. These payments will fund a transitional reinsurance program that aims to stabilize the market by paying insurers that cover high risk individuals.
> 
> To comply with the ACA requirement, BCBS will calculate reinsurance fee's into your premium rate at the amount of $ 9.12 per employee per month (PEPM).  This change will be reflected in your bill for 2014.
> 
> As a group with an anniversary date of February 1, 2014 or later, we want to ensure that you are aware of this off anniversary change and why it was occurring. Please keep in mind that reinsurance fee's are collected on behalf of the federal government: Blue Cross Blue Shield will not profit from these *contributions.*
> 
> For more information about this fee, and the transitional reinsurance program, please visit http://www.cms.gov/cciio/resources/files/downloads/3rs-final-rule.pdf.
> 
> If you have any questions pertaining to your BCBS bill, please contact your BCBS representative.
> 
> So here I am after all this time watching my health care go higher and higher, where as I was hoping that my insurance bill as a working contributing citizen would finally get some relief in the whole thing sooner or later, getting hammered yet again and again in all of this mess.
> 
> Now I make less than 50,000 dollars a year now, and I have worked all my life contributing as a working man to my country, family and friends, only to get screwed into the ground for it all in the end. All I ask is for some sense to become the norm again for us working people in this nation, instead of us being asked now to carry such a heavy load. I have done what I was supposed to do in life, and it appears that that was the wrong thing to do in life, because now I am the fool for it all. As if I haven't been duped by all of this in the past, it seems to be getting worse and worse now.
> 
> How much more can the real working people stand in this nation ? It's so sad now ! Think about the feds waste in this nation, and then think about how it's never enough what goes on with us who are working to cover it all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SS started at 2% now it's 15%... just sayin this 10 a month thing is just the start of a long run of a ton of increases.  If all you got was an extra 10 you are lucky.  Many folks are going from 450 a month to 1200 a month... we are gonna be so screwed with this.  But Obama will tell you to smile and be happy because your 50k is within the 4x of poverty number so you will be approved for the subsidies if you move to the health exchange.
> 
> Like you I'm amazed more people haven't gone postal on our government, like the TSA killer did this morning and the IRS killer did in austin a couple years back when he flew a plane into the IRS building.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Below the poverty line at around 50,000 or less eh ?
> 
> So I could go to the web site and look at these exchanges you say, and then I can apply for subsidies, and even get a new plan that fits maybe, therefore making me a government healthcare welfare recipient now ?
> 
> So instead of a positive I become a negative on the system along with so many more, even when I am doing ok working and paying my bills now ?  I mean as long as they don't keep going higher and higher and higher because the government or insurance companies are making it this way, then I will be alright just as I always have been. I just want to be treated fair and get a just plan that is right for workers like me, no more and no less.
> 
> I worked hard in my life, and me and my wife did the right things in our lives, but fast as a speeding bullet we are quickly being threatened to have nothing to show for it, and that is unacceptable is what I think.
Click to expand...


I agree, it sucks.  And actually the Poverty line for Obama Care subsidies is like 90k for a family of 4. Nutz.  But then if you want half the population to get used to welfare and vote democrat for it that's probably a good way to do it.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say,  let's shoot the poor and the wealthy and keep only the wealth creators.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah and being an "engineer" I've heard that argument plenty of times.  One needs to be careful of the tendency to over value oneself in the grand scheme of things. How about we not shoot anyone, and let everyone live the fullest of their own potential through their own efforts?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because the wealthy can't live with the poor,  and the poor with the wealthy.  Too much whining going on that amounts to nothing.  The middle class does all of the work and creates all of the wealth.  We don't need either category.  Why not just keep all of the wealth that we create?
Click to expand...


Because even if we decide to work for ourselves the democrats and republicans insist on redistributing our income to corporate green energy scams and hand-outs for the poor?


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> Mr Brown has one solution to all problems.  Keep the poor barefoot and pregnant and most of all poorer,  and give to the wealthy, the 15% of the wealth that, somehow,  slipped away from the wealthy and is now shared by 80% of Americans.
> 
> Sounds like a return to slavery,  doesn't it?



Don't you love when Dumbocrats accuse people of their own stupid policies?

This is where your marxism that (you deny) is so glaringly and painfully obvious. The assertion that adhering to the Constitution somehow magically "keeps" people poor or keeps people wealthy.

When you advocate constitutional conservatism, you do so for the express purpose of ensuring that no one is ever "kept" anywhere. Everyone is completely free to success or fail of their own accord.

Nobody made poor people poor PMZ - they did that to themselves. Being a marxist though, who believes the government should control everything and everyone for the "good" of the nation, you can't comprehend personal responsibility and thus you ignorantly believe that people are "kept" in a certain class.


----------



## beagle9

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mr Brown has one solution to all problems.  Keep the poor barefoot and pregnant and most of all poorer,  and give to the wealthy, the 15% of the wealth that, somehow,  slipped away from the wealthy and is now shared by 80% of Americans.
> 
> Sounds like a return to slavery,  doesn't it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't you love when Dumbocrats accuse people of their own stupid policies?
> 
> This is where your marxism that (you deny) is so glaringly and painfully obvious. The assertion that adhering to the Constitution somehow magically "keeps" people poor or keeps people wealthy.
> 
> When you advocate constitutional conservatism, you do so for the express purpose of ensuring that no one is ever "kept" anywhere. Everyone is completely free to success or fail of their own accord.
> 
> Nobody made poor people poor PMZ - they did that to themselves. Being a marxist though, who believes the government should control everything and everyone for the "good" of the nation, you can't comprehend personal responsibility and thus you ignorantly believe that people are "kept" in a certain class.
Click to expand...

The government does nothing, but rather it is the group that gets in control of it that does with it what it wants to, and then all those who oppose suffers under the situation until somehow it gets changed back to good by another group. Right now there is a President and a few groups whom want to take this government and force others to yield to it big time, and become in subjection to it, give most of their hard earned money to it, and all in order to help move forward an agenda in which the groups that are controlling it believes in now, and they won't stop at nothing until they get what they think they want in order to get there. 

Ok, now I make less than $50,000 dollars a year right, but because I was a responsible law abiding citizen all my life, who worked hard and done right, I could make it off of that money with no problem. I have my land paid for, my home paid for, my vehicles paid for, I also have a shop I built, tools, and the know how to use them tools, a green house with over 150 blueberries growing in two gallon pots, a produce stand, three dogs, two cats, a horse, a horse barn, but now I am considered poor by the government, so they want to give me subsidies for health care in which will cost everyone else because they can't figure out how to get health insurance companies to be fair, quit gouging people, and to stop all fraud against the Medicare program that was in place for seniors, poor children, and etc. ? I would love to make more money of course, but  the government needs to recognize that if people do right in life, they can make it off of a lot less money than the government thinks that they can before going after more and more. You would be surprised what people can do with their money if it is used right, and in my opinion where the government needs to always be at, is making sure that it is spurring growth with it's policies, in order to create jobs for hundreds of thousands of people across America through the private sectors, and to make sure that it is only using the money that it has available to it *((THE RIGHT WAY))* when doing so, just like I have to. It should be looking at ways to create competition against private sector bad guy's, in order to run them out of business if they aren't going to operate in good conscience and in good standings with the American people. 

One example is this health care thing, where as if health care providers aren't doing right and they are charging to much, then have it where the citizens don't have to buy their health care through that company in the area of question, but instead they can buy it (not get it for free), from the government who would offer a better deal and plan for the citizens against that kind of gouging situation that is going on in an area of the country. Then if the private sector gets their act in line with dong what is right again, and they could offer a little more in perks or benefits than the government can because there's money to be made, then the citizen could switch back or move over to a private plan, and get off of the government plan if they want to. Once the roles shrink to a small level on the government plan, it will then *give back *the citizens more of their taxes through tax cuts, and it will create the incentive to stay at the private sector insurance carrier instead of upon the government roles. This should be the goal of our government always, which is to get the private sector to work, and not to allow the private sector to use the government as an out after they have raped the citizens of a generation before dying out finally themselves over time.


----------



## PMZ

beagle9 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mr Brown has one solution to all problems.  Keep the poor barefoot and pregnant and most of all poorer,  and give to the wealthy, the 15% of the wealth that, somehow,  slipped away from the wealthy and is now shared by 80% of Americans.
> 
> Sounds like a return to slavery,  doesn't it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't you love when Dumbocrats accuse people of their own stupid policies?
> 
> This is where your marxism that (you deny) is so glaringly and painfully obvious. The assertion that adhering to the Constitution somehow magically "keeps" people poor or keeps people wealthy.
> 
> When you advocate constitutional conservatism, you do so for the express purpose of ensuring that no one is ever "kept" anywhere. Everyone is completely free to success or fail of their own accord.
> 
> Nobody made poor people poor PMZ - they did that to themselves. Being a marxist though, who believes the government should control everything and everyone for the "good" of the nation, you can't comprehend personal responsibility and thus you ignorantly believe that people are "kept" in a certain class.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The government does nothing, but rather it is the group that gets in control of it that does with it what it wants to, and then all those who oppose suffers under the situation until somehow it gets changed back to good by another group. Right now there is a President and a few groups whom want to take this government and force others to yield to it big time, and become in subjection to it, give most of their hard earned money to it, and all in order to help move forward an agenda in which the groups that are controlling it believes in now, and they won't stop at nothing until they get what they think they want in order to get there.
> 
> Ok, now I make less than $50,000 dollars a year right, but because I was a responsible law abiding citizen all my life, who worked hard and done right, I could make it off of that money with no problem. I have my land paid for, my home paid for, my vehicles paid for, I also have a shop I built, tools, and the know how to use them tools, a green house with over 150 blueberries growing in two gallon pots, a produce stand, three dogs, two cats, a horse, a horse barn, but now I am considered poor by the government, so they want to give me subsidies for health care in which will cost everyone else because they can't figure out how to get health insurance companies to be fair, quit gouging people, and to stop all fraud against the Medicare program that was in place for seniors, poor children, and etc. ? I would love to make more money of course, but  the government needs to recognize that if people do right in life, they can make it off of a lot less money than the government thinks that they can before going after more and more. You would be surprised what people can do with their money if it is used right, and in my opinion where the government needs to always be at, is making sure that it is spurring growth with it's policies, in order to create jobs for hundreds of thousands of people across America through the private sectors, and to make sure that it is only using the money that it has available to it *((THE RIGHT WAY))* when doing so, just like I have to. It should be looking at ways to create competition against private sector bad guy's, in order to run them out of business if they aren't going to operate in good conscience and in good standings with the American people.
> 
> One example is this health care thing, where as if health care providers aren't doing right and they are charging to much, then have it where the citizens don't have to buy their health care through that company in the area of question, but instead they can buy it (not get it for free), from the government who would offer a better deal and plan for the citizens against that kind of gouging situation that is going on in an area of the country. Then if the private sector gets their act in line with dong what is right again, and they could offer a little more in perks or benefits than the government can because there's money to be made, then the citizen could switch back or move over to a private plan, and get off of the government plan if they want to. Once the roles shrink to a small level on the government plan, it will then *give back *the citizens more of their taxes through tax cuts, and it will create the incentive to stay at the private sector insurance carrier instead of upon the government roles. This should be the goal of our government always, which is to get the private sector to work, and not to allow the private sector to use the government as an out after they have raped the citizens of a generation before dying out finally themselves over time.
Click to expand...


If you believe that you 'done right',  but don't have health insurance,  you are mistaken.  Chances are,  you will get sick or injured.  Very often the cost consequences of that are unaffordable. So,  you may be doing well (being responsible) in many areas,  but not in this one. You are setting yourself up for emergency room welfare. 

Obamacare allows you to become responsible in the least expensive way that private health insurance offers.  And if that is unaffordable,  it will help you pay.  

A win for everyone.


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mr Brown has one solution to all problems.  Keep the poor barefoot and pregnant and most of all poorer,  and give to the wealthy, the 15% of the wealth that, somehow,  slipped away from the wealthy and is now shared by 80% of Americans.
> 
> Sounds like a return to slavery,  doesn't it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't you love when Dumbocrats accuse people of their own stupid policies?
> 
> This is where your marxism that (you deny) is so glaringly and painfully obvious. The assertion that adhering to the Constitution somehow magically "keeps" people poor or keeps people wealthy.
> 
> When you advocate constitutional conservatism, you do so for the express purpose of ensuring that no one is ever "kept" anywhere. Everyone is completely free to success or fail of their own accord.
> 
> Nobody made poor people poor PMZ - they did that to themselves. Being a marxist though, who believes the government should control everything and everyone for the "good" of the nation, you can't comprehend personal responsibility and thus you ignorantly believe that people are "kept" in a certain class.
Click to expand...


I advocate adherence to our Constitution.  Conservatives to some mystical document known only to Republican propagandists. 

If you have an idea for amending the present document to change it into the mythological document of your dreams,  have at it.  The process is spelled out in detail. 

It doesn't even require posting.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> What??
> 
> You're completely missing the point. PMZ, and others, are arguing that because we have safety nets covering people who can't afford health care they can, in effect, force other people to pay their way. And they're using that as justification for forced insurance covering such situations.
> 
> But we have lots of other similar safety nets, and I'm asking what's different about those? You can make the same argument for food, rent, children, etc - all the other expenses that can be pushed off on the welfare state. It seems like a dangerous precedent to use the potential need for public assistance as an excuse for mandated insurance.
> 
> 
> 
> A letter I got in the mail today is this... I will write it just like it is written for all to see, and then I want your comments in respect to where this post and thread is at now.. This is from Blue Cross Blue Shield (BCBS) to me as a worker with this coverage through my employer.  Thanks
> 
> *NOTICE OF REINSURANCE FEE'S*
> 
> Effective January 1st, 2014. The ACA will require all health insurance/care providers to collect a payment known as a "reinsurance fee", and this on behalf of the federal government. These payments will fund a transitional reinsurance program that aims to stabilize the market by paying insurers that cover high risk individuals.
> 
> To comply with the ACA requirement, BCBS will calculate reinsurance fee's into your premium rate at the amount of $ 9.12 per employee per month (PEPM).  This change will be reflected in your bill for 2014.
> 
> As a group with an anniversary date of February 1, 2014 or later, we want to ensure that you are aware of this off anniversary change and why it was occurring. Please keep in mind that reinsurance fee's are collected on behalf of the federal government: Blue Cross Blue Shield will not profit from these *contributions.*
> 
> For more information about this fee, and the transitional reinsurance program, please visit http://www.cms.gov/cciio/resources/files/downloads/3rs-final-rule.pdf.
> 
> If you have any questions pertaining to your BCBS bill, please contact your BCBS representative.
> 
> So here I am after all this time watching my health care go higher and higher, where as I was hoping that my insurance bill as a working contributing citizen would finally get some relief in the whole thing sooner or later, getting hammered yet again and again in all of this mess.
> 
> Now I make less than 50,000 dollars a year now, and I have worked all my life contributing as a working man to my country, family and friends, only to get screwed into the ground for it all in the end. All I ask is for some sense to become the norm again for us working people in this nation, instead of us being asked now to carry such a heavy load. I have done what I was supposed to do in life, and it appears that that was the wrong thing to do in life, because now I am the fool for it all. As if I haven't been duped by all of this in the past, it seems to be getting worse and worse now.
> 
> How much more can the real working people stand in this nation ? It's so sad now ! Think about the feds waste in this nation, and then think about how it's never enough what goes on with us who are working to cover it all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> SS started at 2% now it's 15%... just sayin this 10 a month thing is just the start of a long run of a ton of increases.  If all you got was an extra 10 you are lucky.  Many folks are going from 450 a month to 1200 a month... we are gonna be so screwed with this.  But Obama will tell you to smile and be happy because your 50k is within the 4x of poverty number so you will be approved for the subsidies if you move to the health exchange.
> 
> Like you I'm amazed more people haven't gone postal on our government, like the TSA killer did this morning and the IRS killer did in austin a couple years back when he flew a plane into the IRS building.
Click to expand...


One thing that we can apparently agree on.  The private health care businesses,  delivery and insurance,  are making more money regardless of the cost to others.


----------



## beagle9

PMZ said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't you love when Dumbocrats accuse people of their own stupid policies?
> 
> This is where your marxism that (you deny) is so glaringly and painfully obvious. The assertion that adhering to the Constitution somehow magically "keeps" people poor or keeps people wealthy.
> 
> When you advocate constitutional conservatism, you do so for the express purpose of ensuring that no one is ever "kept" anywhere. Everyone is completely free to success or fail of their own accord.
> 
> Nobody made poor people poor PMZ - they did that to themselves. Being a marxist though, who believes the government should control everything and everyone for the "good" of the nation, you can't comprehend personal responsibility and thus you ignorantly believe that people are "kept" in a certain class.
> 
> 
> 
> The government does nothing, but rather it is the group that gets in control of it that does with it what it wants to, and then all those who oppose suffers under the situation until somehow it gets changed back to good by another group. Right now there is a President and a few groups whom want to take this government and force others to yield to it big time, and become in subjection to it, give most of their hard earned money to it, and all in order to help move forward an agenda in which the groups that are controlling it believes in now, and they won't stop at nothing until they get what they think they want in order to get there.
> 
> Ok, now I make less than $50,000 dollars a year right, but because I was a responsible law abiding citizen all my life, who worked hard and done right, I could make it off of that money with no problem. I have my land paid for, my home paid for, my vehicles paid for, I also have a shop I built, tools, and the know how to use them tools, a green house with over 150 blueberries growing in two gallon pots, a produce stand, three dogs, two cats, a horse, a horse barn, but now I am considered poor by the government, so they want to give me subsidies for health care in which will cost everyone else because they can't figure out how to get health insurance companies to be fair, quit gouging people, and to stop all fraud against the Medicare program that was in place for seniors, poor children, and etc. ? I would love to make more money of course, but  the government needs to recognize that if people do right in life, they can make it off of a lot less money than the government thinks that they can before going after more and more. You would be surprised what people can do with their money if it is used right, and in my opinion where the government needs to always be at, is making sure that it is spurring growth with it's policies, in order to create jobs for hundreds of thousands of people across America through the private sectors, and to make sure that it is only using the money that it has available to it *((THE RIGHT WAY))* when doing so, just like I have to. It should be looking at ways to create competition against private sector bad guy's, in order to run them out of business if they aren't going to operate in good conscience and in good standings with the American people.
> 
> One example is this health care thing, where as if health care providers aren't doing right and they are charging to much, then have it where the citizens don't have to buy their health care through that company in the area of question, but instead they can buy it (not get it for free), from the government who would offer a better deal and plan for the citizens against that kind of gouging situation that is going on in an area of the country. Then if the private sector gets their act in line with dong what is right again, and they could offer a little more in perks or benefits than the government can because there's money to be made, then the citizen could switch back or move over to a private plan, and get off of the government plan if they want to. Once the roles shrink to a small level on the government plan, it will then *give back *the citizens more of their taxes through tax cuts, and it will create the incentive to stay at the private sector insurance carrier instead of upon the government roles. This should be the goal of our government always, which is to get the private sector to work, and not to allow the private sector to use the government as an out after they have raped the citizens of a generation before dying out finally themselves over time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you believe that you 'done right',  but don't have health insurance,  you are mistaken.  Chances are,  you will get sick or injured.  Very often the cost consequences of that are unaffordable. So,  you may be doing well (being responsible) in many areas,  but not in this one. You are setting yourself up for emergency room welfare.
> 
> Obamacare allows you to become responsible in the least expensive way that private health insurance offers.  And if that is unaffordable,  it will help you pay.
> 
> A win for everyone.
Click to expand...

I have health insurance right now through my employer as this has always has been the case, and I have had it the whole time in my life while working, but funny how it is getting to costly these days to afford anymore, and this for those who do work, now why is this happening again ?


----------



## Barbarap

Health insurance premiums have been systematically increasing while benefits have been shrinking for years now.... Long before the ACA came along.


----------



## PMZ

beagle9 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The government does nothing, but rather it is the group that gets in control of it that does with it what it wants to, and then all those who oppose suffers under the situation until somehow it gets changed back to good by another group. Right now there is a President and a few groups whom want to take this government and force others to yield to it big time, and become in subjection to it, give most of their hard earned money to it, and all in order to help move forward an agenda in which the groups that are controlling it believes in now, and they won't stop at nothing until they get what they think they want in order to get there.
> 
> Ok, now I make less than $50,000 dollars a year right, but because I was a responsible law abiding citizen all my life, who worked hard and done right, I could make it off of that money with no problem. I have my land paid for, my home paid for, my vehicles paid for, I also have a shop I built, tools, and the know how to use them tools, a green house with over 150 blueberries growing in two gallon pots, a produce stand, three dogs, two cats, a horse, a horse barn, but now I am considered poor by the government, so they want to give me subsidies for health care in which will cost everyone else because they can't figure out how to get health insurance companies to be fair, quit gouging people, and to stop all fraud against the Medicare program that was in place for seniors, poor children, and etc. ? I would love to make more money of course, but  the government needs to recognize that if people do right in life, they can make it off of a lot less money than the government thinks that they can before going after more and more. You would be surprised what people can do with their money if it is used right, and in my opinion where the government needs to always be at, is making sure that it is spurring growth with it's policies, in order to create jobs for hundreds of thousands of people across America through the private sectors, and to make sure that it is only using the money that it has available to it *((THE RIGHT WAY))* when doing so, just like I have to. It should be looking at ways to create competition against private sector bad guy's, in order to run them out of business if they aren't going to operate in good conscience and in good standings with the American people.
> 
> One example is this health care thing, where as if health care providers aren't doing right and they are charging to much, then have it where the citizens don't have to buy their health care through that company in the area of question, but instead they can buy it (not get it for free), from the government who would offer a better deal and plan for the citizens against that kind of gouging situation that is going on in an area of the country. Then if the private sector gets their act in line with dong what is right again, and they could offer a little more in perks or benefits than the government can because there's money to be made, then the citizen could switch back or move over to a private plan, and get off of the government plan if they want to. Once the roles shrink to a small level on the government plan, it will then *give back *the citizens more of their taxes through tax cuts, and it will create the incentive to stay at the private sector insurance carrier instead of upon the government roles. This should be the goal of our government always, which is to get the private sector to work, and not to allow the private sector to use the government as an out after they have raped the citizens of a generation before dying out finally themselves over time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you believe that you 'done right',  but don't have health insurance,  you are mistaken.  Chances are,  you will get sick or injured.  Very often the cost consequences of that are unaffordable. So,  you may be doing well (being responsible) in many areas,  but not in this one. You are setting yourself up for emergency room welfare.
> 
> Obamacare allows you to become responsible in the least expensive way that private health insurance offers.  And if that is unaffordable,  it will help you pay.
> 
> A win for everyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have health insurance right now through my employer as this has always has been the case, and I have had it the whole time in my life while working, but funny how it is getting to costly these days to afford anymore, and this for those who do work, now why is this happening again ?
Click to expand...


Congratulations on working for a responsible employer. 

The only significant forces in the health care delivery market for controlling costs are the government through Medicare and to a growingly lesser degree,  large companies negotiating for coverage for their employees. 

Other than that,  arguably better,  but always more costly diagnostics and cures rule the roost. 

Cost increases greater than inflation have never even slowed. 

And these structural health care delivery cost increases are not even addressed by ACA, which is mostly about regulating insurance. 

Every one of our global competition successfully regulates health care delivery costs.  We can't here.  Because of the Republican boggieman,  socialism.


----------



## RKMBrown

Barbarap said:


> Health insurance premiums have been systematically increasing while benefits have been shrinking for years now.... Long before the ACA came along.



Not true at all.  But I forgive you for lying.


----------



## beagle9

RKMBrown said:


> Barbarap said:
> 
> 
> 
> Health insurance premiums have been systematically increasing while benefits have been shrinking for years now.... Long before the ACA came along.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not true at all.  But I forgive you for lying.
Click to expand...

You sure about this RKM Brown ? I have seen my premiums go up and my quality of service go down also, as one example my deductible has never been this high before, and then I had once under United Health Care a change to a 60/40 on the pay ratio situation, where as now I am back to a 70/30 pay ratio situation under BCBS. My wife has a policy that is an 80/20 pay ratio, and she has a 2,000 dollar deductible. Not sure why we don't have a better pay ratio than what we do, as we do much more dangerous work than she does, but it depends on the company one is with, and what types of policies they are offered I guess.


----------



## PMZ

Conservatives seem to be surprised that the cost of health care insurance follows the cost of health care delivery. 

No wonder they have trouble with the real world.


----------



## RKMBrown

beagle9 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Barbarap said:
> 
> 
> 
> Health insurance premiums have been systematically increasing while benefits have been shrinking for years now.... Long before the ACA came along.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not true at all.  But I forgive you for lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You sure about this RKM Brown ? I have seen my premiums go up and my quality of service go down also, as one example my deductible has never been this high before, and then I had once under United Health Care a change to a 60/40 on the pay ratio situation, where as now I am back to a 70/30 pay ratio situation under BCBS. My wife has a policy that is an 80/20 pay ratio, and she has a 2,000 dollar deductible. Not sure why we don't have a better pay ratio than what we do, as we do much more dangerous work than she does, but it depends on the company one is with, and what types of policies they are offered I guess.
Click to expand...


Yes, I'm sure.  We may not like the fact that our insurance pays the for the benefits of others but you can't blame the insurance or even the health care providers.  The fault is the government mandates, government provided monopolies, and government programs that are saddling the insurance payer with extra benefits they don't want.  That plus "inflation."  Insurance companies just skim off the top the real winner here is the people who directly benefit from these government created issues.  That would be the illegal immigrants, the drug companies, medicare/medicaid recipients, the suit happy lawyers, etc..  These government management missteps caused the rates to go up, then they come in to save the day with even more management missteps that will double and triple the costs yet again.

Insurance used to be a matter of calculating a premium cost based on "risk" that the insured will need benefits, and giving you a suitable charge based on that risk.  People have come to believe insurance means you get something for nothing and everyone else gets screwed.


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> Cost increases greater than inflation have never even slowed.



So once again, where does that *perceived* "problem" by you authorize the federal government to intervene?


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not true at all.  But I forgive you for lying.
> 
> 
> 
> You sure about this RKM Brown ? I have seen my premiums go up and my quality of service go down also, as one example my deductible has never been this high before, and then I had once under United Health Care a change to a 60/40 on the pay ratio situation, where as now I am back to a 70/30 pay ratio situation under BCBS. My wife has a policy that is an 80/20 pay ratio, and she has a 2,000 dollar deductible. Not sure why we don't have a better pay ratio than what we do, as we do much more dangerous work than she does, but it depends on the company one is with, and what types of policies they are offered I guess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I'm sure.  We may not like the fact that our insurance pays the for the benefits of others but you can't blame the insurance or even the health care providers.  The fault is the government mandates, government provided monopolies, and government programs that are saddling the insurance payer with extra benefits they don't want.  That plus "inflation."  Insurance companies just skim off the top the real winner here is the people who directly benefit from these government created issues.  That would be the illegal immigrants, the drug companies, the suit happy lawyers, etc..  These government management missteps caused the rates to go up, then they come in to save the day with even more management missteps that will double and triple the costs yet again.
Click to expand...


The object of ACA is to,  as much as possible,  get all of us to pay for our own health care. As a start towards enabling us to manage it's costs down some day. 

Wealthy people,  and people whose employer foots their medical bills,  aren't the problem.  Obamacare would choose to ignore them.  Private insurance won't. 

So there are some in those two categories who have incomplete coverage.  Who are at risk of expensive circumstances causing them to not being able to pay for their own medical expenses. 

Obamacare plugs those holes. 

The other end of the spectrum are people not being paid enough for full time work to afford to be healthy.  If they get sick they can just be fired and replaced with a good "part".  Business backs them into a corner where survival takes a great deal of work and time and cunning.  That fact of survival puts their cost of surviving,  that their employer ignores, on us,  one way or another. 

ACA puts those costs on,  rather than under,  the table. 

The Republican fuss about all this has little to do with all if this.  It has to do with maintaining their business,  getting elected,  competitive,  by dragging their competition down to their level through advertising.  Propaganda.  Mind control.  Brain washing.  Dirty politics.  Whatever you want to call it. 

So it's necessary to understand all of this to separate politics from governance,  health care insurance from delivery,  business making more money regardless of the cost to others from government,  health care cost escalation leading to improved health outcomes from merely more profit for a particular business,  etc. 

Most people can't.  So politics and business takes advantage of that confusion.


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> Every one of our global competition successfully regulates health care delivery costs.



Why are you constantly trying to lower the United States to the same subpar level of the rest of the world? We are the United States. We're better than the rest of the world. And no matter how hard you try drag us down, conservatives will be here protecting the Republic and the Constitution.

If your only argument is "but mommy, Johnny did it too" then you have *no* argument.


----------



## jon_berzerk

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every one of our global competition successfully regulates health care delivery costs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you constantly trying to lower the United States to the same subpar level of the rest of the world? We are the United States. We're better than the rest of the world. And no matter how hard you try drag us down, conservatives will be here protecting the Republic and the Constitution.
> 
> If your only argument is "but mommy, Johnny did it too" then you have *no* argument.
Click to expand...


*the other shoe is about to drop *

Virginia Democrat  Kathleen Murphy

wants to see doctors and providers forced into accepting 

medicaid and medicare 

in an effort to make obamacare even better 

MASON CONSERVATIVE: Virginia Democrat Calls For Forcing Doctors To Accept Medicare And Medicaid Patients

now all she needs is a law forbidding the doctors from quitting 

and once and for all health care can be a god given right


----------



## P@triot

jon_berzerk said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every one of our global competition successfully regulates health care delivery costs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you constantly trying to lower the United States to the same subpar level of the rest of the world? We are the United States. We're better than the rest of the world. And no matter how hard you try drag us down, conservatives will be here protecting the Republic and the Constitution.
> 
> If your only argument is "but mommy, Johnny did it too" then you have *no* argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *the other shoe is about to drop *
> 
> Virginia Democrat  Kathleen Murphy
> 
> wants to see doctors and providers forced into accepting
> 
> medicaid and medicare
> 
> in an effort to make obamacare even better
> 
> MASON CONSERVATIVE: Virginia Democrat Calls For Forcing Doctors To Accept Medicare And Medicaid Patients
> 
> now all she needs is a law forbidding the doctors from quitting
> 
> and once and for all health care can be a god given right
Click to expand...


Just wait until they tell you that because Obamacare is paying for your healthcare, they will control what you eat and mandate exercise. De Fürher Bloomberg already started this ball rolling with his ban on soda in New York.

And when it happens (and we all know it will) PMZ will attempt to defend it with every absurd argument he can think of. But....but....but...Cambodia regulates the diet of their citizens....


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You sure about this RKM Brown ? I have seen my premiums go up and my quality of service go down also, as one example my deductible has never been this high before, and then I had once under United Health Care a change to a 60/40 on the pay ratio situation, where as now I am back to a 70/30 pay ratio situation under BCBS. My wife has a policy that is an 80/20 pay ratio, and she has a 2,000 dollar deductible. Not sure why we don't have a better pay ratio than what we do, as we do much more dangerous work than she does, but it depends on the company one is with, and what types of policies they are offered I guess.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I'm sure.  We may not like the fact that our insurance pays the for the benefits of others but you can't blame the insurance or even the health care providers.  The fault is the government mandates, government provided monopolies, and government programs that are saddling the insurance payer with extra benefits they don't want.  That plus "inflation."  Insurance companies just skim off the top the real winner here is the people who directly benefit from these government created issues.  That would be the illegal immigrants, the drug companies, the suit happy lawyers, etc..  These government management missteps caused the rates to go up, then they come in to save the day with even more management missteps that will double and triple the costs yet again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The object of ACA is to,  as much as possible,  get all of us to pay for our own health care. As a start towards enabling us to manage it's costs down some day.
> 
> Wealthy people,  and people whose employer foots their medical bills,  aren't the problem.  Obamacare would choose to ignore them.  Private insurance won't.
> 
> So there are some in those two categories who have incomplete coverage.  Who are at risk of expensive circumstances causing them to not being able to pay for their own medical expenses.
> 
> Obamacare plugs those holes.
> 
> The other end of the spectrum are people not being paid enough for full time work to afford to be healthy.  If they get sick they can just be fired and replaced with a good "part".  Business backs them into a corner where survival takes a great deal of work and time and cunning.  That fact of survival puts their cost of surviving,  that their employer ignores, on us,  one way or another.
> 
> ACA puts those costs on,  rather than under,  the table.
> 
> The Republican fuss about all this has little to do with all if this.  It has to do with maintaining their business,  getting elected,  competitive,  by dragging their competition down to their level through advertising.  Propaganda.  Mind control.  Brain washing.  Dirty politics.  Whatever you want to call it.
> 
> So it's necessary to understand all of this to separate politics from governance,  health care insurance from delivery,  business making more money regardless of the cost to others from government,  health care cost escalation leading to improved health outcomes from merely more profit for a particular business,  etc.
> 
> Most people can't.  So politics and business takes advantage of that confusion.
Click to expand...

Wrong.

The object of ACA is to,  as much as possible, grow government while locking everyone into a socialist system of health care where over time only the top half pays and the bottom half gets everything they want for free, this to ensure the 51% have to keep voting democrat, so that the democrats can enact, over time, a democrat run communist system of government where no one has to worry about paying any of their bills as long as they vote democrat.  This will work right up to the point in time when the 49% say screw you guys, you won't row neither will we.  Pass the booze i'm sitting on my couch.


----------



## dblack

PMZ said:


> The object of ACA is to,  as much as possible,  get all of us to pay for our own health care. As a start towards enabling us to manage it's costs down some day.



But that's not what it does. It does exactly the opposite in fact. It forces all of us to buy insurance so that we are relieved of the responsibility of paying for our own health care.


----------



## PMZ

rottweiler said:


> pmz said:
> 
> 
> 
> cost increases greater than inflation have never even slowed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so once again, where does that *perceived* "problem" by you authorize the federal government to intervene?
Click to expand...


scotus.


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every one of our global competition successfully regulates health care delivery costs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you constantly trying to lower the United States to the same subpar level of the rest of the world? We are the United States. We're better than the rest of the world. And no matter how hard you try drag us down, conservatives will be here protecting the Republic and the Constitution.
> 
> If your only argument is "but mommy, Johnny did it too" then you have *no* argument.
Click to expand...


We need to be competitive.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every one of our global competition successfully regulates health care delivery costs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you constantly trying to lower the United States to the same subpar level of the rest of the world? We are the United States. We're better than the rest of the world. And no matter how hard you try drag us down, conservatives will be here protecting the Republic and the Constitution.
> 
> If your only argument is "but mommy, Johnny did it too" then you have *no* argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We need to be competitive.
Click to expand...


Yeah cause being #1 needed to be fixed.


----------



## dblack

Rottweiler said:


> Just wait until they tell you that because Obamacare is paying for your healthcare, they will control what you eat and mandate exercise. De Fürher Bloomberg already started this ball rolling with his ban on soda in New York.
> 
> And when it happens (and we all know it will) PMZ will attempt to defend it with every absurd argument he can think of. But....but....but...Cambodia regulates the diet of their citizens....



This is my biggest concern with ACA. The primary excuse for mandating insurance is the 'free rider' dynamic. People don't like that laws like EMTALA, or even just general welfare spending, shift costs from 'irresponsible' people to taxpayers - so they are insisting on mandates to make sure it doesn't happen. When all our health care costs are pooled together, how will these same people view their neighbors' unhealthy habits? Will the be demanding even more laws dictating our personal decisions in the name of saving taxpayers money? You can bet they will.


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you constantly trying to lower the United States to the same subpar level of the rest of the world? We are the United States. We're better than the rest of the world. And no matter how hard you try drag us down, conservatives will be here protecting the Republic and the Constitution.
> 
> If your only argument is "but mommy, Johnny did it too" then you have *no* argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *the other shoe is about to drop *
> 
> Virginia Democrat  Kathleen Murphy
> 
> wants to see doctors and providers forced into accepting
> 
> medicaid and medicare
> 
> in an effort to make obamacare even better
> 
> MASON CONSERVATIVE: Virginia Democrat Calls For Forcing Doctors To Accept Medicare And Medicaid Patients
> 
> now all she needs is a law forbidding the doctors from quitting
> 
> and once and for all health care can be a god given right
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just wait until they tell you that because Obamacare is paying for your healthcare, they will control what you eat and mandate exercise. De Fürher Bloomberg already started this ball rolling with his ban on soda in New York.
> 
> And when it happens (and we all know it will) PMZ will attempt to defend it with every absurd argument he can think of. But....but....but...Cambodia regulates the diet of their citizens....
Click to expand...


The only people Obamacare pays to maintain their health are the people that business doesn't. What that does is nothing more than put those costs,  which are unavoidable due to survival instinct built into all of us,  on,  rather than under,  the table.


----------



## boedicca

Don't worry!  Sebelius is on the case!  She has a new book.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I'm sure.  We may not like the fact that our insurance pays the for the benefits of others but you can't blame the insurance or even the health care providers.  The fault is the government mandates, government provided monopolies, and government programs that are saddling the insurance payer with extra benefits they don't want.  That plus "inflation."  Insurance companies just skim off the top the real winner here is the people who directly benefit from these government created issues.  That would be the illegal immigrants, the drug companies, the suit happy lawyers, etc..  These government management missteps caused the rates to go up, then they come in to save the day with even more management missteps that will double and triple the costs yet again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The object of ACA is to,  as much as possible,  get all of us to pay for our own health care. As a start towards enabling us to manage it's costs down some day.
> 
> Wealthy people,  and people whose employer foots their medical bills,  aren't the problem.  Obamacare would choose to ignore them.  Private insurance won't.
> 
> So there are some in those two categories who have incomplete coverage.  Who are at risk of expensive circumstances causing them to not being able to pay for their own medical expenses.
> 
> Obamacare plugs those holes.
> 
> The other end of the spectrum are people not being paid enough for full time work to afford to be healthy.  If they get sick they can just be fired and replaced with a good "part".  Business backs them into a corner where survival takes a great deal of work and time and cunning.  That fact of survival puts their cost of surviving,  that their employer ignores, on us,  one way or another.
> 
> ACA puts those costs on,  rather than under,  the table.
> 
> The Republican fuss about all this has little to do with all if this.  It has to do with maintaining their business,  getting elected,  competitive,  by dragging their competition down to their level through advertising.  Propaganda.  Mind control.  Brain washing.  Dirty politics.  Whatever you want to call it.
> 
> So it's necessary to understand all of this to separate politics from governance,  health care insurance from delivery,  business making more money regardless of the cost to others from government,  health care cost escalation leading to improved health outcomes from merely more profit for a particular business,  etc.
> 
> Most people can't.  So politics and business takes advantage of that confusion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> The object of ACA is to,  as much as possible, grow government while locking everyone into a socialist system of health care where over time only the top half pays and the bottom half gets everything they want for free, this to ensure the 51% have to keep voting democrat, so that the democrats can enact, over time, a democrat run communist system of government where no one has to worry about paying any of their bills as long as they vote democrat.  This will work right up to the point in time when the 49% say screw you guys, you won't row neither will we.  Pass the booze i'm sitting on my couch.
Click to expand...


Wrong.  This is only what you wish was true as it is your excuse for extremism.  You wanting it to be true has no impact on reality.


----------



## PMZ

dblack said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just wait until they tell you that because Obamacare is paying for your healthcare, they will control what you eat and mandate exercise. De Fürher Bloomberg already started this ball rolling with his ban on soda in New York.
> 
> And when it happens (and we all know it will) PMZ will attempt to defend it with every absurd argument he can think of. But....but....but...Cambodia regulates the diet of their citizens....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is my biggest concern with ACA. The primary excuse for mandating insurance is the 'free rider' dynamic. People don't like that laws like EMTALA, or even just general welfare spending, shift costs from 'irresponsible' people to taxpayers - so they are insisting on mandates to make sure it doesn't happen. When all our health care costs are pooled together, how will these same people view their neighbors' unhealthy habits? Will the be demanding even more laws dictating our personal decisions in the name of saving taxpayers money? You can bet they will.
Click to expand...


There are many countries who accept your ideas,  typically not because they agree,  but because they have no economic choice. They are all over the world,  but there's a concentration in Africa.  

Been there.  Seen that.  It's really the most expensive solution.  Not to mention sickening. 

Have you seen or experienced it?


----------



## dblack

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just wait until they tell you that because Obamacare is paying for your healthcare, they will control what you eat and mandate exercise. De Fürher Bloomberg already started this ball rolling with his ban on soda in New York.
> 
> And when it happens (and we all know it will) PMZ will attempt to defend it with every absurd argument he can think of. But....but....but...Cambodia regulates the diet of their citizens....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is my biggest concern with ACA. The primary excuse for mandating insurance is the 'free rider' dynamic. People don't like that laws like EMTALA, or even just general welfare spending, shift costs from 'irresponsible' people to taxpayers - so they are insisting on mandates to make sure it doesn't happen. When all our health care costs are pooled together, how will these same people view their neighbors' unhealthy habits? Will the be demanding even more laws dictating our personal decisions in the name of saving taxpayers money? You can bet they will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are many countries who accept your ideas,  typically not because they agree,  but because they have no economic choice. They are all over the world,  but there's a concentration in Africa.
> 
> Been there.  Seen that.  It's really the most expensive solution.  Not to mention sickening.
> 
> Have you seen or experienced it?
Click to expand...


Please... not the Somalia screed.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> The object of ACA is to,  as much as possible,  get all of us to pay for our own health care. As a start towards enabling us to manage it's costs down some day.
> 
> Wealthy people,  and people whose employer foots their medical bills,  aren't the problem.  Obamacare would choose to ignore them.  Private insurance won't.
> 
> So there are some in those two categories who have incomplete coverage.  Who are at risk of expensive circumstances causing them to not being able to pay for their own medical expenses.
> 
> Obamacare plugs those holes.
> 
> The other end of the spectrum are people not being paid enough for full time work to afford to be healthy.  If they get sick they can just be fired and replaced with a good "part".  Business backs them into a corner where survival takes a great deal of work and time and cunning.  That fact of survival puts their cost of surviving,  that their employer ignores, on us,  one way or another.
> 
> ACA puts those costs on,  rather than under,  the table.
> 
> The Republican fuss about all this has little to do with all if this.  It has to do with maintaining their business,  getting elected,  competitive,  by dragging their competition down to their level through advertising.  Propaganda.  Mind control.  Brain washing.  Dirty politics.  Whatever you want to call it.
> 
> So it's necessary to understand all of this to separate politics from governance,  health care insurance from delivery,  business making more money regardless of the cost to others from government,  health care cost escalation leading to improved health outcomes from merely more profit for a particular business,  etc.
> 
> Most people can't.  So politics and business takes advantage of that confusion.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> The object of ACA is to,  as much as possible, grow government while locking everyone into a socialist system of health care where over time only the top half pays and the bottom half gets everything they want for free, this to ensure the 51% have to keep voting democrat, so that the democrats can enact, over time, a democrat run communist system of government where no one has to worry about paying any of their bills as long as they vote democrat.  This will work right up to the point in time when the 49% say screw you guys, you won't row neither will we.  Pass the booze i'm sitting on my couch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.  This is only what you wish was true as it is your excuse for extremism.  You wanting it to be true has no impact on reality.
Click to expand...


Now liberty is "extremism?"


----------



## PMZ

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is my biggest concern with ACA. The primary excuse for mandating insurance is the 'free rider' dynamic. People don't like that laws like EMTALA, or even just general welfare spending, shift costs from 'irresponsible' people to taxpayers - so they are insisting on mandates to make sure it doesn't happen. When all our health care costs are pooled together, how will these same people view their neighbors' unhealthy habits? Will the be demanding even more laws dictating our personal decisions in the name of saving taxpayers money? You can bet they will.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are many countries who accept your ideas,  typically not because they agree,  but because they have no economic choice. They are all over the world,  but there's a concentration in Africa.
> 
> Been there.  Seen that.  It's really the most expensive solution.  Not to mention sickening.
> 
> Have you seen or experienced it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please... not the Somalia screed.
Click to expand...


You can't stand the truth.


----------



## dblack

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are many countries who accept your ideas,  typically not because they agree,  but because they have no economic choice. They are all over the world,  but there's a concentration in Africa.
> 
> Been there.  Seen that.  It's really the most expensive solution.  Not to mention sickening.
> 
> Have you seen or experienced it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please... not the Somalia screed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't stand the truth.
Click to expand...


Well, it is honestly disappointing. I was enjoying the thread. But if you don't want to discuss the topic, I can't force you to.


----------



## PMZ

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please... not the Somalia screed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't stand the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, it is honestly disappointing. I was enjoying the thread. But if you don't want to discuss the topic, I can't force you to.
Click to expand...


I was.  Why do you think that it is not wise to use actual global experience to judge alternatives?


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> The object of ACA is to,  as much as possible, grow government while locking everyone into a socialist system of health care where over time only the top half pays and the bottom half gets everything they want for free, this to ensure the 51% have to keep voting democrat, so that the democrats can enact, over time, a democrat run communist system of government where no one has to worry about paying any of their bills as long as they vote democrat.  This will work right up to the point in time when the 49% say screw you guys, you won't row neither will we.  Pass the booze i'm sitting on my couch.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.  This is only what you wish was true as it is your excuse for extremism.  You wanting it to be true has no impact on reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now liberty is "extremism?"
Click to expand...


What's extremism is your presumption that more liberty is the result of fewer laws when,  in fact,  the opposite is true.


----------



## Dante

PMZ said:


> Conservatives seem to be surprised that the cost of health care insurance follows the cost of health care delivery.
> 
> No wonder they have trouble with the real world.



Stupid is as stupid does. What do you expect from people who are fed lies and conspuracy theories on a daily basis?


----------



## dblack

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't stand the truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, it is honestly disappointing. I was enjoying the thread. But if you don't want to discuss the topic, I can't force you to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was.  Why do you think that it is not wise to use actual global experience to judge alternatives?
Click to expand...


Your comment was a non-sequitor and has nothing to do with the post you were responding to. It was the rhetorical equivalent of "I got nuthin".


----------



## PMZ

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, it is honestly disappointing. I was enjoying the thread. But if you don't want to discuss the topic, I can't force you to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was.  Why do you think that it is not wise to use actual global experience to judge alternatives?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your comment was a non-sequitor and has nothing to do with the post you were responding to. It was the rhetorical equivalent of "I got nuthin".
Click to expand...


Let's try once more. 

Why do you think that it is not wise to use actual global experience to judge alternatives?


----------



## dblack

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was.  Why do you think that it is not wise to use actual global experience to judge alternatives?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your comment was a non-sequitor and has nothing to do with the post you were responding to. It was the rhetorical equivalent of "I got nuthin".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's try once more.
> 
> Why do you think that it is not wise to use actual global experience to judge alternatives?
Click to expand...


I don't think that. 

Now, in regard to the post you were responding to - we were discussing a potential unintended consequences of ACA. Specifically I was expressing concern that pooling health care costs via mandated insurance coverage will create an incentive for more intrusive regulations dictating personal behavior. You have cited the cost shifting associated with the uninsured as justification for the additional regulations of ACA. Assuming that law is able to achieve something closer to universal insurance coverage, will you then see justification in laws prohibiting behavior that might cost taxpayers money in terms of health care costs?


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.  This is only what you wish was true as it is your excuse for extremism.  You wanting it to be true has no impact on reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now liberty is "extremism?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's extremism is your presumption that more liberty is the result of fewer laws when,  in fact,  the opposite is true.
Click to expand...


A law that forces people to buy health insurance, and forces people to provide subsidies to other people results in more liberty?  Be honest, what drugs are you on?


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now liberty is "extremism?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's extremism is your presumption that more liberty is the result of fewer laws when,  in fact,  the opposite is true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A law that forces people to buy health insurance, and forces people to provide subsidies to other people results in more liberty?  Be honest, what drugs are you on?
Click to expand...


A law that requires everyone to pay for their own health care frees everyone from the burden of carrying others. 

Putting the health care of those that business does not a pay a living wage to on the table rather than forcing them into under the table health care,  gives them the same freedom that you and I have and reduces the impact of their marginal health on the rest of us and keeps us all aware of the consequences of non living wages.


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pmz said:
> 
> 
> 
> cost increases greater than inflation have never even slowed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so once again, where does that *perceived* "problem" by you authorize the federal government to intervene?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> scotus.
Click to expand...


And again (because you keep dodging this quesiton as well), where does the Constitution authorize the Supreme Court to alter the Constitution? The federal government is only authorized to act on 18 specific enumerated powers. Healthcare (or any part of the private sector is NOT one of them). So please tell me where I can find in the Constitution the section which authorizes the Supreme Court to alter it.

Furthermore, you also keep refusing to answer this simple question: if the Supreme Court rules that you no longer have 1st Amendment rights, will you agree with the ruling and comply?


----------



## dblack

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's extremism is your presumption that more liberty is the result of fewer laws when,  in fact,  the opposite is true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A law that forces people to buy health insurance, and forces people to provide subsidies to other people results in more liberty?  Be honest, what drugs are you on?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A law that requires everyone to pay for their own health care frees everyone from the burden of carrying others.
Click to expand...


You keep making this claim, but it's demonstrably untrue. ACA does exactly the opposite. It doesn't force people to pay for their own health care. It forces them to pay for health _insurance_, a scheme specifically designed share the burden of paying for health care. You're basically saying that black is white.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's extremism is your presumption that more liberty is the result of fewer laws when,  in fact,  the opposite is true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A law that forces people to buy health insurance, and forces people to provide subsidies to other people results in more liberty?  Be honest, what drugs are you on?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A law that requires everyone to pay for their own health care frees everyone from the burden of carrying others.
> 
> Putting the health care of those that business does not a pay a living wage to on the table rather than forcing them into under the table health care,  gives them the same freedom that you and I have and reduces the impact of their marginal health on the rest of us and keeps us all aware of the consequences of non living wages.
Click to expand...


But the ACA law does not force anyone to pay for health insurance, except the taxpayer who does not get it.  He just gets to pay for subsidies for other people to get health insurance.


----------



## P@triot

Check it out [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] - even liberals can no longer continue lying about Obamacare. You're one of the extreme radicals. I'm wondering how long you can keep perpetuating the lie before you finally cave to the truth as well...

Obamacare's Harshest Critics? Look at What These Liberals Are Saying


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> so once again, where does that *perceived* "problem" by you authorize the federal government to intervene?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> scotus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And again (because you keep dodging this quesiton as well), where does the Constitution authorize the Supreme Court to alter the Constitution? The federal government is only authorized to act on 18 specific enumerated powers. Healthcare (or any part of the private sector is NOT one of them). So please tell me where I can find in the Constitution the section which authorizes the Supreme Court to alter it.
> 
> Furthermore, you also keep refusing to answer this simple question: if the Supreme Court rules that you no longer have 1st Amendment rights, will you agree with the ruling and comply?
Click to expand...


SCOTUS ruled that it does.  What you wish the Constitution said doesn't enter the equation.  The Constitution is what it is because nutballs with agendas can't change it to what supports their particular delusion.


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> Check it out [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] - even liberals can no longer continue lying about Obamacare. You're one of the extreme radicals. I'm wondering how long you can keep perpetuating the lie before you finally cave to the truth as well...
> 
> Obamacare's Harshest Critics? Look at What These Liberals Are Saying



The truth of what?


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> A law that forces people to buy health insurance, and forces people to provide subsidies to other people results in more liberty?  Be honest, what drugs are you on?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A law that requires everyone to pay for their own health care frees everyone from the burden of carrying others.
> 
> Putting the health care of those that business does not a pay a living wage to on the table rather than forcing them into under the table health care,  gives them the same freedom that you and I have and reduces the impact of their marginal health on the rest of us and keeps us all aware of the consequences of non living wages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the ACA law does not force anyone to pay for health insurance, except the taxpayer who does not get it.  He just gets to pay for subsidies for other people to get health insurance.
Click to expand...


ACA requires everyone to carry adequate health insurance.  The penalty for not carrying it is a fine.  

All tax payers subsidize the health care of full time workers not paid a living wage.  They have since EMTALA.


----------



## PMZ

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> A law that forces people to buy health insurance, and forces people to provide subsidies to other people results in more liberty?  Be honest, what drugs are you on?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A law that requires everyone to pay for their own health care frees everyone from the burden of carrying others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You keep making this claim, but it's demonstrably untrue. ACA does exactly the opposite. It doesn't force people to pay for their own health care. It forces them to pay for health _insurance_, a scheme specifically designed share the burden of paying for health care. You're basically saying that black is white.
Click to expand...


They only people that can afford to guarantee that they can pay their own health care bills,  no matter what,  are the extremely wealthy.  

So insurance is no choice for the vast,  vast majority. 

I don't know any health care insurance that covers 100% of health care costs.  So all consumers have skin in the game.  

So there really is not an alternative available that satisfies your concerns.


----------



## dblack

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> A law that requires everyone to pay for their own health care frees everyone from the burden of carrying others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You keep making this claim, but it's demonstrably untrue. ACA does exactly the opposite. It doesn't force people to pay for their own health care. It forces them to pay for health _insurance_, a scheme specifically designed share the burden of paying for health care. You're basically saying that black is white.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They only people that can afford to guarantee that they can pay their own health care bills,  no matter what,  are the extremely wealthy.
> 
> So insurance is no choice for the vast,  vast majority.
> 
> I don't know any health care insurance that covers 100% of health care costs.  So all consumers have skin in the game.
> 
> So there really is not an alternative available that satisfies your concerns.
Click to expand...


Of course there are alternatives. Most of them involve doing the opposite of what ACA attempts to do. First, we need to remove all the tax and regulatory incentives currently encouraging health care consumers to over insure. That means we get rid of all tax deductions promoting health insurance, employer provided or otherwise. Then, we use the Commerce Clause as it was intended and break up state regulatory fiefdoms currently controlled by the large insurance corporations. We do the same for the AMA's control over medical schools and doctor certification. In the meantime, while we're waiting for the health care market to come back into balance, we _temporarily_ beef up the safety nets to take care of the people currently getting fucked over by the inflated market.

And more important than anything, we fight like hell to keep the established lobby of the health care industry from turning every single attempt at reform into corporate welfare serving their interests.


----------



## PMZ

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> You keep making this claim, but it's demonstrably untrue. ACA does exactly the opposite. It doesn't force people to pay for their own health care. It forces them to pay for health _insurance_, a scheme specifically designed share the burden of paying for health care. You're basically saying that black is white.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They only people that can afford to guarantee that they can pay their own health care bills,  no matter what,  are the extremely wealthy.
> 
> So insurance is no choice for the vast,  vast majority.
> 
> I don't know any health care insurance that covers 100% of health care costs.  So all consumers have skin in the game.
> 
> So there really is not an alternative available that satisfies your concerns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course there are alternatives. Most of them involve doing the opposite of what ACA attempts to do. First, we need to remove all the tax and regulatory incentives currently encouraging health care consumers to over insure. That means we get rid of all tax deductions promoting health insurance, employer provided or otherwise. Then, we use the Commerce Clause as it was intended and break up state regulatory fiefdoms currently controlled by the large insurance corporations. We do the same for the AMA's control over medical schools and doctor certification. In the meantime, while we're waiting for the health care market to come back into balance, we _temporarily_ beef up the safety nets to take care of the people currently getting fucked over by the inflated market.
> 
> And more important than anything, we fight like hell to keep the established lobby of the health care industry from turning every single attempt at reform into corporate welfare serving their interests.
Click to expand...


Or,  we could do what works for the rest of the world. Consider good health in the same way that we value education.  As a right and a competitive advantage. Not as a way to make more money regardless of the cost to others.


----------



## dblack

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> They only people that can afford to guarantee that they can pay their own health care bills,  no matter what,  are the extremely wealthy.
> 
> So insurance is no choice for the vast,  vast majority.
> 
> I don't know any health care insurance that covers 100% of health care costs.  So all consumers have skin in the game.
> 
> So there really is not an alternative available that satisfies your concerns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course there are alternatives. Most of them involve doing the opposite of what ACA attempts to do. First, we need to remove all the tax and regulatory incentives currently encouraging health care consumers to over insure. That means we get rid of all tax deductions promoting health insurance, employer provided or otherwise. Then, we use the Commerce Clause as it was intended and break up state regulatory fiefdoms currently controlled by the large insurance corporations. We do the same for the AMA's control over medical schools and doctor certification. In the meantime, while we're waiting for the health care market to come back into balance, we _temporarily_ beef up the safety nets to take care of the people currently getting fucked over by the inflated market.
> 
> And more important than anything, we fight like hell to keep the established lobby of the health care industry from turning every single attempt at reform into corporate welfare serving their interests.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Or,  we could do what works for the rest of the world. Consider good health in the same way that we value education.  As a right and a competitive advantage. Not as a way to make more money regardless of the cost to others.
Click to expand...


Hair of the dog, eh?


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> scotus.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And again (because you keep dodging this quesiton as well), where does the Constitution authorize the Supreme Court to alter the Constitution? The federal government is only authorized to act on 18 specific enumerated powers. Healthcare (or any part of the private sector is NOT one of them). So please tell me where I can find in the Constitution the section which authorizes the Supreme Court to alter it.
> 
> Furthermore, you also keep refusing to answer this simple question: if the Supreme Court rules that you no longer have 1st Amendment rights, will you agree with the ruling and comply?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> SCOTUS ruled that it does.  What you wish the Constitution said doesn't enter the equation.  The Constitution is what it is because nutballs with agendas can't change it to what supports their particular delusion.
Click to expand...


I understand that. Repeating a reality over and over which has *nothing* to do with the question doesn't cover up the fact that you have now been exposed.

Please tell me what section of the Constitution empowers the Supreme Court to declare that it may alter the Constitution and add a 19th enumerated power to the federal government?

If you can't give me the exact section, that means you are wrong on your entire position that the Supreme Court ruling is what authorized the federal government to intercede on healthcare because of perceived cost issues.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> A law that requires everyone to pay for their own health care frees everyone from the burden of carrying others.
> 
> Putting the health care of those that business does not a pay a living wage to on the table rather than forcing them into under the table health care,  gives them the same freedom that you and I have and reduces the impact of their marginal health on the rest of us and keeps us all aware of the consequences of non living wages.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But the ACA law does not force anyone to pay for health insurance, except the taxpayer who does not get it.  He just gets to pay for subsidies for other people to get health insurance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ACA requires everyone to carry adequate health insurance.  The penalty for not carrying it is a fine.
> 
> All tax payers subsidize the health care of full time workers not paid a living wage.  They have since EMTALA.
Click to expand...


No reason to lie about it.  You are not required.  It's not a law that you have to do it.  Nor is it a penalty.  It's a tax, see SCOTUS decision.  There is no recorded criminal record for not having health insurance. 

Further, ACA subsidies are for people who are not qualified for Medicaid, thus this is not the same as before.  These subsidies have nothing to do with "living wage" the subsidies cover everyone making OVER living wage up to FOUR TIMES POVERTY.  That is not living wage that is upper middle class.

So to both your points, FAIL and FAIL.


----------



## PMZ

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course there are alternatives. Most of them involve doing the opposite of what ACA attempts to do. First, we need to remove all the tax and regulatory incentives currently encouraging health care consumers to over insure. That means we get rid of all tax deductions promoting health insurance, employer provided or otherwise. Then, we use the Commerce Clause as it was intended and break up state regulatory fiefdoms currently controlled by the large insurance corporations. We do the same for the AMA's control over medical schools and doctor certification. In the meantime, while we're waiting for the health care market to come back into balance, we _temporarily_ beef up the safety nets to take care of the people currently getting fucked over by the inflated market.
> 
> And more important than anything, we fight like hell to keep the established lobby of the health care industry from turning every single attempt at reform into corporate welfare serving their interests.
> 
> 
> 
> Or,  we could do what works for the rest of the world. Consider good health in the same way that we value education.  As a right and a competitive advantage. Not as a way to make more money regardless of the cost to others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hair of the dog, eh?
Click to expand...


I seem to get this reaction from you whenever I suggest that we learn from the experience of others.  

Why?


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> And again (because you keep dodging this quesiton as well), where does the Constitution authorize the Supreme Court to alter the Constitution? The federal government is only authorized to act on 18 specific enumerated powers. Healthcare (or any part of the private sector is NOT one of them). So please tell me where I can find in the Constitution the section which authorizes the Supreme Court to alter it.
> 
> Furthermore, you also keep refusing to answer this simple question: if the Supreme Court rules that you no longer have 1st Amendment rights, will you agree with the ruling and comply?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SCOTUS ruled that it does.  What you wish the Constitution said doesn't enter the equation.  The Constitution is what it is because nutballs with agendas can't change it to what supports their particular delusion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand that. Repeating a reality over and over which has *nothing* to do with the question doesn't cover up the fact that you have now been exposed.
> 
> Please tell me what section of the Constitution empowers the Supreme Court to declare that it may alter the Constitution and add a 19th enumerated power to the federal government?
> 
> If you can't give me the exact section, that means you are wrong on your entire position that the Supreme Court ruling is what authorized the federal government to intercede on healthcare because of perceived cost issues.
Click to expand...


Here's the thing.  You can believe whatever you want about what the Constitution says.  
What you can't do,  is prevent the Executive and Judicial branches from enforcing any law passed by the Legislative branch that hasn't been found unconstitutional by the Federal Courts.  

Carry on.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the ACA law does not force anyone to pay for health insurance, except the taxpayer who does not get it.  He just gets to pay for subsidies for other people to get health insurance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ACA requires everyone to carry adequate health insurance.  The penalty for not carrying it is a fine.
> 
> All tax payers subsidize the health care of full time workers not paid a living wage.  They have since EMTALA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No reason to lie about it.  You are not required.  It's not a law that you have to do it.  Nor is it a penalty.  It's a tax, see SCOTUS decision.  There is no recorded criminal record for not having health insurance.
> 
> Further, ACA subsidies are for people who are not qualified for Medicaid, thus this is not the same as before.  These subsidies have nothing to do with "living wage" the subsidies cover everyone making OVER living wage up to FOUR TIMES POVERTY.  That is not living wage that is upper middle class.
> 
> So to both your points, FAIL and FAIL.
Click to expand...


From 

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/fea...tions-on-assets-and-student-health-plans.aspx


" To be eligible for subsidized coverage, your income would have to be between 100 and 400 percent of the federal poverty level ($11,490 to $45,960 for a single person in 2013)."


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> ACA requires everyone to carry adequate health insurance.  The penalty for not carrying it is a fine.
> 
> All tax payers subsidize the health care of full time workers not paid a living wage.  They have since EMTALA.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No reason to lie about it.  You are not required.  It's not a law that you have to do it.  Nor is it a penalty.  It's a tax, see SCOTUS decision.  There is no recorded criminal record for not having health insurance.
> 
> Further, ACA subsidies are for people who are not qualified for Medicaid, thus this is not the same as before.  These subsidies have nothing to do with "living wage" the subsidies cover everyone making OVER living wage up to FOUR TIMES POVERTY.  That is not living wage that is upper middle class.
> 
> So to both your points, FAIL and FAIL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From
> 
> Income -- Not Assets -- Will Determine Subsidies In Online Insurance Marketplaces - Kaiser Health News
> 
> 
> " To be eligible for subsidized coverage, your income would have to be between 100 and 400 percent of the federal poverty level ($11,490 to $45,960 for a single person in 2013)."
Click to expand...

Exactly.  What part of my statement "above" poverty level to four time poverty level confused you when they said 100% of poverty to 400%?  I mean it's funny and all as we always believed that libs did not understand percentages but gez whiz? 

Also if you have a family of four, it's 90k, thus my statement upper middle.  Not high upper middle, but upper middle nonetheless.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> No reason to lie about it.  You are not required.  It's not a law that you have to do it.  Nor is it a penalty.  It's a tax, see SCOTUS decision.  There is no recorded criminal record for not having health insurance.
> 
> Further, ACA subsidies are for people who are not qualified for Medicaid, thus this is not the same as before.  These subsidies have nothing to do with "living wage" the subsidies cover everyone making OVER living wage up to FOUR TIMES POVERTY.  That is not living wage that is upper middle class.
> 
> So to both your points, FAIL and FAIL.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From
> 
> Income -- Not Assets -- Will Determine Subsidies In Online Insurance Marketplaces - Kaiser Health News
> 
> 
> " To be eligible for subsidized coverage, your income would have to be between 100 and 400 percent of the federal poverty level ($11,490 to $45,960 for a single person in 2013)."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly.  What part of my statement "above" poverty level to four time poverty level confused you when they said 100% of poverty to 400%?  I mean it's funny and all as we always believed that libs did not understand percentages but gez whiz?
> 
> Also if you have a family of four, it's 90k, thus my statement upper middle.  Not high upper middle, but upper middle nonetheless.
Click to expand...


More learning for you. 

http://finance.townhall.com/columni...-income-percentile-ranking-n1712430/page/full


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> No reason to lie about it.  You are not required.  It's not a law that you have to do it.  Nor is it a penalty.  It's a tax, see SCOTUS decision.  There is no recorded criminal record for not having health insurance.
> 
> Further, ACA subsidies are for people who are not qualified for Medicaid, thus this is not the same as before.  These subsidies have nothing to do with "living wage" the subsidies cover everyone making OVER living wage up to FOUR TIMES POVERTY.  That is not living wage that is upper middle class.
> 
> So to both your points, FAIL and FAIL.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From
> 
> Income -- Not Assets -- Will Determine Subsidies In Online Insurance Marketplaces - Kaiser Health News
> 
> 
> " To be eligible for subsidized coverage, your income would have to be between 100 and 400 percent of the federal poverty level ($11,490 to $45,960 for a single person in 2013)."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly.  What part of my statement "above" poverty level to four time poverty level confused you when they said 100% of poverty to 400%?  I mean it's funny and all as we always believed that libs did not understand percentages but gez whiz?
> 
> Also if you have a family of four, it's 90k, thus my statement upper middle.  Not high upper middle, but upper middle nonetheless.
Click to expand...


What would be the subsidy for a family of 4 with an income of $90K?

Here's a tool for you. 

http://kff.org/interactive/subsidy-...s[1][tobacco]=0&child-count=2&child-tobacco=0


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> SCOTUS ruled that it does.  What you wish the Constitution said doesn't enter the equation.  The Constitution is what it is because nutballs with agendas can't change it to what supports their particular delusion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I understand that. Repeating a reality over and over which has *nothing* to do with the question doesn't cover up the fact that you have now been exposed.
> 
> Please tell me what section of the Constitution empowers the Supreme Court to declare that it may alter the Constitution and add a 19th enumerated power to the federal government?
> 
> If you can't give me the exact section, that means you are wrong on your entire position that the Supreme Court ruling is what authorized the federal government to intercede on healthcare because of perceived cost issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's the thing.  You can believe whatever you want about what the Constitution says.
> What you can't do,  is prevent the Executive and Judicial branches from enforcing any law passed by the Legislative branch that hasn't been found unconstitutional by the Federal Courts.
> 
> Carry on.
Click to expand...


So you are admitting that the Supreme Court holds no such authority? Good.

Now, if the executive and judicial branches decided to repeal your 1st Amendment rights, and the Supreme Court upholds it, you would agree and comply? This is a very simple question which frightens you for obvious reasons (it proves you are *wrong*).


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> From
> 
> Income -- Not Assets -- Will Determine Subsidies In Online Insurance Marketplaces - Kaiser Health News
> 
> 
> " To be eligible for subsidized coverage, your income would have to be between 100 and 400 percent of the federal poverty level ($11,490 to $45,960 for a single person in 2013)."
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.  What part of my statement "above" poverty level to four time poverty level confused you when they said 100% of poverty to 400%?  I mean it's funny and all as we always believed that libs did not understand percentages but gez whiz?
> 
> Also if you have a family of four, it's 90k, thus my statement upper middle.  Not high upper middle, but upper middle nonetheless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More learning for you.
> 
> What Is Your U.S. Income Percentile Ranking? - Political Calculations - Townhall Finance Conservative Columnists and Financial Commentary - Page full
Click to expand...

Are you mental?  Why would you link to a web page that corroborates my statement and say, more learning for me?


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> Or,  we could do what works for the rest of the world.



The rest of the world also engages in terrorism, sex-trafficking, and slavery. Amazing that you want to lower the United States to 3rd world levels just so you can bilk the American tax payer...



PMZ said:


> Consider good health in the same way that we value education...as a right...



And there you have it folks. A liberal has an accidental moment of honesty. They want healthcare to be a "right" (which shows just how profoundly ignorant they are if what a right is - but I digress). PMZ - if you want it to be a "right" then you need to *properly* _*amend*_ the U.S. Constitution.

But you can't get the votes to do that - because this is *not* what the American people want. So instead you lie ("I will keep this promise - if you like your plan, you can keep your plan"), create an illegal bill (the Cornhusker Kickback, the Louisiana Purchase), then you bribe a Supreme Court stacked with libtards who legislate from the bench and tell them it is a "tax" after insisting for 4 years that it is not a tax, all so Dumbocrats like you can pretend this was "lawful"...


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand that. Repeating a reality over and over which has *nothing* to do with the question doesn't cover up the fact that you have now been exposed.
> 
> Please tell me what section of the Constitution empowers the Supreme Court to declare that it may alter the Constitution and add a 19th enumerated power to the federal government?
> 
> If you can't give me the exact section, that means you are wrong on your entire position that the Supreme Court ruling is what authorized the federal government to intercede on healthcare because of perceived cost issues.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the thing.  You can believe whatever you want about what the Constitution says.
> What you can't do,  is prevent the Executive and Judicial branches from enforcing any law passed by the Legislative branch that hasn't been found unconstitutional by the Federal Courts.
> 
> Carry on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are admitting that the Supreme Court holds no such authority? Good.
> 
> Now, if the executive and judicial branches decided to repeal your 1st Amendment rights, and the Supreme Court upholds it, you would agree and comply? This is a very simple question which frightens you for obvious reasons (it proves you are *wrong*).
Click to expand...


You are paranoid.  I am not.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.  What part of my statement "above" poverty level to four time poverty level confused you when they said 100% of poverty to 400%?  I mean it's funny and all as we always believed that libs did not understand percentages but gez whiz?
> 
> Also if you have a family of four, it's 90k, thus my statement upper middle.  Not high upper middle, but upper middle nonetheless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More learning for you.
> 
> What Is Your U.S. Income Percentile Ranking? - Political Calculations - Townhall Finance Conservative Columnists and Financial Commentary - Page full
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you mental?  Why would you link to a web page that corroborates my statement and say, more learning for me?
Click to expand...


The poverty level definition by the government obviously did not in the past consider the cost of health care.  In the future,  it will have to,  and the ACA poverty level subsidy definition will be adjusted.  

You imply that the basis for ACA subsidies have them going to those who ought to be able to afford them without subsidies. I think not. 

I am not mental.  You are deceived.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> More learning for you.
> 
> What Is Your U.S. Income Percentile Ranking? - Political Calculations - Townhall Finance Conservative Columnists and Financial Commentary - Page full
> 
> 
> 
> Are you mental?  Why would you link to a web page that corroborates my statement and say, more learning for me?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The poverty level definition by the government obviously did not in the past consider the cost of health care.  In the future,  it will have to,  and the ACA poverty level subsidy definition will be adjusted.
> 
> You imply that the basis for ACA subsidies have them going to those who ought to be able to afford them without subsidies. I think not.
> 
> I am not mental.  You are deceived.
Click to expand...


90THOUSAND DOLLARS A YEAR AND CAN'T AFFORD TO PAY 350 A MONTH? (The cost I used to pay for a family of 5 two years ago on my own private health plan) You are completely clueless on these matters. But if someone makes 91k a year they can not only afford it they have to pay for subsidies to the folks making under 90k a year.  What an effing retarded system you socialists come up with.


----------



## dblack

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or,  we could do what works for the rest of the world. Consider good health in the same way that we value education.  As a right and a competitive advantage. Not as a way to make more money regardless of the cost to others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hair of the dog, eh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I seem to get this reaction from you whenever I suggest that we learn from the experience of others.
> 
> Why?
Click to expand...


Because chasing that kind of irrational fantasy is what drove us into this hole in the first place.


----------



## PMZ

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hair of the dog, eh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I seem to get this reaction from you whenever I suggest that we learn from the experience of others.
> 
> Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because chasing that kind of irrational fantasy is what drove us into this hole in the first place.
Click to expand...


Learning from the experience of others is irrational.  That explains a lot.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you mental?  Why would you link to a web page that corroborates my statement and say, more learning for me?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The poverty level definition by the government obviously did not in the past consider the cost of health care.  In the future,  it will have to,  and the ACA poverty level subsidy definition will be adjusted.
> 
> You imply that the basis for ACA subsidies have them going to those who ought to be able to afford them without subsidies. I think not.
> 
> I am not mental.  You are deceived.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 90THOUSAND DOLLARS A YEAR AND CAN'T AFFORD TO PAY 350 A MONTH? (The cost I used to pay for a family of 5 two years ago on my own private health plan) You are completely clueless on these matters. But if someone makes 91k a year they can not only afford it they have to pay for subsidies to the folks making under 90k a year.  What an effing retarded system you socialists come up with.
Click to expand...


I'm still waiting to hear back on how much a family with 4 kids and making $90K a year gets in subsidies vs what they pay.  In my County it's zero in subsidies but that reality is inconvenient to right wing extremists.


----------



## PMZ

The fact that the right wing lives deluded lives is not the biggest problem.  The biggest problem is that they allow it to happen every day.


----------



## dblack

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I seem to get this reaction from you whenever I suggest that we learn from the experience of others.
> 
> Why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because chasing that kind of irrational fantasy is what drove us into this hole in the first place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Learning from the experience of others is irrational.  That explains a lot.
Click to expand...


Don't strawman it. I'm not saying that learning from the experience of others is irrational; it's vital that we do exactly that. I'm saying the notion that health care can be thought of as a 'right' makes no sense. Fostering the delusion that health care isn't just another of life's necessities that we need to pay for (like, food, shelter, clothing, etc...), that instead it's somehow sacrosanct and something that should be granted 'freely' for all, is a mistake. It's a bromide fed to us by corporations and governments that use it to control us.


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I seem to get this reaction from you whenever I suggest that we learn from the experience of others.
> 
> Why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because chasing that kind of irrational fantasy is what drove us into this hole in the first place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Learning from the experience of others is irrational.  That explains a lot.
Click to expand...


Seriously [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] - of all of your asinine posts, this is the most absurd. You want to talk about "learning from the experience of others" while repeating over and over how the rest of the world provides healthcare. You mean - places like Greece (bankrupt, collapsed), the former U.S.S.R. (bankrupt, collapsed), Cuba (bankrupt, collapsed), Cambodia (bankrupt, collapsed).

Yes PMZ - we *should* learn from the experience of others. Unfortunately you dumbocrats are too stupid, lazy, and greedy to do so...


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the thing.  You can believe whatever you want about what the Constitution says.
> What you can't do,  is prevent the Executive and Judicial branches from enforcing any law passed by the Legislative branch that hasn't been found unconstitutional by the Federal Courts.
> 
> Carry on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are admitting that the Supreme Court holds no such authority? Good.
> 
> Now, if the executive and judicial branches decided to repeal your 1st Amendment rights, and the Supreme Court upholds it, you would agree and comply? This is a very simple question which frightens you for obvious reasons (it proves you are *wrong*).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are paranoid.  I am not.
Click to expand...


You cannot cite the section of the Constitution which grants the Supreme Court the power to alter the Constitution. Game over. I win. You lose. And this proves *you* are *liar*.


----------



## P@triot

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because chasing that kind of irrational fantasy is what drove us into this hole in the first place.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Learning from the experience of others is irrational.  That explains a lot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't strawman it. I'm not saying that learning from the experience of others is irrational; it's vital that we do exactly that. I'm saying the notion that health care can be thought of as a 'right' makes no sense. Fostering the delusion that health care isn't just another of life's necessities that we need to pay for (like, food, shelter, clothing, etc...), that instead it's somehow sacrosanct and something that should be granted 'freely' for all, is a mistake. It's a bromide fed to us by corporations and governments that use it to control us.
Click to expand...


Like all Dumbocrats, PMZ knows that a right *cannot* be something that costs money (healthcare, food, housing, etc.) because that creates slavery. And slavery is illegal.

So why does he play this stupid game? Because he's a greedy parasite that wants shit for free. You can make nice-nice with him all you want and appeal to his sensitive side in hopes that he will "see the light", but it ain't going to happen. He's a fuck'n asshole parasite who will never surrender his position that you owe him in life because he's too fuck'n lazy to provide for himself. Period.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> The poverty level definition by the government obviously did not in the past consider the cost of health care.  In the future,  it will have to,  and the ACA poverty level subsidy definition will be adjusted.
> 
> You imply that the basis for ACA subsidies have them going to those who ought to be able to afford them without subsidies. I think not.
> 
> I am not mental.  You are deceived.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 90THOUSAND DOLLARS A YEAR AND CAN'T AFFORD TO PAY 350 A MONTH? (The cost I used to pay for a family of 5 two years ago on my own private health plan) You are completely clueless on these matters. But if someone makes 91k a year they can not only afford it they have to pay for subsidies to the folks making under 90k a year.  What an effing retarded system you socialists come up with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm still waiting to hear back on how much a family with 4 kids and making $90K a year gets in subsidies vs what they pay.  In my County it's zero in subsidies but that reality is inconvenient to right wing extremists.
Click to expand...

Amazing you can even use the bathroom all it took was 1second on google:





ObamaCare Subsidies


----------



## PMZ

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because chasing that kind of irrational fantasy is what drove us into this hole in the first place.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Learning from the experience of others is irrational.  That explains a lot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't strawman it. I'm not saying that learning from the experience of others is irrational; it's vital that we do exactly that. I'm saying the notion that health care can be thought of as a 'right' makes no sense. Fostering the delusion that health care isn't just another of life's necessities that we need to pay for (like, food, shelter, clothing, etc...), that instead it's somehow sacrosanct and something that should be granted 'freely' for all, is a mistake. It's a bromide fed to us by corporations and governments that use it to control us.
Click to expand...


Who benefits from an unhealthy population?  Who benefits from an uneducated population? Who benefits from an unemployed population?  Who benefits from an unsafe population? Who benefits from social instability? 

Nobody. 

Why would a country not do everything possible to reduce those things that nobody benefits from?


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 90THOUSAND DOLLARS A YEAR AND CAN'T AFFORD TO PAY 350 A MONTH? (The cost I used to pay for a family of 5 two years ago on my own private health plan) You are completely clueless on these matters. But if someone makes 91k a year they can not only afford it they have to pay for subsidies to the folks making under 90k a year.  What an effing retarded system you socialists come up with.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm still waiting to hear back on how much a family with 4 kids and making $90K a year gets in subsidies vs what they pay.  In my County it's zero in subsidies but that reality is inconvenient to right wing extremists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Amazing you can even use the bathroom all it took was 1second on google:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ObamaCare Subsidies
Click to expand...


If you really researched it you'd know that the subsidies vary by state and county.  In my County the subsidy for a family with four kids is zero.  

And back to your original argument.  A family with four kids and making $90K can easily afford an additional 9.5% of income in expenses???? 

If that's true,  people with millions of dollars of income can more easily afford another 10% in taxes.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm still waiting to hear back on how much a family with 4 kids and making $90K a year gets in subsidies vs what they pay.  In my County it's zero in subsidies but that reality is inconvenient to right wing extremists.
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing you can even use the bathroom all it took was 1second on google:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ObamaCare Subsidies
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you really researched it you'd know that the subsidies vary by state and county.  In my County the subsidy for a family with four kids is zero.
> 
> And back to your original argument.  A family with four kids and making $90K can easily afford an additional 9.5% of income in expenses????
> 
> If that's true,  people with millions of dollars of income can more easily afford another 10% in taxes.
Click to expand...


Mr. Potato Head!  You are being obtuse again.  As I told you it used to be 350 a month.  Now with ObumaCare it's gonna be 1000 or so.  

The 9.5% is the ObumaCare Premium Cap as a Share of Income, it is used to calculate your maximum out of pocket.  

Again, you ignore the rape of the American middle and upper middle class by this new Bill and deflect away to the evil rich again.  

WTH is wrong with you?

I bet if it were the people on medicare getting screwed you'd care.


----------



## TwistedSuze13

Just a little humor I saw at facebook today.

pelosi: "We have to pass it to see what's in it".

A doctor who called in to talk radio: "That's the definition of a stool sample."


'Nuff Said......

As I mentioned in the title...too bad this isn't called CACA.
A big steaming pile of.....excrement.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing you can even use the bathroom all it took was 1second on google:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ObamaCare Subsidies
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you really researched it you'd know that the subsidies vary by state and county.  In my County the subsidy for a family with four kids is zero.
> 
> And back to your original argument.  A family with four kids and making $90K can easily afford an additional 9.5% of income in expenses????
> 
> If that's true,  people with millions of dollars of income can more easily afford another 10% in taxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mr. Potato Head!  You are being obtuse again.  As I told you it used to be 350 a month.  Now with ObumaCare it's gonna be 1000 or so.
> 
> The 9.5% is the ObumaCare Premium Cap as a Share of Income, it is used to calculate your maximum out of pocket.
> 
> Again, you ignore the rape of the American middle and upper middle class by this new Bill and deflect away to the evil rich again.
> 
> WTH is wrong with you?
> 
> I bet if it were the people on medicare getting screwed you'd care.
Click to expand...


We need to get you back to basics. 

Insurance spreads the cost consequences of risk over a large population. 

Let me know if this is too fast for you. 

Insurance premiums are the average cost consequences of that risk plus insurance company profit and overhead.  

Where do you see Obamacare in this picture?


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you really researched it you'd know that the subsidies vary by state and county.  In my County the subsidy for a family with four kids is zero.
> 
> And back to your original argument.  A family with four kids and making $90K can easily afford an additional 9.5% of income in expenses????
> 
> If that's true,  people with millions of dollars of income can more easily afford another 10% in taxes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Potato Head!  You are being obtuse again.  As I told you it used to be 350 a month.  Now with ObumaCare it's gonna be 1000 or so.
> 
> The 9.5% is the ObumaCare Premium Cap as a Share of Income, it is used to calculate your maximum out of pocket.
> 
> Again, you ignore the rape of the American middle and upper middle class by this new Bill and deflect away to the evil rich again.
> 
> WTH is wrong with you?
> 
> I bet if it were the people on medicare getting screwed you'd care.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We need to get you back to basics.
> 
> Insurance spreads the cost consequences of risk over a large population.
> 
> Let me know if this is too fast for you.
> 
> Insurance premiums are the average cost consequences of that risk plus insurance company profit and overhead.
> 
> Where do you see Obamacare in this picture?
Click to expand...


Obama care changed health insurance from a system based on actuarial tables (risk) sold through free markets to consumers ... to a system where people with broken bodies and no prior health insurance could move to America and demand millions of dollars of health care paid for by the US taxpayer.  A system where the young and strong who don't need any health care are forced to pay a thousand dollars a month so the illegals, the older (pre-medicare and have too much money to get medicaid), and the sick who have no money can get free and/or greatly reduced health insurance.  A system where up is down, and down is up.  A system where the incentive to work is greatly reduced.  In short, a socialist system that will not work.  Insurance company profit for health care is negligible by law.  The real winners are the drug companies, government workers, drug addicts, and others who game our health care system.

Lets say you have a guy that crashes a car every time he gets in it.  Would you insure him?  If you say yes, we have to, then your car insurance rates are gonna have to triple.  Now lets say it's to expensive based on that new rule that says we have to cover the guy that crashes a car every time he gets in it.  Socialists come along and say lets fix that by providing subsidies from the rich to the poor.   That doubles the cost for the top 51% and makes it free for the bottom half.  This is essentially where are are at.. where we are heading.  A system where it no longer pays to be someone in the top 50% unless you are in the top 1%.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Potato Head!  You are being obtuse again.  As I told you it used to be 350 a month.  Now with ObumaCare it's gonna be 1000 or so.
> 
> The 9.5% is the ObumaCare Premium Cap as a Share of Income, it is used to calculate your maximum out of pocket.
> 
> Again, you ignore the rape of the American middle and upper middle class by this new Bill and deflect away to the evil rich again.
> 
> WTH is wrong with you?
> 
> I bet if it were the people on medicare getting screwed you'd care.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We need to get you back to basics.
> 
> Insurance spreads the cost consequences of risk over a large population.
> 
> Let me know if this is too fast for you.
> 
> Insurance premiums are the average cost consequences of that risk plus insurance company profit and overhead.
> 
> Where do you see Obamacare in this picture?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama care changed health insurance from a system based on actuarial tables (risk) sold through free markets to consumers ... to a system where people with broken bodies and no prior health insurance could move to America and demand millions of dollars of health care paid for by the US taxpayer.  A system where the young and strong who don't need any health care are forced to pay a thousand dollars a month so the illegals, the older (pre-medicare and have too much money to get medicaid), and the sick who have no money can get free and/or greatly reduced health insurance.  A system where up is down, and down is up.  A system where the incentive to work is greatly reduced.  In short, a socialist system that will not work.  Insurance company profit for health care is negligible by law.  The real winners are the drug companies, government workers, drug addicts, and others who game our health care system.
Click to expand...


Obamacare insures that everyone is responsible for their own health care costs.  Just like Medicare does. 

Obamacare is limited to American citizens. 

Obamacare takes some responsibility for what business avoids,  a living wage for full time work.  

Obamacare grandfathered existing policies. 

Insurance premiums are the cost consequences of average shared risk plus corporate profit and overhead.  Obamacare has no impact on those factors except spreading overhead over more business. 

The real question is,  and I think that most know the answer.  

Why do Republicans feel so threatened by it that they have lied to the American people about it for five years?


----------



## dblack

PMZ said:


> Obamacare insures that everyone is responsible for their own health care costs.  Just like Medicare does.



I'm sorry to keep pouncing on this, but that statement is simply not true, no matter how many times it's repeated. Insurance _relieves_ individuals of the responsibility of paying their health care bills. It ensures that they don't have to worry about how much their health care costs, because someone else will be picking up the tab.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> We need to get you back to basics.
> 
> Insurance spreads the cost consequences of risk over a large population.
> 
> Let me know if this is too fast for you.
> 
> Insurance premiums are the average cost consequences of that risk plus insurance company profit and overhead.
> 
> Where do you see Obamacare in this picture?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obama care changed health insurance from a system based on actuarial tables (risk) sold through free markets to consumers ... to a system where people with broken bodies and no prior health insurance could move to America and demand millions of dollars of health care paid for by the US taxpayer.  A system where the young and strong who don't need any health care are forced to pay a thousand dollars a month so the illegals, the older (pre-medicare and have too much money to get medicaid), and the sick who have no money can get free and/or greatly reduced health insurance.  A system where up is down, and down is up.  A system where the incentive to work is greatly reduced.  In short, a socialist system that will not work.  Insurance company profit for health care is negligible by law.  The real winners are the drug companies, government workers, drug addicts, and others who game our health care system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obamacare insures that everyone is responsible for their own health care costs.  Just like Medicare does.
> 
> Obamacare is limited to American citizens.
> 
> Obamacare takes some responsibility for what business avoids,  a living wage for full time work.
> 
> Obamacare grandfathered existing policies.
> 
> Insurance premiums are the cost consequences of average shared risk plus corporate profit and overhead.  Obamacare has no impact on those factors except spreading overhead over more business.
> 
> The real question is,  and I think that most know the answer.
> 
> Why do Republicans feel so threatened by it that they have lied to the American people about it for five years?
Click to expand...


>> Obamacare insures that everyone is responsible for their own health care costs.  Just like Medicare does. 

Wrong, you have lied about this dozens of times.  Medicare is a mandatory flat rate deduction, 50% paid by the employee, 50% employer on behalf of the employee.  Obama care is 1) not mandatory 2) the subsidies make Obama care progressive rate based vs. medicare's flat rate basis.  

>> Obamacare is limited to American citizens. 

Flat Wrong.

>> Obamacare takes some responsibility for what business avoids,  a living wage for full time work.  

Obamacare is a bill, a piece of paper, inanimate, it is not capable of taking on a responsibility.  The tax payer is the one footing the bill for NON-MEANS TESTED WELFARE FOR THE UPPER MIDDLE CLASS UP TO 90K FOR A FAMILY OF FOUR.  You have been told this dozens of times you are being more than obtuse now.  You are just flat out lying.  Further there is no mandate that anyone who receives it works full time.  I would work 2hrs a week and collect the maximum amount of subsidies. 

>> Obamacare grandfathered existing policies. 

Flat out Lie.  Obamacare through out most policies and force people to sign up from scratch.  Many are loosing their benefits, some were scheduled for surgery and now have to wait.  People are dying because of Obamacare.

>> Insurance premiums are the cost consequences of average shared risk plus corporate profit and overhead.  Obamacare has no impact on those factors except spreading overhead over more business. 

YOU ARE A LIAR.  Under Obamacare individuals all over this country are being forced to buy insurance for others where before they were only responsible for their own family.  Now these individuals have to pay, in some cases, an extra THOUSAND DOLLARS A MONTH.  And you sit behind you keyboard laughing at them.  Pointing your sanctimonious finger at them and telling them they were cheating everyone else when they were only taking personal responsibility.  Your scum bag socialist lie is that now people who don't want to be responsible for their family are getting it for free even if they have a BMW and a 400k house, they get free health insurance at the expense of their neighbor who is stupid enough to work for a living under Obuma's new socialist empire.


----------



## PMZ

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obamacare insures that everyone is responsible for their own health care costs.  Just like Medicare does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry to keep pouncing on this, but that statement is simply not true, no matter how many times it's repeated. Insurance _relieves_ individuals of the responsibility of paying their health care bills. It ensures that they don't have to worry about how much their health care costs, because someone else will be picking up the tab.
Click to expand...


Why is it not possible for you to see that insurance is how people choose to pay for health care? Mostly because only the very wealthiest among us have a viable alternative. 

If you add up the National total of health care premiums less corporate profit and overhead,  plus co-pays and deductibles you get the National health care delivery bill. 

You have no right or reason to deny people that choice.  

I happen to agree with the point that higher co-pays and or deductibles are smarter,  I do that for myself,  but that's personal financial strategy that I can afford. Many can't because their non living wages never allow them to get ahead.  And health care is not elective.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obamacare insures that everyone is responsible for their own health care costs.  Just like Medicare does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry to keep pouncing on this, but that statement is simply not true, no matter how many times it's repeated. Insurance _relieves_ individuals of the responsibility of paying their health care bills. It ensures that they don't have to worry about how much their health care costs, because someone else will be picking up the tab.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why is it not possible for you to see that insurance is how people choose to pay for health care? Mostly because only the very wealthiest among us have a viable alternative.
> 
> If you add up the National total of health care premiums less corporate profit and overhead,  plus co-pays and deductibles you get the National health care delivery bill.
> 
> You have no right or reason to deny people that choice.
> 
> I happen to agree with the point that higher co-pays and or deductibles are smarter,  I do that for myself,  but that's personal financial strategy that I can afford. Many can't because their non living wages never allow them to get ahead.  And health care is not elective.
Click to expand...


If health care is not elective, why are there elective and non-elective health care procedures?  ROFL

Just as liberty does not include taking people's liberties away from them.  Choice does not mean taking other peoples choices away from them.  You libtards with your upside down uses of terms are just funny as hell.


----------



## dblack

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obamacare insures that everyone is responsible for their own health care costs.  Just like Medicare does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry to keep pouncing on this, but that statement is simply not true, no matter how many times it's repeated. Insurance _relieves_ individuals of the responsibility of paying their health care bills. It ensures that they don't have to worry about how much their health care costs, because someone else will be picking up the tab.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why is it not possible for you to see that insurance is how people choose to pay for health care? Mostly because only the very wealthiest among us have a viable alternative.
Click to expand...


I totally get that. It's the core of the problem.



> You have no right or reason to deny people that choice.



I'm not suggesting denying anyone that choice. I'm not saying we should make insurance illegal. But neither do you have the right or reason to deny people the alternative choice.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry to keep pouncing on this, but that statement is simply not true, no matter how many times it's repeated. Insurance _relieves_ individuals of the responsibility of paying their health care bills. It ensures that they don't have to worry about how much their health care costs, because someone else will be picking up the tab.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it not possible for you to see that insurance is how people choose to pay for health care? Mostly because only the very wealthiest among us have a viable alternative.
> 
> If you add up the National total of health care premiums less corporate profit and overhead,  plus co-pays and deductibles you get the National health care delivery bill.
> 
> You have no right or reason to deny people that choice.
> 
> I happen to agree with the point that higher co-pays and or deductibles are smarter,  I do that for myself,  but that's personal financial strategy that I can afford. Many can't because their non living wages never allow them to get ahead.  And health care is not elective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If health care is not elective, why are their elective and non-elective health care procedures?  ROFL
> 
> Just as liberty does not include taking people's liberties away from them.  Choice does not mean taking other peoples choices away from them.  You libtards with your upside down uses of terms are just funny as hell.
Click to expand...


All laws,  100% of them,  create freedom from others imposing on you and I what's best for them. 

Your "liberty"  is nothing more than allowing you more power to impose.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it not possible for you to see that insurance is how people choose to pay for health care? Mostly because only the very wealthiest among us have a viable alternative.
> 
> If you add up the National total of health care premiums less corporate profit and overhead,  plus co-pays and deductibles you get the National health care delivery bill.
> 
> You have no right or reason to deny people that choice.
> 
> I happen to agree with the point that higher co-pays and or deductibles are smarter,  I do that for myself,  but that's personal financial strategy that I can afford. Many can't because their non living wages never allow them to get ahead.  And health care is not elective.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If health care is not elective, why are their elective and non-elective health care procedures?  ROFL
> 
> Just as liberty does not include taking people's liberties away from them.  Choice does not mean taking other peoples choices away from them.  You libtards with your upside down uses of terms are just funny as hell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All laws,  100% of them,  create freedom from others imposing on you and I what's best for them.
> 
> Your "liberty"  is nothing more than allowing you more power to impose.
Click to expand...


Bull shit.  Liberty does not include the taking of other peoples liberties.  Laws do not create freedom they restrict illegal activities.  Illegal activities are not "freedom" only a scumbag criminal would say that. Murder is not liberty, rape is not liberty, WTH is wrong with you?  Have you been worshiping Satan again?  Do you not understand the difference between free will, and liberty. Free will is the ability to sin on others, liberty is not.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> If health care is not elective, why are their elective and non-elective health care procedures?  ROFL
> 
> Just as liberty does not include taking people's liberties away from them.  Choice does not mean taking other peoples choices away from them.  You libtards with your upside down uses of terms are just funny as hell.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All laws,  100% of them,  create freedom from others imposing on you and I what's best for them.
> 
> Your "liberty"  is nothing more than allowing you more power to impose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bull shit.  Liberty does not include the taking of other peoples liberties.  Laws do not create freedom they restrict illegal activities.  Illegal activities are not "freedom" only a scumbag criminal would say that. Murder is not liberty, rape is not liberty, WTH is wrong with you?  Have you been worshiping Satan again?
Click to expand...


100% of crime stems from someone imposing what they think is best for themselves on others. 

Freedom is when law prevents,  or at least mitigates, all of those impositions.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> All laws,  100% of them,  create freedom from others imposing on you and I what's best for them.
> 
> Your "liberty"  is nothing more than allowing you more power to impose.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bull shit.  Liberty does not include the taking of other peoples liberties.  Laws do not create freedom they restrict illegal activities.  Illegal activities are not "freedom" only a scumbag criminal would say that. Murder is not liberty, rape is not liberty, WTH is wrong with you?  Have you been worshiping Satan again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 100% of crime stems from someone imposing what they think is best for themselves on others.
> 
> Freedom is when law prevents,  or at least mitigates, all of those impositions.
Click to expand...


So you admit Obamacare is a crime?


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bull shit.  Liberty does not include the taking of other peoples liberties.  Laws do not create freedom they restrict illegal activities.  Illegal activities are not "freedom" only a scumbag criminal would say that. Murder is not liberty, rape is not liberty, WTH is wrong with you?  Have you been worshiping Satan again?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 100% of crime stems from someone imposing what they think is best for themselves on others.
> 
> Freedom is when law prevents,  or at least mitigates, all of those impositions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you admit Obamacare is a crime?
Click to expand...


Making people responsible for their own health care prevents them from imposing their costs on others. 

Making up for at least the health care aspects of full time workers no being paid a living wage,  makes up for businesses not imposing ill health on their workers. 

Did you think that being sick is freedom?


----------



## dblack

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 100% of crime stems from someone imposing what they think is best for themselves on others.
> 
> Freedom is when law prevents,  or at least mitigates, all of those impositions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you admit Obamacare is a crime?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Making people responsible for their own health care prevents them from imposing their costs on others.
> 
> Making up for at least the health care aspects of full time workers no being paid a living wage,  makes up for businesses not imposing ill health on their workers.
> 
> Did you think that being sick is freedom?
Click to expand...


The right to choose your own level of risk tolerance is freedom.

Let me ask you this, PMZ. If your justification for the mandate is your worry that someone is going to push their health care costs off on you, how about letting people opt out of both the mandate, _*and*_ the provisions of EMTALA? Anyone who, at the end of the year, fails to meet the regulators minimum insurance requirements must either pay the fine as per ACA or forfeit their rights under EMTALA. Hospitals, if they wanted to take the hard line, would be free to refuse them service without payment up front.

Now, I know this wouldn't fly with the insurance industry lobbyists who wrote ACA, and I'm not really interested in discussing the details of actually implementing the policy, but I'm trying to understand your point of view. Would this sort of provision satisfy your concerns?


----------



## PMZ

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you admit Obamacare is a crime?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Making people responsible for their own health care prevents them from imposing their costs on others.
> 
> Making up for at least the health care aspects of full time workers no being paid a living wage,  makes up for businesses not imposing ill health on their workers.
> 
> Did you think that being sick is freedom?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right to choose your own level of risk tolerance is freedom.
> 
> Let me ask you this, PMZ. If your justification for the mandate is your worry that someone is going to push their health care costs off on you, how about letting people opt out of both the mandate, _*and*_ the provisions of EMTALA? Anyone who, at the end of the year, fails to meet the regulators minimum insurance requirements must either pay the fine as per ACA or forfeit their rights under EMTALA. Hospitals, if they wanted to take the hard line, would be free to refuse them service without payment up front.
> 
> Now, I know this wouldn't fly with the insurance industry lobbyists who wrote ACA, and I'm not really interested in discussing the details of actually implementing the policy, but I'm trying to understand your point of view. Would this sort of provision satisfy your concerns?
Click to expand...


My experience is that even though people might choose lives of risk and choose to forfeit their EMTALA rights,  they can't turn off their survival instinct.  When push came to shove they'd dump the load on others most often through bankruptcy,  but the alternative is crime.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Making people responsible for their own health care prevents them from imposing their costs on others.
> 
> Making up for at least the health care aspects of full time workers no being paid a living wage,  makes up for businesses not imposing ill health on their workers.
> 
> Did you think that being sick is freedom?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The right to choose your own level of risk tolerance is freedom.
> 
> Let me ask you this, PMZ. If your justification for the mandate is your worry that someone is going to push their health care costs off on you, how about letting people opt out of both the mandate, _*and*_ the provisions of EMTALA? Anyone who, at the end of the year, fails to meet the regulators minimum insurance requirements must either pay the fine as per ACA or forfeit their rights under EMTALA. Hospitals, if they wanted to take the hard line, would be free to refuse them service without payment up front.
> 
> Now, I know this wouldn't fly with the insurance industry lobbyists who wrote ACA, and I'm not really interested in discussing the details of actually implementing the policy, but I'm trying to understand your point of view. Would this sort of provision satisfy your concerns?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My experience is that even though people might choose lives of risk and choose to forfeit their EMTALA rights,  they can't turn off their survival instinct.  When push came to shove they'd dump the load on others most often through bankruptcy,  but the alternative is crime.
Click to expand...


Bankruptcy, is that like being 17trillion in debt and having to borrow 700billion a year?


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> The right to choose your own level of risk tolerance is freedom.
> 
> Let me ask you this, PMZ. If your justification for the mandate is your worry that someone is going to push their health care costs off on you, how about letting people opt out of both the mandate, _*and*_ the provisions of EMTALA? Anyone who, at the end of the year, fails to meet the regulators minimum insurance requirements must either pay the fine as per ACA or forfeit their rights under EMTALA. Hospitals, if they wanted to take the hard line, would be free to refuse them service without payment up front.
> 
> Now, I know this wouldn't fly with the insurance industry lobbyists who wrote ACA, and I'm not really interested in discussing the details of actually implementing the policy, but I'm trying to understand your point of view. Would this sort of provision satisfy your concerns?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My experience is that even though people might choose lives of risk and choose to forfeit their EMTALA rights,  they can't turn off their survival instinct.  When push came to shove they'd dump the load on others most often through bankruptcy,  but the alternative is crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bankruptcy, is that like being 17trillion in debt and having to borrow 700billion a year?
Click to expand...


The country and SCOTUS both made the mistake of picking your recommendation,  Bush.  That is not only where the $17T debt came from but also where we lost our one opportunity to become debt free.  

The fact the Fox has its addicts believing Republicans are fiscally responsible is proof positive of the power of propaganda.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> My experience is that even though people might choose lives of risk and choose to forfeit their EMTALA rights,  they can't turn off their survival instinct.  When push came to shove they'd dump the load on others most often through bankruptcy,  but the alternative is crime.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bankruptcy, is that like being 17trillion in debt and having to borrow 700billion a year?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The country and SCOTUS both made the mistake of picking your recommendation,  Bush.  That is not only where the $17T debt came from but also where we lost our one opportunity to become debt free.
> 
> The fact the Fox has its addicts believing Republicans are fiscally responsible is proof positive of the power of propaganda.
Click to expand...

I voted against Bush 3 times.  Once as governor, then twice for president.  You sir are a stupid retard liar.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bankruptcy, is that like being 17trillion in debt and having to borrow 700billion a year?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The country and SCOTUS both made the mistake of picking your recommendation,  Bush.  That is not only where the $17T debt came from but also where we lost our one opportunity to become debt free.
> 
> The fact the Fox has its addicts believing Republicans are fiscally responsible is proof positive of the power of propaganda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I voted against Bush 3 times.  Once as governor, then twice for president.  You sir are a stupid retard liar.
Click to expand...


You are a conservative and so is he.  Can't believe that you voted for Gore/Lieberman.  Hmmmmm. 

A "stupid retard liar". For what?  I've taught you a lot.


----------



## dblack

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Making people responsible for their own health care prevents them from imposing their costs on others.
> 
> Making up for at least the health care aspects of full time workers no being paid a living wage,  makes up for businesses not imposing ill health on their workers.
> 
> Did you think that being sick is freedom?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The right to choose your own level of risk tolerance is freedom.
> 
> Let me ask you this, PMZ. If your justification for the mandate is your worry that someone is going to push their health care costs off on you, how about letting people opt out of both the mandate, _*and*_ the provisions of EMTALA? Anyone who, at the end of the year, fails to meet the regulators minimum insurance requirements must either pay the fine as per ACA or forfeit their rights under EMTALA. Hospitals, if they wanted to take the hard line, would be free to refuse them service without payment up front.
> 
> Now, I know this wouldn't fly with the insurance industry lobbyists who wrote ACA, and I'm not really interested in discussing the details of actually implementing the policy, but I'm trying to understand your point of view. Would this sort of provision satisfy your concerns?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My experience is that even though people might choose lives of risk and choose to forfeit their EMTALA rights,  they can't turn off their survival instinct.  When push came to shove they'd dump the load on others most often through bankruptcy,  but the alternative is crime.
Click to expand...


That's sort of what I thought. This isn't about protecting your rights. It's about controlling other people.


----------



## PMZ

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> The right to choose your own level of risk tolerance is freedom.
> 
> Let me ask you this, PMZ. If your justification for the mandate is your worry that someone is going to push their health care costs off on you, how about letting people opt out of both the mandate, _*and*_ the provisions of EMTALA? Anyone who, at the end of the year, fails to meet the regulators minimum insurance requirements must either pay the fine as per ACA or forfeit their rights under EMTALA. Hospitals, if they wanted to take the hard line, would be free to refuse them service without payment up front.
> 
> Now, I know this wouldn't fly with the insurance industry lobbyists who wrote ACA, and I'm not really interested in discussing the details of actually implementing the policy, but I'm trying to understand your point of view. Would this sort of provision satisfy your concerns?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My experience is that even though people might choose lives of risk and choose to forfeit their EMTALA rights,  they can't turn off their survival instinct.  When push came to shove they'd dump the load on others most often through bankruptcy,  but the alternative is crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's sort of what I thought. This isn't about protecting your rights. It's about controlling other people.
Click to expand...


Yes.  Irresponsible people need to be taught responsibility. Thats what we do as parents. That's what we do as managers.  That's what we do as citizens.  The generic term is accountability.


----------



## dblack

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> My experience is that even though people might choose lives of risk and choose to forfeit their EMTALA rights,  they can't turn off their survival instinct.  When push came to shove they'd dump the load on others most often through bankruptcy,  but the alternative is crime.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's sort of what I thought. This isn't about protecting your rights. It's about controlling other people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.  Irresponsible people need to be taught responsibility. Thats what we do as parents. That's what we do as managers.  That's what we do as citizens.  The generic term is accountability.
Click to expand...


Authoritarian covers it as well. There's a difference between government that protects individual rights and government that dictates how people live. It's clear which you prefer.


----------



## PMZ

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's sort of what I thought. This isn't about protecting your rights. It's about controlling other people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  Irresponsible people need to be taught responsibility. Thats what we do as parents. That's what we do as managers.  That's what we do as citizens.  The generic term is accountability.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Authoritarian covers it as well. There's a difference between government that protects individual rights and government that dictates how people live. It's clear which you prefer.
Click to expand...


I believe in maximum freedom.  That means minimizing the impact of those who would impose what's best for them on me. 

Do you agree?


----------



## dblack

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  Irresponsible people need to be taught responsibility. Thats what we do as parents. That's what we do as managers.  That's what we do as citizens.  The generic term is accountability.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Authoritarian covers it as well. There's a difference between government that protects individual rights and government that dictates how people live. It's clear which you prefer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe in maximum freedom.  That means minimizing the impact of those who would impose what's best for them on me.
> 
> Do you agree?
Click to expand...


No. I don't agree that you believe in maximizing freedom. You seem to be heavily invested in minimizing it for your convenience.


----------



## PMZ

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Authoritarian covers it as well. There's a difference between government that protects individual rights and government that dictates how people live. It's clear which you prefer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe in maximum freedom.  That means minimizing the impact of those who would impose what's best for them on me.
> 
> Do you agree?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. I don't agree that you believe in maximizing freedom. You seem to be heavily invested in minimizing it for your convenience.
Click to expand...


I believe in maximum freedom.  That means minimizing the impact of those who would impose what's best for them on me. 

Do you agree?


----------



## dblack

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe in maximum freedom.  That means minimizing the impact of those who would impose what's best for them on me.
> 
> Do you agree?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. I don't agree that you believe in maximizing freedom. You seem to be heavily invested in minimizing it for your convenience.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe in maximum freedom.  That means minimizing the impact of those who would impose what's best for them on me.
> 
> Do you agree?
Click to expand...


Yes. But you don't. You seem to be very wiling to impose what is you desire on others - insurance for example.


----------



## PMZ

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. I don't agree that you believe in maximizing freedom. You seem to be heavily invested in minimizing it for your convenience.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe in maximum freedom.  That means minimizing the impact of those who would impose what's best for them on me.
> 
> Do you agree?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes. But you don't. You seem to be very wiling to impose what is you desire on others - insurance for example.
Click to expand...


They would impose the cost of their health care on me. That restricts my financial freedom for no reason.


----------



## dblack

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe in maximum freedom.  That means minimizing the impact of those who would impose what's best for them on me.
> 
> Do you agree?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. But you don't. You seem to be very wiling to impose what is you desire on others - insurance for example.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They would impose the cost of their health care on me. That restricts my financial freedom for no reason.
Click to expand...


No, that is your guilty-until-proven-innocent presumption. it is not fact.


----------



## PMZ

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. But you don't. You seem to be very wiling to impose what is you desire on others - insurance for example.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They would impose the cost of their health care on me. That restricts my financial freedom for no reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, that is your guilty-until-proven-innocent presumption. it is not fact.
Click to expand...


If they are not prepared to pay for their own health care they are counting on us to do it. No? What other choice is there?


----------



## dblack

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> They would impose the cost of their health care on me. That restricts my financial freedom for no reason.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, that is your guilty-until-proven-innocent presumption. it is not fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If they are not prepared to pay for their own health care they are counting on us to do it. No?
Click to expand...


You're still resting on this hypocritical assumption based on EMTALA guarantees.


----------



## PMZ

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, that is your guilty-until-proven-innocent presumption. it is not fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If they are not prepared to pay for their own health care they are counting on us to do it. No?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're still resting on this hypocritical assumption based on EMTALA guarantees.
Click to expand...


Yes.  I would not choose to live in a lessor country.  Apparently that's a majority opinion.  Otherwise EMTALA would not be law.


----------



## auditor0007

Rottweiler said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is sad that this has to happen.
> 
> It's also sad that the GOP has convinced people of "death panels", "losing freedom" and all the other hysterical nonsense that you sheep believe, that have actually made you think you hate a law that is a Republican idea.
> 
> So yeah, it's sad that a campaign needs to be waged to combat such blatant misinformation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wait - let me get this straight - you believe you're not losing freedom under Obamacare [MENTION=23461]RDD_1210[/MENTION]?!?
> 
> The federal government now *forces* you to make a purchase. How is that *not* losing freedom in your mind? I can't wait to hear this absurd explanation.
> 
> By the way - "death panels" are a 100% certainty and now that they've passed Obamacare, the left has even admitted as much. Perhaps you need to wake up to reality? When the federal government has limited funds and unlimited health issues to address, they will have to decide who gets treatment and who doesn't (just like the do in Canada, just like they do in England, just like they do in <insert idiot socialized medicine nation here>, etc.).
> 
> You are one willfully ignorant buffoon, aren't you? Oh well, ignorance is bliss I guess...
Click to expand...


Oh shit, I'm being forced to purchase something that I should be responsible enough to purchase on my own.  I take it you're not responsible enough to buy insurance on your own or to make certain you and your family are covered?  That's the damn problem with cons who ascribe to self determination, self reliance, and self responsibility, and then support a person's right to be as irresponsible as possible.  It's laughable.


----------



## dblack

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> If they are not prepared to pay for their own health care they are counting on us to do it. No?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're still resting on this hypocritical assumption based on EMTALA guarantees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.  I would not choose to live in a lessor country.  Apparently that's a majority opinion.  Otherwise EMTALA would not be law.
Click to expand...


Right. It's the catch 22 at the core of your entire premise. You insist on EMTALA style laws, and then demand that anyone who utilizes on them be punished. Sorta fucked up as I see it. If you don't want to help people who don't have insurance, then don't. Jeez.


----------



## dblack

auditor0007 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is sad that this has to happen.
> 
> It's also sad that the GOP has convinced people of "death panels", "losing freedom" and all the other hysterical nonsense that you sheep believe, that have actually made you think you hate a law that is a Republican idea.
> 
> So yeah, it's sad that a campaign needs to be waged to combat such blatant misinformation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wait - let me get this straight - you believe you're not losing freedom under Obamacare [MENTION=23461]RDD_1210[/MENTION]?!?
> 
> The federal government now *forces* you to make a purchase. How is that *not* losing freedom in your mind? I can't wait to hear this absurd explanation.
> 
> By the way - "death panels" are a 100% certainty and now that they've passed Obamacare, the left has even admitted as much. Perhaps you need to wake up to reality? When the federal government has limited funds and unlimited health issues to address, they will have to decide who gets treatment and who doesn't (just like the do in Canada, just like they do in England, just like they do in <insert idiot socialized medicine nation here>, etc.).
> 
> You are one willfully ignorant buffoon, aren't you? Oh well, ignorance is bliss I guess...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh shit, I'm being forced to purchase something that I should be responsible enough to purchase on my own.  I take it you're not responsible enough to buy insurance on your own or to make certain you and your family are covered?  That's the damn problem with cons who ascribe to self determination, self reliance, and self responsibility, and then support a person's right to be as irresponsible as possible.  It's laughable.
Click to expand...


I don't think you really understand the concept of responsibility. Responsibility is accepting the consequences of your decisions. Not paying for the privilege of avoiding them.


----------



## PMZ

dblack said:


> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wait - let me get this straight - you believe you're not losing freedom under Obamacare [MENTION=23461]RDD_1210[/MENTION]?!?
> 
> The federal government now *forces* you to make a purchase. How is that *not* losing freedom in your mind? I can't wait to hear this absurd explanation.
> 
> By the way - "death panels" are a 100% certainty and now that they've passed Obamacare, the left has even admitted as much. Perhaps you need to wake up to reality? When the federal government has limited funds and unlimited health issues to address, they will have to decide who gets treatment and who doesn't (just like the do in Canada, just like they do in England, just like they do in <insert idiot socialized medicine nation here>, etc.).
> 
> You are one willfully ignorant buffoon, aren't you? Oh well, ignorance is bliss I guess...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh shit, I'm being forced to purchase something that I should be responsible enough to purchase on my own.  I take it you're not responsible enough to buy insurance on your own or to make certain you and your family are covered?  That's the damn problem with cons who ascribe to self determination, self reliance, and self responsibility, and then support a person's right to be as irresponsible as possible.  It's laughable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think you really understand the concept of responsibility. Responsibility is accepting the consequences of your decisions. Not paying for the privilege of avoiding them.
Click to expand...


I don't see survival as something that most people consider optional. An acceptable consequence.  I'm pretty sure that if I needed health care to survive,  I'd get it.  I'd do what it takes.


----------



## dblack

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh shit, I'm being forced to purchase something that I should be responsible enough to purchase on my own.  I take it you're not responsible enough to buy insurance on your own or to make certain you and your family are covered?  That's the damn problem with cons who ascribe to self determination, self reliance, and self responsibility, and then support a person's right to be as irresponsible as possible.  It's laughable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think you really understand the concept of responsibility. Responsibility is accepting the consequences of your decisions. Not paying for the privilege of avoiding them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't see survival as something that most people consider optional. An acceptable consequence.  I'm pretty sure that if I needed health care to survive,  I'd get it.  I'd do what it takes.
Click to expand...


What do you mean?


----------



## PMZ

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think you really understand the concept of responsibility. Responsibility is accepting the consequences of your decisions. Not paying for the privilege of avoiding them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see survival as something that most people consider optional. An acceptable consequence.  I'm pretty sure that if I needed health care to survive,  I'd get it.  I'd do what it takes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you mean?
Click to expand...


That if my life depended on it,  I'd do what I had to do.


----------



## dblack

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see survival as something that most people consider optional. An acceptable consequence.  I'm pretty sure that if I needed health care to survive,  I'd get it.  I'd do what it takes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That if my life depended on it,  I'd do what I had to do.
Click to expand...


Ok.


----------



## dblack

Here's the thing, PMZ. Your political ideology is assumes the goal of government is to drive everyone toward some kind of 'right way to live', and I reject that ideology. I believe government is there to protect us from bullies, not to BE the bully.


----------



## auditor0007

dblack said:


> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wait - let me get this straight - you believe you're not losing freedom under Obamacare [MENTION=23461]RDD_1210[/MENTION]?!?
> 
> The federal government now *forces* you to make a purchase. How is that *not* losing freedom in your mind? I can't wait to hear this absurd explanation.
> 
> By the way - "death panels" are a 100% certainty and now that they've passed Obamacare, the left has even admitted as much. Perhaps you need to wake up to reality? When the federal government has limited funds and unlimited health issues to address, they will have to decide who gets treatment and who doesn't (just like the do in Canada, just like they do in England, just like they do in <insert idiot socialized medicine nation here>, etc.).
> 
> You are one willfully ignorant buffoon, aren't you? Oh well, ignorance is bliss I guess...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh shit, I'm being forced to purchase something that I should be responsible enough to purchase on my own.  I take it you're not responsible enough to buy insurance on your own or to make certain you and your family are covered?  That's the damn problem with cons who ascribe to self determination, self reliance, and self responsibility, and then support a person's right to be as irresponsible as possible.  It's laughable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think you really understand the concept of responsibility. Responsibility is accepting the consequences of your decisions. Not paying for the privilege of avoiding them.
Click to expand...


For those of you who "choose" not to purchase insurance, there isn't a huge consequence because you will likely still receive the care you need.  The difference is that those of us who do pay for insurance will end up footing your bills.  Now if you chose not to purchase insurance and the hospital could turn you away if you could not pay, that would work for me.  They could tell you to go home and die because you weren't smart enough to pay for insurance or aren't wealthy enough to be self-insured.  Those of you who support the idea that you should go without insurance because it costs too much are no better than those who live off of welfare and never try to find a job.


----------



## dblack

auditor0007 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh shit, I'm being forced to purchase something that I should be responsible enough to purchase on my own.  I take it you're not responsible enough to buy insurance on your own or to make certain you and your family are covered?  That's the damn problem with cons who ascribe to self determination, self reliance, and self responsibility, and then support a person's right to be as irresponsible as possible.  It's laughable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think you really understand the concept of responsibility. Responsibility is accepting the consequences of your decisions. Not paying for the privilege of avoiding them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For those of you who "choose" not to purchase insurance, there isn't a huge consequence because you will likely still receive the care you need.  The difference is that those of us who do pay for insurance will end up footing your bills.  Now if you chose not to purchase insurance and the hospital could turn you away if you could not pay, that would work for me.  They could tell you to go home and die because you weren't smart enough to pay for insurance or aren't wealthy enough to be self-insured.  Those of you who support the idea that you should go without insurance because it costs too much are no better than those who live off of welfare and never try to find a job.
Click to expand...


Ok, so if people could opt out of the individual mandate and the EMTALA provisions, you'd be ok with it? Because that's all we're really asking for.


----------



## PMZ

dblack said:


> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think you really understand the concept of responsibility. Responsibility is accepting the consequences of your decisions. Not paying for the privilege of avoiding them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For those of you who "choose" not to purchase insurance, there isn't a huge consequence because you will likely still receive the care you need.  The difference is that those of us who do pay for insurance will end up footing your bills.  Now if you chose not to purchase insurance and the hospital could turn you away if you could not pay, that would work for me.  They could tell you to go home and die because you weren't smart enough to pay for insurance or aren't wealthy enough to be self-insured.  Those of you who support the idea that you should go without insurance because it costs too much are no better than those who live off of welfare and never try to find a job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok, so if people could opt out of the individual mandate and the EMTALA provisions, you'd be ok with it? Because that's all we're really asking for.
Click to expand...


I don't see that as practical as people will not,  not survive.  Survival is hard wired into all of us. We'll not give up on life. I might make a decision today to not fund health care insurance.  But faced with death,  I'll do whatever I have to.  And so will you.


----------



## auditor0007

dblack said:


> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think you really understand the concept of responsibility. Responsibility is accepting the consequences of your decisions. Not paying for the privilege of avoiding them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For those of you who "choose" not to purchase insurance, there isn't a huge consequence because you will likely still receive the care you need.  The difference is that those of us who do pay for insurance will end up footing your bills.  Now if you chose not to purchase insurance and the hospital could turn you away if you could not pay, that would work for me.  They could tell you to go home and die because you weren't smart enough to pay for insurance or aren't wealthy enough to be self-insured.  Those of you who support the idea that you should go without insurance because it costs too much are no better than those who live off of welfare and never try to find a job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok, so if people could opt out of the individual mandate and the EMTALA provisions, you'd be ok with it? Because that's all we're really asking for.
Click to expand...


I would have no problem with that.  The only real problem is that we're not going to let you die if you get sick, whether you have insurance or not, and you know that.  This is why a mandate is necessary.


----------



## P@triot

auditor0007 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is sad that this has to happen.
> 
> It's also sad that the GOP has convinced people of "death panels", "losing freedom" and all the other hysterical nonsense that you sheep believe, that have actually made you think you hate a law that is a Republican idea.
> 
> So yeah, it's sad that a campaign needs to be waged to combat such blatant misinformation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wait - let me get this straight - you believe you're not losing freedom under Obamacare [MENTION=23461]RDD_1210[/MENTION]?!?
> 
> The federal government now *forces* you to make a purchase. How is that *not* losing freedom in your mind? I can't wait to hear this absurd explanation.
> 
> By the way - "death panels" are a 100% certainty and now that they've passed Obamacare, the left has even admitted as much. Perhaps you need to wake up to reality? When the federal government has limited funds and unlimited health issues to address, they will have to decide who gets treatment and who doesn't (just like the do in Canada, just like they do in England, just like they do in <insert idiot socialized medicine nation here>, etc.).
> 
> You are one willfully ignorant buffoon, aren't you? Oh well, ignorance is bliss I guess...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh shit, I'm being forced to purchase something that I should be responsible enough to purchase on my own.  I take it you're not responsible enough to buy insurance on your own or to make certain you and your family are covered?  That's the damn problem with cons who ascribe to self determination, self reliance, and self responsibility, and then support a person's right to be as irresponsible as possible.  It's laughable.
Click to expand...


Who the fuck are _you_ to decide for someone else what is the "responsible" thing for _them_ to do in _their_ life? A slightly arrogant asshole, are we?

At the end of the day, you can't justify your communism by pretending that you're all about self-reliance. You want communism because you're a fuck'n parasite and thus you want government to *force* me to provide for you. Freedom. Freedom to succeed. Freedom to fail. But always freedom.


----------



## P@triot

Once again selfish communists like PMZ celebrate their free shit while people die because of it...

Shes fighting stage-4 cancer. Her insurance was canceled. Now, she writes, I worry how long I'll live.

A Stage-4 Gallblader Cancer Survivor Says: I Am One of ObamaCare's Losers - WSJ.com


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> The country and SCOTUS both made the mistake of picking your recommendation,  Bush.  That is not only where the $17T debt came from but also where we lost our one opportunity to become debt free.
> 
> The fact the Fox has its addicts believing Republicans are fiscally responsible is proof positive of the power of propaganda.
> 
> 
> 
> I voted against Bush 3 times.  Once as governor, then twice for president.  You sir are a stupid retard liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a conservative and so is he.  Can't believe that you voted for Gore/Lieberman.  Hmmmmm.
> 
> A "stupid retard liar". For what?  I've taught you a lot.
Click to expand...


Screw you, I would never vote for socialist communists ass holes like you & Gore.  You've taught me nothing.


----------



## RKMBrown

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> The right to choose your own level of risk tolerance is freedom.
> 
> Let me ask you this, PMZ. If your justification for the mandate is your worry that someone is going to push their health care costs off on you, how about letting people opt out of both the mandate, _*and*_ the provisions of EMTALA? Anyone who, at the end of the year, fails to meet the regulators minimum insurance requirements must either pay the fine as per ACA or forfeit their rights under EMTALA. Hospitals, if they wanted to take the hard line, would be free to refuse them service without payment up front.
> 
> Now, I know this wouldn't fly with the insurance industry lobbyists who wrote ACA, and I'm not really interested in discussing the details of actually implementing the policy, but I'm trying to understand your point of view. Would this sort of provision satisfy your concerns?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My experience is that even though people might choose lives of risk and choose to forfeit their EMTALA rights,  they can't turn off their survival instinct.  When push came to shove they'd dump the load on others most often through bankruptcy,  but the alternative is crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's sort of what I thought. This isn't about protecting your rights. It's about controlling other people.
Click to expand...


BS he wants to cover his own ass to.  He's retired with medicare and no income so could give a shit about current income earners & EMTALA.


----------



## RKMBrown

auditor0007 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh shit, I'm being forced to purchase something that I should be responsible enough to purchase on my own.  I take it you're not responsible enough to buy insurance on your own or to make certain you and your family are covered?  That's the damn problem with cons who ascribe to self determination, self reliance, and self responsibility, and then support a person's right to be as irresponsible as possible.  It's laughable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think you really understand the concept of responsibility. Responsibility is accepting the consequences of your decisions. Not paying for the privilege of avoiding them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For those of you who "choose" not to purchase insurance, there isn't a huge consequence because you will likely still receive the care you need.  The difference is that those of us who do pay for insurance will end up footing your bills.  Now if you chose not to purchase insurance and the hospital could turn you away if you could not pay, that would work for me.  They could tell you to go home and die because you weren't smart enough to pay for insurance or aren't wealthy enough to be self-insured.  Those of you who support the idea that you should go without insurance because it costs too much are no better than those who live off of welfare and never try to find a job.
Click to expand...


That is an absolute lie. There is no law prohibiting someone from paying their health care bills with cash or credit.  Why do you think only insurance can pay for health care.  Are you completely unaware of the concept of paying for what you buy directly?


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> For those of you who "choose" not to purchase insurance, there isn't a huge consequence because you will likely still receive the care you need.  The difference is that those of us who do pay for insurance will end up footing your bills.  Now if you chose not to purchase insurance and the hospital could turn you away if you could not pay, that would work for me.  They could tell you to go home and die because you weren't smart enough to pay for insurance or aren't wealthy enough to be self-insured.  Those of you who support the idea that you should go without insurance because it costs too much are no better than those who live off of welfare and never try to find a job.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, so if people could opt out of the individual mandate and the EMTALA provisions, you'd be ok with it? Because that's all we're really asking for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't see that as practical as people will not,  not survive.  Survival is hard wired into all of us. We'll not give up on life. I might make a decision today to not fund health care insurance.  But faced with death,  I'll do whatever I have to.  And so will you.
Click to expand...


IOW you are a criminal who would not pay his bills if he did not already pre-pay them with insurance premiums.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, so if people could opt out of the individual mandate and the EMTALA provisions, you'd be ok with it? Because that's all we're really asking for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see that as practical as people will not,  not survive.  Survival is hard wired into all of us. We'll not give up on life. I might make a decision today to not fund health care insurance.  But faced with death,  I'll do whatever I have to.  And so will you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> IOW you are a criminal who would not pay his bills if he did not already pre-pay them with insurance premiums.
Click to expand...


Spoken like a true aristocrat.  

Let them eat cake.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think you really understand the concept of responsibility. Responsibility is accepting the consequences of your decisions. Not paying for the privilege of avoiding them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For those of you who "choose" not to purchase insurance, there isn't a huge consequence because you will likely still receive the care you need.  The difference is that those of us who do pay for insurance will end up footing your bills.  Now if you chose not to purchase insurance and the hospital could turn you away if you could not pay, that would work for me.  They could tell you to go home and die because you weren't smart enough to pay for insurance or aren't wealthy enough to be self-insured.  Those of you who support the idea that you should go without insurance because it costs too much are no better than those who live off of welfare and never try to find a job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is an absolute lie. There is no law prohibiting someone from paying their health care bills with cash or credit.  Why do you think only insurance can pay for health care.  Are you completely unaware of the concept of paying for what you buy directly?
Click to expand...


I suppose if you escrow a million dollars in liquid assets you should be allowed to self insure.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see that as practical as people will not,  not survive.  Survival is hard wired into all of us. We'll not give up on life. I might make a decision today to not fund health care insurance.  But faced with death,  I'll do whatever I have to.  And so will you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IOW you are a criminal who would not pay his bills if he did not already pre-pay them with insurance premiums.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Spoken like a true aristocrat.
> 
> Let them eat cake.
Click to expand...


Spoken like a criminal justifying his criminal acts on "the man."


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> For those of you who "choose" not to purchase insurance, there isn't a huge consequence because you will likely still receive the care you need.  The difference is that those of us who do pay for insurance will end up footing your bills.  Now if you chose not to purchase insurance and the hospital could turn you away if you could not pay, that would work for me.  They could tell you to go home and die because you weren't smart enough to pay for insurance or aren't wealthy enough to be self-insured.  Those of you who support the idea that you should go without insurance because it costs too much are no better than those who live off of welfare and never try to find a job.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is an absolute lie. There is no law prohibiting someone from paying their health care bills with cash or credit.  Why do you think only insurance can pay for health care.  Are you completely unaware of the concept of paying for what you buy directly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I suppose if you escrow a million dollars in liquid assets you should be allowed to self insure.
Click to expand...


Or some lower amount, or have some combination of liquid and hard assets against which liens can be placed, and buy "re-insurance" for catastrophic events.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is an absolute lie. There is no law prohibiting someone from paying their health care bills with cash or credit.  Why do you think only insurance can pay for health care.  Are you completely unaware of the concept of paying for what you buy directly?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose if you escrow a million dollars in liquid assets you should be allowed to self insure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or some lower amount, or have some combination of liquid and hard assets against which liens can be placed, and buy "re-insurance" for catastrophic events.
Click to expand...


We shouldn't have to pay lawyers to collect from anybody.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose if you escrow a million dollars in liquid assets you should be allowed to self insure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or some lower amount, or have some combination of liquid and hard assets against which liens can be placed, and buy "re-insurance" for catastrophic events.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We shouldn't have to pay lawyers to collect from anybody.
Click to expand...


You heard it hear, folks, PMZ recommends we abandon invoicing, all bills must be paid up front and before services are rendered. lol  No Trust, no credit, no checks, no payment when satisfied, no contracts, all consumer legal protections out the window.


----------



## Barbarap

Rottweiler said:


> Once again selfish communists like PMZ celebrate their free shit while people die because of it...
> 
> Shes fighting stage-4 cancer. Her insurance was canceled. Now, she writes, I worry how long I'll live.
> 
> A Stage-4 Gallblader Cancer Survivor Says: I Am One of ObamaCare's Losers - WSJ.com



And here's the rest if her story:
http://thinkprogress.org/health/201...or-story-cancer-patient-losing-doctors-wrong/


----------



## PMZ

Barbarap said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again selfish communists like PMZ celebrate their free shit while people die because of it...
> 
> Shes fighting stage-4 cancer. Her insurance was canceled. Now, she writes, I worry how long I'll live.
> 
> A Stage-4 Gallblader Cancer Survivor Says: I Am One of ObamaCare's Losers - WSJ.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And here's the rest if her story:
> http://thinkprogress.org/health/201...or-story-cancer-patient-losing-doctors-wrong/
Click to expand...


Who canceled her insurance?


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or some lower amount, or have some combination of liquid and hard assets against which liens can be placed, and buy "re-insurance" for catastrophic events.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We shouldn't have to pay lawyers to collect from anybody.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You heard it hear, folks, PMZ recommends we abandon invoicing, all bills must be paid up front and before services are rendered. lol  No Trust, no credit, no checks, no payment when satisfied, no contracts, all consumer legal protections out the window.
Click to expand...


You've become truly loony.


----------



## NLT

My cost for employee furnished family health care just doubled BCBS. Fucking Obama and you stupid fucking liberals who voted for the cock sucker.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> We shouldn't have to pay lawyers to collect from anybody.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You heard it hear, folks, PMZ recommends we abandon invoicing, all bills must be paid up front and before services are rendered. lol  No Trust, no credit, no checks, no payment when satisfied, no contracts, all consumer legal protections out the window.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've become truly loony.
Click to expand...


Then explain how your whimsical market system will work without using lawyers to collect from deadbeats, settle bankruptcy disputes etc.


----------



## PMZ

NLT said:


> My cost for employee furnished family health care just doubled BCBS. Fucking Obama and you stupid fucking liberals who voted for the cock sucker.



This is every bit as sensible as blaming government for rising gas prices.


----------



## RKMBrown

NLT said:


> My cost for employee furnished family health care just doubled BCBS. Fucking Obama and you stupid fucking liberals who voted for the cock sucker.



The Republicans tried to stop it... Gonna be interesting how this plays at the ballot booth.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> NLT said:
> 
> 
> 
> My cost for employee furnished family health care just doubled BCBS. Fucking Obama and you stupid fucking liberals who voted for the cock sucker.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is every bit as sensible as blaming government for rising gas prices.
Click to expand...


^ POS Troll


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> NLT said:
> 
> 
> 
> My cost for employee furnished family health care just doubled BCBS. Fucking Obama and you stupid fucking liberals who voted for the cock sucker.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Republicans tried to stop it... Gonna be interesting how this plays at the ballot booth.
Click to expand...


This is the only campaign card in the Republican hand.  Their bluffing about Obamacare is all that they can do to sell that weak hand. 

The truth about Obamacare will be well known long before elections.  And this bluff will have failed just like all of their other bluffs have.  

They are learning oh so slowly that they should have invested in competence,  a better hand,  than in bluffing.


----------



## NLT

PMZ said:


> NLT said:
> 
> 
> 
> My cost for employee furnished family health care just doubled BCBS. Fucking Obama and you stupid fucking liberals who voted for the cock sucker.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is every bit as sensible as blaming government for rising gas prices.
Click to expand...


Negged and will continue until you have big red splats


----------



## PMZ

NLT said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NLT said:
> 
> 
> 
> My cost for employee furnished family health care just doubled BCBS. Fucking Obama and you stupid fucking liberals who voted for the cock sucker.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is every bit as sensible as blaming government for rising gas prices.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Negged and will continue until you have big red splats
Click to expand...


Your ignorance is not my problem.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> NLT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is every bit as sensible as blaming government for rising gas prices.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Negged and will continue until you have big red splats
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your ignorance is not my problem.
Click to expand...


Interesting, yet you insist the reverse is true when discussing people who have no funds to pay for health care.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NLT said:
> 
> 
> 
> Negged and will continue until you have big red splats
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your ignorance is not my problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting, yet you insist the reverse is true when discussing people who have no funds to pay for health care.
Click to expand...


How does anybody get people without a living income to pay for living? 

Are you thinking of debtor's prisons?


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your ignorance is not my problem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting, yet you insist the reverse is true when discussing people who have no funds to pay for health care.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How does anybody get people without a living income to pay for living?
> 
> Are you thinking of debtor's prisons?
Click to expand...


Your question makes no sense.  That's like saying when someone comes to a car lot we should just let them walk off the lot with a new car if they don't earn more, in income, than the poverty level.  Telling people they have to pay their way through life is not the ridiculous concept you are making it out to be.  Billing someone for services rendered is not ridiculous.  Attaching a lien on assets and using the courts to collect on un-paid bills is not some unfathonable topic. 

I can be a multi-millionare with ZERO INCOME and thus get subsidies from OCA.  Face it OCA is a monumentally stupid law.

The only possible reason I can fathom for your statements is you hope to somehow profit from it.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting, yet you insist the reverse is true when discussing people who have no funds to pay for health care.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How does anybody get people without a living income to pay for living?
> 
> Are you thinking of debtor's prisons?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your question makes no sense.  That's like saying when someone comes to a car lot we should just let them walk off the lot with a new car if they don't earn more, in income, than the poverty level.  Telling people they have to pay their way through life is not the ridiculous concept you are making it out to be.  Billing someone for services rendered is not ridiculous.  Attaching a lien on assets and using the courts to collect on un-paid bills is not some unfathonable topic.
> 
> I can be a multi-millionare with ZERO INCOME and thus get subsidies from OCA.  Face it OCA is a monumentally stupid law.
> 
> The only possible reason I can fathom for your statements is you hope to somehow profit from it.
Click to expand...


I thought that you had some experience with poverty.  Another lie? 

My question is how does one live on a non living wage.  Do you  even understand the concept of not enough pay? 

You want people not being paid enough to live on to pay your taxes and now,  healthcare risen to an out of control cost that middle income people struggle paying. 

How is that even possible?


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> NLT said:
> 
> 
> 
> My cost for employee furnished family health care just doubled BCBS. Fucking Obama and you stupid fucking liberals who voted for the cock sucker.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is every bit as sensible as blaming government for rising gas prices.
Click to expand...


Government mandates (ie Obamacare) and government taxes (because of Obamacare) have caused healthcare costs to *skyrocket* (just like the Dumbocrats intended). Don't pretend to be so stupid PMZ (I mean more than you actually are)...

Citing Obamacare, Cleveland Clinic to Cut $300M, Warns of Layoffs - US News and World Report

Cleveland Clinic announces job cuts to prepare for Obamacare | Reuters

Prestigious Cleveland Clinic Cuts $300M, Layoffs Loom Citing Obamacare | Ben Swann Truth In Media

World-Renowned Cleveland Clinic to Lay Off Thousands Due to Obamacare


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> We shouldn't have to pay lawyers to collect from anybody.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You heard it hear, folks, PMZ recommends we abandon invoicing, all bills must be paid up front and before services are rendered. lol  No Trust, no credit, no checks, no payment when satisfied, no contracts, all consumer legal protections out the window.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've become truly loony.
Click to expand...


Every time he owns you in a discussion your ONLY reply has been "you've become truly loony". It's almost like that is your official phrase for surrendering...


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> Barbarap said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again selfish communists like PMZ celebrate their free shit while people die because of it...
> 
> Shes fighting stage-4 cancer. Her insurance was canceled. Now, she writes, I worry how long I'll live.
> 
> A Stage-4 Gallblader Cancer Survivor Says: I Am One of ObamaCare's Losers - WSJ.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And here's the rest if her story:
> The Real Reason That The Cancer Patient Writing In Today's Wall Street Journal Lost Her Insurance | ThinkProgress
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who canceled her insurance?
Click to expand...


The Dumbocrats did utilizing their new tool for destroying the U.S. - Obamacare


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does anybody get people without a living income to pay for living?
> 
> Are you thinking of debtor's prisons?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your question makes no sense.  That's like saying when someone comes to a car lot we should just let them walk off the lot with a new car if they don't earn more, in income, than the poverty level.  Telling people they have to pay their way through life is not the ridiculous concept you are making it out to be.  Billing someone for services rendered is not ridiculous.  Attaching a lien on assets and using the courts to collect on un-paid bills is not some unfathonable topic.
> 
> I can be a multi-millionare with ZERO INCOME and thus get subsidies from OCA.  Face it OCA is a monumentally stupid law.
> 
> The only possible reason I can fathom for your statements is you hope to somehow profit from it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought that you had some experience with poverty.  Another lie?
> 
> My question is how does one live on a non living wage.  Do you  even understand the concept of not enough pay?
> 
> You want people not being paid enough to live on to pay your taxes and now,  healthcare risen to an out of control cost that middle income people struggle paying.
> 
> How is that even possible?
Click to expand...


>>> I thought that you had some experience with poverty.  Another lie? 

Nope.

>>> My question is how does one live on a non living wage.  

Easy, live within their means, and share costs with volunteers.  For example, if you can't afford the rent you split the rent.  If you can't afford a car you take the bus, walk, ride, etc.  If you can't afford to get your tooth pulled you find a dentist willing to do it for free or for barter.  If you can't afford a personal doctor, you go to a clinic, or perhaps a free clinic.  If you can't afford a new leg, you get a crutch or a wheel chair and hope for charity.

>>> Do you  even understand the concept of not enough pay? 

Of course I do.  Do you understand the concept of a budget and living within your means?

>> You want people not being paid enough to live on to pay your taxes and now,  healthcare risen to an out of control cost that middle income people struggle paying. 

The reason for health care costs run amok is the liberal view that only a few people should have to pay, and the many should not have to pay a thing. 

>> How is that even possible?

Easy, you don't spend money you don't have and you don't borrow money you can't pay back. Why is personal responsibility a foreign concept for you?


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> You heard it hear, folks, PMZ recommends we abandon invoicing, all bills must be paid up front and before services are rendered. lol  No Trust, no credit, no checks, no payment when satisfied, no contracts, all consumer legal protections out the window.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've become truly loony.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every time he owns you in a discussion your ONLY reply has been "you've become truly loony". It's almost like that is your official phrase for surrendering...
Click to expand...


I've never posted that before because he has never acted loony before.  Uninformed and non objective, but that time he fell to a new level that can only be described as loony.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've become truly loony.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every time he owns you in a discussion your ONLY reply has been "you've become truly loony". It's almost like that is your official phrase for surrendering...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've never posted that before because he has never acted loony before.  Uninformed and non objective, but that time he fell to a new level that can only be described as loony.
Click to expand...


That's funny, all I did was clearly explain why your statement is ludicrous.  Why is it loony to explain to you why your statements are ludicrous?  Are you actually admitting, here, that anyone having a reasoned discussion with you must be loony toons? 

Why must one be loony toons to have a disagreement with you? What are you hiding?  Is this admission you are just being paid to make stupid statements in support of Obama?


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time he owns you in a discussion your ONLY reply has been "you've become truly loony". It's almost like that is your official phrase for surrendering...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've never posted that before because he has never acted loony before.  Uninformed and non objective, but that time he fell to a new level that can only be described as loony.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's funny, all I did was clearly explain why your statement is ludicrous.  Why is it loony to explain to you why your statements are ludicrous?  Are you actually admitting, here, that anyone having a reasoned discussion with you must be loony toons?
> 
> Why must one be loony toons to have a disagreement with you? What are you hiding?  Is this admission you are just being paid to make stupid statements in support of Obama?
Click to expand...


Your response was virtually disconnected from my post.  Different zip code.  And what you proposed in it made no sense as an idea.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've never posted that before because he has never acted loony before.  Uninformed and non objective, but that time he fell to a new level that can only be described as loony.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's funny, all I did was clearly explain why your statement is ludicrous.  Why is it loony to explain to you why your statements are ludicrous?  Are you actually admitting, here, that anyone having a reasoned discussion with you must be loony toons?
> 
> Why must one be loony toons to have a disagreement with you? What are you hiding?  Is this admission you are just being paid to make stupid statements in support of Obama?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your response was virtually disconnected from my post.  Different zip code.  And what you proposed in it made no sense as an idea.
Click to expand...


You said that "[w]e shouldn't have to pay lawyers to collect from anybody."
In response, I said "[y]ou heard it hear, folks, PMZ recommends we abandon invoicing, all bills must be paid up front and before services are rendered. lol No Trust, no credit, no checks, no payment when satisfied, no contracts, all consumer legal protections out the window." 

Break it down.  

The actor "we" is US Citizens, presumably producers who collect money from consumers, in this case, decidedly Health Care Providers.
The target of who we, the health care providers, should not have to pay as selected by YOU was "lawyers."
The purpose you gave for paying said lawyers was for collecting payment from consumers (anybody as specified by YOU).

Thus your statement means, you desire we (us citizens) eliminate the task of collections (for health care providers) by forcing payment from consumers through ACA.  This presumably based on ACA as an alternative model to the good ole model pre-ACA.  ACA comprising mandatory pre-payment, thus no (major) collections required, as the bulk of the (major) payments are made by insurance companies from premiums that are funded by policy holder premiums and taxes paid by tax payers. HC providers presumably will just pass on un-collected bills in the form of even higher costs.  Further there's no reason for anyone to pay their portion of the bill any more as getting dropped from one policy is not a reason for the HC providers to refuse letting you right back in.  It might affect your credit score, but who cares.  Why borrow money when you can spend other peoples money?  You see, the ACA law is everyone gets health care through insurance no matter if they have pre-existing. I don't think they can force you to pay the premiums either, not if you stop working. The subsidies will pick it up for you.  Let's say you have to get a new heart and it will cost you 150k total, just a guess.  You quit working join up for full subsidies. It's all paid for. No cost to you.  Isn't that better than working or paying expensive premiums your whole life?  Then you drop ACA sticking them with the bill.  Any recurring problems just join up again.

Lawyers are typically involved with (large) collections only when the consumer refused to pay their bill timely.   However, lawyers are also involved in setting up contracts between producers and consumers.  These are all basic facts of record, that pretty much everyone knows.  The prior system that we all used before ACA included customers being billed for services rendered.  I'm surprised you don't know these facts.  


With the facts out of the way, let's address my statements.

I said "PMZ recommends we abandon invoicing."  What's the point of invoicing if the customer does not have to pay, or has already paid? Wasn't that your point when you said "no collect[ing] from anybody?"

I said PMZ recommends "all bills must be paid up front and before services are rendered."  Wasn't that your point when you said ACA is the way to go? Isn't that what you meant by "no collect[ing] from anybody?"  No collecting because the money is paid up front right?

I said PMZ recommends "No Trust, no credit, no checks, no payment when satisfied, no contracts, all consumer legal protections out the window."  These are all ways to pay after you consume something for services rendered if you, the consumer, agrees to pay for the service.  When we use such systems of payment after the fact, collections are involved where there is disagreement and/or if the consumer does not meet his obligations.

If you still think these points are not directly correlated to your statement that "[w]e shouldn't have to pay lawyers to collect from anybody," well then I can't help ya.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's funny, all I did was clearly explain why your statement is ludicrous.  Why is it loony to explain to you why your statements are ludicrous?  Are you actually admitting, here, that anyone having a reasoned discussion with you must be loony toons?
> 
> Why must one be loony toons to have a disagreement with you? What are you hiding?  Is this admission you are just being paid to make stupid statements in support of Obama?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your response was virtually disconnected from my post.  Different zip code.  And what you proposed in it made no sense as an idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You said that "[w]e shouldn't have to pay lawyers to collect from anybody."
> In response, I said "[y]ou heard it hear, folks, PMZ recommends we abandon invoicing, all bills must be paid up front and before services are rendered. lol No Trust, no credit, no checks, no payment when satisfied, no contracts, all consumer legal protections out the window."
> 
> Break it down.
> 
> The actor "we" is US Citizens, presumably producers who collect money from consumers, in this case, decidedly Health Care Providers.
> The target of who we, the health care providers, should not have to pay as selected by YOU was "lawyers."
> The purpose you gave for paying said lawyers was for collecting payment from consumers (anybody as specified by YOU).
> 
> Thus your statement means, you desire we (us citizens) eliminate the task of collections (for health care providers) by forcing payment from consumers through ACA.  This presumably based on ACA as an alternative model to the good ole model pre-ACA.  ACA comprising mandatory pre-payment, thus no (major) collections required, as the bulk of the (major) payments are made by insurance companies from premiums that are funded by policy holder premiums and taxes paid by tax payers. HC providers presumably will just pass on un-collected bills in the form of even higher costs.  Further there's no reason for anyone to pay their portion of the bill any more as getting dropped from one policy is not a reason for the HC providers to refuse letting you right back in.  It might affect your credit score, but who cares.  Why borrow money when you can spend other peoples money?  You see, the ACA law is everyone gets health care through insurance no matter if they have pre-existing. I don't think they can force you to pay the premiums either, not if you stop working. The subsidies will pick it up for you.  Let's say you have to get a new heart and it will cost you 150k total, just a guess.  You quit working join up for full subsidies. It's all paid for. No cost to you.  Isn't that better than working or paying expensive premiums your whole life?  Then you drop ACA sticking them with the bill.  Any recurring problems just join up again.
> 
> Lawyers are typically involved with (large) collections only when the consumer refused to pay their bill timely.   However, lawyers are also involved in setting up contracts between producers and consumers.  These are all basic facts of record, that pretty much everyone knows.  The prior system that we all used before ACA included customers being billed for services rendered.  I'm surprised you don't know these facts.
> 
> 
> With the facts out of the way, let's address my statements.
> 
> I said "PMZ recommends we abandon invoicing."  What's the point of invoicing if the customer does not have to pay, or has already paid? Wasn't that your point when you said "no collect[ing] from anybody?"
> 
> I said PMZ recommends "all bills must be paid up front and before services are rendered."  Wasn't that your point when you said ACA is the way to go? Isn't that what you meant by "no collect[ing] from anybody?"  No collecting because the money is paid up front right?
> 
> I said PMZ recommends "No Trust, no credit, no checks, no payment when satisfied, no contracts, all consumer legal protections out the window."  These are all ways to pay after you consume something for services rendered if you, the consumer, agrees to pay for the service.  When we use such systems of payment after the fact, collections are involved where there is disagreement and/or if the consumer does not meet his obligations.
> 
> If you still think these points are not directly correlated to your statement that "[w]e shouldn't have to pay lawyers to collect from anybody," well then I can't help ya.
Click to expand...


This one is loonier than the other one.


----------



## BDBoop

> But 57-year-old Gail Roach told WTAE that she found a great deal by completing her application by phone instead of using the broken Healthcare.gov website.
> 
> Roach said that because of her pre-existing condition, her retirement health care had cost her $509 a month. After spending some time talking to a specialist, she was able to find a plan for just $70 a month.
> 
> &#8220;I couldn&#8217;t believe it, I just couldn&#8217;t believe it,&#8221; Roach recalled. &#8220;It was within my budget.&#8221;
> 
> However, the savings didn&#8217;t stop there. After tax credits and something called the Cost Sharing Benefit, Roach&#8217;s monthly premiums plummeted to just $1.11.
> 
> &#8220;I&#8217;m telling people that they need to look into this, they need to be patient about it,&#8221; she advised. &#8220;If you go on the website and you can&#8217;t get through the website, call the number that&#8217;s on the website and just be very patient because it&#8217;s very much worth it.&#8221;



Woman with Type 2 diabetes sees premiums plummet from $500 to $1 under Obamacare | The Raw Story

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EzOd2_kd7g]Pittsburgh woman finds incredible deal with Affordable Care Act - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NLT said:
> 
> 
> 
> My cost for employee furnished family health care just doubled BCBS. Fucking Obama and you stupid fucking liberals who voted for the cock sucker.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is every bit as sensible as blaming government for rising gas prices.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Government mandates (ie Obamacare) and government taxes (because of Obamacare) have caused healthcare costs to *skyrocket* (just like the Dumbocrats intended). Don't pretend to be so stupid PMZ (I mean more than you actually are)...
> 
> Citing Obamacare, Cleveland Clinic to Cut $300M, Warns of Layoffs - US News and World Report
> 
> Cleveland Clinic announces job cuts to prepare for Obamacare | Reuters
> 
> Prestigious Cleveland Clinic Cuts $300M, Layoffs Loom Citing Obamacare | Ben Swann Truth In Media
> 
> World-Renowned Cleveland Clinic to Lay Off Thousands Due to Obamacare
Click to expand...


You're proposing that hospitals cutting costs,  first, makes costs go up,  and second, was caused by insurance regulation.  

There's some high quality thinking.


----------



## dblack

BDBoop said:


> But 57-year-old Gail Roach told WTAE that she found a great deal by completing her application by phone instead of using the broken Healthcare.gov website.
> 
> Roach said that because of her pre-existing condition, her retirement health care had cost her $509 a month. After spending some time talking to a specialist, she was able to find a plan for just $70 a month.
> 
> I couldnt believe it, I just couldnt believe it, Roach recalled. It was within my budget.
> 
> However, the savings didnt stop there. After tax credits and something called the Cost Sharing Benefit, Roachs monthly premiums plummeted to just $1.11.
> 
> Im telling people that they need to look into this, they need to be patient about it, she advised. If you go on the website and you cant get through the website, call the number thats on the website and just be very patient because its very much worth it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Woman with Type 2 diabetes sees premiums plummet from $500 to $1 under Obamacare | The Raw Story
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EzOd2_kd7g]Pittsburgh woman finds incredible deal with Affordable Care Act - YouTube[/ame]
Click to expand...


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0SnWEic4nk]Matthew Lesko's Free Government Money? - OFFICIAL VIDEO AD - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## BDBoop

dblack said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But 57-year-old Gail Roach told WTAE that she found a great deal by completing her application by phone instead of using the broken Healthcare.gov website.
> 
> Roach said that because of her pre-existing condition, her retirement health care had cost her $509 a month. After spending some time talking to a specialist, she was able to find a plan for just $70 a month.
> 
> I couldnt believe it, I just couldnt believe it, Roach recalled. It was within my budget.
> 
> However, the savings didnt stop there. After tax credits and something called the Cost Sharing Benefit, Roachs monthly premiums plummeted to just $1.11.
> 
> Im telling people that they need to look into this, they need to be patient about it, she advised. If you go on the website and you cant get through the website, call the number thats on the website and just be very patient because its very much worth it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Woman with Type 2 diabetes sees premiums plummet from $500 to $1 under Obamacare | The Raw Story
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EzOd2_kd7g]Pittsburgh woman finds incredible deal with Affordable Care Act - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0SnWEic4nk]Matthew Lesko's Free Government Money? - OFFICIAL VIDEO AD - YouTube[/ame]
Click to expand...


Changing the subject? SUPAR!

But your post does not negate mine.


----------



## Ringel05

BDBoop said:


> But 57-year-old Gail Roach told WTAE that she found a great deal by completing her application by phone instead of using the broken Healthcare.gov website.
> 
> Roach said that because of her pre-existing condition, her retirement health care had cost her $509 a month. After spending some time talking to a specialist, she was able to find a plan for just $70 a month.
> 
> I couldnt believe it, I just couldnt believe it, Roach recalled. It was within my budget.
> 
> However, the savings didnt stop there. After tax credits and something called the Cost Sharing Benefit, Roachs monthly premiums plummeted to just $1.11.
> 
> Im telling people that they need to look into this, they need to be patient about it, she advised. If you go on the website and you cant get through the website, call the number thats on the website and just be very patient because its very much worth it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Woman with Type 2 diabetes sees premiums plummet from $500 to $1 under Obamacare | The Raw Story
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EzOd2_kd7g]Pittsburgh woman finds incredible deal with Affordable Care Act - YouTube[/ame]
Click to expand...


Yeah but at what cost?  I've been quietly watching and what I'm seeing is the middle class are the ones having their affordable health plans cancelled and offered plans three, four or five times more expensive then what they were paying.  They can't afford it.  Remember the middle class?  The backbone of the American economy who the Dems claim to champion?  Once again it appears a congress and a president has stuck it to them.  The rich won't be affected, the poor will get health care and the government scammers will make millions.  Millions of middle class families will pay the penalty and have no insurance because they make too much for assistance and can't afford what is being offered.   
That's my prediction based on what I'm seeing.


----------



## PMZ

Ringel05 said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But 57-year-old Gail Roach told WTAE that she found a great deal by completing her application by phone instead of using the broken Healthcare.gov website.
> 
> Roach said that because of her pre-existing condition, her retirement health care had cost her $509 a month. After spending some time talking to a specialist, she was able to find a plan for just $70 a month.
> 
> I couldnt believe it, I just couldnt believe it, Roach recalled. It was within my budget.
> 
> However, the savings didnt stop there. After tax credits and something called the Cost Sharing Benefit, Roachs monthly premiums plummeted to just $1.11.
> 
> Im telling people that they need to look into this, they need to be patient about it, she advised. If you go on the website and you cant get through the website, call the number thats on the website and just be very patient because its very much worth it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Woman with Type 2 diabetes sees premiums plummet from $500 to $1 under Obamacare | The Raw Story
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EzOd2_kd7g]Pittsburgh woman finds incredible deal with Affordable Care Act - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah but at what cost?  I've been quietly watching and what I'm seeing is the middle class are the ones having their affordable health plans cancelled and offered plans three, four or five times more expensive then what they were paying.  They can't afford it.  Remember the middle class?  The backbone of the American economy who the Dems claim to champion?  Once again it appears a congress and a president has stuck it to them.  The rich won't be affected, the poor will get health care and the government scammers will make millions.  Millions of middle class families will pay the penalty and have no insurance because they make too much for assistance and can't afford what is being offered.
> That's my prediction based on what I'm seeing.
Click to expand...


What feature of Obamacare insurance regulation do you believe would cause ''three, four or five times more expensive" insurance for the middle class?


----------



## dblack

BDBoop said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Woman with Type 2 diabetes sees premiums plummet from $500 to $1 under Obamacare | The Raw Story
> 
> Pittsburgh woman finds incredible deal with Affordable Care Act - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0SnWEic4nk]Matthew Lesko's Free Government Money? - OFFICIAL VIDEO AD - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Changing the subject? SUPAR!
> 
> But your post does not negate mine.
Click to expand...


I didn't say it did. I'm reaffirming what you're pointing out. You can win big with free government money!


----------



## Ringel05

PMZ said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Woman with Type 2 diabetes sees premiums plummet from $500 to $1 under Obamacare | The Raw Story
> 
> Pittsburgh woman finds incredible deal with Affordable Care Act - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah but at what cost?  I've been quietly watching and what I'm seeing is the middle class are the ones having their affordable health plans cancelled and offered plans three, four or five times more expensive then what they were paying.  They can't afford it.  Remember the middle class?  The backbone of the American economy who the Dems claim to champion?  Once again it appears a congress and a president has stuck it to them.  The rich won't be affected, the poor will get health care and the government scammers will make millions.  Millions of middle class families will pay the penalty and have no insurance because they make too much for assistance and can't afford what is being offered.
> That's my prediction based on what I'm seeing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What feature of Obamacare insurance regulation do you believe would cause ''three, four or five times more expensive" insurance for the middle class?
Click to expand...


Because of reports I've seen on many of the news networks that more and more middle class individuals and families are loosing their coverage or being told their rates will in most cases double, triple or even quadruple.  
(Oh I realized I typed five times as much, meant 2, 3 and 4 times.  My bad.)


----------



## PMZ

Ringel05 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah but at what cost?  I've been quietly watching and what I'm seeing is the middle class are the ones having their affordable health plans cancelled and offered plans three, four or five times more expensive then what they were paying.  They can't afford it.  Remember the middle class?  The backbone of the American economy who the Dems claim to champion?  Once again it appears a congress and a president has stuck it to them.  The rich won't be affected, the poor will get health care and the government scammers will make millions.  Millions of middle class families will pay the penalty and have no insurance because they make too much for assistance and can't afford what is being offered.
> That's my prediction based on what I'm seeing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What feature of Obamacare insurance regulation do you believe would cause ''three, four or five times more expensive" insurance for the middle class?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because of reports I've seen on many of the news networks that more and more middle class individuals and families are loosing their coverage or being told their rates will in most cases double, triple or even quadruple.
> (Oh I realized I typed five times as much, meant 2, 3 and 4 times.  My bad.)
Click to expand...


How much of that is rising health care costs? 

How much will be recovered by falling medical bankruptcies due to better coverage? 

What is the average middle class premium increase? 

How much will hospitals save by fewer non emergency uses of e-books? 

How much will be recovered by a healthier,  more productive population and workforce. 

Lots of questions.


----------



## Ringel05

PMZ said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> What feature of Obamacare insurance regulation do you believe would cause ''three, four or five times more expensive" insurance for the middle class?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because of reports I've seen on many of the news networks that more and more middle class individuals and families are loosing their coverage or being told their rates will in most cases double, triple or even quadruple.
> (Oh I realized I typed five times as much, meant 2, 3 and 4 times.  My bad.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How much of that is rising health care costs?
> 
> How much will be recovered by falling medical bankruptcies due to better coverage?
> 
> What is the average middle class premium increase?
> 
> How much will hospitals save by fewer non emergency uses of e-books?
> 
> How much will be recovered by a healthier,  more productive population and workforce.
> 
> Lots of questions.
Click to expand...


The cancellations and increases are specifically due to the implication of the ACA.

If the burden (as it now appears to be shaking out) will fall on the shoulders of the middle class possibly resulting in an even greater rise in bankruptcies due to medical costs.  Again, the general middle class is not in a position to take on higher costs.

What is the average premium increase?  That's still to be determined, the increases are just beginning. 

If more and more middle class people can't afford health insurance the rate of non emergency uses of e-books will probably remain unchanged.

Again the shift of cost burden to the middle class and resulting issues associated with it will not only not create a more productive population and workforce, it will have a resounding negative effect upon the economy. 

Like you said, lots of questions.  We'll see what happens, I still think it's going to have serious negative consequences but like I said, we'll see.


----------



## PMZ

Ringel05 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because of reports I've seen on many of the news networks that more and more middle class individuals and families are loosing their coverage or being told their rates will in most cases double, triple or even quadruple.
> (Oh I realized I typed five times as much, meant 2, 3 and 4 times.  My bad.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How much of that is rising health care costs?
> 
> How much will be recovered by falling medical bankruptcies due to better coverage?
> 
> What is the average middle class premium increase?
> 
> How much will hospitals save by fewer non emergency uses of e-books?
> 
> How much will be recovered by a healthier,  more productive population and workforce.
> 
> Lots of questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The cancellations and increases are specifically due to the implication of the ACA.
> 
> If the burden (as it now appears to be shaking out) will fall on the shoulders of the middle class possibly resulting in an even greater rise in bankruptcies due to medical costs.  Again, the general middle class is not in a position to take on higher costs.
> 
> What is the average premium increase?  That's still to be determined, the increases are just beginning.
> 
> If more and more middle class people can't afford health insurance the rate of non emergency uses of e-books will probably remain unchanged.
> 
> Again the shift of cost burden to the middle class and resulting issues associated with it will not only not create a more productive population and workforce, it will have a resounding negative effect upon the economy.
> 
> Like you said, lots of questions.  We'll see what happens, I still think it's going to have serious negative consequences but like I said, we'll see.
Click to expand...


ACA has no impact on the total cost of health care in the country.  Right? 

Same people except for the poor going to the Dr's instead of the emergency room. 

I think a lot of what's going on are companies lowering compensation more by backing away from employer researched and subsidized health care insurance.


----------



## Antares

PMZ said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> How much of that is rising health care costs?
> 
> How much will be recovered by falling medical bankruptcies due to better coverage?
> 
> What is the average middle class premium increase?
> 
> How much will hospitals save by fewer non emergency uses of e-books?
> 
> How much will be recovered by a healthier,  more productive population and workforce.
> 
> Lots of questions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The cancellations and increases are specifically due to the implication of the ACA.
> 
> If the burden (as it now appears to be shaking out) will fall on the shoulders of the middle class possibly resulting in an even greater rise in bankruptcies due to medical costs.  Again, the general middle class is not in a position to take on higher costs.
> 
> What is the average premium increase?  That's still to be determined, the increases are just beginning.
> 
> If more and more middle class people can't afford health insurance the rate of non emergency uses of e-books will probably remain unchanged.
> 
> Again the shift of cost burden to the middle class and resulting issues associated with it will not only not create a more productive population and workforce, it will have a resounding negative effect upon the economy.
> 
> Like you said, lots of questions.  We'll see what happens, I still think it's going to have serious negative consequences but like I said, we'll see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ACA has no impact on the total cost of health care in the country.  Right?
> 
> Same people except for the poor going to the Dr's instead of the emergency room.
> 
> I think a lot of what's going on are companies lowering compensation more by backing away from employer researched and subsidized health care insurance.
Click to expand...


Semantics.
God this is weak.

The ACA is responsible for the DRAMATIC rise in "INSURANCE" costs...get the fuck over yourself moron.


----------



## PMZ

Antares said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The cancellations and increases are specifically due to the implication of the ACA.
> 
> If the burden (as it now appears to be shaking out) will fall on the shoulders of the middle class possibly resulting in an even greater rise in bankruptcies due to medical costs.  Again, the general middle class is not in a position to take on higher costs.
> 
> What is the average premium increase?  That's still to be determined, the increases are just beginning.
> 
> If more and more middle class people can't afford health insurance the rate of non emergency uses of e-books will probably remain unchanged.
> 
> Again the shift of cost burden to the middle class and resulting issues associated with it will not only not create a more productive population and workforce, it will have a resounding negative effect upon the economy.
> 
> Like you said, lots of questions.  We'll see what happens, I still think it's going to have serious negative consequences but like I said, we'll see.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ACA has no impact on the total cost of health care in the country.  Right?
> 
> Same people except for the poor going to the Dr's instead of the emergency room.
> 
> I think a lot of what's going on are companies lowering compensation more by backing away from employer researched and subsidized health care insurance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Semantics.
> God this is weak.
> 
> The ACA is responsible for the DRAMATIC rise in "INSURANCE" costs...get the fuck over yourself moron.
Click to expand...


Where is that dramatic rise going to? And for what? 

I think that the dramatic rise has been in Republican propaganda because they've alienated everyone but the cult.


----------



## PMZ

I think that there is still great confusion. 

What costs is health care delivery.  

There's no reason to expect,  because of EMTALA,  that there are any new patients in the system.  The only thing different is where some are going.  To the Dr and not to the emergency room. 

The cost of health care delivery rises every year and this year is no exception. 

Health care insurance is just a payment plan for healthcare delivery. 

Obamacare is health care insurance regulation.  It doesn't touch what costs.  Health care delivery. 

More and more employers are taking advantage of an over supplied labor market and funding less and less health care insurance just because they can.


----------



## Antares

PMZ said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> ACA has no impact on the total cost of health care in the country.  Right?
> 
> Same people except for the poor going to the Dr's instead of the emergency room.
> 
> I think a lot of what's going on are companies lowering compensation more by backing away from employer researched and subsidized health care insurance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Semantics.
> God this is weak.
> 
> The ACA is responsible for the DRAMATIC rise in "INSURANCE" costs...get the fuck over yourself moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where is that dramatic rise going to? And for what?
> 
> I think that the dramatic rise has been in Republican propaganda because they've alienated everyone but the cult.
Click to expand...


I have concluded that you are mentally challenged so I will indulge you.

It is going to pay for the health issues of everyone else.

It is called "wealth redistribution"....the single over riding "mandate" was the "pre-existing" mandate.

That in and of itself accounts for most of the increases.

Never mind the other 9.

Let me lay it out for you and Itz and Dante....I don't want the damn thing repealed, I've been able to help too many that need help...but I will not brook you little lying assholes that have no idea of whats really happening.

You want to know what's coming next?

Here it is.....

*The website does not work...we have been sending in paper apps for the subsidies....they are at LEAST one month behind on those.....why is this important?*

Because the people's policies term on 12/31...

Why is THAT important?

Because IF one qualifies for the subsidy they MUST be in the Marketplace system by 12/15 for said subsidy to kick in on Jan1....

Why is that important?

BECAUSE IF THOSE FOLKS AREN'T IN THE SYSTEM THEY WILL GET A DEDUCTION FOR JANUARY'S PREMIUM THAT IS TWICE WHAT THEY ARE EXPECTING RIGHT BEFORE CHRISTMAS.

You fucking clueless people disgust me because you hve no fucking idea as to what you don't know.


----------



## PMZ

Antares said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> Semantics.
> God this is weak.
> 
> The ACA is responsible for the DRAMATIC rise in "INSURANCE" costs...get the fuck over yourself moron.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where is that dramatic rise going to? And for what?
> 
> I think that the dramatic rise has been in Republican propaganda because they've alienated everyone but the cult.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have concluded that you are mentally challenged so I will indulge you.
> 
> It is going to pay for the health issues of everyone else.
> 
> It is called "wealth redistribution"....the single over riding "mandate" was the "pre-existing" mandate.
> 
> That in and of itself accounts for most of the increases.
> 
> Never mind the other 9.
> 
> Let me lay it out for you and Itz and Dante....I don't want the damn thing repealed, I've been able to help too many that need help...but I will not brook you little lying assholes that have no idea of whats really happening.
> 
> You want to know what's coming next?
> 
> Here it is.....
> 
> *The website does not work...we have been sending in paper apps for the subsidies....they are at LEAST one month behind on those.....why is this important?*
> 
> Because the people's policies term on 12/31...
> 
> Why is THAT important?
> 
> Because IF one qualifies for the subsidy they MUST be in the Marketplace system by 12/15 for said subsidy to kick in on Jan1....
> 
> Why is that important?
> 
> BECAUSE IF THOSE FOLKS AREN'T IN THE SYSTEM THEY WILL GET A DEDUCTION FOR JANUARY'S PREMIUM THAT IS TWICE WHAT THEY ARE EXPECTING RIGHT BEFORE CHRISTMAS.
> 
> You fucking clueless people disgust me because you hve no fucking idea as to what you don't know.
Click to expand...


Conservativism always boils down to conspiracy theory.  Never fails.  The boogeyman.  Black helicopters.  Monsters in the closet. 

That's why they are paralyzed in the face of problems and when ever they do act they screw up things.

It's also why propaganda works so well on them.


----------



## Antares

That was harsh, I apologize.

But it is true.


----------



## Antares

PMZ said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where is that dramatic rise going to? And for what?
> 
> I think that the dramatic rise has been in Republican propaganda because they've alienated everyone but the cult.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have concluded that you are mentally challenged so I will indulge you.
> 
> It is going to pay for the health issues of everyone else.
> 
> It is called "wealth redistribution"....the single over riding "mandate" was the "pre-existing" mandate.
> 
> That in and of itself accounts for most of the increases.
> 
> Never mind the other 9.
> 
> Let me lay it out for you and Itz and Dante....I don't want the damn thing repealed, I've been able to help too many that need help...but I will not brook you little lying assholes that have no idea of whats really happening.
> 
> You want to know what's coming next?
> 
> Here it is.....
> 
> *The website does not work...we have been sending in paper apps for the subsidies....they are at LEAST one month behind on those.....why is this important?*
> 
> Because the people's policies term on 12/31...
> 
> Why is THAT important?
> 
> Because IF one qualifies for the subsidy they MUST be in the Marketplace system by 12/15 for said subsidy to kick in on Jan1....
> 
> Why is that important?
> 
> BECAUSE IF THOSE FOLKS AREN'T IN THE SYSTEM THEY WILL GET A DEDUCTION FOR JANUARY'S PREMIUM THAT IS TWICE WHAT THEY ARE EXPECTING RIGHT BEFORE CHRISTMAS.
> 
> You fucking clueless people disgust me because you hve no fucking idea as to what you don't know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Conservativism always boils down to conspiracy theory.  Never fails.  The boogeyman.  Black helicopters.  Monsters in the closet.
> 
> That's why they are paralyzed in the face of problems and when ever they do act they screw up things.
Click to expand...


(sigh) This is what I do.

You not believing it changes nothing....it just is what it is.

Here is another truth PMZ, you have no knowledge of any of this, nothing.

You speculate, you hypothesize...and you simply scream "nuh-uh".

Prez Cracka lied.....THOUSANDS of plans are being cancelled because they were not grandfathered in and and the Preiums have gone throguh the roof.

You simply aren't capable of acknowledging the truth...and you demand that the narrative you've made up be true.

That isn't real and 2014 will not be good to you.


----------



## PMZ

Antares said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have concluded that you are mentally challenged so I will indulge you.
> 
> It is going to pay for the health issues of everyone else.
> 
> It is called "wealth redistribution"....the single over riding "mandate" was the "pre-existing" mandate.
> 
> That in and of itself accounts for most of the increases.
> 
> Never mind the other 9.
> 
> Let me lay it out for you and Itz and Dante....I don't want the damn thing repealed, I've been able to help too many that need help...but I will not brook you little lying assholes that have no idea of whats really happening.
> 
> You want to know what's coming next?
> 
> Here it is.....
> 
> *The website does not work...we have been sending in paper apps for the subsidies....they are at LEAST one month behind on those.....why is this important?*
> 
> Because the people's policies term on 12/31...
> 
> Why is THAT important?
> 
> Because IF one qualifies for the subsidy they MUST be in the Marketplace system by 12/15 for said subsidy to kick in on Jan1....
> 
> Why is that important?
> 
> BECAUSE IF THOSE FOLKS AREN'T IN THE SYSTEM THEY WILL GET A DEDUCTION FOR JANUARY'S PREMIUM THAT IS TWICE WHAT THEY ARE EXPECTING RIGHT BEFORE CHRISTMAS.
> 
> You fucking clueless people disgust me because you hve no fucking idea as to what you don't know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservativism always boils down to conspiracy theory.  Never fails.  The boogeyman.  Black helicopters.  Monsters in the closet.
> 
> That's why they are paralyzed in the face of problems and when ever they do act they screw up things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> (sigh) This is what I do.
> 
> You not believing it changes nothing....it just is what it is.
> 
> Here is another truth PMZ, you have no knowledge of any of this, nothing.
> 
> You speculate, you hypothesize...and you simply scream "nuh-uh".
> 
> Prez Cracka lied.....THOUSANDS of plans are being cancelled because they were not grandfathered in and and the Preiums have gone throguh the roof.
> 
> You simply aren't capable of acknowledging the truth...and you demand that the narrative you've made up be true.
> 
> That isn't real and 2014 will not be good to you.
Click to expand...


A simple,  simple question.  Where is the money from all of these premium increases going to?  And for what?


----------



## Ringel05

PMZ said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> How much of that is rising health care costs?
> 
> How much will be recovered by falling medical bankruptcies due to better coverage?
> 
> What is the average middle class premium increase?
> 
> How much will hospitals save by fewer non emergency uses of e-books?
> 
> How much will be recovered by a healthier,  more productive population and workforce.
> 
> Lots of questions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The cancellations and increases are specifically due to the implication of the ACA.
> 
> If the burden (as it now appears to be shaking out) will fall on the shoulders of the middle class possibly resulting in an even greater rise in bankruptcies due to medical costs.  Again, the general middle class is not in a position to take on higher costs.
> 
> What is the average premium increase?  That's still to be determined, the increases are just beginning.
> 
> If more and more middle class people can't afford health insurance the rate of non emergency uses of e-books will probably remain unchanged.
> 
> Again the shift of cost burden to the middle class and resulting issues associated with it will not only not create a more productive population and workforce, it will have a resounding negative effect upon the economy.
> 
> Like you said, lots of questions.  We'll see what happens, I still think it's going to have serious negative consequences but like I said, we'll see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ACA has no impact on the total cost of health care in the country.  Right?
> 
> Same people except for the poor going to the Dr's instead of the emergency room.
> 
> I think a lot of what's going on are companies lowering compensation more by backing away from employer researched and subsidized health care insurance.
Click to expand...


The insurance companies, because certain consumer protections were not included in the law, are using the ACA as an excuse to drop customers and increase rates so yes, indirectly ACA will dramatically impact the cost of healthcare in this country.  Not in a positive way.  

When you don't have insurance they go to free clinics or the ER.......  with the uninsured moving from the poor to the middle class what makes you think that will change?

Again what's happening is the insurance industry is cutting costs and increasing profits by severely increasing rates for ACA mandated coverage to help cover the (supposed) cost of providing cheaper (equal) coverage for the poor.  In the mean time they'll rape the government for as much money as they can scam out of them for the coverage to the poor.  Anyone who didn't see this coming lives in lala land. 

So basically (in my informed opinion) the ACA will eventually have the exact opposite effect as it was claimed to have.

No don't get me wrong.  I've been for reforming the insurance industry for a long time but I knew that when the government gets involved in something this big, not with regulation but actual hands on, it was a huge costly mistake from the get go.


----------



## Antares

I am in the middle of this thing.

I to date have made 6000 dollars extra because of the ACA....

....and I am telling you of its failings.....the people have no choice but to buy these plans....they are all that there are to buy....and I listen to them justify to themselves why they have to buy.


----------



## dblack

PMZ said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conservativism always boils down to conspiracy theory.  Never fails.  The boogeyman.  Black helicopters.  Monsters in the closet.
> 
> That's why they are paralyzed in the face of problems and when ever they do act they screw up things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (sigh) This is what I do.
> 
> You not believing it changes nothing....it just is what it is.
> 
> Here is another truth PMZ, you have no knowledge of any of this, nothing.
> 
> You speculate, you hypothesize...and you simply scream "nuh-uh".
> 
> Prez Cracka lied.....THOUSANDS of plans are being cancelled because they were not grandfathered in and and the Preiums have gone throguh the roof.
> 
> You simply aren't capable of acknowledging the truth...and you demand that the narrative you've made up be true.
> 
> That isn't real and 2014 will not be good to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A simple,  simple question.  Where is the money from all of these premium increases going to?  And for what?
Click to expand...


Before or after the insurance industry takes it's cut?


----------



## PMZ

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> (sigh) This is what I do.
> 
> You not believing it changes nothing....it just is what it is.
> 
> Here is another truth PMZ, you have no knowledge of any of this, nothing.
> 
> You speculate, you hypothesize...and you simply scream "nuh-uh".
> 
> Prez Cracka lied.....THOUSANDS of plans are being cancelled because they were not grandfathered in and and the Preiums have gone throguh the roof.
> 
> You simply aren't capable of acknowledging the truth...and you demand that the narrative you've made up be true.
> 
> That isn't real and 2014 will not be good to you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A simple,  simple question.  Where is the money from all of these premium increases going to?  And for what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Before or after the insurance industry takes it's cut?
Click to expand...


Yes.


----------



## Antares

PMZ said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conservativism always boils down to conspiracy theory.  Never fails.  The boogeyman.  Black helicopters.  Monsters in the closet.
> 
> That's why they are paralyzed in the face of problems and when ever they do act they screw up things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (sigh) This is what I do.
> 
> You not believing it changes nothing....it just is what it is.
> 
> Here is another truth PMZ, you have no knowledge of any of this, nothing.
> 
> You speculate, you hypothesize...and you simply scream "nuh-uh".
> 
> Prez Cracka lied.....THOUSANDS of plans are being cancelled because they were not grandfathered in and and the Preiums have gone throguh the roof.
> 
> You simply aren't capable of acknowledging the truth...and you demand that the narrative you've made up be true.
> 
> That isn't real and 2014 will not be good to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A simple,  simple question.  Where is the money from all of these premium increases going to?  And for what?
Click to expand...


80 cents of every dollar goes to claims.....
Blue Cross Blue Shield is a non-profit.....

It is going to insurance costs.


----------



## Antares

10-1 enrollees are the sick....which I understand....but there is not enough money for this.


----------



## PMZ

Antares said:


> I am in the middle of this thing.
> 
> I to date have made 6000 dollars extra because of the ACA....
> 
> ....and I am telling you of its failings.....the people have no choice but to buy these plans....they are all that there are to buy....and I listen to them justify to themselves why they have to buy.



Stop whining and be specific.  What has Obamacare changed to cause the complete breakdown of the health care insurance business that you are trying to sell here. 

Specifics


----------



## Antares

PMZ said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am in the middle of this thing.
> 
> I to date have made 6000 dollars extra because of the ACA....
> 
> ....and I am telling you of its failings.....the people have no choice but to buy these plans....they are all that there are to buy....and I listen to them justify to themselves why they have to buy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stop whining and be specific.  What has Obamacare changed to cause the complete breakdown of the health care insurance business that you are trying to sell here.
> 
> Specifics
Click to expand...


Nobody but you is whining, read what is posted kid, get back to me


----------



## dblack

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> A simple,  simple question.  Where is the money from all of these premium increases going to?  And for what?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Before or after the insurance industry takes it's cut?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.
Click to expand...


Well, the first thing is that profits are distributed to the shareholders. Then they cut checks to lobbyists and politicians who got the law passed in the first place. Once they are paid, hospitals, doctors and big pharma make out pretty good. The lawyers greasing all the legal shenanigans get a percentage. Then the bureaucrats and regulators running things must be paid. 'Middlemen' galore.


----------



## Antares

Poor PMZ , you live in a theoretical world and cannot stand the truth.

This is normal for a partisan shill.


----------



## PMZ

Antares said:


> Poor PMZ , you live in a theoretical world and cannot stand the truth.
> 
> This is normal for a partisan shill.



Why are you avoiding my question?


----------



## Antares

Progressivism is a theoretical world unencumbered by reality...it does not require results....only intentions.

You are dismissed.


----------



## Antares

I avoided nothing, you simply don't like the truth.


----------



## PMZ

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Before or after the insurance industry takes it's cut?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, the first thing is that profits are distributed to the shareholders. Then they cut checks to lobbyists and politicians who got the law passed in the first place. Once they are paid, hospitals, doctors and big pharma make out pretty good. The lawyers greasing all the legal shenanigans get a percentage. Then the bureaucrats and regulators running things must be paid. 'Middlemen' galore.
Click to expand...


In other words the same forces that increase the cost of health care delivery every year.


----------



## dblack

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the first thing is that profits are distributed to the shareholders. Then they cut checks to lobbyists and politicians who got the law passed in the first place. Once they are paid, hospitals, doctors and big pharma make out pretty good. The lawyers greasing all the legal shenanigans get a percentage. Then the bureaucrats and regulators running things must be paid. 'Middlemen' galore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In other words the same forces that increase the cost of health care delivery every year.
Click to expand...


Yep. ACA cements them in place exactly what we need to be getting rid of. Resistance is futile.


----------



## PMZ

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the first thing is that profits are distributed to the shareholders. Then they cut checks to lobbyists and politicians who got the law passed in the first place. Once they are paid, hospitals, doctors and big pharma make out pretty good. The lawyers greasing all the legal shenanigans get a percentage. Then the bureaucrats and regulators running things must be paid. 'Middlemen' galore.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In other words the same forces that increase the cost of health care delivery every year.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep. ACA cements them in place via legal mandate. Resistance is futile.
Click to expand...


If they were in force before ACA than they are unrelated to ACA.


----------



## dblack

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> In other words the same forces that increase the cost of health care delivery every year.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. ACA cements them in place via legal mandate. Resistance is futile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If they were in force before ACA than they are unrelated to ACA.
Click to expand...


Try to follow along. ACA makes it impossible for us to escape. It cruelly grabs all the people who were beginning to wake up, beginning to see just what a scam it all is, and forces them to the yoke. It sells us out to the insurance industry and makes it impossible for us to explore alternatives without permission from our government - government infested with the controlling influence of said corporations.


----------



## PMZ

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. ACA cements them in place via legal mandate. Resistance is futile.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If they were in force before ACA than they are unrelated to ACA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Try to follow along. ACA makes it impossible for us to escape. It cruelly grabs all the people who were beginning to wake up, beginning to see just what a scam it all is, and forces them to the yoke. It sells us out to the insurance industry and makes it impossible for us to explore alternatives without permission from our government - government infested with the controlling influence of said corporations.
Click to expand...


Insurance regulation does all that? Somehow,  I doubt it 

However,  as we've discussed before,  we do need to go after the cause of all our health care trauma and that's the cost of delivery.  I keep thinking that if all of this Republican energy went into that,  rather than trying to defeat democrats at any expense to the country,  we'd really be making progress.


----------



## Ringel05

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> If they were in force before ACA than they are unrelated to ACA.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Try to follow along. ACA makes it impossible for us to escape. It cruelly grabs all the people who were beginning to wake up, beginning to see just what a scam it all is, and forces them to the yoke. It sells us out to the insurance industry and makes it impossible for us to explore alternatives without permission from our government - government infested with the controlling influence of said corporations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Insurance regulation does all that? Somehow,  I doubt it
> 
> However,  as we've discussed before,  we do need to go after the cause of all our health care trauma and that's the cost of delivery. * I keep thinking that if all of this Republican energy went into that,  rather than trying to defeat democrats at any expense to the country,  we'd really be making progress.*
Click to expand...

And the same is true for the Dems.  If BOTH sides would work together......  Remember it ALWAYS takes two to tango.


----------



## PMZ

Ringel05 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Try to follow along. ACA makes it impossible for us to escape. It cruelly grabs all the people who were beginning to wake up, beginning to see just what a scam it all is, and forces them to the yoke. It sells us out to the insurance industry and makes it impossible for us to explore alternatives without permission from our government - government infested with the controlling influence of said corporations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Insurance regulation does all that? Somehow,  I doubt it
> 
> However,  as we've discussed before,  we do need to go after the cause of all our health care trauma and that's the cost of delivery. * I keep thinking that if all of this Republican energy went into that,  rather than trying to defeat democrats at any expense to the country,  we'd really be making progress.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And the same is true for the Dems.  If BOTH sides would work together......  Remember it ALWAYS takes two to tango.
Click to expand...


If only.  I really believe that democrats are for America,  Republicans are for Republicans.


----------



## Ringel05

PMZ said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Insurance regulation does all that? Somehow,  I doubt it
> 
> However,  as we've discussed before,  we do need to go after the cause of all our health care trauma and that's the cost of delivery. * I keep thinking that if all of this Republican energy went into that,  rather than trying to defeat democrats at any expense to the country,  we'd really be making progress.*
> 
> 
> 
> And the same is true for the Dems.  If BOTH sides would work together......  Remember it ALWAYS takes two to tango.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If only.  I really believe that democrats are for America,  Republicans are for Republicans.
Click to expand...

And you would be fooling yourself because that's a clueless hack approach.  Unless you never took civics you'd know why we don't have a one party system.  Just because you don't agree with one side or the other doesn't make the opposite side "for themselves" or "un/anti American".  One day, if you're not totally brain dead, hopefully you'll come to realize that the Dems and the Pubs are essentially the same lying, conniving, scheming, self promoting clueless pricks who happen to be on opposite sides of most issues.  
Of course the one party system works great if you have no problem disenfranchising millions of fellow Americans.......... Just ask your far right adversaries, they want what you want, an America in their image......... fuck anyone who disagrees.......


----------



## PMZ

Ringel05 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the same is true for the Dems.  If BOTH sides would work together......  Remember it ALWAYS takes two to tango.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If only.  I really believe that democrats are for America,  Republicans are for Republicans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you would be fooling yourself because that's a clueless hack approach.  Unless you never took civics you'd know why we don't have a one party system.  Just because you don't agree with one side or the other doesn't make the opposite side "for themselves" or "un/anti American".  One day, if you're not totally brain dead, hopefully you'll come to realize that the Dems and the Pubs are essentially the same lying, conniving, scheming, self promoting clueless pricks who happen to be on opposite sides of most issues.
> Of course the one party system works great if you have no problem disenfranchising millions of fellow Americans.......... Just ask your far right adversaries, they want what you want, an America in their image......... fuck anyone who disagrees.......
Click to expand...


I think that our two party system is essential.  But right at the moment,  it's been so long since Republicans have done anything positive for the country, that  they are not viable here.  And their response to that is only propaganda trying to drag the democrats and country down to their level of incompetence. 

I see no possibility of their recovery until they disown the dixiecrats. 

The good news is that they're closer than ever to doing that.  The bad news is that they have no leaders.


----------



## Ringel05

PMZ said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> If only.  I really believe that democrats are for America,  Republicans are for Republicans.
> 
> 
> 
> And you would be fooling yourself because that's a clueless hack approach.  Unless you never took civics you'd know why we don't have a one party system.  Just because you don't agree with one side or the other doesn't make the opposite side "for themselves" or "un/anti American".  One day, if you're not totally brain dead, hopefully you'll come to realize that the Dems and the Pubs are essentially the same lying, conniving, scheming, self promoting clueless pricks who happen to be on opposite sides of most issues.
> Of course the one party system works great if you have no problem disenfranchising millions of fellow Americans.......... Just ask your far right adversaries, they want what you want, an America in their image......... fuck anyone who disagrees.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think that our two party system is essential.  But right at the moment,  it's been so long since Republicans have done anything positive for the country, that  they are not viable here.  And their response to that is only propaganda trying to drag the democrats and country down to their level of incompetence.
> 
> I see no possibility of their recovery until they disown the dixiecrats.
> 
> The good news is that they're closer than ever to doing that.  The bad news is that they have no leaders.
Click to expand...


You view your adversaries in the same way your adversaries view you.  Speaks volumes, don't ya think? 
Oh and given the fact the true Dixiecrats almost entirely disappeared a couple of decades ago your reference is nothing more than a far left boogyman to scare voters.  You must live in a perpetual state of dizziness.........


----------



## PMZ

Ringel05 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you would be fooling yourself because that's a clueless hack approach.  Unless you never took civics you'd know why we don't have a one party system.  Just because you don't agree with one side or the other doesn't make the opposite side "for themselves" or "un/anti American".  One day, if you're not totally brain dead, hopefully you'll come to realize that the Dems and the Pubs are essentially the same lying, conniving, scheming, self promoting clueless pricks who happen to be on opposite sides of most issues.
> Of course the one party system works great if you have no problem disenfranchising millions of fellow Americans.......... Just ask your far right adversaries, they want what you want, an America in their image......... fuck anyone who disagrees.......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that our two party system is essential.  But right at the moment,  it's been so long since Republicans have done anything positive for the country, that  they are not viable here.  And their response to that is only propaganda trying to drag the democrats and country down to their level of incompetence.
> 
> I see no possibility of their recovery until they disown the dixiecrats.
> 
> The good news is that they're closer than ever to doing that.  The bad news is that they have no leaders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You view your adversaries in the same way your adversaries view you.  Speaks volumes, don't ya think?
> Oh and given the fact the true Dixiecrats almost entirely disappeared a couple of decades ago your reference is nothing more than a far left boogyman to scare voters.  You must live in a perpetual state of dizziness.........
Click to expand...


Your first sentence is what I want to hear.  Extremists need to be shown how dysfunctional it is,  but sort of fun. 

If you think that dixiecrats are not running the GOP you are not paying much attention.  

The Dixiecrat Party may be gone but dixiecrats have become the heart and soul of the demise of the Republican Party.


----------



## Ringel05

PMZ said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that our two party system is essential.  But right at the moment,  it's been so long since Republicans have done anything positive for the country, that  they are not viable here.  And their response to that is only propaganda trying to drag the democrats and country down to their level of incompetence.
> 
> I see no possibility of their recovery until they disown the dixiecrats.
> 
> The good news is that they're closer than ever to doing that.  The bad news is that they have no leaders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You view your adversaries in the same way your adversaries view you.  Speaks volumes, don't ya think?
> Oh and given the fact the true Dixiecrats almost entirely disappeared a couple of decades ago your reference is nothing more than a far left boogyman to scare voters.  You must live in a perpetual state of dizziness.........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your first sentence is what I want to hear.  Extremists need to be shown how dysfunctional it is,  but sort of fun.
> 
> If you think that dixiecrats are not running the GOP you are not paying much attention.
> 
> *The Dixiecrat Party may be gone but dixiecrats have become the heart and soul of the demise of the Republican Party.*
Click to expand...


Again using the term Dixiecrat to define the GOP is nothing more than political stereotyping to create a boogyman among voters just like the far right uses the term Socialist to define the DNC.  
Currently the GOP is partially controlled by the far right as the DNC is partially controlled by the far left.  Hell, by today's liberal standards, Kennedy would be considered a Blue Dog at best.  And people wonder why our government is so dysfunctional.  
Personally I have no problem with it, for the most part (barring the ACA implementation and the shutdown) neither extreme has the upper hand and any real damage they can do is relatively minimized. 
Until the mainsteam moderates retake control of both parties my hope is they keep canceling each other out.


----------



## PMZ

When I  first took up this hobby,  deluded conservatives posted constantly things that their hobby,  absorbing Republican propaganda,  had them presuming were true,  that simply were unsupported by evidence. 

That conservatism is fiscally responsible. 

That America is not a democracy. 

That we are a failure and the cause is too much government. 

That we do not follow the Constitution. 

That we should hold Obama accountable for the impact of Bush's policies. 

That there was a connection between Bush's holy wars and 9/11.

That Sarah Palin was a qualified public servant. 

And many others. 

I think that democrats just were being way too polite about calling those spades,  spades. 

So I did.


----------



## Ringel05

PMZ said:


> When I  first took up this hobby,  deluded conservatives posted constantly things that their hobby,  absorbing Republican propaganda,  had them presuming were true,  that simply were unsupported by evidence.
> 
> That conservatism is fiscally responsible.
> 
> That America is not a democracy.
> 
> That we are a failure and the cause is too much government.
> 
> That we do not follow the Constitution.
> 
> That we should hold Obama accountable for the impact of Bush's policies.
> 
> That there was a connection between Bush's holy wars and 9/11.
> 
> That Sarah Palin was a qualified public servant.
> 
> And many others.
> 
> I think that democrats just were being way too polite about calling those spades,  spades.
> 
> So I did.



You do realize that's non-objective, partisan opinion..... right?


----------



## PMZ

Ringel05 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> When I  first took up this hobby,  deluded conservatives posted constantly things that their hobby,  absorbing Republican propaganda,  had them presuming were true,  that simply were unsupported by evidence.
> 
> That conservatism is fiscally responsible.
> 
> That America is not a democracy.
> 
> That we are a failure and the cause is too much government.
> 
> That we do not follow the Constitution.
> 
> That we should hold Obama accountable for the impact of Bush's policies.
> 
> That there was a connection between Bush's holy wars and 9/11.
> 
> That Sarah Palin was a qualified public servant.
> 
> And many others.
> 
> I think that democrats just were being way too polite about calling those spades,  spades.
> 
> So I did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize that's non-objective, partisan opinion..... right?
Click to expand...


Pick one.  Let's debate it.


----------



## PMZ

Ringel05 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You view your adversaries in the same way your adversaries view you.  Speaks volumes, don't ya think?
> Oh and given the fact the true Dixiecrats almost entirely disappeared a couple of decades ago your reference is nothing more than a far left boogyman to scare voters.  You must live in a perpetual state of dizziness.........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your first sentence is what I want to hear.  Extremists need to be shown how dysfunctional it is,  but sort of fun.
> 
> If you think that dixiecrats are not running the GOP you are not paying much attention.
> 
> *The Dixiecrat Party may be gone but dixiecrats have become the heart and soul of the demise of the Republican Party.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again using the term Dixiecrat to define the GOP is nothing more than political stereotyping to create a boogyman among voters just like the far right uses the term Socialist to define the DNC.
> Currently the GOP is partially controlled by the far right as the DNC is partially controlled by the far left.  Hell, by today's liberal standards, Kennedy would be considered a Blue Dog at best.  And people wonder why our government is so dysfunctional.
> Personally I have no problem with it, for the most part (barring the ACA implementation and the shutdown) neither extreme has the upper hand and any real damage they can do is relatively minimized.
> Until the mainsteam moderates retake control of both parties my hope is they keep canceling each other out.
Click to expand...


There is no evidence that the Democrats have moved even an inch to the left.  There's overwhelming evidence that dixiecrats are right wing extremists and always have been. 

What's changed is that somehow,  I think from Fox Republican propaganda,  the dixiecrats now run the GOP. 

I've always been a registered Republican even though that party left me in the 60s. My parents were delegates at several Republican National Conventions. I knew the party of business well.  The present devolution is not remotely as competent. In fact it's anti-American. 

To call someone's beliefs prejudiced is an attempt to imply they are not objective.  That implication has absolutely no impact on reality.  Some opinions are,  some aren't,  and you don't get to make that call.  You can offer evidence,  you can debate the evidence,  but not judge prejudice in the absence of evidence and debate.


----------



## Antares

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. ACA cements them in place via legal mandate. Resistance is futile.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If they were in force before ACA than they are unrelated to ACA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Try to follow along. ACA makes it impossible for us to escape. It cruelly grabs all the people who were beginning to wake up, beginning to see just what a scam it all is, and forces them to the yoke. It sells us out to the insurance industry and makes it impossible for us to explore alternatives without permission from our government - government infested with the controlling influence of said corporations.
Click to expand...


He doesn't care to follow along, he wants to ask a question and either deflect or dictate the answer....truth for PMZ can ONLY be true if HE believes it to be true.

Thats why he never gives a straight answer, only another question.


----------



## PMZ

Antares said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> If they were in force before ACA than they are unrelated to ACA.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Try to follow along. ACA makes it impossible for us to escape. It cruelly grabs all the people who were beginning to wake up, beginning to see just what a scam it all is, and forces them to the yoke. It sells us out to the insurance industry and makes it impossible for us to explore alternatives without permission from our government - government infested with the controlling influence of said corporations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He doesn't care to follow along, he wants to ask a question and either deflect or dictate the answer....truth for PMZ can ONLY be true if HE believes it to be true.
> 
> Thats why he never gives a straight answer, only another question.
Click to expand...


I'm a sucker for evidence,  and you're a sucker for propaganda that tells you that what you want to be true,  is. 

You're being given every day what you want.  

But you still spend all day whining.  

Hard to understand.


----------



## Ringel05

PMZ said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> When I  first took up this hobby,  deluded conservatives posted constantly things that their hobby,  absorbing Republican propaganda,  had them presuming were true,  that simply were unsupported by evidence.
> 
> That conservatism is fiscally responsible.
> 
> That America is not a democracy.
> 
> That we are a failure and the cause is too much government.
> 
> That we do not follow the Constitution.
> 
> That we should hold Obama accountable for the impact of Bush's policies.
> 
> That there was a connection between Bush's holy wars and 9/11.
> 
> That Sarah Palin was a qualified public servant.
> 
> And many others.
> 
> I think that democrats just were being way too polite about calling those spades,  spades.
> 
> So I did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize that's non-objective, partisan opinion..... right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pick one.  Let's debate it.
Click to expand...

I won't debate the first one because it's a mixed bag.
The second one will probably end up in a debate concerning semantics but, by definition, the US is a democratic, representative republic, an offshoot of democracy.
Number three is a matter of opinion where both sides use select statistics to make their points.
To the best of my knowledge when Obama became president he inherited (and continued) many of the Bush policies.  That he was elected to "fix" the problems makes him now responsible as it would be if a Republican was elected president.
The term you used, "Bush's holy wars", speaks absolute volumes........  No, it was eventually discovered the intel was bad, we relied on allies without doing our own intel and Sadam didn't help by continuing to allude he had such weapons.  A lot went on that your simplistic assessment completely discounts.
I know of no requirement in the constitution that says a public servant has to take specific courses or has to have specific experience to run for or hold office.  If that were the case 99.9% of all politicians would be out of a job. 
So you see, your opinion is a non-objective, hyper partisan viewpoint.


----------



## Ringel05

PMZ said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your first sentence is what I want to hear.  Extremists need to be shown how dysfunctional it is,  but sort of fun.
> 
> If you think that dixiecrats are not running the GOP you are not paying much attention.
> 
> *The Dixiecrat Party may be gone but dixiecrats have become the heart and soul of the demise of the Republican Party.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again using the term Dixiecrat to define the GOP is nothing more than political stereotyping to create a boogyman among voters just like the far right uses the term Socialist to define the DNC.
> Currently the GOP is partially controlled by the far right as the DNC is partially controlled by the far left.  Hell, by today's liberal standards, Kennedy would be considered a Blue Dog at best.  And people wonder why our government is so dysfunctional.
> Personally I have no problem with it, for the most part (barring the ACA implementation and the shutdown) neither extreme has the upper hand and any real damage they can do is relatively minimized.
> Until the mainsteam moderates retake control of both parties my hope is they keep canceling each other out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *There is no evidence that the Democrats have moved even an inch to the left.*  There's overwhelming evidence that dixiecrats are right wing extremists and always have been.
> 
> What's changed is that somehow,  I think from Fox Republican propaganda,  the dixiecrats now run the GOP.
> 
> I've always been a registered Republican even though that party left me in the 60s. My parents were delegates at several Republican National Conventions. I knew the party of business well.  The present devolution is not remotely as competent. In fact it's anti-American.
> 
> To call someone's beliefs prejudiced is an attempt to imply they are not objective.  That implication has absolutely no impact on reality.  Some opinions are,  some aren't,  and you don't get to make that call.  You can offer evidence,  you can debate the evidence,  but not judge prejudice in the absence of evidence and debate.
Click to expand...


True, hyper-partisan hacks would obviously discount the evidence right before their eyes.  A simple look at the last 40 years will prove my point if one is willing to look objectively.


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> There is no evidence that the Democrats have moved even an inch to the left.



  

You're right - there is no evidence that Dumbocrats have moved an _inch_ to the left. The evidence shows they've moved 300,000 miles to the left. Barack Obama is a radical marxist and you _know_ it. He knows it.

Here is the golden boy of your party - JFK himself - saying the exact same thing that causes assholes like you to label the Tea Party as "radical" for saying:

[ame=http://youtu.be/aEdXrfIMdiU]Income Tax Cut, JFK Hopes To Spur Economy 1962/8/13 - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> ACA has no impact on the total cost of health care in the country.  Right?
> 
> Same people except for the poor going to the Dr's instead of the emergency room.
> 
> I think a lot of what's going on are companies lowering compensation more by backing away from employer researched and subsidized health care insurance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Semantics.
> God this is weak.
> 
> The ACA is responsible for the DRAMATIC rise in "INSURANCE" costs...get the fuck over yourself moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where is that dramatic rise going to? And for what?
> 
> I think that the dramatic rise has been in Republican propaganda because they've alienated everyone but the cult.
Click to expand...


You are a pos lying prick. I was just told my insurance premiums are going up 75% under this dumb ass bill you retarded democrats are shoving up our asses.


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> Someday Obamacare will be a widely regarded improvement to our past *inept*, expensive health care insurance non-system.



*Fact:* We have the #1 healthcare system in the _world_. The wealthiest from around the _world_ fly to the United States for their healthcare.

*Fact:* Even the Dumbocrats own most overblown statics claim that 30 million Americans didn't have health insurance. That means over 100,000,000 Americans had coverage. Or, for Dumbocrats not capable of dealing with large numbers, over 91% of America. So in essence, while the overwhelming majority of Americans had exactly what they needed, Dumbocrats in true communist fashion fucked up the entire system for the fringe 9% of asshats who would rather shoot up heroin than hold a job.

*Fact:* PMZ was challenged 30 pages and two weeks ago why Obamacare explicitly outlaws and penalizes "cadillac plans" when the Dumbocrats claim the entire point of Obamacare is to create quality, affordable healthcare (which is exactly what a cadillac plan is). 

The fact that PMZ would claim our system was "inept" in light of these indisputable facts shows how profoundly ignorant he is - and thus unqualified to discuss healthcare. He's a partisan hack looking to be a parasite who mooches off of his fellow citizen.


----------



## P@triot

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> Semantics.
> God this is weak.
> 
> The ACA is responsible for the DRAMATIC rise in "INSURANCE" costs...get the fuck over yourself moron.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where is that dramatic rise going to? And for what?
> 
> I think that the dramatic rise has been in Republican propaganda because they've alienated everyone but the cult.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a pos lying prick. I was just told my insurance premiums are going up 75% under this dumb ass bill you retarded democrats are shoving up our asses.
Click to expand...


Of course he's a lying piece of shit prick - he's a Dumbocrat. If he were to tell the truth, the "debate" would be over in 3 seconds. We all know the healthcare is not one of the 18 enumerated powers of the federal government. Therefore if he were to be honest once in his miserable life, all we would have to say is "Constitution" and the discussion would be over.

When you're on the wrong side of the facts, lies are all you have...


----------



## RKMBrown

Rottweiler said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where is that dramatic rise going to? And for what?
> 
> I think that the dramatic rise has been in Republican propaganda because they've alienated everyone but the cult.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are a pos lying prick. I was just told my insurance premiums are going up 75% under this dumb ass bill you retarded democrats are shoving up our asses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course he's a lying piece of shit prick - he's a Dumbocrat. If he were to tell the truth, the "debate" would be over in 3 seconds. We all know the healthcare is not one of the 18 enumerated powers of the federal government. Therefore if he were to be honest once in his miserable life, all we would have to say is "Constitution" and the discussion would be over.
> 
> When you're on the wrong side of the facts, lies are all you have...
Click to expand...

Screw Obama. I'm dropping my insurance. Screw you democrats that foisted this nightmare on us. I'll pay cash from here on.


----------



## Barbarap

[/QUOTE]
Screw Obama. I'm dropping my insurance. Screw you democrats that foisted this nightmare on us. I'll pay cash from here on.[/QUOTE]

Good luck. Hope you know where the nearest soup kitchen is.


----------



## Antares

PMZ said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Try to follow along. ACA makes it impossible for us to escape. It cruelly grabs all the people who were beginning to wake up, beginning to see just what a scam it all is, and forces them to the yoke. It sells us out to the insurance industry and makes it impossible for us to explore alternatives without permission from our government - government infested with the controlling influence of said corporations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He doesn't care to follow along, he wants to ask a question and either deflect or dictate the answer....truth for PMZ can ONLY be true if HE believes it to be true.
> 
> Thats why he never gives a straight answer, only another question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm a sucker for evidence,  and you're a sucker for propaganda that tells you that what you want to be true,  is.
> 
> You're being given every day what you want.
> 
> But you still spend all day whining.
> 
> Hard to understand.
Click to expand...


LOL, you don't give a shit aboutany evidence, you either ignore it when given or simply say "nuh-uh".

You have no idea as to what you speak of...you have one goal...and that is to try and make everyone believe that you are as smart as you think you are.

You look stupid, plain and simply.


----------



## PMZ

Ringel05 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize that's non-objective, partisan opinion..... right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pick one.  Let's debate it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I won't debate the first one because it's a mixed bag.
> The second one will probably end up in a debate concerning semantics but, by definition, the US is a democratic, representative republic, an offshoot of democracy.
> Number three is a matter of opinion where both sides use select statistics to make their points.
> To the best of my knowledge when Obama became president he inherited (and continued) many of the Bush policies.  That he was elected to "fix" the problems makes him now responsible as it would be if a Republican was elected president.
> The term you used, "Bush's holy wars", speaks absolute volumes........  No, it was eventually discovered the intel was bad, we relied on allies without doing our own intel and Sadam didn't help by continuing to allude he had such weapons.  A lot went on that your simplistic assessment completely discounts.
> I know of no requirement in the constitution that says a public servant has to take specific courses or has to have specific experience to run for or hold office.  If that were the case 99.9% of all politicians would be out of a job.
> So you see, your opinion is a non-objective, hyper partisan viewpoint.
Click to expand...


I  thought that you were going to pick one to debate.  Instead I got a partisan rant with zero facts and evidence.  You made my point better than I did.


----------



## beagle9

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Someday Obamacare will be a widely regarded improvement to our past *inept*, expensive health care insurance non-system.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Fact:* We have the #1 healthcare system in the _world_. The wealthiest from around the _world_ fly to the United States for their healthcare.
> 
> *Fact:* Even the Dumbocrats own most overblown statics claim that 30 million Americans didn't have health insurance. That means over 100,000,000 Americans had coverage. Or, for Dumbocrats not capable of dealing with large numbers, over 91% of America. So in essence, while the overwhelming majority of Americans had exactly what they needed, Dumbocrats in true communist fashion fucked up the entire system for the fringe 9% of asshats who would rather shoot up heroin than hold a job.
> 
> *Fact:* PMZ was challenged 30 pages and two weeks ago why Obamacare explicitly outlaws and penalizes "cadillac plans" when the Dumbocrats claim the entire point of Obamacare is to create quality, affordable healthcare (which is exactly what a cadillac plan is).
> 
> The fact that PMZ would claim our system was "inept" in light of these indisputable facts shows how profoundly ignorant he is - and thus unqualified to discuss healthcare. He's a partisan hack looking to be a parasite who mooches off of his fellow citizen.
Click to expand...

Hmm, so if I can only afford the basic plan instead of the Cadillac plan, then what does this mean for me ?
Does it mean that if someone walks into the door of a health treatment facility with something ailing them, and they have the Cadillac plan but I have the basic plan, then will they get life saving treatment immediately and without delay, but rather I will have to sit in the waiting room for hours with the possibility of becoming sicker as I sit there, and maybe even becoming critical due the access being based on one plan verses another plan in which is interpreted by the health care provider as such when they are processing me in with the other person in this way ?

Shouldn't it be that everyone who is an American, should have equal access to health care as Americans together, where as we are all treated alike as human beings when we get sick, otherwise instead of having this class system operating in the health care industry as it had been over time ?

How can we get beyond the one person is better treated than another is, and all because of the differences being found now in affordable and/or not so affordable health care plans along with the care one receives due to those plans ?


----------



## PMZ

Ringel05 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again using the term Dixiecrat to define the GOP is nothing more than political stereotyping to create a boogyman among voters just like the far right uses the term Socialist to define the DNC.
> Currently the GOP is partially controlled by the far right as the DNC is partially controlled by the far left.  Hell, by today's liberal standards, Kennedy would be considered a Blue Dog at best.  And people wonder why our government is so dysfunctional.
> Personally I have no problem with it, for the most part (barring the ACA implementation and the shutdown) neither extreme has the upper hand and any real damage they can do is relatively minimized.
> Until the mainsteam moderates retake control of both parties my hope is they keep canceling each other out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *There is no evidence that the Democrats have moved even an inch to the left.*  There's overwhelming evidence that dixiecrats are right wing extremists and always have been.
> 
> What's changed is that somehow,  I think from Fox Republican propaganda,  the dixiecrats now run the GOP.
> 
> I've always been a registered Republican even though that party left me in the 60s. My parents were delegates at several Republican National Conventions. I knew the party of business well.  The present devolution is not remotely as competent. In fact it's anti-American.
> 
> To call someone's beliefs prejudiced is an attempt to imply they are not objective.  That implication has absolutely no impact on reality.  Some opinions are,  some aren't,  and you don't get to make that call.  You can offer evidence,  you can debate the evidence,  but not judge prejudice in the absence of evidence and debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True, hyper-partisan hacks would obviously discount the evidence right before their eyes.  A simple look at the last 40 years will prove my point if one is willing to look objectively.
Click to expand...


Why on earth do you consider yourself objective?


----------



## PMZ

beagle9 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Someday Obamacare will be a widely regarded improvement to our past *inept*, expensive health care insurance non-system.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Fact:* We have the #1 healthcare system in the _world_. The wealthiest from around the _world_ fly to the United States for their healthcare.
> 
> *Fact:* Even the Dumbocrats own most overblown statics claim that 30 million Americans didn't have health insurance. That means over 100,000,000 Americans had coverage. Or, for Dumbocrats not capable of dealing with large numbers, over 91% of America. So in essence, while the overwhelming majority of Americans had exactly what they needed, Dumbocrats in true communist fashion fucked up the entire system for the fringe 9% of asshats who would rather shoot up heroin than hold a job.
> 
> *Fact:* PMZ was challenged 30 pages and two weeks ago why Obamacare explicitly outlaws and penalizes "cadillac plans" when the Dumbocrats claim the entire point of Obamacare is to create quality, affordable healthcare (which is exactly what a cadillac plan is).
> 
> The fact that PMZ would claim our system was "inept" in light of these indisputable facts shows how profoundly ignorant he is - and thus unqualified to discuss healthcare. He's a partisan hack looking to be a parasite who mooches off of his fellow citizen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hmm, so if I can only afford the basic plan instead of the Cadillac plan, then what does this mean for me ?
> Does it mean that if someone walks into the door of a health treatment facility with something ailing them, and they have the Cadillac plan but I have the basic plan, then will they get life saving treatment immediately and without delay, but rather I will have to sit in the waiting room for hours with the possibility of becoming sicker as I sit there, and maybe even becoming critical due the access being based on one plan verses another plan in which is interpreted by the health care provider as such when they are processing me in with the other person in this way ?
> 
> Shouldn't it be that everyone who is an American, should have equal access to health care as Americans together, where as we are all treated alike as human beings when we get sick, otherwise instead of having this class system operating in the health care industry as it had been over time ?
> 
> How can we get beyond the one person is better treated than another is, and all because of the differences being found now in affordable and/or not so affordable health care plans along with the care one receives due to those plans ?
Click to expand...


We know how to manage and insure for globally competitive health care.  It's called Medicare.  It would have been easy to extend that to younger citizens.  Why didn't we? 

Republicans.  

Look at the present.  The propaganda blowers are set on max for some simple insurance regulation. Why?  They hate progress.  They fear change.  They want control.  They love aristocracy. 

WHO rates American health care as decidedly mediocre in terms of results.  Republicans counter,  it's great for the aristocrats,  what's the problem? 

They've earned a long vacation from government.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Fact:* We have the #1 healthcare system in the _world_. The wealthiest from around the _world_ fly to the United States for their healthcare.
> 
> *Fact:* Even the Dumbocrats own most overblown statics claim that 30 million Americans didn't have health insurance. That means over 100,000,000 Americans had coverage. Or, for Dumbocrats not capable of dealing with large numbers, over 91% of America. So in essence, while the overwhelming majority of Americans had exactly what they needed, Dumbocrats in true communist fashion fucked up the entire system for the fringe 9% of asshats who would rather shoot up heroin than hold a job.
> 
> *Fact:* PMZ was challenged 30 pages and two weeks ago why Obamacare explicitly outlaws and penalizes "cadillac plans" when the Dumbocrats claim the entire point of Obamacare is to create quality, affordable healthcare (which is exactly what a cadillac plan is).
> 
> The fact that PMZ would claim our system was "inept" in light of these indisputable facts shows how profoundly ignorant he is - and thus unqualified to discuss healthcare. He's a partisan hack looking to be a parasite who mooches off of his fellow citizen.
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm, so if I can only afford the basic plan instead of the Cadillac plan, then what does this mean for me ?
> Does it mean that if someone walks into the door of a health treatment facility with something ailing them, and they have the Cadillac plan but I have the basic plan, then will they get life saving treatment immediately and without delay, but rather I will have to sit in the waiting room for hours with the possibility of becoming sicker as I sit there, and maybe even becoming critical due the access being based on one plan verses another plan in which is interpreted by the health care provider as such when they are processing me in with the other person in this way ?
> 
> Shouldn't it be that everyone who is an American, should have equal access to health care as Americans together, where as we are all treated alike as human beings when we get sick, otherwise instead of having this class system operating in the health care industry as it had been over time ?
> 
> How can we get beyond the one person is better treated than another is, and all because of the differences being found now in affordable and/or not so affordable health care plans along with the care one receives due to those plans ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We know how to manage and insure for globally competitive health care.  It's called Medicare.  It would have been easy to extend that to younger citizens.  Why didn't we?
> 
> Republicans.
> 
> Look at the present.  The propaganda blowers are set on max for some simple insurance regulation. Why?  They hate progress.  They fear change.  They want control.  They love aristocracy.
> 
> WHO rates American health care as decidedly mediocre in terms of results.  Republicans counter,  it's great for the aristocrats,  what's the problem?
> 
> They've earned a long vacation from government.
Click to expand...

Medicare only pays "half" the price everyone else has to pay.  It's a government mandated scam.  If everyone was on medicare there would be ZERO DOCTORS SERVING CUSTOMERS IN THIS COUNTRY.  The only problem this country has, is the scumbag democrats like you that are raping the taxpayer and burning the country to the ground.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm, so if I can only afford the basic plan instead of the Cadillac plan, then what does this mean for me ?
> Does it mean that if someone walks into the door of a health treatment facility with something ailing them, and they have the Cadillac plan but I have the basic plan, then will they get life saving treatment immediately and without delay, but rather I will have to sit in the waiting room for hours with the possibility of becoming sicker as I sit there, and maybe even becoming critical due the access being based on one plan verses another plan in which is interpreted by the health care provider as such when they are processing me in with the other person in this way ?
> 
> Shouldn't it be that everyone who is an American, should have equal access to health care as Americans together, where as we are all treated alike as human beings when we get sick, otherwise instead of having this class system operating in the health care industry as it had been over time ?
> 
> How can we get beyond the one person is better treated than another is, and all because of the differences being found now in affordable and/or not so affordable health care plans along with the care one receives due to those plans ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We know how to manage and insure for globally competitive health care.  It's called Medicare.  It would have been easy to extend that to younger citizens.  Why didn't we?
> 
> Republicans.
> 
> Look at the present.  The propaganda blowers are set on max for some simple insurance regulation. Why?  They hate progress.  They fear change.  They want control.  They love aristocracy.
> 
> WHO rates American health care as decidedly mediocre in terms of results.  Republicans counter,  it's great for the aristocrats,  what's the problem?
> 
> They've earned a long vacation from government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Medicare only pays "half" the price everyone else has to pay.  It's a government mandated scam.  If everyone was on medicare there would be ZERO DOCTORS SERVING CUSTOMERS IN THIS COUNTRY.  The only problem this country has, is the scumbag democrats like you that are raping the taxpayer and burning the country to the ground.
Click to expand...


You neglect to mention that what we spend on health care is 2X everyone else.  All of our global competition.  So if Medicare is paying 1/2 X that puts us the same as every other developed country. 

But the Republican aristocracy prevents American competitiveness. 
They want Americans to be impoverished. They look at that 15% of the wealth split among 80% of the people and they say,  how did that happen! That should be ours! They're just workers! We're aristocrats! WE ARE SPECIAL AND ENTITLED! 

Guess what.  You are not.  You are terrible at governance.  You are terrible at business.  You suck at religion too. 

You are worthless to real American wealth creators.


----------



## P@triot

beagle9 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Someday Obamacare will be a widely regarded improvement to our past *inept*, expensive health care insurance non-system.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Fact:* We have the #1 healthcare system in the _world_. The wealthiest from around the _world_ fly to the United States for their healthcare.
> 
> *Fact:* Even the Dumbocrats own most overblown statics claim that 30 million Americans didn't have health insurance. That means over 100,000,000 Americans had coverage. Or, for Dumbocrats not capable of dealing with large numbers, over 91% of America. So in essence, while the overwhelming majority of Americans had exactly what they needed, Dumbocrats in true communist fashion fucked up the entire system for the fringe 9% of asshats who would rather shoot up heroin than hold a job.
> 
> *Fact:* PMZ was challenged 30 pages and two weeks ago why Obamacare explicitly outlaws and penalizes "cadillac plans" when the Dumbocrats claim the entire point of Obamacare is to create quality, affordable healthcare (which is exactly what a cadillac plan is).
> 
> The fact that PMZ would claim our system was "inept" in light of these indisputable facts shows how profoundly ignorant he is - and thus unqualified to discuss healthcare. He's a partisan hack looking to be a parasite who mooches off of his fellow citizen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hmm, so if I can only afford the basic plan instead of the Cadillac plan, then what does this mean for me ?
> Does it mean that if someone walks into the door of a health treatment facility with something ailing them, and they have the Cadillac plan but I have the basic plan, then will they get life saving treatment immediately and without delay, but rather I will have to sit in the waiting room for hours with the possibility of becoming sicker as I sit there, and maybe even becoming critical due the access being based on one plan verses another plan in which is interpreted by the health care provider as such when they are processing me in with the other person in this way ?
> 
> Shouldn't it be that everyone who is an American, should have equal access to health care as Americans together, where as we are all treated alike as human beings when we get sick, otherwise instead of having this class system operating in the health care industry as it had been over time ?
> 
> How can we get beyond the one person is better treated than another is, and all because of the differences being found now in affordable and/or not so affordable health care plans along with the care one receives due to those plans ?
Click to expand...




Clearly you have no idea what a "cadillac plan" means (hint: it does *not* mean someone gets treated first in a hospital before someone else).

I wonder - will there _ever_ be a day when Democrats know what they are talking about _before_ they speak?


----------



## P@triot

beagle9 said:


> Shouldn't it be that everyone who is an American, should have equal access to health care as Americans together, where as we are all treated alike as human beings when we get sick, otherwise instead of having this class system operating in the health care industry as it had been over time ?



No, it shouldn't. Not at all. Not even a little [MENTION=34109]beagle9[/MENTION]. There is a name for that kind of asinine thinking - it's called communism. And it has a 100% failure rate world wide. It has *never* succeeded in history. Not even _once_.

The correct response is "shouldn't it be that every person act like the adults they are, put their big girl and big boy pants on, and take care of themselves like responsible people"? That's the _only_ system that works. The few cannot care for the many.

Even the dumbest animal in the wild can figure out how to survive on it's own - without petitioning government for help. What does it say about Democrats that they can't?


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> We know how to manage and insure for globally competitive health care.  It's called Medicare.



Oh, you mean that insolvent, bankrupt piece of shit socialism which has helped bankrupt America to the tune of $17 trillion in debt?

Yeah, lets expand _that_ so we can go to $34 trillion in debt...


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> We know how to manage and insure for globally competitive health care.  It's called Medicare.  It would have been easy to extend that to younger citizens.  Why didn't we?
> 
> Republicans.
> 
> Look at the present.  The propaganda blowers are set on max for some simple insurance regulation. Why?  They hate progress.  They fear change.  They want control.  They love aristocracy.
> 
> WHO rates American health care as decidedly mediocre in terms of results.  Republicans counter,  it's great for the aristocrats,  what's the problem?
> 
> They've earned a long vacation from government.
> 
> 
> 
> Medicare only pays "half" the price everyone else has to pay.  It's a government mandated scam.  If everyone was on medicare there would be ZERO DOCTORS SERVING CUSTOMERS IN THIS COUNTRY.  The only problem this country has, is the scumbag democrats like you that are raping the taxpayer and burning the country to the ground.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You neglect to mention that what we spend on health care is 2X everyone else.  All of our global competition.  So if Medicare is paying 1/2 X that puts us the same as every other developed country.
> 
> But the Republican aristocracy prevents American competitiveness.
> They want Americans to be impoverished. They look at that 15% of the wealth split among 80% of the people and they say,  how did that happen! That should be ours! They're just workers! We're aristocrats! WE ARE SPECIAL AND ENTITLED!
> 
> Guess what.  You are not.  You are terrible at governance.  You are terrible at business.  You suck at religion too.
> 
> You are worthless to real American wealth creators.
Click to expand...


The only reason it's 2x higher is you socialist scum bags that hand out monopolies to drug companies and force health care providers to redistribute charges for non-paying customers to paying customers.  What an idiot you are.  Hey let's give free drugs to africa, and subsidize the cost here in the states.  Hey let's give free health care to illegals and subsidize the cost to the taxpayer and people with private insurance.  Hey let's give monopolies to drug companies so they can get windfall profits.  Hey let's have a war on drugs to enforce the drug company monopolies at the taxpayer's expense.  Oh look we can create a permanent democrat base by giving most black males a criminal record and convincing them it's cool to have a record, we'll pay you to not have a salary and a real job, you guys just keep selling the drugs, we'll look the other way most of the time.


----------



## P@triot




----------



## P@triot




----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shouldn't it be that everyone who is an American, should have equal access to health care as Americans together, where as we are all treated alike as human beings when we get sick, otherwise instead of having this class system operating in the health care industry as it had been over time ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it shouldn't. Not at all. Not even a little [MENTION=34109]beagle9[/MENTION]. There is a name for that kind of asinine thinking - it's called communism. And it has a 100% failure rate world wide. It has *never* succeeded in history. Not even _once_.
> 
> The correct response is "shouldn't it be that every person act like the adults they are, put their big girl and big boy pants on, and take care of themselves like responsible people"? That's the _only_ system that works. The few cannot care for the many.
> 
> Even the dumbest animal in the wild can figure out how to survive on it's own - without petitioning government for help. What does it say about Democrats that they can't?
Click to expand...


Another conservative plea to return to the caves and jungle.


----------



## RKMBrown

Rottweiler said:


>



Why do you think the democrats are attacking home schooling and private school vouchers? They have our kids right where they want them.


----------



## dblack

Rottweiler said:


>




As long as they are deemed 'adequate' by the government.


----------



## PMZ

Given the Republican record of failures over the last few decades,  the boogeyman is all that's left to campaign on. 

Exactly like Nazis scapegoating Jews to the Germans. 

Will we never learn?


----------



## dblack

PMZ said:


> Given the Republican record of failures over the last few decades,  the boogeyman is all that's left to campaign on.
> 
> Exactly like Nazis scapegoating Jews to the Germans.
> 
> Will we never learn?



I'm not campaigning for Republicans. I've never voted for one. I doubt I ever will. But Republicans aren't responsible for the ACA.


----------



## P@triot

And to think naive little Dumbocrat lap dogs thought Obama "cared" about them... 

This is all about transforming America into the former Soviet Union so that Dumbocrat elites like Barack Obama can wield unlimited power.

Video | Report Shows Obamacare was about registering voters - not healthcare


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> Given the Republican record of failures over the last few decades,  the boogeyman is all that's left to campaign on.
> 
> Exactly like Nazis scapegoating Jews to the Germans.
> 
> Will we never learn?



You mean given the authoritarian socialist record of failures.  Bush was war-hawk no child left behind compassionate conservative, aka authoritarian socialist, no different than Obama.  This is why Obama merely doubled down on all of Bush's policies.


----------



## PMZ

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Given the Republican record of failures over the last few decades,  the boogeyman is all that's left to campaign on.
> 
> Exactly like Nazis scapegoating Jews to the Germans.
> 
> Will we never learn?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not campaigning for Republicans. I've never voted for one. I doubt I ever will. But Republicans aren't responsible for the ACA.
Click to expand...


Who then are you waiting for, to propose a solution to irresponsible people charging their health care to you and I?


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Given the Republican record of failures over the last few decades,  the boogeyman is all that's left to campaign on.
> 
> Exactly like Nazis scapegoating Jews to the Germans.
> 
> Will we never learn?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean given the authoritarian socialist record of failures.  Bush was war-hawk no child left behind compassionate conservative, aka authoritarian socialist, no different than Obama.  This is why Obama merely doubled down on all of Bush's policies.
Click to expand...


Bush policies and performance avoided freeing us from all national debt,  instead leaving us with $17T.

What failure is even in the same zip code as that?


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> Given the Republican record of failures over the last few decades,  the boogeyman is all that's left to campaign on.
> 
> Exactly like Nazis scapegoating Jews to the Germans.
> 
> Will we never learn?



Can you name _one_ Republican "failure"? The fact that you didn't says it all.

I however can list endless Dumbocrat failures:


Bill Clinton's "Community Re-Investment Act" collapsed the housing market. It has also contributed to the longest period of above 8% unemployment (sans the Great Depression) in U.S. history.


Barack Obama's "Obamacare" has caused millions to lose their health insurance. It has also contributed to the longest period of above 8% unemployment (sans the Great Depression) in U.S. history.


The Dodd-Frank "Finance Reform" has caused the low income and middle class to lose free checking. It has also contributed to the longest period of above 8% unemployment (sans the Great Depression) in U.S. history.


Dumbocrat policy of punish success, steal from producers, and reward failure in exchange for votes and thus power, collapsed Detroit.


Dumbocrat policy of punish success, steal from producers, and reward failure in exchange for votes and thus power, has the state of California $132 billion in debt and on the verge of collapse.


Dumbocrat policy of punish success, steal from producers, and reward failure in exchange for votes and thus power, has the nation $17 trillion in debt and on the verge of collapse.


Dumbocrat policy of punish success, steal from producers, and reward failure in exchange for votes and thus power has caused Dumbocrats to create the high corporate tax rate in the world - forcing jobs overseas and contributing to the longest period of above 8% unemployment (sans the Great Depression) in U.S. history.


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Given the Republican record of failures over the last few decades,  the boogeyman is all that's left to campaign on.
> 
> Exactly like Nazis scapegoating Jews to the Germans.
> 
> Will we never learn?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean given the authoritarian socialist record of failures.  Bush was war-hawk no child left behind compassionate conservative, aka authoritarian socialist, no different than Obama.  This is why Obama merely doubled down on all of Bush's policies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bush policies and performance avoided freeing us from all national debt,  instead leaving us with $17T.
> 
> What failure is even in the same zip code as that?
Click to expand...


That's funny - when Bush left office the national debt stood at $10 trillion. It's Barack Obama who has created $17 trillion in debt for us. Facts, they are a bitch - eh PMZ?


----------



## dblack

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Given the Republican record of failures over the last few decades,  the boogeyman is all that's left to campaign on.
> 
> Exactly like Nazis scapegoating Jews to the Germans.
> 
> Will we never learn?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not campaigning for Republicans. I've never voted for one. I doubt I ever will. But Republicans aren't responsible for the ACA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who then are you waiting for, to propose a solution to irresponsible people charging their health care to you and I?
Click to expand...


It would likely take electing a genuine libertarian for that to happen, but I'd be open to efforts from either party toward that goal. ACA only pushes us deeper into that hole.

Anyway, I have to be frank here. Your phony concern for 'responsibility' is wearing thin. I have little patience for Orwellian language games. I guess you think it's a way to get under conservatives' skin, given that 'responsiblity' is something of a buzzword with them, but it doesn't make your argument any more compelling. It just makes it kind of sleazy.


----------



## P@triot

Rottweiler said:


>



Proof that [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] has lost and knows he has lost. When you post statistical facts like this, which cannot be disputed, all he has left is to nonsensically yell "boogeyman"


----------



## PMZ

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not campaigning for Republicans. I've never voted for one. I doubt I ever will. But Republicans aren't responsible for the ACA.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who then are you waiting for, to propose a solution to irresponsible people charging their health care to you and I?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It would likely take electing a genuine libertarian for that to happen, but I'd be open to efforts from either party toward that goal. ACA only pushes us deeper into that hole.
> 
> Anyway, I have to be frank here. Your phony concern for 'responsibility' is wearing thin. I have little patience for Orwellian language games. I guess you think it's a way to get under conservatives' skin, given that 'responsiblity' is something of a buzzword with them, but it doesn't make your argument any more compelling. It just makes it kind of sleazy.
Click to expand...


At least I have arguments. You,  not so much,  Libertarian being shorthand for accepting problems and ignoring solutions.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Given the Republican record of failures over the last few decades,  the boogeyman is all that's left to campaign on.
> 
> Exactly like Nazis scapegoating Jews to the Germans.
> 
> Will we never learn?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean given the authoritarian socialist record of failures.  Bush was war-hawk no child left behind compassionate conservative, aka authoritarian socialist, no different than Obama.  This is why Obama merely doubled down on all of Bush's policies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bush policies and performance avoided freeing us from all national debt,  instead leaving us with $17T.
> 
> What failure is even in the same zip code as that?
Click to expand...


Why did Obama leave all of Bush's policies in tact?  Why did Obama start twice as many wars as Bush did?  Why did Obama leave the Bush tax cuts in place for everyone but the very rich, which means nothing to overall revenue?  Why did Obama leave no child left behind in?  Why did Obama leave all of the medicare reforms in place?  Why did Obama double down on all the failed policies of Bush? Why?  Didn't he have both houses of congress?  

Bush sucked because he was a socialist war-hawk.  Obama sucks because he's a socialist war-hawk.  Republican Neo-Cons are further to the left than Democrats used to be.  That's the problem in this country scum bag socialist war-hawks.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean given the authoritarian socialist record of failures.  Bush was war-hawk no child left behind compassionate conservative, aka authoritarian socialist, no different than Obama.  This is why Obama merely doubled down on all of Bush's policies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bush policies and performance avoided freeing us from all national debt,  instead leaving us with $17T.
> 
> What failure is even in the same zip code as that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why did Obama leave all of Bush's policies in tact?  Why did Obama start twice as many wars as Bush did?  Why did Obama leave the Bush tax cuts in place for everyone but the very rich, which means nothing to overall revenue?  Why did Obama leave no child left behind in?  Why did Obama leave all of the medicare reforms in place?  Why did Obama double down on all the failed policies of Bush? Why?  Didn't he have both houses of congress?
> 
> Bush sucked because he was a socialist war-hawk.  Obama sucks because he's a socialist war-hawk.  Republican Neo-Cons are further to the left than Democrats used to be.  That's the problem in this country scum bag socialist war-hawks.
Click to expand...


He ended the Bush wealth redistribution tax cuts. 

He ended the Bush holy wars. 

He dug us out of the Bush Great Recession.  

He restored order from Wall St chaos. 

He saved US auto. 

He got retribution for 9/11.

He saved us from Cain/Palin and Romney/Ryan.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who then are you waiting for, to propose a solution to irresponsible people charging their health care to you and I?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It would likely take electing a genuine libertarian for that to happen, but I'd be open to efforts from either party toward that goal. ACA only pushes us deeper into that hole.
> 
> Anyway, I have to be frank here. Your phony concern for 'responsibility' is wearing thin. I have little patience for Orwellian language games. I guess you think it's a way to get under conservatives' skin, given that 'responsiblity' is something of a buzzword with them, but it doesn't make your argument any more compelling. It just makes it kind of sleazy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At least I have arguments. You,  not so much,  Libertarian being shorthand for accepting problems and ignoring solutions.
Click to expand...


Blathering stupidity is not an argument.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> It would likely take electing a genuine libertarian for that to happen, but I'd be open to efforts from either party toward that goal. ACA only pushes us deeper into that hole.
> 
> Anyway, I have to be frank here. Your phony concern for 'responsibility' is wearing thin. I have little patience for Orwellian language games. I guess you think it's a way to get under conservatives' skin, given that 'responsiblity' is something of a buzzword with them, but it doesn't make your argument any more compelling. It just makes it kind of sleazy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At least I have arguments. You,  not so much,  Libertarian being shorthand for accepting problems and ignoring solutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Blathering stupidity is not an argument.
Click to expand...


So why do you do it.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> At least I have arguments. You,  not so much,  Libertarian being shorthand for accepting problems and ignoring solutions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blathering stupidity is not an argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So why do you do it.
Click to expand...


I know you are but what am I... Such an impressive deflection tactic.  You could rule over the playground.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Blathering stupidity is not an argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So why do you do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know you are but what am I... Such an impressive deflection tactic.  You could rule over the playground.
Click to expand...


Didn't you post "Blathering stupidity is not an argument"?


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> So why do you do it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know you are but what am I... Such an impressive deflection tactic.  You could rule over the playground.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Didn't you post "Blathering stupidity is not an argument"?
Click to expand...


Didn't you take your meds this morning?


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know you are but what am I... Such an impressive deflection tactic.  You could rule over the playground.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't you post "Blathering stupidity is not an argument"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Didn't you take your meds this morning?
Click to expand...


How are your slaves doing this morning?  Have they got all your work done yet?


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't you post "Blathering stupidity is not an argument"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't you take your meds this morning?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How are your slaves doing this morning?  Have they got all your work done yet?
Click to expand...


My assistants get paid to do their job, I get paid to do my job.  It's called working.


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> He ended the Bush wealth redistribution tax cuts



You mean Obama created redistribution by stealing from people and giving it to those to lazy to earn it? Got it. Careful PMZ - you're on the verge of being honest here.



PMZ said:


> He ended the Bush holy wars



 We're still in both Afghanistan and Iraq dumb fuck... 



PMZ said:


> He dug us out of the Bush Great Recession



 Obama created the Obama Great Depression. Unemployment is HIGHER under Obama. The National Debt is HIGHER under Obama. Energy prices are HIGHER under Obama. In what world are these numbers "digging out" of a recession?!? 



PMZ said:


> He restored order from Wall St chaos



He did? How? By increasing unemployment? Ok, well, sure I guess if there are less people working on Wall Street there is slightly less "chaos" 



PMZ said:


> He saved US auto



So he illegally implemented communism and you celebrate that? Oh, wait, of course you do. You're so dumb you're celebrating the thing you condemn - "corporate welfare". This is how dumb you are [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION]. You contradict yourself. 



PMZ said:


> He got retribution for 9/11



Really? So Al Qaeda is gone? 



PMZ said:


> He saved us from Cain/Palin and Romney/Ryan.



You mean he saved you from personal responsibility? Once again, we see PMZ becoming as close to honest as he will get.

So now that you've humiliated yourself with inaccurate libtard talking points, would you like to try again? Might I suggest something of factual substance this time?


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't you post "Blathering stupidity is not an argument"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't you take your meds this morning?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How are your slaves doing this morning?  Have they got all your work done yet?
Click to expand...


PMZ is so lazy, he considers working to be "slavery".

Yet he believes it's perfectly ok to force me to labor on his behalf....


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shouldn't it be that everyone who is an American, should have equal access to health care as Americans together, where as we are all treated alike as human beings when we get sick, otherwise instead of having this class system operating in the health care industry as it had been over time ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it shouldn't. Not at all. Not even a little [MENTION=34109]beagle9[/MENTION]. There is a name for that kind of asinine thinking - it's called communism. And it has a 100% failure rate world wide. It has *never* succeeded in history. Not even _once_.
> 
> The correct response is "shouldn't it be that every person act like the adults they are, put their big girl and big boy pants on, and take care of themselves like responsible people"? That's the _only_ system that works. The few cannot care for the many.
> 
> Even the dumbest animal in the wild can figure out how to survive on it's own - without petitioning government for help. What does it say about Democrats that they can't?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another conservative plea to return to the caves and jungle.
Click to expand...


Another Dumbocrat plea to return to slavery and force others to labor on their behalf because you're too fuck'n lazy to hold a job.

150 years later and you assholes still can't accept the fact that you *lost* the Civil War...


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> Libertarian being shorthand for accepting problems and ignoring solutions.



"Solutions" being Dumbocrat shorthand for communist redistribution of wealth, equality in poverty, and collapse...

"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."  --Winston Churchill


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> Libertarian being shorthand for accepting problems and ignoring solutions.



"Solutions" for _what_ [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] - you're laziness? Sorry, the only real solution for that is for you to get up off of your lazy ass. Sadly though, we all know that's not going to happen.


----------



## PMZ

Rotweiner is clearly one of the classiest folks here.  I think that he'll make a wonderful poster boy for conservatives.  In fact,  I hope that when Americans go to the polls,  he's first in their minds as a representative business owner.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> Rotweiner is clearly one of the classiest folks here.  I think that he'll make a wonderful poster boy for conservatives.  In fact,  I hope that when Americans go to the polls,  he's first in their minds as a representative business owner.



Oh so that's how dumbocrats elect representatives, they completely ignore the candidates and instead "visualize" someone, that they barely know and is not running for election, who they hate and or are jealous of with their desires for revenge and plunder.


----------



## P@triot

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rotweiner is clearly one of the classiest folks here.  I think that he'll make a wonderful poster boy for conservatives.  In fact,  I hope that when Americans go to the polls,  he's first in their minds as a representative business owner.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh so that's how dumbocrats elect representatives, they completely ignore the candidates and instead "visualize" someone, that they barely know and is not running for election, who they hate and or are jealous of with their desires for revenge and plunder.
Click to expand...


Exactly... And this comes as a shock to you? Look at who these people elect. Did you _really_ think they were informed and unbiased voters?


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> Rotweiner is clearly one of the classiest folks here.  I think that he'll make a wonderful poster boy for conservatives.  In fact,  I hope that when Americans go to the polls,  he's first in their minds as a representative business owner.



You lie through your teeth, refuse to care for yourself like an adult, demand slavery, and you want to discuss being "classy"? _Really_?


----------



## RKMBrown

Rottweiler said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rotweiner is clearly one of the classiest folks here.  I think that he'll make a wonderful poster boy for conservatives.  In fact,  I hope that when Americans go to the polls,  he's first in their minds as a representative business owner.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh so that's how dumbocrats elect representatives, they completely ignore the candidates and instead "visualize" someone, that they barely know and is not running for election, who they hate and or are jealous of with their desires for revenge and plunder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly... And this comes as a shock to you? Look at who these people elect. Did you _really_ think they were informed and unbiased voters?
Click to expand...


That "oh" was feigned surprise.


----------



## P@triot

RKMBrown said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh so that's how dumbocrats elect representatives, they completely ignore the candidates and instead "visualize" someone, that they barely know and is not running for election, who they hate and or are jealous of with their desires for revenge and plunder.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly... And this comes as a shock to you? Look at who these people elect. Did you _really_ think they were informed and unbiased voters?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That "oh" was feigned surprise.
Click to expand...


I know. I just wanted to elaborate on Dumbocrat ignorance...


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly... And this comes as a shock to you? Look at who these people elect. Did you _really_ think they were informed and unbiased voters?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That "oh" was feigned surprise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know. I just wanted to elaborate on Dumbocrat ignorance...
Click to expand...


Well you've established your street cred in ignorance.


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> That "oh" was feigned surprise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know. I just wanted to elaborate on Dumbocrat ignorance...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well you've established your street cred in ignorance.
Click to expand...


I have - I'm unquestionably the most informed, fact-based poster on USMB. So nobody is more qualified to call out ignorance (such as yours) as I am.

Hey, are you still waiting for a radical left-wing site like ThinkProgess to explain to you why Obama explicitly outlawed cadillac plans?


----------



## Antares

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who then are you waiting for, to propose a solution to irresponsible people charging their health care to you and I?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It would likely take electing a genuine libertarian for that to happen, but I'd be open to efforts from either party toward that goal. ACA only pushes us deeper into that hole.
> 
> Anyway, I have to be frank here. Your phony concern for 'responsibility' is wearing thin. I have little patience for Orwellian language games. I guess you think it's a way to get under conservatives' skin, given that 'responsiblity' is something of a buzzword with them, but it doesn't make your argument any more compelling. It just makes it kind of sleazy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At least I have arguments. You,  not so much,  Libertarian being shorthand for accepting problems and ignoring solutions.
Click to expand...


LOL, no you don't.

You have opinions that you value more than facts or reality.


----------



## PMZ

Antares said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> It would likely take electing a genuine libertarian for that to happen, but I'd be open to efforts from either party toward that goal. ACA only pushes us deeper into that hole.
> 
> Anyway, I have to be frank here. Your phony concern for 'responsibility' is wearing thin. I have little patience for Orwellian language games. I guess you think it's a way to get under conservatives' skin, given that 'responsiblity' is something of a buzzword with them, but it doesn't make your argument any more compelling. It just makes it kind of sleazy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At least I have arguments. You,  not so much,  Libertarian being shorthand for accepting problems and ignoring solutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, no you don't.
> 
> You have opinions that you value more than facts or reality.
Click to expand...


I have opinions based on facts and reality. 

You have opinions given to you based on politics.


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know. I just wanted to elaborate on Dumbocrat ignorance...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well you've established your street cred in ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have - I'm unquestionably the most informed, fact-based poster on USMB. So nobody is more qualified to call out ignorance (such as yours) as I am.
> 
> Hey, are you still waiting for a radical left-wing site like ThinkProgess to explain to you why Obama explicitly outlawed cadillac plans?
Click to expand...


Rotweiner is a legend in his own mind.  I suppose,  if you have to tell people that you're smart,  that means that's your only option.  Otherwise nobody would even guess that you are.


----------



## Antares

PMZ said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> At least I have arguments. You,  not so much,  Libertarian being shorthand for accepting problems and ignoring solutions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, no you don't.
> 
> You have opinions that you value more than facts or reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have opinions based on facts and reality.
> 
> You have opinions given to you based on politics.
Click to expand...


Too funny moron, you post nothing but opinion backed up by nothing...you are too afraid to venture into a thread based on facts..projection and semantics are the refuge of the weak kid...


----------



## Antares

PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well you've established your street cred in ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have - I'm unquestionably the most informed, fact-based poster on USMB. So nobody is more qualified to call out ignorance (such as yours) as I am.
> 
> Hey, are you still waiting for a radical left-wing site like ThinkProgess to explain to you why Obama explicitly outlawed cadillac plans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rotweiner is a legend in his own mind.  I suppose,  if you have to tell people that you're smart,  that means that's your only option.  Otherwise nobody would even guess that you are.
Click to expand...


Right on cue...projection


----------



## PMZ

Antares said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have - I'm unquestionably the most informed, fact-based poster on USMB. So nobody is more qualified to call out ignorance (such as yours) as I am.
> 
> Hey, are you still waiting for a radical left-wing site like ThinkProgess to explain to you why Obama explicitly outlawed cadillac plans?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rotweiner is a legend in his own mind.  I suppose,  if you have to tell people that you're smart,  that means that's your only option.  Otherwise nobody would even guess that you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right on cue...projection
Click to expand...


He's the one that said what he said.


----------



## Antares

PMZ said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rotweiner is a legend in his own mind.  I suppose,  if you have to tell people that you're smart,  that means that's your only option.  Otherwise nobody would even guess that you are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right on cue...projection
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's the one that said what he said.
Click to expand...


YOU are a legend in YOUR own mind....and your greatest wish is that we all believe how great you are too.

Me?

I'm just some schmuck in Omaha who works in the insurance industry.....you know...rubber meets the road and all that shit.


----------



## PMZ

Antares said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, no you don't.
> 
> You have opinions that you value more than facts or reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have opinions based on facts and reality.
> 
> You have opinions given to you based on politics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Too funny moron, you post nothing but opinion backed up by nothing...you are too afraid to venture into a thread based on facts..projection and semantics are the refuge of the weak kid...
Click to expand...


You're projecting,  screwball.


----------



## beagle9

Rottweiler said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shouldn't it be that everyone who is an American, should have equal access to health care as Americans together, where as we are all treated alike as human beings when we get sick, otherwise instead of having this class system operating in the health care industry as it had been over time ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it shouldn't. Not at all. Not even a little [MENTION=34109]beagle9[/MENTION]. There is a name for that kind of asinine thinking - it's called communism. And it has a 100% failure rate world wide. It has *never* succeeded in history. Not even _once_.
> 
> The correct response is "shouldn't it be that every person act like the adults they are, put their big girl and big boy pants on, and take care of themselves like responsible people"? That's the _only_ system that works. The few cannot care for the many.
> 
> Even the dumbest animal in the wild can figure out how to survive on it's own - without petitioning government for help. What does it say about Democrats that they can't?
Click to expand...


You comparing us to the animals in the wild eh ? No one ask for the few to care for the many, just to level the playing field is all people want in these situations, where as they can get the same medicine that the next person gets in order to survive the day. Take care of themselves you say ? How about when the private sector has sought to engage in greed and cheap labor, so they throw away the American workforce by the millions over time (not caring about where they went or who took responsibility for them), and they did this just as long as they got what they wanted in the way of premium health care for themselves, lavish living standards, and also huge profits for themselves in the scheme of things. Everyone else is then left to pick up the crumbs that were left by the way side, and then to distribute them in the best way possible until help arrived. The government has been forced to fill that gap by the greedy private sector who had failed the people, therefore throwing hundreds of thousands onto the government doorsteps for help, and then when the government tries to help them, the wealthy cry fowl on that one also. It virtually places people into a no win situation in the struggle, therefore making them desperate and sometimes dangerous in which we have seen in many ways. The proper balance in it all has been damaged and put in an off balance way, so the key is to bring it all back into some sort of balance that suits everyone somehow, but not the bad guy's at the end of the day should it help, otherwise for whom abused the system of help as was needed and received by them or for whom had run the system into the ground from the top down.


----------



## Antares

PMZ said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have opinions based on facts and reality.
> 
> You have opinions given to you based on politics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Too funny moron, you post nothing but opinion backed up by nothing...you are too afraid to venture into a thread based on facts..projection and semantics are the refuge of the weak kid...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're projecting,  screwball.
Click to expand...


Says the kid running from any reality that might not be his reality...got it.


----------



## PMZ

Antares said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> Too funny moron, you post nothing but opinion backed up by nothing...you are too afraid to venture into a thread based on facts..projection and semantics are the refuge of the weak kid...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're projecting,  screwball.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says the kid running from any reality that might not be his reality...got it.
Click to expand...


There's only one reality and it's not what you want it to be.


----------



## PMZ

Antares said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right on cue...projection
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's the one that said what he said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YOU are a legend in YOUR own mind....and your greatest wish is that we all believe how great you are too.
> 
> Me?
> 
> I'm just some schmuck in Omaha who works in the insurance industry.....you know...rubber meets the road and all that shit.
Click to expand...


Never met an insurance salesman that wasn't first,  a salesman.


----------



## P@triot

Antares said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> It would likely take electing a genuine libertarian for that to happen, but I'd be open to efforts from either party toward that goal. ACA only pushes us deeper into that hole.
> 
> Anyway, I have to be frank here. Your phony concern for 'responsibility' is wearing thin. I have little patience for Orwellian language games. I guess you think it's a way to get under conservatives' skin, given that 'responsiblity' is something of a buzzword with them, but it doesn't make your argument any more compelling. It just makes it kind of sleazy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At least I have arguments. You,  not so much,  Libertarian being shorthand for accepting problems and ignoring solutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, no you don't.
> 
> You have opinions that you value more than facts or reality.
Click to expand...




Truer words were never spoken. [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] is a willfully ignorant partisan hack. It's people like him who have this nation $17 trillion in debt and put unqualified community organizers like Barack Obama in the White House because they eschew facts for ideology.


----------



## P@triot

beagle9 said:


> No one ask for the few to care for the many, just to level the playing field is all people want in these situations



The playing field was leveled the day the U.S. Constitution was signed into law [MENTION=34109]beagle9[/MENTION]. Every man has the exact same equal opportunity because that document prevents anyone from oppressing you.

All the left ever does is disingenuously cry "level the playing field" which is nothing but liberal code-word for "I want communism - the few should be forced to labor against their will for the many".

Have you ever noticed that when you (and your fellow liberals like PMZ) post, you can never cite *anything*? Forget about a link to a reputable cite providing an example of an "unleveled playing field" - you can't even give ONE example in your entire rant.

You guys eschew all reality and facts for ideology. Where is this supposed "unleveled playing field" beagle9?!? Someone choosing to pump heroin into their veins rather than hold a job with health insurance is not an "unleveled playing field" - it's the *freedom* of an asshole to make bad choices and fail. I love that we have that *freedom*.


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> At least I have arguments. You,  not so much,  Libertarian being shorthand for accepting problems and ignoring solutions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, no you don't.
> 
> You have opinions that you value more than facts or reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truer words were never spoken. [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] is a willfully ignorant partisan hack. It's people like him who have this nation $17 trillion in debt and put unqualified community organizers like Barack Obama in the White House because they eschew facts for ideology.
Click to expand...


Here's what Rotweiner is ignorant of. 

Bush's holy wars. 

Bush's wealth redistribution tax cuts. 

Bush's Great Recession. 

Recovery from Bush's Great Recession. 

Bush's driving US Auto to bankruptcy. 

Bush's driving Wall St into bankruptcy. 

Republican's total disdain for middle America. 

Republican war on progress. 

Bush's failure to prevent 9/11.

Bush's failure to punish Al Qaida for 9/11.

But that doesn't mean that he's not in favor of anything.  He greatly supports exchanging millions of American careers for executive bonuses by shipping key manufacturing technology to Communist China.  Why?  So that he can buy cheaper though lead painted toys for his grandchildren. 

And he also favors personal irresponsibility in promoting people who want to send their medical bills to random others. 

And climate change.  And ignoring where future energy will come from. 

Two things that it's too bad that we can't have. Standards to be a parent and to be a citizen.


----------



## P@triot

beagle9 said:


> How about when the private sector has sought to engage in greed and cheap labor, so they throw away the American workforce by the millions over time (not caring about where they went or who took responsibility for them)



 [MENTION=34109]beagle9[/MENTION], my friend, there are simple realities that you _must_ come to grips here:


Dumbocrat policy of punish success and reward failure has forced every single job that has gone overseas. Just use an ounce of common sense for a second here - if it were cheaper to do business here in the U.S., nobody would _ever_ spend MORE money to ship jobs overseas. They do it because Dumbocrats have made it impossible to stay in business in the U.S. We have the highest corporate tax rate in the world (that's a simple *fact* beagle9). We have some of the most costly, stifling regulations in the world.


A business exists for one purpose and one purpose *only*: to make money. They do not exist because they owe you a damn thing. They do not exist to make sure Americans have jobs. They exist to make money. If they do not make money, they go out of business. The fact that people such as yourself and Barack Obama do not understand this is why we've experienced the longest period of 8% unemployment (sans the Great Depression) in U.S. history.


It is not the responsibility of business to "care" where jobs go. Dumbocrats create unsustainable environments, and business try to figure out how to survive those unsustainable environments. In many cases, that means moving your operations overseas to environments that welcome business, not punish them.

Welcome to reality beagle9. You're going to love it here if and when you dump your absurd ideology for an ounce of reality and common sense.


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> Two things that it's too bad that we can't have. Standards to be a parent and to be a citizen.



If we had standards for being a citizen, you would have been executed years ago you anti-American, anti-Constitutional communist prick.

Get off your lazy ass and care for yourself. Conservatives are tired of footing the bill for you in life.


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> Bush's wealth redistribution tax cuts.



I love the fact that you can't explain this libtard talking point but you post it over and over. Shows that you're a willfully ignorant partisan hack who eschews facts and reality for ideology...


----------



## P@triot

beagle9 said:


> The government has been forced to fill that gap by the greedy private sector who had failed the people, therefore throwing hundreds of thousands onto the government doorsteps for help, and then when the government tries to help them, the wealthy cry fowl on that one also.



My God, this rant is just _dripping_ with communism. How can the private sector "fail the people" when they were never supposed to exist for the people and owe the people nothing?

Dumbocrats interference in the private sector (highest corporate tax rate in the _world_) is what has *failed* the people. The more they get involved (Obamacare, Dodd-Frank, etc.) the more the nation fails. The more the nation fails, the more you ask them to get involved to "help". It's a vicious cycle and a comical cluster-fuck of Dumbocrats who are so ignorant, they don't even understand the basic principles of economics or business.

But here is the most amazing thing about people like you and [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION]: you guys sit on your fat, lazy asses talking about how business owners have failed you. Well, how many jobs have *you* created for other people [MENTION=34109]beagle9[/MENTION]? None. Not a damn one. Not one little job for someone in your entire life. How _dare_ you sit in the bleachers and criticize the performance of the people on the field and actually in the game. I can't imagine the audacity it takes to sit on my fat lazy ass and cry that about what business owners are doing. Great men and women who took great risk and work their ass off while you sit at home living off of their hard earned money.

See, that's the beauty of the free market beagle9. If you don't like the job options, you can go into business for yourself _any_ time you want. The fact that you're too lazy to start a business and create jobs for other people who desperately need them shows just how greedy and lazy you really are.


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bush's wealth redistribution tax cuts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I love the fact that you can't explain this libtard talking point but you post it over and over. Shows that you're a willfully ignorant partisan hack who eschews facts and reality for ideology...
Click to expand...


I've explained it over and over.  It's explained in numerous place on the web. Also in books and newspapers and economic texts.  

In fact there is only one place it's not explained.  Republican propaganda.


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The government has been forced to fill that gap by the greedy private sector who had failed the people, therefore throwing hundreds of thousands onto the government doorsteps for help, and then when the government tries to help them, the wealthy cry fowl on that one also.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My God, this rant is just _dripping_ with communism. How can the private sector "fail the people" when they were never supposed to exist for the people and owe the people nothing?
> 
> Dumbocrats interference in the private sector (highest corporate tax rate in the _world_) is what has *failed* the people. The more they get involved (Obamacare, Dodd-Frank, etc.) the more the nation fails. The more the nation fails, the more you ask them to get involved to "help". It's a vicious cycle and a comical cluster-fuck of Dumbocrats who are so ignorant, they don't even understand the basic principles of economics or business.
> 
> But here is the most amazing thing about people like you and [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION]: you guys sit on your fat, lazy asses talking about how business owners have failed you. Well, how many jobs have *you* created for other people [MENTION=34109]beagle9[/MENTION]? None. Not a damn one. Not one little job for someone in your entire life. How _dare_ you sit in the bleachers and criticize the performance of the people on the field and actually in the game. I can't imagine the audacity it takes to sit on my fat lazy ass and cry that about what business owners are doing. Great men and women who took great risk and work their ass off while you sit at home living off of their hard earned money.
> 
> See, that's the beauty of the free market beagle9. If you don't like the job options, you can go into business for yourself _any_ time you want. The fact that you're too lazy to start a business and create jobs for other people who desperately need them shows just how greedy and lazy you really are.
Click to expand...


"How can the private sector "fail the people" when they were never supposed to exist for the people and owe the people"

Where is this written?


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, no you don't.
> 
> You have opinions that you value more than facts or reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truer words were never spoken. [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] is a willfully ignorant partisan hack. It's people like him who have this nation $17 trillion in debt and put unqualified community organizers like Barack Obama in the White House because they eschew facts for ideology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's what Rotweiner is ignorant of.
> 
> Bush's holy wars.
> 
> Bush's wealth redistribution tax cuts.
> 
> Bush's Great Recession.
> 
> Recovery from Bush's Great Recession.
> 
> Bush's driving US Auto to bankruptcy.
> 
> Bush's driving Wall St into bankruptcy.
> 
> Republican's total disdain for middle America.
> 
> Republican war on progress.
> 
> Bush's failure to prevent 9/11.
> 
> Bush's failure to punish Al Qaida for 9/11.
> 
> But that doesn't mean that he's not in favor of anything.  He greatly supports exchanging millions of American careers for executive bonuses by shipping key manufacturing technology to Communist China.  Why?  So that he can buy cheaper though lead painted toys for his grandchildren.
> 
> And he also favors personal irresponsibility in promoting people who want to send their medical bills to random others.
> 
> And climate change.  And ignoring where future energy will come from.
> 
> Two things that it's too bad that we can't have. Standards to be a parent and to be a citizen.
Click to expand...


And you are ignorant of the fact that you are just like Bush, a socialist war-hawk claiming to be a conservative republican.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truer words were never spoken. [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] is a willfully ignorant partisan hack. It's people like him who have this nation $17 trillion in debt and put unqualified community organizers like Barack Obama in the White House because they eschew facts for ideology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's what Rotweiner is ignorant of.
> 
> Bush's holy wars.
> 
> Bush's wealth redistribution tax cuts.
> 
> Bush's Great Recession.
> 
> Recovery from Bush's Great Recession.
> 
> Bush's driving US Auto to bankruptcy.
> 
> Bush's driving Wall St into bankruptcy.
> 
> Republican's total disdain for middle America.
> 
> Republican war on progress.
> 
> Bush's failure to prevent 9/11.
> 
> Bush's failure to punish Al Qaida for 9/11.
> 
> But that doesn't mean that he's not in favor of anything.  He greatly supports exchanging millions of American careers for executive bonuses by shipping key manufacturing technology to Communist China.  Why?  So that he can buy cheaper though lead painted toys for his grandchildren.
> 
> And he also favors personal irresponsibility in promoting people who want to send their medical bills to random others.
> 
> And climate change.  And ignoring where future energy will come from.
> 
> Two things that it's too bad that we can't have. Standards to be a parent and to be a citizen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you are ignorant of the fact that you are just like Bush, a socialist war-hawk claiming to be a conservative republican.
Click to expand...


Next you'll be telling me that I'm just like Ted Cruz,  and you're just like Bill Clinton.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's what Rotweiner is ignorant of.
> 
> Bush's holy wars.
> 
> Bush's wealth redistribution tax cuts.
> 
> Bush's Great Recession.
> 
> Recovery from Bush's Great Recession.
> 
> Bush's driving US Auto to bankruptcy.
> 
> Bush's driving Wall St into bankruptcy.
> 
> Republican's total disdain for middle America.
> 
> Republican war on progress.
> 
> Bush's failure to prevent 9/11.
> 
> Bush's failure to punish Al Qaida for 9/11.
> 
> But that doesn't mean that he's not in favor of anything.  He greatly supports exchanging millions of American careers for executive bonuses by shipping key manufacturing technology to Communist China.  Why?  So that he can buy cheaper though lead painted toys for his grandchildren.
> 
> And he also favors personal irresponsibility in promoting people who want to send their medical bills to random others.
> 
> And climate change.  And ignoring where future energy will come from.
> 
> Two things that it's too bad that we can't have. Standards to be a parent and to be a citizen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you are ignorant of the fact that you are just like Bush, a socialist war-hawk claiming to be a conservative republican.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Next you'll be telling me that I'm just like Ted Cruz,  and you're just like Bill Clinton.
Click to expand...


Yes or no you claim to be a republican?

Yes or no with nearly every single one of your posts you side with socialist solutions?

Yes or no you have defended the acts of War on the South by Lincoln, and Obama's actions in the ME?


----------



## percysunshine

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's what Rotweiner is ignorant of.
> 
> Bush's holy wars.
> 
> Bush's wealth redistribution tax cuts.
> 
> Bush's Great Recession.
> 
> Recovery from Bush's Great Recession.
> 
> Bush's driving US Auto to bankruptcy.
> 
> Bush's driving Wall St into bankruptcy.
> 
> Republican's total disdain for middle America.
> 
> Republican war on progress.
> 
> Bush's failure to prevent 9/11.
> 
> Bush's failure to punish Al Qaida for 9/11.
> 
> But that doesn't mean that he's not in favor of anything.  He greatly supports exchanging millions of American careers for executive bonuses by shipping key manufacturing technology to Communist China.  Why?  So that he can buy cheaper though lead painted toys for his grandchildren.
> 
> And he also favors personal irresponsibility in promoting people who want to send their medical bills to random others.
> 
> And climate change.  And ignoring where future energy will come from.
> 
> Two things that it's too bad that we can't have. Standards to be a parent and to be a citizen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you are ignorant of the fact that you are just like Bush, a socialist war-hawk claiming to be a conservative republican.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Next you'll be telling me that I'm just like Ted Cruz,  and you're just like Bill Clinton.
Click to expand...


Ted Cruz is photogenic. Bill Clinton is photogenic.

Maybe the four of you have something in common.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you are ignorant of the fact that you are just like Bush, a socialist war-hawk claiming to be a conservative republican.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Next you'll be telling me that I'm just like Ted Cruz,  and you're just like Bill Clinton.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes or no you claim to be a republican?
> 
> Yes or no with nearly every single one of your posts you side with socialist solutions?
> 
> Yes or no you have defended the acts of War on the South by Lincoln, and Obama's actions in the ME?
Click to expand...


I've always been a registered Republican because I never gave up hope that they will return to what works.  

Socialism is part of every government on earth.  I think that your point is that I don't run from the boogeyman. 

The Confederacy attacked my country.  Lincoln defended the Union as his oath of office demanded. When it was over he had saved the south from themselves. 

President Obama has ended Bush's holy wars and avoided more war in the middle east.  He extracted retribution for 9/11. He has protected the country from terrorism.


----------



## PMZ

percysunshine said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you are ignorant of the fact that you are just like Bush, a socialist war-hawk claiming to be a conservative republican.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Next you'll be telling me that I'm just like Ted Cruz,  and you're just like Bill Clinton.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ted Cruz is photogenic. Bill Clinton is photogenic.
> 
> Maybe the four of you have something in common.
Click to expand...


I too have trouble with adoring women.  My ubber charming little puppy uses me for a chick magnet all of the time.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Next you'll be telling me that I'm just like Ted Cruz,  and you're just like Bill Clinton.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes or no you claim to be a republican?
> 
> Yes or no with nearly every single one of your posts you side with socialist solutions?
> 
> Yes or no you have defended the acts of War on the South by Lincoln, and Obama's actions in the ME?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've always been a registered Republican because I never gave up hope that they will return to what works.
> 
> Socialism is part of every government on earth.  I think that your point is that I don't run from the boogeyman.
> 
> The Confederacy attacked my country.  Lincoln defended the Union as his oath of office demanded. When it was over he had saved the south from themselves.
> 
> President Obama has ended Bush's holy wars and avoided more war in the middle east.  He extracted retribution for 9/11. He has protected the country from terrorism.
Click to expand...

As I said, you're politics no different than Bush's politics.


----------



## Kimura

PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The government has been forced to fill that gap by the greedy private sector who had failed the people, therefore throwing hundreds of thousands onto the government doorsteps for help, and then when the government tries to help them, the wealthy cry fowl on that one also.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My God, this rant is just _dripping_ with communism. How can the private sector "fail the people" when they were never supposed to exist for the people and owe the people nothing?
> 
> Dumbocrats interference in the private sector (highest corporate tax rate in the _world_) is what has *failed* the people. The more they get involved (Obamacare, Dodd-Frank, etc.) the more the nation fails. The more the nation fails, the more you ask them to get involved to "help". It's a vicious cycle and a comical cluster-fuck of Dumbocrats who are so ignorant, they don't even understand the basic principles of economics or business.
> 
> But here is the most amazing thing about people like you and [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION]: you guys sit on your fat, lazy asses talking about how business owners have failed you. Well, how many jobs have *you* created for other people [MENTION=34109]beagle9[/MENTION]? None. Not a damn one. Not one little job for someone in your entire life. How _dare_ you sit in the bleachers and criticize the performance of the people on the field and actually in the game. I can't imagine the audacity it takes to sit on my fat lazy ass and cry that about what business owners are doing. Great men and women who took great risk and work their ass off while you sit at home living off of their hard earned money.
> 
> See, that's the beauty of the free market beagle9. If you don't like the job options, you can go into business for yourself _any_ time you want. The fact that you're too lazy to start a business and create jobs for other people who desperately need them shows just how greedy and lazy you really are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "How can the private sector "fail the people" when they were never supposed to exist for the people and owe the people"
> 
> Where is this written?
Click to expand...


The health care sector in the US is market failure layered on top on market failure. It's almost laughable if were not so deadly serious in its ramifications.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes or no you claim to be a republican?
> 
> Yes or no with nearly every single one of your posts you side with socialist solutions?
> 
> Yes or no you have defended the acts of War on the South by Lincoln, and Obama's actions in the ME?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've always been a registered Republican because I never gave up hope that they will return to what works.
> 
> Socialism is part of every government on earth.  I think that your point is that I don't run from the boogeyman.
> 
> The Confederacy attacked my country.  Lincoln defended the Union as his oath of office demanded. When it was over he had saved the south from themselves.
> 
> President Obama has ended Bush's holy wars and avoided more war in the middle east.  He extracted retribution for 9/11. He has protected the country from terrorism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As I said, you're politics no different than Bush's politics.
Click to expand...


Then why aren't Republicans defending me?


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've always been a registered Republican because I never gave up hope that they will return to what works.
> 
> Socialism is part of every government on earth.  I think that your point is that I don't run from the boogeyman.
> 
> The Confederacy attacked my country.  Lincoln defended the Union as his oath of office demanded. When it was over he had saved the south from themselves.
> 
> President Obama has ended Bush's holy wars and avoided more war in the middle east.  He extracted retribution for 9/11. He has protected the country from terrorism.
> 
> 
> 
> As I said, you're politics no different than Bush's politics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why aren't Republicans defending me?
Click to expand...


duh..


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bush's wealth redistribution tax cuts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I love the fact that you can't explain this libtard talking point but you post it over and over. Shows that you're a willfully ignorant partisan hack who eschews facts and reality for ideology...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've explained it over and over.  It's explained in numerous place on the web. Also in books and newspapers and economic texts.
> 
> In fact there is only one place it's not explained.  Republican propaganda.
Click to expand...


You haven't explained it - *not* _once_. Because you can't. And posting stuff you can't explain is why you defeat your own position every time... 

You can't "redistribute" what already belonged to someone stupid... 

The fact that you believe you are entitled to what someone else earned shows what a fuck'n dirt bag communist asshole you are. And it also explains why you've been a miserable failure in life.


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The government has been forced to fill that gap by the greedy private sector who had failed the people, therefore throwing hundreds of thousands onto the government doorsteps for help, and then when the government tries to help them, the wealthy cry fowl on that one also.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My God, this rant is just _dripping_ with communism. How can the private sector "fail the people" when they were never supposed to exist for the people and owe the people nothing?
> 
> Dumbocrats interference in the private sector (highest corporate tax rate in the _world_) is what has *failed* the people. The more they get involved (Obamacare, Dodd-Frank, etc.) the more the nation fails. The more the nation fails, the more you ask them to get involved to "help". It's a vicious cycle and a comical cluster-fuck of Dumbocrats who are so ignorant, they don't even understand the basic principles of economics or business.
> 
> But here is the most amazing thing about people like you and [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION]: you guys sit on your fat, lazy asses talking about how business owners have failed you. Well, how many jobs have *you* created for other people [MENTION=34109]beagle9[/MENTION]? None. Not a damn one. Not one little job for someone in your entire life. How _dare_ you sit in the bleachers and criticize the performance of the people on the field and actually in the game. I can't imagine the audacity it takes to sit on my fat lazy ass and cry that about what business owners are doing. Great men and women who took great risk and work their ass off while you sit at home living off of their hard earned money.
> 
> See, that's the beauty of the free market beagle9. If you don't like the job options, you can go into business for yourself _any_ time you want. The fact that you're too lazy to start a business and create jobs for other people who desperately need them shows just how greedy and lazy you really are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "How can the private sector "fail the people" when they were never supposed to exist for the people and owe the people"
> 
> Where is this written?
Click to expand...


Exactly asshole! Where is it written that the private sector exists for the people and owes them anything?

(PMZ is on the verge of accidentally waking up... )


----------



## beagle9

Rottweiler said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one ask for the few to care for the many, just to level the playing field is all people want in these situations
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The playing field was leveled the day the U.S. Constitution was signed into law [MENTION=34109]beagle9[/MENTION]. Every man has the exact same equal opportunity because that document prevents anyone from oppressing you.
> 
> All the left ever does is disingenuously cry "level the playing field" which is nothing but liberal code-word for "I want communism - the few should be forced to labor against their will for the many".
> 
> Have you ever noticed that when you (and your fellow liberals like PMZ) post, you can never cite *anything*? Forget about a link to a reputable cite providing an example of an "unleveled playing field" - you can't even give ONE example in your entire rant.
> 
> You guys eschew all reality and facts for ideology. Where is this supposed "unleveled playing field" beagle9?!? Someone choosing to pump heroin into their veins rather than hold a job with health insurance is not an "unleveled playing field" - it's the *freedom* of an asshole to make bad choices and fail. I love that we have that *freedom*.
Click to expand...

Not talking about all playing fields being leveled where there is no need of this, but just the ones that have purposely been set out of balance because of bad people having power over those fields, and in which because of this these fields have been thrown out of balance all because of, and so here we are talking about health care, and especially for what has happened in this field, but your claim is that it needed no reform at all or nothing needed done ?????? If something needed done, then what should have been done ? Do you have a clue maybe (?), because it seems that many don't these days. 

People have listed all kinds of links, and also facts to show what had been going on over time, and now here you are trying to suggest that people are shooting from their hips on these issues or that they are making up what they live as a reality in their daily lives on these issues, but instead of them lying like we are seeing so many doing for political and power purposes these days, all we get is spin, spin, spin, and right on and right on it just all keeps going.


----------



## beagle9

Rottweiler said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about when the private sector has sought to engage in greed and cheap labor, so they throw away the American workforce by the millions over time (not caring about where they went or who took responsibility for them)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [MENTION=34109]beagle9[/MENTION], my friend, there are simple realities that you _must_ come to grips here:
> 
> 
> Dumbocrat policy of punish success and reward failure has forced every single job that has gone overseas. Just use an ounce of common sense for a second here - if it were cheaper to do business here in the U.S., nobody would _ever_ spend MORE money to ship jobs overseas. They do it because Dumbocrats have made it impossible to stay in business in the U.S. We have the highest corporate tax rate in the world (that's a simple *fact* beagle9). We have some of the most costly, stifling regulations in the world.
> 
> 
> A business exists for one purpose and one purpose *only*: to make money. They do not exist because they owe you a damn thing. They do not exist to make sure Americans have jobs. They exist to make money. If they do not make money, they go out of business. The fact that people such as yourself and Barack Obama do not understand this is why we've experienced the longest period of 8% unemployment (sans the Great Depression) in U.S. history.
> 
> 
> It is not the responsibility of business to "care" where jobs go. Dumbocrats create unsustainable environments, and business try to figure out how to survive those unsustainable environments. In many cases, that means moving your operations overseas to environments that welcome business, not punish them.
> 
> Welcome to reality beagle9. You're going to love it here if and when you dump your absurd ideology for an ounce of reality and common sense.
Click to expand...

No, what happened was the corruption of the upper class, in which yes may have been brought on by what you speak of, but no matter it's still greed and corruption that had been established over time because of the very reasons you gave for this. Now are we an America united or are we supposed to be, and if so wouldn't you think that everyone would consider the impact of their combined actions on America when they act ? If so should we always strive to make sure that when we act in any way that we act in life as Americans, then should we always consider the impact of our actions on our nation, our families and the citizens ? No one owes anyone a damn thing you say eh, and your right to a certain point, but what if the world war two veterans before going into war against Germany and Japan had that attitude before they went into that fight, therefore saying hey it's not my wars, and I have no dog on those fights?  They would also say maybe that they don't owe the British people a damn thing, or the Jews or anyone else a damn thing, and so they would not do anything that would help them out ever, and they could have also said that hey lets just let them Germans and Jews duke it out or kill one another off, along with everyone else in that theater over there back then, now what would that have changed if such an attitude would have won the day ? Attitudes of greed and selfishness will destroy a nation, but a government seeking power and control under a specific leadership, can also breed fear into people as to where this nation is heading in all of this, and just because of the person and his cabinet who is running the place currently, we are in constant gridlock it seems anymore on just about everything. I do think that Barack Obama's early on stance of We (meaning him and his democrats), and going to fundamentally change America for ever. That was the first opening shot across the bow of the establishment from the get go, and it was one that has cast fear and anger in many who saw at that point this Barack Obama as an adversary instead of a President who wanted to work for all in America just as it should be.


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> President Obama...has protected the country from terrorism.



I'm fascinated by [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] 's complete inability to make even the most rudimentary intelligent argument. I shudder to think just how low his IQ is (50 - 60?). With the exception of Bill Clinton, there have been more terrorist attacks under Barack Obama than all presidents in U.S. history _combined_...


On June 1, 2009 Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad walked into a Little Rock, Arkansas recruiting office and shot two men, killing one. The fact that an Al Qaeda operative successfully infiltrated the U.S. under Barack Obama's rule and then murdered is proof of the glaring incompetence of Barack Obama in protecting this nation.


On November 5, 2009 Nidal Hasan shot and killed 13 Americans and injured more than two dozen others. The fact that an Al Qaeda operative successfully infiltrated the U.S. military under Barack Obama's rule and then murdered so many is proof of the glaring incompetence of Barack Obama in protecting this nation.


On Christmas Day, 2009 23-year-old Al Qaeda operative Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab attempted to set off plastic explosives in his underwear. The fact that an Al Qaeda operative successfully boarded a plane with plastic explosives is proof of the glaring incompetence of Barack Obama in protecting this nation. The fact that the bomb failed to go off was simply blind luck.


On May 1, 2010 Faisal Shazhad successfully parked a Jeep Grand Cherokee packed with explosives on Time Square. The fact that an Al Qaeda operative successfully parked an automobile packed with explosives in the middle of New York City is proof of the glaring incompetence of Barack Obama in protecting this nation. The fact that the bomb failed to go off was simply blind luck.


On September 11, 2012 four U.S. government employees were brutally murdered in Benghazi. Despite having months of advance warnings that the attack was pending, Barack Obama forced staff to stay put and ordered additional security to stand down. It is proof of the glaring incompetence of Barack Obama in protecting this nation.


On April 15, 2013 3 U.S. citizens were killed and many more injured when multiple bombs exploded during the Boston Marathon. Despite having been warned by Russia about the terrorists and their activities, Barack Obama made the decision to ignore them and instead instructed the NSA to spy on Americans. It is proof of the glaring incompetence of Barack Obama in protecting this nation.


----------



## P@triot

beagle9 said:


> No one owes anyone a damn thing you say eh, and your right to a certain point, but what if the world war two veterans before going into war against Germany and Japan had that attitude before they went into that fight, therefore saying hey it's not my wars, and I have no dog on those fights?  They would also say maybe that they don't owe the British people a damn thing, or the Jews or anyone else a damn thing, and so they would not doing anything that would help them out ever, and they could have said hey lets just let them Germans and Jews duke it out or kill one another off, along with everyone else in that theater over there back then, now what would that have changed if such an attitude would have won the day ?



You need to brush up on your history my friend. That is _exactly_ what America did for 7 years. Despite being begged by Winston Churchill and England (among many others) we literally told them "hey, it's not our problem".

It wasn't until Japan bombed Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1942 that we entered the fray. Would you like to try again? Perhaps with a better analogy?


----------



## P@triot

beagle9 said:


> I do think that Barack Obama's early on stance of We (meaning him and his democrats), and going to fundamentally change America for ever. That was the first opening shot across the bow of the establishment from the get go, and it was one that has cast fear and anger in many who saw at that point this Barack Obama as an adversary instead of a President who wanted to work for all in America just as it should be.



Kudos on an honest assessment though [MENTION=34109]beagle9[/MENTION]. I very rarely see a moment of honesty from the left or criticism of Obama from them.

But here is the bottom line in this debate - the U.S. Constitution guarantees me freedom and *nobody* has the right to take that away. Even if they think taking away my freedom is "for the good".

If you believe so strongly that corporations have a civic duty, then I have to ask one glaring and obvious question: why don't you carry your civic duty and start a corporation which eschews profits for civic duty? You can't call someone else out for what you yourself are not willing to do. Doing so is called hypocrisy and it is despicable.


----------



## beagle9

Rottweiler said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one owes anyone a damn thing you say eh, and your right to a certain point, but what if the world war two veterans before going into war against Germany and Japan had that attitude before they went into that fight, therefore saying hey it's not my wars, and I have no dog on those fights?  They would also say maybe that they don't owe the British people a damn thing, or the Jews or anyone else a damn thing, and so they would not doing anything that would help them out ever, and they could have said hey lets just let them Germans and Jews duke it out or kill one another off, along with everyone else in that theater over there back then, now what would that have changed if such an attitude would have won the day ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You need to brush up on your history my friend. That is _exactly_ what America did for 7 years. Despite being begged by Winston Churchill and England (among many others) we literally told them "hey, it's not our problem".
> 
> It wasn't until Japan bombed Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1942 that we entered the fray. Would you like to try again? Perhaps with a better analogy?
Click to expand...

The analogy still stands as the world was on fire back then, and if your attitude would have prevailed back then as it does today, then we would all be under someone else's rule by now, and your freedoms would have been null and voided afterwards, so you think it never should apply this attitude of goodness and compassion that we all possess eh ? Why, because it's just to dangerous in the wrong hands now, even if it's to help our fellow man under dire circumstances these days ? Personally I think they elected the wrong man in this Barack Obama, and I think he is actually hurting America because of his agenda, his radicalness and his carelessness in which he has had instead of attempting to be a uniter, where as we do mostly know now that he is a divider of this nation instead.


----------



## beagle9

Rottweiler said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do think that Barack Obama's early on stance of We (meaning him and his democrats), and going to fundamentally change America for ever. That was the first opening shot across the bow of the establishment from the get go, and it was one that has cast fear and anger in many who saw at that point this Barack Obama as an adversary instead of a President who wanted to work for all in America just as it should be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kudos on an honest assessment though [MENTION=34109]beagle9[/MENTION]. I very rarely see a moment of honesty from the left or criticism of Obama from them.
> 
> But here is the bottom line in this debate - the U.S. Constitution guarantees me freedom and *nobody* has the right to take that away. Even if they think taking away my freedom is "for the good".
> 
> If you believe so strongly that corporations have a civic duty, then I have to ask one glaring and obvious question: why don't you carry your civic duty and start a corporation which eschews profits for civic duty? You can't call someone else out for what you yourself are not willing to do. Doing so is called hypocrisy and it is despicable.
Click to expand...

Why do you try and paint my character into some form of character that I am not or why have you created a character in me that suits your debating style here, and then once you do this, you next try to deal with what you have created as if I am watching not from here, but rather I am watching a show that is on TV in which is that of someone for whom I am not in character, but yet here I am being someone that you wish I weren't, so next you try and re-create me with your words for your own benefit in the scheme of things ? Pitiful... LOL


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love the fact that you can't explain this libtard talking point but you post it over and over. Shows that you're a willfully ignorant partisan hack who eschews facts and reality for ideology...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've explained it over and over.  It's explained in numerous place on the web. Also in books and newspapers and economic texts.
> 
> In fact there is only one place it's not explained.  Republican propaganda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You haven't explained it - *not* _once_. Because you can't. And posting stuff you can't explain is why you defeat your own position every time...
> 
> You can't "redistribute" what already belonged to someone stupid...
> 
> The fact that you believe you are entitled to what someone else earned shows what a fuck'n dirt bag communist asshole you are. And it also explains why you've been a miserable failure in life.
Click to expand...


Rotweiner at his best.  The poster boy for ignorant rednecks.  The best recruiter for liberals yet.


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> My God, this rant is just _dripping_ with communism. How can the private sector "fail the people" when they were never supposed to exist for the people and owe the people nothing?
> 
> Dumbocrats interference in the private sector (highest corporate tax rate in the _world_) is what has *failed* the people. The more they get involved (Obamacare, Dodd-Frank, etc.) the more the nation fails. The more the nation fails, the more you ask them to get involved to "help". It's a vicious cycle and a comical cluster-fuck of Dumbocrats who are so ignorant, they don't even understand the basic principles of economics or business.
> 
> But here is the most amazing thing about people like you and [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION]: you guys sit on your fat, lazy asses talking about how business owners have failed you. Well, how many jobs have *you* created for other people [MENTION=34109]beagle9[/MENTION]? None. Not a damn one. Not one little job for someone in your entire life. How _dare_ you sit in the bleachers and criticize the performance of the people on the field and actually in the game. I can't imagine the audacity it takes to sit on my fat lazy ass and cry that about what business owners are doing. Great men and women who took great risk and work their ass off while you sit at home living off of their hard earned money.
> 
> See, that's the beauty of the free market beagle9. If you don't like the job options, you can go into business for yourself _any_ time you want. The fact that you're too lazy to start a business and create jobs for other people who desperately need them shows just how greedy and lazy you really are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "How can the private sector "fail the people" when they were never supposed to exist for the people and owe the people"
> 
> Where is this written?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly asshole! Where is it written that the private sector exists for the people and owes them anything?
> 
> (PMZ is on the verge of accidentally waking up... )
Click to expand...


You're the one who said it like it was chisseled in stone.  Did you just make it up? If not on what stone is it chisseled?


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do think that Barack Obama's early on stance of We (meaning him and his democrats), and going to fundamentally change America for ever. That was the first opening shot across the bow of the establishment from the get go, and it was one that has cast fear and anger in many who saw at that point this Barack Obama as an adversary instead of a President who wanted to work for all in America just as it should be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kudos on an honest assessment though [MENTION=34109]beagle9[/MENTION]. I very rarely see a moment of honesty from the left or criticism of Obama from them.
> 
> But here is the bottom line in this debate - the U.S. Constitution guarantees me freedom and *nobody* has the right to take that away. Even if they think taking away my freedom is "for the good".
> 
> If you believe so strongly that corporations have a civic duty, then I have to ask one glaring and obvious question: why don't you carry your civic duty and start a corporation which eschews profits for civic duty? You can't call someone else out for what you yourself are not willing to do. Doing so is called hypocrisy and it is despicable.
Click to expand...


A display of massive ignorance. 

Our Constitution is the bylaws of our government.  It specifies what their responsibilities and duties are.  The Bill of rights specifies a handful of areas that they are not permitted to legislate within. Those are the specific areas which have alway remained free of restrictions. 

Back in the day of competent business leadership, corporations accepted that their employees and their customers we're from the same population,  which was also the electorate of the communities that they did business in.  And that the closer the employees got to the customers,  the better off everyone was. Corporations were communities within communities. 

Once many businesses returned to feudalism, that entire virtuous connection failed and instead there was competition instead of collaboration between workers/customers/electorate and executives.  That was made worse by executives discovering how lucrative it could be to suck up to shareholders who cared nothing about long term success and would reward short term share price increase lavishly. 

The most productive economy the world has ever known was killed,  the concept of one country dismantled,  the wealth redirected away from those who create it,  to those who feel entitled to it,  and the core of America industry sent overseas. 

Republicans were the heart of business. Democrats were the heart of the workers/customers/electorate. Congress was where statesmen worked out solutions that satisfied both. 

Conservatives have destroyed all of that,  but all hope is not gone. 

We need them out of government until they return to responsibility.  That simple.  If we fire them all they will get the message.


----------



## dblack

PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do think that Barack Obama's early on stance of We (meaning him and his democrats), and going to fundamentally change America for ever. That was the first opening shot across the bow of the establishment from the get go, and it was one that has cast fear and anger in many who saw at that point this Barack Obama as an adversary instead of a President who wanted to work for all in America just as it should be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kudos on an honest assessment though [MENTION=34109]beagle9[/MENTION]. I very rarely see a moment of honesty from the left or criticism of Obama from them.
> 
> But here is the bottom line in this debate - the U.S. Constitution guarantees me freedom and *nobody* has the right to take that away. Even if they think taking away my freedom is "for the good".
> 
> If you believe so strongly that corporations have a civic duty, then I have to ask one glaring and obvious question: why don't you carry your civic duty and start a corporation which eschews profits for civic duty? You can't call someone else out for what you yourself are not willing to do. Doing so is called hypocrisy and it is despicable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A display of massive ignorance.
> 
> Our Constitution is the bylaws of our government.  It specifies what their responsibilities and duties are.  The Bill of rights specifies a handful of areas that they are not permitted to legislate within. Those are the specific areas which have alway remained free of restrictions.
> 
> Back in the day of competent business leadership, corporations accepted that their employees and their customers we're from the same population,  which was also the electorate of the communities that they did business in.  And that the closer the employees got to the customers,  the better off everyone was. Corporations were communities within communities.
> 
> Once many businesses returned to feudalism, that entire virtuous connection failed and instead there was competition instead of collaboration between workers/customers/electorate and executives.  That was made worse by executives discovering how lucrative it could be to suck up to shareholders who cared nothing about long term success and would reward short term share price increase lavishly.
> 
> The most productive economy the world has ever known was killed,  the concept of one country dismantled,  the wealth redirected away from those who create it,  to those who feel entitled to it,  and the core of America industry sent overseas.
> 
> Republicans were the heart of business. Democrats were the heart of the workers/customers/electorate. Congress was where statesmen worked out solutions that satisfied both.
> 
> Conservatives have destroyed all of that,  but all hope is not gone.
> 
> We need them out of government until they return to responsibility.  That simple.  If we fire them all they will get the message.
Click to expand...


Do you realize that what you're envisioning as ideal government is essentially 'corporatism'?


----------



## P@triot

beagle9 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one owes anyone a damn thing you say eh, and your right to a certain point, but what if the world war two veterans before going into war against Germany and Japan had that attitude before they went into that fight, therefore saying hey it's not my wars, and I have no dog on those fights?  They would also say maybe that they don't owe the British people a damn thing, or the Jews or anyone else a damn thing, and so they would not doing anything that would help them out ever, and they could have said hey lets just let them Germans and Jews duke it out or kill one another off, along with everyone else in that theater over there back then, now what would that have changed if such an attitude would have won the day ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You need to brush up on your history my friend. That is _exactly_ what America did for 7 years. Despite being begged by Winston Churchill and England (among many others) we literally told them "hey, it's not our problem".
> 
> It wasn't until Japan bombed Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1942 that we entered the fray. Would you like to try again? Perhaps with a better analogy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The analogy still stands as the world was on fire back then, and if your attitude would have prevailed back then as it does today, then we would all be under someone else's rule by now, and your freedoms would have been null and voided afterwards, so you think it never should apply this attitude of goodness and compassion that we all possess eh ? Why, because it's just to dangerous in the wrong hands now, even if it's to help our fellow man under dire circumstances these days ? Personally I think they elected the wrong man in this Barack Obama, and I think he is actually hurting America because of his agenda, his radicalness and his carelessness in which he has had instead of attempting to be a uniter, where as we do mostly know now that he is a divider of this nation instead.
Click to expand...


How exactly does your analogy "still stand" when we did exactly the opposite of what you initially claimed?


----------



## P@triot

beagle9 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do think that Barack Obama's early on stance of We (meaning him and his democrats), and going to fundamentally change America for ever. That was the first opening shot across the bow of the establishment from the get go, and it was one that has cast fear and anger in many who saw at that point this Barack Obama as an adversary instead of a President who wanted to work for all in America just as it should be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kudos on an honest assessment though [MENTION=34109]beagle9[/MENTION]. I very rarely see a moment of honesty from the left or criticism of Obama from them.
> 
> But here is the bottom line in this debate - the U.S. Constitution guarantees me freedom and *nobody* has the right to take that away. Even if they think taking away my freedom is "for the good".
> 
> If you believe so strongly that corporations have a civic duty, then I have to ask one glaring and obvious question: why don't you carry your civic duty and start a corporation which eschews profits for civic duty? You can't call someone else out for what you yourself are not willing to do. Doing so is called hypocrisy and it is despicable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you try and paint my character into some form of character that I am not or why have you created a character in me that suits your debating style here, and then once you do this, you next try to deal with what you have created as if I am watching not from here, but rather I am watching a show that is on TV in which is that of someone for whom I am not in character, but yet here I am being someone that you wish I weren't, so next you try and re-create me with your words for your own benefit in the scheme of things ? Pitiful... LOL
Click to expand...


_Jesus_... can you say run-on sentence? Regroup and repost something _coherent_.


----------



## P@triot

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> President Obama...has protected the country from terrorism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm fascinated by  [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] 's complete inability to make even the most rudimentary intelligent argument. I shudder to think just how low his IQ is (50 - 60?). With the exception of Bill Clinton, there have been more terrorist attacks under Barack Obama than all presidents in U.S. history _combined_...
> 
> 
> On June 1, 2009 Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad walked into a Little Rock, Arkansas recruiting office and shot two men, killing one. The fact that an Al Qaeda operative successfully infiltrated the U.S. under Barack Obama's rule and then murdered is proof of the glaring incompetence of Barack Obama in protecting this nation.
> 
> 
> On November 5, 2009 Nidal Hasan shot and killed 13 Americans and injured more than two dozen others. The fact that an Al Qaeda operative successfully infiltrated the U.S. military under Barack Obama's rule and then murdered so many is proof of the glaring incompetence of Barack Obama in protecting this nation.
> 
> 
> On Christmas Day, 2009 23-year-old Al Qaeda operative Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab attempted to set off plastic explosives in his underwear. The fact that an Al Qaeda operative successfully boarded a plane with plastic explosives is proof of the glaring incompetence of Barack Obama in protecting this nation. The fact that the bomb failed to go off was simply blind luck.
> 
> 
> On May 1, 2010 Faisal Shazhad successfully parked a Jeep Grand Cherokee packed with explosives on Time Square. The fact that an Al Qaeda operative successfully parked an automobile packed with explosives in the middle of New York City is proof of the glaring incompetence of Barack Obama in protecting this nation. The fact that the bomb failed to go off was simply blind luck.
> 
> 
> On September 11, 2012 four U.S. government employees were brutally murdered in Benghazi. Despite having months of advance warnings that the attack was pending, Barack Obama forced staff to stay put and ordered additional security to stand down. It is proof of the glaring incompetence of Barack Obama in protecting this nation.
> 
> 
> On April 15, 2013 3 U.S. citizens were killed and many more injured when multiple bombs exploded during the Boston Marathon. Despite having been warned by Russia about the terrorists and their activities, Barack Obama made the decision to ignore them and instead instructed the NSA to spy on Americans. It is proof of the glaring incompetence of Barack Obama in protecting this nation.
Click to expand...


 [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] wisely skipped this post. He didn't want to highlight his ignorance any further...


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> President Obama...has protected the country from terrorism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm fascinated by  [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] 's complete inability to make even the most rudimentary intelligent argument. I shudder to think just how low his IQ is (50 - 60?). With the exception of Bill Clinton, there have been more terrorist attacks under Barack Obama than all presidents in U.S. history _combined_...
> 
> 
> On June 1, 2009 Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad walked into a Little Rock, Arkansas recruiting office and shot two men, killing one. The fact that an Al Qaeda operative successfully infiltrated the U.S. under Barack Obama's rule and then murdered is proof of the glaring incompetence of Barack Obama in protecting this nation.
> 
> 
> On November 5, 2009 Nidal Hasan shot and killed 13 Americans and injured more than two dozen others. The fact that an Al Qaeda operative successfully infiltrated the U.S. military under Barack Obama's rule and then murdered so many is proof of the glaring incompetence of Barack Obama in protecting this nation.
> 
> 
> On Christmas Day, 2009 23-year-old Al Qaeda operative Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab attempted to set off plastic explosives in his underwear. The fact that an Al Qaeda operative successfully boarded a plane with plastic explosives is proof of the glaring incompetence of Barack Obama in protecting this nation. The fact that the bomb failed to go off was simply blind luck.
> 
> 
> On May 1, 2010 Faisal Shazhad successfully parked a Jeep Grand Cherokee packed with explosives on Time Square. The fact that an Al Qaeda operative successfully parked an automobile packed with explosives in the middle of New York City is proof of the glaring incompetence of Barack Obama in protecting this nation. The fact that the bomb failed to go off was simply blind luck.
> 
> 
> On September 11, 2012 four U.S. government employees were brutally murdered in Benghazi. Despite having months of advance warnings that the attack was pending, Barack Obama forced staff to stay put and ordered additional security to stand down. It is proof of the glaring incompetence of Barack Obama in protecting this nation.
> 
> 
> On April 15, 2013 3 U.S. citizens were killed and many more injured when multiple bombs exploded during the Boston Marathon. Despite having been warned by Russia about the terrorists and their activities, Barack Obama made the decision to ignore them and instead instructed the NSA to spy on Americans. It is proof of the glaring incompetence of Barack Obama in protecting this nation.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] wisely skipped this post. He didn't want to highlight his ignorance any further...
Click to expand...


Compare  them to 9/11.


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> The most productive economy the world has ever known was killed,  the concept of one country dismantled,  the wealth redirected away from those who create it,  to those who feel entitled to it,  and the core of America industry sent overseas.



For once you're right [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] - liberalism has dismantled this country, redirected wealth away from those who create it to parasites like you who inexplicably feel entitled to it, and sent the core of American industry overseas.

The question is, if you know this, why do you continue to support failed liberal policy?


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm fascinated by  [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] 's complete inability to make even the most rudimentary intelligent argument. I shudder to think just how low his IQ is (50 - 60?). With the exception of Bill Clinton, there have been more terrorist attacks under Barack Obama than all presidents in U.S. history _combined_...
> 
> 
> On June 1, 2009 Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad walked into a Little Rock, Arkansas recruiting office and shot two men, killing one. The fact that an Al Qaeda operative successfully infiltrated the U.S. under Barack Obama's rule and then murdered is proof of the glaring incompetence of Barack Obama in protecting this nation.
> 
> 
> On November 5, 2009 Nidal Hasan shot and killed 13 Americans and injured more than two dozen others. The fact that an Al Qaeda operative successfully infiltrated the U.S. military under Barack Obama's rule and then murdered so many is proof of the glaring incompetence of Barack Obama in protecting this nation.
> 
> 
> On Christmas Day, 2009 23-year-old Al Qaeda operative Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab attempted to set off plastic explosives in his underwear. The fact that an Al Qaeda operative successfully boarded a plane with plastic explosives is proof of the glaring incompetence of Barack Obama in protecting this nation. The fact that the bomb failed to go off was simply blind luck.
> 
> 
> On May 1, 2010 Faisal Shazhad successfully parked a Jeep Grand Cherokee packed with explosives on Time Square. The fact that an Al Qaeda operative successfully parked an automobile packed with explosives in the middle of New York City is proof of the glaring incompetence of Barack Obama in protecting this nation. The fact that the bomb failed to go off was simply blind luck.
> 
> 
> On September 11, 2012 four U.S. government employees were brutally murdered in Benghazi. Despite having months of advance warnings that the attack was pending, Barack Obama forced staff to stay put and ordered additional security to stand down. It is proof of the glaring incompetence of Barack Obama in protecting this nation.
> 
> 
> On April 15, 2013 3 U.S. citizens were killed and many more injured when multiple bombs exploded during the Boston Marathon. Despite having been warned by Russia about the terrorists and their activities, Barack Obama made the decision to ignore them and instead instructed the NSA to spy on Americans. It is proof of the glaring incompetence of Barack Obama in protecting this nation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] wisely skipped this post. He didn't want to highlight his ignorance any further...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Compare  them to 9/11.
Click to expand...


Moving the goal posts PMZ?!? You said "Barack Obama has protected this country from terrorism". The fact is, we've suffered MORE terrorist attacks under Barack Obama than any other president except for Bill Clinton.

You have zero credibility left PMZ. You're a partisan hack who parrots absurd, outrageous, and easily disprovable lies.


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> The most productive economy the world has ever known was killed,  the concept of one country dismantled,  the wealth redirected away from those who create it,  to those who feel entitled to it,  and the core of America industry sent overseas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For once you're right [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] - liberalism has dismantled this country, redirected wealth away from those who create it to parasites like you who inexplicably feel entitled to it, and sent the core of American industry overseas.
> 
> The question is, if you know this, why do you continue to support failed liberal policy?
Click to expand...


If you were sane,  you'd realize that there has been only one political change in this country.  The contamination of the GOP by dixiecrats.  

The Democrats are largely unchanged.  Centrists.  People oriented.  People who see government as the will of we,  the people. The force that keeps us free. 

Real Republicans are also unchanged.  Just marginalized by extremism.  The American Taliban. Media conservatives who give up thinking for themselves in favor of accepting Fox opinions based on Fox facts built on what Republicans wish was true. 

Republican failure since the influx of dixiecrats is legion.  One mega failure after another.  $17T in debt due to the imposition of what conservatives wish for, on the good people of  America. 

We're done.  You're out.  You are unaffordable.  You are unable to govern. You are the antithesis of statesmen.  You are fired.


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> The most productive economy the world has ever known was killed,  the concept of one country dismantled,  the wealth redirected away from those who create it,  to those who feel entitled to it,  and the core of America industry sent overseas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For once you're right [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] - liberalism has dismantled this country, redirected wealth away from those who create it to parasites like you who inexplicably feel entitled to it, and sent the core of American industry overseas.
> 
> The question is, if you know this, why do you continue to support failed liberal policy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you were sane,  you'd realize that there has been only one political change in this country.  The contamination of the GOP by dixiecrats.
> 
> The Democrats are largely unchanged.  Centrists.  People oriented.  People who see government as the will of we,  the people. The force that keeps us free.
> 
> Real Republicans are also unchanged.  Just marginalized by extremism.  The American Taliban. Media conservatives who give up thinking for themselves in favor of accepting Fox opinions based on Fox facts built on what Republicans wish was true.
> 
> Republican failure since the influx of dixiecrats is legion.  One mega failure after another.  $17T in debt due to the imposition of what conservatives wish for, on the good people of  America.
> 
> We're done.  You're out.  You are unaffordable.  You are unable to govern. You are the antithesis of statesmen.  You are fired.
Click to expand...


PMZ, buddy, I've already proven you have _no_ idea what you are talking about.

When Barack Obama took office, the national debt stood at $10 trillion dollars (amassed over 230 years). It took Obama and the Dumbocrats only 4.5 years to add $7 trillion to it (this proves you have no idea what you are talking about).

You _think_ Barack Obama "saved the economy". Under George W. Bush, unemployment was in the 6% range and never went above the 7% range at worst. Under Barack Obama, unemployment skyrocketed to 10% and has never gone below 8% (this proves you have no idea what you are talking about).

You _think_ Barack Obama "kept this nation safe from terrorism". But under Barack Obama, we have suffered more terrorist attacks than any president in U.S. history except for Bill Clinton (this proves you have no idea what you are talking about).

Another example of your comical absurdity - you complain about "corporate welfare" and then praise Obama for bailing out incompetent companies which should have been left to fail. 

Here's the bottom line - the Dumbocrat party has been completely hijacked by communists/socialists/marxists and is radically left of center. The only liberals left have flocked to the Republican Party which has transformed that party significantly left of center (George Bush was a liberal fantasy come true - expand govenrment, spend recklessly, and piss all over the Constitution). The Constitution is "ground zero" and the epitome of "centrist". And that is exactly why the Tea Party is the only sane, centrist, rational group in America. All they have ever advocated is for the federal government to be forced to adhere to the highest law in the land. Nothing more. Nothing less. Libertarians, Sovereign Citizens, and Anarchists are the right's radical equivalent of the Dumbocrats. JFK adamently declared that lowering taxes was the only way to save a struggling economy. Today the Dumbocrat party is so unhinged, anyone who says the exact same thing (which is the truth) is declared by them to be "tea party radicals".

You're party is unhinged PMZ. And you are a willfully ignorant soldier for the party - trading your rights and freedoms for the most pathetic government table scraps. All of which has exposed you on USMB for being the ignorant partisan hack that you are. You have zero credibility and nobody takes anything you say seriously. It's your own fault.

Modern Democrats Would View John F. Kennedy As A Reaganite Extremist - Forbes


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've explained it over and over.  It's explained in numerous place on the web. Also in books and newspapers and economic texts.
> 
> In fact there is only one place it's not explained.  Republican propaganda.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You haven't explained it - *not* _once_. Because you can't. And posting stuff you can't explain is why you defeat your own position every time...
> 
> You can't "redistribute" what already belonged to someone stupid...
> 
> The fact that you believe you are entitled to what someone else earned shows what a fuck'n dirt bag communist asshole you are. And it also explains why you've been a miserable failure in life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rotweiner at his best.  The poster boy for ignorant rednecks.  The best recruiter for liberals yet.
Click to expand...


I love how frustrated you get when I expose your ignorance. You can't "redistribute" something which already belonged to that person - which is why you can't explain your absurd statement while I can explain your idiocy. Once again, I win, you lose.


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do think that Barack Obama's early on stance of We (meaning him and his democrats), and going to fundamentally change America for ever. That was the first opening shot across the bow of the establishment from the get go, and it was one that has cast fear and anger in many who saw at that point this Barack Obama as an adversary instead of a President who wanted to work for all in America just as it should be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kudos on an honest assessment though [MENTION=34109]beagle9[/MENTION]. I very rarely see a moment of honesty from the left or criticism of Obama from them.
> 
> But here is the bottom line in this debate - the U.S. Constitution guarantees me freedom and *nobody* has the right to take that away. Even if they think taking away my freedom is "for the good".
> 
> If you believe so strongly that corporations have a civic duty, then I have to ask one glaring and obvious question: why don't you carry your civic duty and start a corporation which eschews profits for civic duty? You can't call someone else out for what you yourself are not willing to do. Doing so is called hypocrisy and it is despicable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A display of massive ignorance.
Click to expand...


Yes PMZ - you do display "massive ignorance" every time you post.

Tell me again why you refuse to do your civic duty and create jobs for your fellow citizens? Was it because you are too lazy? Or was it because you are too incompetent? Oh wait, that's right, you said it was both.

It's amazing that you refuse to do your civic duty but you'll complain about those who actually have created jobs for your fellow citizen. Kind of shows what an asshole you are, you know?


----------



## beagle9

Rottweiler said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kudos on an honest assessment though [MENTION=34109]beagle9[/MENTION]. I very rarely see a moment of honesty from the left or criticism of Obama from them.
> 
> But here is the bottom line in this debate - the U.S. Constitution guarantees me freedom and *nobody* has the right to take that away. Even if they think taking away my freedom is "for the good".
> 
> If you believe so strongly that corporations have a civic duty, then I have to ask one glaring and obvious question: why don't you carry your civic duty and start a corporation which eschews profits for civic duty? You can't call someone else out for what you yourself are not willing to do. Doing so is called hypocrisy and it is despicable.
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you try and paint my character into some form of character that I am not or why have you created a character in me that suits your debating style here, and then once you do this, you next try to deal with what you have created as if I am watching not from here, but rather I am watching a show that is on TV in which is that of someone for whom I am not in character, but yet here I am being someone that you wish I weren't, so next you try and re-create me with your words for your own benefit in the scheme of things ? Pitiful... LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _Jesus_... can you say run-on sentence? Regroup and repost something _coherent_.
Click to expand...

Run on or not, you understood it unless you are just trying to deflect what I have said now, in which you know I'm right on now don't you ? 

I see your style of debate here, and I see right through you in this way. You separate post and then answer what you have set up in order to create an answer to what you want in the way that you want upon what you have separated.   This you do in order for it to be set up in this way as a tactic to deflect or confuse somehow.  You like taking things out of context I see, and this you do in order to confuse others about what might be going on between you and another poster when debating them.  Is it that you do this in order to gain an upper hand or to confuse others about the valuable points that are being made by your opponent against your positions taken ? It doesn't work though, because people here are equally as smart as you are, and so what you are doing is actually setting yourself up for others whom see this, to then move in on you quickly after exposing yourself in this way. Maybe I better leave you be, just so you won't expose your weakness like this among others that are here.


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why did Obama leave all of Bush's policies in tact?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He dug us out of the Bush Great Recession.
> 
> He restored order from Wall St chaos.
> 
> He saved US auto.
Click to expand...


Wait..._what_? I thought you said Obama "dug us out of the recession" that he created? 

PMZ's extraordinary ignorance illustrated once again. Ladies & Gentlemen, welcome to a Dumbocrat economy. They collapsed Detroit. They _will_ collapse the United States if we allow them...

Nation's poor at 49.7 million, higher than official rate


----------



## P@triot

beagle9 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you try and paint my character into some form of character that I am not or why have you created a character in me that suits your debating style here, and then once you do this, you next try to deal with what you have created as if I am watching not from here, but rather I am watching a show that is on TV in which is that of someone for whom I am not in character, but yet here I am being someone that you wish I weren't, so next you try and re-create me with your words for your own benefit in the scheme of things ? Pitiful... LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Jesus_... can you say run-on sentence? Regroup and repost something _coherent_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Run on or not, you understood it unless you are just trying to deflect what I have said now, in which you know I'm right on now don't you ?
> 
> I see your style of debate here, and I see right through you in this way. *You separate post and then answer what you have set up in order to create an answer to what you want in the way that you want upon what you have separated*.   This you do in order for it to be set up in this way as a tactic to deflect or confuse somehow.  You like taking things out of context I see, and this you do in order to confuse others about what might be going on between you and another poster when debating them.  Is it that you do this in order to gain an upper hand or to confuse others about the valuable points that are being made by your opponent against your positions taken ? It doesn't work though, because people here are equally as smart as you are, and so what you are doing is actually setting yourself up for others whom see this, to then move in on you quickly after exposing yourself in this way. Maybe I better leave you be, just so you won't expose your weakness like this among others that are here.
Click to expand...


Beagle, your grammar is atrocious (no wonder you're a Dumbocrat - you're education is pitiful). I seriously can't even understand half of what you're saying. You ramble on incoherently and with absolutely atrocious grammar.

Read the bolded part above - it's not even coherent.

As far as "separating" posts - I do that so I don't ramble on like you do. I break it down into simple, short posts so that everyone can follow and nobody skips it (like they do your posts) because they don't want to spend 20 minutes on a single post.

You're upset because by simplifying you're incoherent ramblings, I'm exposing your ignorance (as if your atrocious grammar doesn't do that enough). Deal with it. *Nothing* has been taken out of context. If it has, you would be able to expose that. And you can't. Instead, you just create the most extreme run-on sentences and omit punctuation.


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Jesus_... can you say run-on sentence? Regroup and repost something _coherent_.
> 
> 
> 
> Run on or not, you understood it unless you are just trying to deflect what I have said now, in which you know I'm right on now don't you ?
> 
> I see your style of debate here, and I see right through you in this way. *You separate post and then answer what you have set up in order to create an answer to what you want in the way that you want upon what you have separated*.   This you do in order for it to be set up in this way as a tactic to deflect or confuse somehow.  You like taking things out of context I see, and this you do in order to confuse others about what might be going on between you and another poster when debating them.  Is it that you do this in order to gain an upper hand or to confuse others about the valuable points that are being made by your opponent against your positions taken ? It doesn't work though, because people here are equally as smart as you are, and so what you are doing is actually setting yourself up for others whom see this, to then move in on you quickly after exposing yourself in this way. Maybe I better leave you be, just so you won't expose your weakness like this among others that are here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Beagle, your grammar is atrocious (no wonder you're a Dumbocrat - you're education is pitiful). I seriously can't even understand half of what you're saying. You ramble on incoherently and with absolutely atrocious grammar.
> 
> Read the bolded part above - it's not even coherent.
> 
> As far as "separating" posts - I do that so I don't ramble on like you do. I break it down into simple, short posts so that everyone can follow and nobody skips it (like they do your posts) because they don't want to spend 20 minutes on a single post.
> 
> You're upset because by simplifying you're incoherent ramblings, I'm exposing your ignorance (as if your atrocious grammar doesn't do that enough). Deal with it. *Nothing* has been taken out of context. If it has, you would be able to expose that. And you can't. Instead, you just create the most extreme run-on sentences and omit punctuation.
Click to expand...


The concept of you exposing Beagle's ignorance is the ultimate in irony. 

You do it in every post.  But not Beagle's.


----------



## P@triot

I'm not sure how canceling people's health insurance by the *millions* is helping anyone...

Nearly 250,000 Colorado healthcare plans cancelled under Obamacare | KDVR.com


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why did Obama leave all of Bush's policies in tact?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He dug us out of the Bush Great Recession.
> 
> He restored order from Wall St chaos.
> 
> He saved US auto.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wait..._what_? I thought you said Obama "dug us out of the recession" that he created?
> 
> PMZ's extraordinary ignorance illustrated once again. Ladies & Gentlemen, welcome to a Dumbocrat economy. They collapsed Detroit. They _will_ collapse the United States if we allow them...
> 
> Nation's poor at 49.7 million, higher than official rate
Click to expand...


Don't remember 2007, 2008, 2009, do you. 

They were the classic conclusion to the Bush reign of ignorance.  The wars,  the wealth redistribution,  the crashing economy,  Nero fiddling. 

They will live in infamy as the textbook consequences of conservatism.


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Run on or not, you understood it unless you are just trying to deflect what I have said now, in which you know I'm right on now don't you ?
> 
> I see your style of debate here, and I see right through you in this way. *You separate post and then answer what you have set up in order to create an answer to what you want in the way that you want upon what you have separated*.   This you do in order for it to be set up in this way as a tactic to deflect or confuse somehow.  You like taking things out of context I see, and this you do in order to confuse others about what might be going on between you and another poster when debating them.  Is it that you do this in order to gain an upper hand or to confuse others about the valuable points that are being made by your opponent against your positions taken ? It doesn't work though, because people here are equally as smart as you are, and so what you are doing is actually setting yourself up for others whom see this, to then move in on you quickly after exposing yourself in this way. Maybe I better leave you be, just so you won't expose your weakness like this among others that are here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Beagle, your grammar is atrocious (no wonder you're a Dumbocrat - you're education is pitiful). I seriously can't even understand half of what you're saying. You ramble on incoherently and with absolutely atrocious grammar.
> 
> Read the bolded part above - it's not even coherent.
> 
> As far as "separating" posts - I do that so I don't ramble on like you do. I break it down into simple, short posts so that everyone can follow and nobody skips it (like they do your posts) because they don't want to spend 20 minutes on a single post.
> 
> You're upset because by simplifying you're incoherent ramblings, I'm exposing your ignorance (as if your atrocious grammar doesn't do that enough). Deal with it. *Nothing* has been taken out of context. If it has, you would be able to expose that. And you can't. Instead, you just create the most extreme run-on sentences and omit punctuation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The concept of you exposing Beagle's ignorance is the ultimate in irony.
> 
> You do it in every post.  But not Beagle's.
Click to expand...


PMZ - you're just crying like a little girl because I've _owned_ you with facts and you know it. Look how many links I have in this thread alone. You've added nothing but your own ignorant _opinions_.


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> For once you're right [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] - liberalism has dismantled this country, redirected wealth away from those who create it to parasites like you who inexplicably feel entitled to it, and sent the core of American industry overseas.
> 
> The question is, if you know this, why do you continue to support failed liberal policy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you were sane,  you'd realize that there has been only one political change in this country.  The contamination of the GOP by dixiecrats.
> 
> The Democrats are largely unchanged.  Centrists.  People oriented.  People who see government as the will of we,  the people. The force that keeps us free.
> 
> Real Republicans are also unchanged.  Just marginalized by extremism.  The American Taliban. Media conservatives who give up thinking for themselves in favor of accepting Fox opinions based on Fox facts built on what Republicans wish was true.
> 
> Republican failure since the influx of dixiecrats is legion.  One mega failure after another.  $17T in debt due to the imposition of what conservatives wish for, on the good people of  America.
> 
> We're done.  You're out.  You are unaffordable.  You are unable to govern. You are the antithesis of statesmen.  You are fired.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> PMZ, buddy, I've already proven you have _no_ idea what you are talking about.
> 
> When Barack Obama took office, the national debt stood at $10 trillion dollars (amassed over 230 years). It took Obama and the Dumbocrats only 4.5 years to add $7 trillion to it (this proves you have no idea what you are talking about).
> 
> You _think_ Barack Obama "saved the economy". Under George W. Bush, unemployment was in the 6% range and never went above the 7% range at worst. Under Barack Obama, unemployment skyrocketed to 10% and has never gone below 8% (this proves you have no idea what you are talking about).
> 
> You _think_ Barack Obama "kept this nation safe from terrorism". But under Barack Obama, we have suffered more terrorist attacks than any president in U.S. history except for Bill Clinton (this proves you have no idea what you are talking about).
> 
> Another example of your comical absurdity - you complain about "corporate welfare" and then praise Obama for bailing out incompetent companies which should have been left to fail.
> 
> Here's the bottom line - the Dumbocrat party has been completely hijacked by communists/socialists/marxists and is radically left of center. The only liberals left have flocked to the Republican Party which has transformed that party significantly left of center (George Bush was a liberal fantasy come true - expand govenrment, spend recklessly, and piss all over the Constitution). The Constitution is "ground zero" and the epitome of "centrist". And that is exactly why the Tea Party is the only sane, centrist, rational group in America. All they have ever advocated is for the federal government to be forced to adhere to the highest law in the land. Nothing more. Nothing less. Libertarians, Sovereign Citizens, and Anarchists are the right's radical equivalent of the Dumbocrats. JFK adamently declared that lowering taxes was the only way to save a struggling economy. Today the Dumbocrat party is so unhinged, anyone who says the exact same thing (which is the truth) is declared by them to be "tea party radicals".
> 
> You're party is unhinged PMZ. And you are a willfully ignorant soldier for the party - trading your rights and freedoms for the most pathetic government table scraps. All of which has exposed you on USMB for being the ignorant partisan hack that you are. You have zero credibility and nobody takes anything you say seriously. It's your own fault.
> 
> Modern Democrats Would View John F. Kennedy As A Reaganite Extremist - Forbes
Click to expand...


If you were literate I'd suspect you to be a propaganda writer for Big Brother. You really seem to believe that,  if you say it,  some will believe it.  Probably based on your experience with the cult.  

They already believe it,  bro.  For the same reason you do.  It drags America down to the level of Republican demonstrated performance. 

I'm sticking with winners.


----------



## beagle9

PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> He dug us out of the Bush Great Recession.
> 
> He restored order from Wall St chaos.
> 
> He saved US auto.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wait..._what_? I thought you said Obama "dug us out of the recession" that he created?
> 
> PMZ's extraordinary ignorance illustrated once again. Ladies & Gentlemen, welcome to a Dumbocrat economy. They collapsed Detroit. They _will_ collapse the United States if we allow them...
> 
> Nation's poor at 49.7 million, higher than official rate
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't remember 2007, 2008, 2009, do you.
> 
> They were the classic conclusion to the Bush reign of ignorance.  The wars,  the wealth redistribution,  the crashing economy,  Nero fiddling.
> 
> They will live in infamy as the textbook consequences of conservatism.
Click to expand...

Conservatism gone wrong is more like it.


----------



## PMZ

beagle9 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wait..._what_? I thought you said Obama "dug us out of the recession" that he created?
> 
> PMZ's extraordinary ignorance illustrated once again. Ladies & Gentlemen, welcome to a Dumbocrat economy. They collapsed Detroit. They _will_ collapse the United States if we allow them...
> 
> Nation's poor at 49.7 million, higher than official rate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't remember 2007, 2008, 2009, do you.
> 
> They were the classic conclusion to the Bush reign of ignorance.  The wars,  the wealth redistribution,  the crashing economy,  Nero fiddling.
> 
> They will live in infamy as the textbook consequences of conservatism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Conservatism gone wrong is more like it.
Click to expand...


The chaos that resulted may have been unintended but was predictable.


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you were sane,  you'd realize that there has been only one political change in this country.  The contamination of the GOP by dixiecrats.
> 
> The Democrats are largely unchanged.  Centrists.  People oriented.  People who see government as the will of we,  the people. The force that keeps us free.
> 
> Real Republicans are also unchanged.  Just marginalized by extremism.  The American Taliban. Media conservatives who give up thinking for themselves in favor of accepting Fox opinions based on Fox facts built on what Republicans wish was true.
> 
> Republican failure since the influx of dixiecrats is legion.  One mega failure after another.  $17T in debt due to the imposition of what conservatives wish for, on the good people of  America.
> 
> We're done.  You're out.  You are unaffordable.  You are unable to govern. You are the antithesis of statesmen.  You are fired.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ, buddy, I've already proven you have _no_ idea what you are talking about.
> 
> When Barack Obama took office, the national debt stood at $10 trillion dollars (amassed over 230 years). It took Obama and the Dumbocrats only 4.5 years to add $7 trillion to it (this proves you have no idea what you are talking about).
> 
> You _think_ Barack Obama "saved the economy". Under George W. Bush, unemployment was in the 6% range and never went above the 7% range at worst. Under Barack Obama, unemployment skyrocketed to 10% and has never gone below 8% (this proves you have no idea what you are talking about).
> 
> You _think_ Barack Obama "kept this nation safe from terrorism". But under Barack Obama, we have suffered more terrorist attacks than any president in U.S. history except for Bill Clinton (this proves you have no idea what you are talking about).
> 
> Another example of your comical absurdity - you complain about "corporate welfare" and then praise Obama for bailing out incompetent companies which should have been left to fail.
> 
> Here's the bottom line - the Dumbocrat party has been completely hijacked by communists/socialists/marxists and is radically left of center. The only liberals left have flocked to the Republican Party which has transformed that party significantly left of center (George Bush was a liberal fantasy come true - expand govenrment, spend recklessly, and piss all over the Constitution). The Constitution is "ground zero" and the epitome of "centrist". And that is exactly why the Tea Party is the only sane, centrist, rational group in America. All they have ever advocated is for the federal government to be forced to adhere to the highest law in the land. Nothing more. Nothing less. Libertarians, Sovereign Citizens, and Anarchists are the right's radical equivalent of the Dumbocrats. JFK adamently declared that lowering taxes was the only way to save a struggling economy. Today the Dumbocrat party is so unhinged, anyone who says the exact same thing (which is the truth) is declared by them to be "tea party radicals".
> 
> You're party is unhinged PMZ. And you are a willfully ignorant soldier for the party - trading your rights and freedoms for the most pathetic government table scraps. All of which has exposed you on USMB for being the ignorant partisan hack that you are. You have zero credibility and nobody takes anything you say seriously. It's your own fault.
> 
> Modern Democrats Would View John F. Kennedy As A Reaganite Extremist - Forbes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you were literate I'd suspect you to be a propaganda writer for Big Brother. You really seem to believe that,  if you say it,  some will believe it.  Probably based on your experience with the cult.
> 
> They already believe it,  bro.  For the same reason you do.  It drags America down to the level of Republican demonstrated performance.
> 
> I'm sticking with winners.
Click to expand...


Only a partisan hack like PMZ could consider the people who collapsed Detroit to be the "winners"... 

As I've said my friend, I've got facts backed up by link after link. All you have is ignorant, uninformed opinion. Game over.


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> He dug us out of the Bush Great Recession.
> 
> He restored order from Wall St chaos.
> 
> He saved US auto.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wait..._what_? I thought you said Obama "dug us out of the recession" that he created?
> 
> PMZ's extraordinary ignorance illustrated once again. Ladies & Gentlemen, welcome to a Dumbocrat economy. They collapsed Detroit. They _will_ collapse the United States if we allow them...
> 
> Nation's poor at 49.7 million, higher than official rate
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't remember 2007, 2008, 2009, do you.
> 
> They were the classic conclusion to the Bush reign of ignorance.  The wars,  the wealth redistribution,  the crashing economy,  Nero fiddling.
> 
> They will live in infamy as the textbook consequences of conservatism.
Click to expand...


Watching you panic in the face of facts is priceless. No matter how you try to spin the story - everything under Barack Obama and the Dumbocrats is worse.

Unemployment? Exponentially higher under Obama and the Dumbocrats

National Debt? Exponentially higher under Obama and the Dumbocrats

People on food stamps? Exponentially higher under Obama and the Dumbocrats

People in poverty? Exponentially higher under Obama and the Dumbocrats

People without healthcare? Exponentially higher under Obama and the Dumbocrats

Dumbocrat policy of punish success and redistribute wealth to parasites like PMZ is a spectacular failure and the undeniable numbers prove it. They will live in infamy as the textbook consequences of the cancer known as liberalism.


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you were sane,  you'd realize that there has been only one political change in this country.  The contamination of the GOP by dixiecrats.
> 
> The Democrats are largely unchanged.  Centrists.  People oriented.  People who see government as the will of we,  the people. The force that keeps us free.
> 
> Real Republicans are also unchanged.  Just marginalized by extremism.  The American Taliban. Media conservatives who give up thinking for themselves in favor of accepting Fox opinions based on Fox facts built on what Republicans wish was true.
> 
> Republican failure since the influx of dixiecrats is legion.  One mega failure after another.  $17T in debt due to the imposition of what conservatives wish for, on the good people of  America.
> 
> We're done.  You're out.  You are unaffordable.  You are unable to govern. You are the antithesis of statesmen.  You are fired.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ, buddy, I've already proven you have _no_ idea what you are talking about.
> 
> When Barack Obama took office, the national debt stood at $10 trillion dollars (amassed over 230 years). It took Obama and the Dumbocrats only 4.5 years to add $7 trillion to it (this proves you have no idea what you are talking about).
> 
> You _think_ Barack Obama "saved the economy". Under George W. Bush, unemployment was in the 6% range and never went above the 7% range at worst. Under Barack Obama, unemployment skyrocketed to 10% and has never gone below 8% (this proves you have no idea what you are talking about).
> 
> You _think_ Barack Obama "kept this nation safe from terrorism". But under Barack Obama, we have suffered more terrorist attacks than any president in U.S. history except for Bill Clinton (this proves you have no idea what you are talking about).
> 
> Another example of your comical absurdity - you complain about "corporate welfare" and then praise Obama for bailing out incompetent companies which should have been left to fail.
> 
> Here's the bottom line - the Dumbocrat party has been completely hijacked by communists/socialists/marxists and is radically left of center. The only liberals left have flocked to the Republican Party which has transformed that party significantly left of center (George Bush was a liberal fantasy come true - expand govenrment, spend recklessly, and piss all over the Constitution). The Constitution is "ground zero" and the epitome of "centrist". And that is exactly why the Tea Party is the only sane, centrist, rational group in America. All they have ever advocated is for the federal government to be forced to adhere to the highest law in the land. Nothing more. Nothing less. Libertarians, Sovereign Citizens, and Anarchists are the right's radical equivalent of the Dumbocrats. JFK adamently declared that lowering taxes was the only way to save a struggling economy. Today the Dumbocrat party is so unhinged, anyone who says the exact same thing (which is the truth) is declared by them to be "tea party radicals".
> 
> You're party is unhinged PMZ. And you are a willfully ignorant soldier for the party - trading your rights and freedoms for the most pathetic government table scraps. All of which has exposed you on USMB for being the ignorant partisan hack that you are. You have zero credibility and nobody takes anything you say seriously. It's your own fault.
> 
> Modern Democrats Would View John F. Kennedy As A Reaganite Extremist - Forbes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you were literate I'd suspect you to be a propaganda writer for Big Brother. You really seem to believe that,  if you say it,  some will believe it.  Probably based on your experience with the cult.
> 
> They already believe it,  bro.  For the same reason you do.  It drags America down to the level of Republican demonstrated performance.
> 
> I'm sticking with winners.
Click to expand...


In other words - you can't come up with an intelligent response to inconvenient FACTS....


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> The chaos that resulted may have been unintended but was predictable.



That was well said PMZ. Dumbocrats never intend to collapse the economy - they are just so stupid they don't realize their socialism will do just that (but it's very predictable for the rest of us who are informed and have studied history)...


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> I'm not sure how canceling people's health insurance by the *millions* is helping anyone...
> 
> Nearly 250,000 Colorado healthcare plans cancelled under Obamacare | KDVR.com



Address that with the private health care insurance companies.  They're the only ones cancelling policies.  What do you think?  Make more money regardless of the cost to others?


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ, buddy, I've already proven you have _no_ idea what you are talking about.
> 
> When Barack Obama took office, the national debt stood at $10 trillion dollars (amassed over 230 years). It took Obama and the Dumbocrats only 4.5 years to add $7 trillion to it (this proves you have no idea what you are talking about).
> 
> You _think_ Barack Obama "saved the economy". Under George W. Bush, unemployment was in the 6% range and never went above the 7% range at worst. Under Barack Obama, unemployment skyrocketed to 10% and has never gone below 8% (this proves you have no idea what you are talking about).
> 
> You _think_ Barack Obama "kept this nation safe from terrorism". But under Barack Obama, we have suffered more terrorist attacks than any president in U.S. history except for Bill Clinton (this proves you have no idea what you are talking about).
> 
> Another example of your comical absurdity - you complain about "corporate welfare" and then praise Obama for bailing out incompetent companies which should have been left to fail.
> 
> Here's the bottom line - the Dumbocrat party has been completely hijacked by communists/socialists/marxists and is radically left of center. The only liberals left have flocked to the Republican Party which has transformed that party significantly left of center (George Bush was a liberal fantasy come true - expand govenrment, spend recklessly, and piss all over the Constitution). The Constitution is "ground zero" and the epitome of "centrist". And that is exactly why the Tea Party is the only sane, centrist, rational group in America. All they have ever advocated is for the federal government to be forced to adhere to the highest law in the land. Nothing more. Nothing less. Libertarians, Sovereign Citizens, and Anarchists are the right's radical equivalent of the Dumbocrats. JFK adamently declared that lowering taxes was the only way to save a struggling economy. Today the Dumbocrat party is so unhinged, anyone who says the exact same thing (which is the truth) is declared by them to be "tea party radicals".
> 
> You're party is unhinged PMZ. And you are a willfully ignorant soldier for the party - trading your rights and freedoms for the most pathetic government table scraps. All of which has exposed you on USMB for being the ignorant partisan hack that you are. You have zero credibility and nobody takes anything you say seriously. It's your own fault.
> 
> Modern Democrats Would View John F. Kennedy As A Reaganite Extremist - Forbes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you were literate I'd suspect you to be a propaganda writer for Big Brother. You really seem to believe that,  if you say it,  some will believe it.  Probably based on your experience with the cult.
> 
> They already believe it,  bro.  For the same reason you do.  It drags America down to the level of Republican demonstrated performance.
> 
> I'm sticking with winners.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only a partisan hack like PMZ could consider the people who collapsed Detroit to be the "winners"...
> 
> As I've said my friend, I've got facts backed up by link after link. All you have is ignorant, uninformed opinion. Game over.
Click to expand...


The people who collapsed Detroit were Bush and Wall St.  I don't consider them winners in any way.


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wait..._what_? I thought you said Obama "dug us out of the recession" that he created?
> 
> PMZ's extraordinary ignorance illustrated once again. Ladies & Gentlemen, welcome to a Dumbocrat economy. They collapsed Detroit. They _will_ collapse the United States if we allow them...
> 
> Nation's poor at 49.7 million, higher than official rate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't remember 2007, 2008, 2009, do you.
> 
> They were the classic conclusion to the Bush reign of ignorance.  The wars,  the wealth redistribution,  the crashing economy,  Nero fiddling.
> 
> They will live in infamy as the textbook consequences of conservatism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Watching you panic in the face of facts is priceless. No matter how you try to spin the story - everything under Barack Obama and the Dumbocrats is worse.
> 
> Unemployment? Exponentially higher under Obama and the Dumbocrats
> 
> National Debt? Exponentially higher under Obama and the Dumbocrats
> 
> People on food stamps? Exponentially higher under Obama and the Dumbocrats
> 
> People in poverty? Exponentially higher under Obama and the Dumbocrats
> 
> People without healthcare? Exponentially higher under Obama and the Dumbocrats
> 
> Dumbocrat policy of punish success and redistribute wealth to parasites like PMZ is a spectacular failure and the undeniable numbers prove it. They will live in infamy as the textbook consequences of the cancer known as liberalism.
Click to expand...


Bush's collapse of America was timed according to Republican strategy.  Record breaking wealth redistribution for 8 years,  followed by collapse of the economy followed by,  goodbye fellows.  Don't call me.  
Dimwits like you parrot your mind controllers with,  on Jan 20, 2009, it's all on Obama.  

There was a time when I would have said it is inconceivable that any American would ever be stupid enough to fall for that,  but it turns out that I underestimated the magnitude of our ignorance.  

Your ignorance is unprecedented. 

No matter, as long as we keep the wee brains out of government.  

Then we can start working on keeping them out of business.


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> The chaos that resulted may have been unintended but was predictable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was well said PMZ. Dumbocrats never intend to collapse the economy - they are just so stupid they don't realize their socialism will do just that (but it's very predictable for the rest of us who are informed and have studied history)...
Click to expand...


Are you really going to tell us it was fine until Bush left? 

That would be truly monumental delusion.  Record breaking.


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ, buddy, I've already proven you have _no_ idea what you are talking about.
> 
> When Barack Obama took office, the national debt stood at $10 trillion dollars (amassed over 230 years). It took Obama and the Dumbocrats only 4.5 years to add $7 trillion to it (this proves you have no idea what you are talking about).
> 
> You _think_ Barack Obama "saved the economy". Under George W. Bush, unemployment was in the 6% range and never went above the 7% range at worst. Under Barack Obama, unemployment skyrocketed to 10% and has never gone below 8% (this proves you have no idea what you are talking about).
> 
> You _think_ Barack Obama "kept this nation safe from terrorism". But under Barack Obama, we have suffered more terrorist attacks than any president in U.S. history except for Bill Clinton (this proves you have no idea what you are talking about).
> 
> Another example of your comical absurdity - you complain about "corporate welfare" and then praise Obama for bailing out incompetent companies which should have been left to fail.
> 
> Here's the bottom line - the Dumbocrat party has been completely hijacked by communists/socialists/marxists and is radically left of center. The only liberals left have flocked to the Republican Party which has transformed that party significantly left of center (George Bush was a liberal fantasy come true - expand govenrment, spend recklessly, and piss all over the Constitution). The Constitution is "ground zero" and the epitome of "centrist". And that is exactly why the Tea Party is the only sane, centrist, rational group in America. All they have ever advocated is for the federal government to be forced to adhere to the highest law in the land. Nothing more. Nothing less. Libertarians, Sovereign Citizens, and Anarchists are the right's radical equivalent of the Dumbocrats. JFK adamently declared that lowering taxes was the only way to save a struggling economy. Today the Dumbocrat party is so unhinged, anyone who says the exact same thing (which is the truth) is declared by them to be "tea party radicals".
> 
> You're party is unhinged PMZ. And you are a willfully ignorant soldier for the party - trading your rights and freedoms for the most pathetic government table scraps. All of which has exposed you on USMB for being the ignorant partisan hack that you are. You have zero credibility and nobody takes anything you say seriously. It's your own fault.
> 
> Modern Democrats Would View John F. Kennedy As A Reaganite Extremist - Forbes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you were literate I'd suspect you to be a propaganda writer for Big Brother. You really seem to believe that,  if you say it,  some will believe it.  Probably based on your experience with the cult.
> 
> They already believe it,  bro.  For the same reason you do.  It drags America down to the level of Republican demonstrated performance.
> 
> I'm sticking with winners.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In other words - you can't come up with an intelligent response to inconvenient FACTS....
Click to expand...


Do you claim that any Bush policy created disaster that wasn't cleared up by Jan 20, 2009 became Obama's?


----------



## PMZ

Every once in a while I give Rotweiner the benefit of the doubt and think,  nobody is that stupid.  I'll never make that mistake again.  He really is,  and what's worse, believes everybody else is too. 

Scary that he's out on the street somewhere.


----------



## PMZ

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2013/02/parfait.jpg


----------



## PMZ

The whole story on the Bush policy caused debt.


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> The people who collapsed Detroit were Bush and Wall St.  I don't consider them winners in any way.



Bush wasn't mayor for the past 60 years in Detroit - Dumbocrats were. Wall Street wasn't controlling the city council for the past 60 years - Dumbocrats were.

You have zero credibility my friend. The more you talk, the more people laugh at you. I can only believe at this point that you are a troll. Nobody - no matter how radical - could make such absurd comments as "Bush was mayor of Detroit for the past 60 years".


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> The chaos that resulted may have been unintended but was predictable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was well said PMZ. Dumbocrats never intend to collapse the economy - they are just so stupid they don't realize their socialism will do just that (but it's very predictable for the rest of us who are informed and have studied history)...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you really going to tell us it was fine until Bush left?
> 
> That would be truly monumental delusion.  Record breaking.
Click to expand...


The numbers don't lie! And I just used them to prove you do...


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't remember 2007, 2008, 2009, do you.
> 
> They were the classic conclusion to the Bush reign of ignorance.  The wars,  the wealth redistribution,  the crashing economy,  Nero fiddling.
> 
> They will live in infamy as the textbook consequences of conservatism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Watching you panic in the face of facts is priceless. No matter how you try to spin the story - everything under Barack Obama and the Dumbocrats is worse.
> 
> Unemployment? Exponentially higher under Obama and the Dumbocrats
> 
> National Debt? Exponentially higher under Obama and the Dumbocrats
> 
> People on food stamps? Exponentially higher under Obama and the Dumbocrats
> 
> People in poverty? Exponentially higher under Obama and the Dumbocrats
> 
> People without healthcare? Exponentially higher under Obama and the Dumbocrats
> 
> Dumbocrat policy of punish success and redistribute wealth to parasites like PMZ is a spectacular failure and the undeniable numbers prove it. They will live in infamy as the textbook consequences of the cancer known as liberalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Record breaking wealth redistribution for 8 years,  followed by collapse of the economy followed
Click to expand...


So I'll ask again, if you know that Dumbocrats redistributing wealth creates collapse, why do you keep supporting Dumbocrats?


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> The people who collapsed Detroit were Bush and Wall St.  I don't consider them winners in any way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bush wasn't mayor for the past 60 years in Detroit - Dumbocrats were. Wall Street wasn't controlling the city council for the past 60 years - Dumbocrats were.
> 
> You have zero credibility my friend. The more you talk, the more people laugh at you. I can only believe at this point that you are a troll. Nobody - no matter how radical - could make such absurd comments as "Bush was mayor of Detroit for the past 60 years".
Click to expand...


You are so stupid that you think that the Detroit City Council ran General Motors. And the President of the US is subservient to them. 

I honestly had no idea of the depth of your ignorance.  It is astounding.  Breathtaking.  Monumental. 

I apologize for giving you too much credit.  You must be the easiest of all conservatives to reel in. 

You're the only person that I would support letting Fox think for.  Without their opinions,  you might be mistaken for a box of hammers.


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you were literate I'd suspect you to be a propaganda writer for Big Brother. You really seem to believe that,  if you say it,  some will believe it.  Probably based on your experience with the cult.
> 
> They already believe it,  bro.  For the same reason you do.  It drags America down to the level of Republican demonstrated performance.
> 
> I'm sticking with winners.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In other words - you can't come up with an intelligent response to inconvenient FACTS....
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you claim that any Bush policy created disaster that wasn't cleared up by Jan 20, 2009 became Obama's?
Click to expand...


I don't "claim" anything. That's for Dumbocrat asshats like _you_. I simply deal in facts. And the *facts* are, everything is _worse_ under Obama than they ever were under Bush.

Unemployment? Much higher under Obama.

National Debt? Much higher under Obama.

Terrorist attacks? Much higher under Obama.

People on food stamps? Much higher under Obama.

People in poverty? Much higher under Obama.

The *facts* don't lie PMZ - you Dumbocrats do.


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> The people who collapsed Detroit were Bush and Wall St.  I don't consider them winners in any way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bush wasn't mayor for the past 60 years in Detroit - Dumbocrats were. Wall Street wasn't controlling the city council for the past 60 years - Dumbocrats were.
> 
> You have zero credibility my friend. The more you talk, the more people laugh at you. I can only believe at this point that you are a troll. Nobody - no matter how radical - could make such absurd comments as "Bush was mayor of Detroit for the past 60 years".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are so stupid that you think that the Detroit City Council ran General Motors. And the President of the US is subservient to them.
> 
> I honestly had no idea of the depth of your ignorance.  It is astounding.  Breathtaking.  Monumental.
> 
> I apologize for giving you too much credit.  You must be the easiest of all conservatives to reel in.
> 
> You're the only person that I would support letting Fox think for.  Without their opinions,  you might be mistaken for a box of hammers.
Click to expand...


In other words, I've _owned_ you with *facts* and now you're going to throw a tantrum...

Sorry chief, you've been thoroughly dominated in this debate and you know it. I win...


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> That was well said PMZ. Dumbocrats never intend to collapse the economy - they are just so stupid they don't realize their socialism will do just that (but it's very predictable for the rest of us who are informed and have studied history)...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you really going to tell us it was fine until Bush left?
> 
> That would be truly monumental delusion.  Record breaking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The numbers don't lie! And I just used them to prove you do...
Click to expand...


These numbers don't lie.


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> You are so stupid that you think that the Detroit City Council ran General Motors.



Dumbocrat policy (highest corporate tax rate in the world) mixed with Dumbocrat greed (unions extorting the successful to reward the lazy and useless) ran General Motors. Ran it right into the ground as Dumbocrats always do.

Yes stupid, Dumbocrat run city council kept punishing GM with taxes and regulations.

Facts, they are a bitch! (Especially for ignorant, uneducated parasites like you)


----------



## SMHansen

The thing that perplexes me most about the healthcare law is how it forces citizens into selecting a product not necessarily everyone needs. Furthermore if I don't purchase said product I can be "fined" for not having it. I'd be more than happy to shell out a few extra dollars every year to make sure fellow citizens and the elderly can get their basic healthcare needs and checkups taken care of but I'm completely against paying for someones oxycotins from a bumper rub that happened a decade ago. 

Universal healthcare should be funded by taxes and not by imposition of fines and should only cover basic needs. If you need more comprehensive coverage you should pay for that product. 

It just seems unconstitutional to fine someone to be alive and well.


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Watching you panic in the face of facts is priceless. No matter how you try to spin the story - everything under Barack Obama and the Dumbocrats is worse.
> 
> Unemployment? Exponentially higher under Obama and the Dumbocrats
> 
> National Debt? Exponentially higher under Obama and the Dumbocrats
> 
> People on food stamps? Exponentially higher under Obama and the Dumbocrats
> 
> People in poverty? Exponentially higher under Obama and the Dumbocrats
> 
> People without healthcare? Exponentially higher under Obama and the Dumbocrats
> 
> Dumbocrat policy of punish success and redistribute wealth to parasites like PMZ is a spectacular failure and the undeniable numbers prove it. They will live in infamy as the textbook consequences of the cancer known as liberalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Record breaking wealth redistribution for 8 years,  followed by collapse of the economy followed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So I'll ask again, if you know that Dumbocrats redistributing wealth creates collapse, why do you keep supporting Dumbocrats?
Click to expand...


Because they redistribute wealth in the direction of solving problems whereby Republicans redistribute wealth faster, in the direction of causing problems.  

Haven't you been paying attention?  Or is this that inability to learn thing again.


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bush wasn't mayor for the past 60 years in Detroit - Dumbocrats were. Wall Street wasn't controlling the city council for the past 60 years - Dumbocrats were.
> 
> You have zero credibility my friend. The more you talk, the more people laugh at you. I can only believe at this point that you are a troll. Nobody - no matter how radical - could make such absurd comments as "Bush was mayor of Detroit for the past 60 years".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are so stupid that you think that the Detroit City Council ran General Motors. And the President of the US is subservient to them.
> 
> I honestly had no idea of the depth of your ignorance.  It is astounding.  Breathtaking.  Monumental.
> 
> I apologize for giving you too much credit.  You must be the easiest of all conservatives to reel in.
> 
> You're the only person that I would support letting Fox think for.  Without their opinions,  you might be mistaken for a box of hammers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In other words, I've _owned_ you with *facts* and now you're going to throw a tantrum...
> 
> Sorry chief, you've been thoroughly dominated in this debate and you know it. I win...
Click to expand...


This is Rotweiner flat on the canvas counting me out. Can there  be any more compelling evidence of his delusion? 

I don't think so.


----------



## PMZ

SMHansen said:


> The thing that perplexes me most about the healthcare law is how it forces citizens into selecting a product not necessarily everyone needs. Furthermore if I don't purchase said product I can be "fined" for not having it. I'd be more than happy to shell out a few extra dollars every year to make sure fellow citizens and the elderly can get their basic healthcare needs and checkups taken care of but I'm completely against paying for someones oxycotins from a bumper rub that happened a decade ago.
> 
> Universal healthcare should be funded by taxes and not by imposition of fines and should only cover basic needs. If you need more comprehensive coverage you should pay for that product.
> 
> It just seems unconstitutional to fine someone to be alive and well.



It sucks not to be able to be irresponsible about your health care costs.  

Obamacare means that you have to pay your own bills.  No welfare for the wealthy. 

Next thing you know they'll be after other means of avoiding personal responsibility.


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you really going to tell us it was fine until Bush left?
> 
> That would be truly monumental delusion.  Record breaking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The numbers don't lie! And I just used them to prove you do...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> These numbers don't lie.
Click to expand...


   

Actually, they do [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION]. They are numbers that were intentionally misleading to brainwash simple-minded mongoloids like you. Take a peak at the facts that exposes the fake numbers in your chart PMZ (it's getting easier and easier to expose your lies and your ignorance):

Liberal Think Tank Fails Statistics 101


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> SMHansen said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thing that perplexes me most about the healthcare law is how it forces citizens into selecting a product not necessarily everyone needs. Furthermore if I don't purchase said product I can be "fined" for not having it. I'd be more than happy to shell out a few extra dollars every year to make sure fellow citizens and the elderly can get their basic healthcare needs and checkups taken care of but I'm completely against paying for someones oxycotins from a bumper rub that happened a decade ago.
> 
> Universal healthcare should be funded by taxes and not by imposition of fines and should only cover basic needs. If you need more comprehensive coverage you should pay for that product.
> 
> It just seems unconstitutional to fine someone to be alive and well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It sucks not to be able to be irresponsible about your health care costs.
Click to expand...


Spoken like a true parasite. That's why Obamacare makes me pay for everyone else's policy.

Sorry PMZ - you can't spin this (you're not smart enough...your arguments are far too weak).


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> In other words - you can't come up with an intelligent response to inconvenient FACTS....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you claim that any Bush policy created disaster that wasn't cleared up by Jan 20, 2009 became Obama's?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't "claim" anything. That's for Dumbocrat asshats like _you_. I simply deal in facts. And the *facts* are, everything is _worse_ under Obama than they ever were under Bush.
> 
> Unemployment? Much higher under Obama.
> 
> National Debt? Much higher under Obama.
> 
> Terrorist attacks? Much higher under Obama.
> 
> People on food stamps? Much higher under Obama.
> 
> People in poverty? Much higher under Obama.
> 
> The *facts* don't lie PMZ - you Dumbocrats do.
Click to expand...


Bush left Obama the problems that he created,  to solve.  Obama has,  except for the problem that business caused and only business can solve.  Unemployment. 

You take the measures of Bush's incompetence and attribute them to Obama because it's possible that someone here will fall for that as you have. 

That's a huge insult to everyone here.


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are so stupid that you think that the Detroit City Council ran General Motors.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dumbocrat policy (highest corporate tax rate in the world) mixed with Dumbocrat greed (unions extorting the successful to reward the lazy and useless) ran General Motors. Ran it right into the ground as Dumbocrats always do.
> 
> Yes stupid, Dumbocrat run city council kept punishing GM with taxes and regulations.
> 
> Facts, they are a bitch! (Especially for ignorant, uneducated parasites like you)
Click to expand...


You wouldn't know a fact if it was stapled to your forehead.


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure how canceling people's health insurance by the *millions* is helping anyone...
> 
> Nearly 250,000 Colorado healthcare plans cancelled under Obamacare | KDVR.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Address that with the private health care insurance companies.  They're the only ones cancelling policies.  What do you think?  Make more money regardless of the cost to others?
Click to expand...


Obamacare is canceling their policies stupid (that's why we weren't seeing this phenomenon before October 1, 2013).

The fact that you look at 100 years of failed Dumbocrat policy and draw the same conclusion of "coincidence" every time is an astounding level of ignorance.


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you claim that any Bush policy created disaster that wasn't cleared up by Jan 20, 2009 became Obama's?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't "claim" anything. That's for Dumbocrat asshats like _you_. I simply deal in facts. And the *facts* are, everything is _worse_ under Obama than they ever were under Bush.
> 
> Unemployment? Much higher under Obama.
> 
> National Debt? Much higher under Obama.
> 
> Terrorist attacks? Much higher under Obama.
> 
> People on food stamps? Much higher under Obama.
> 
> People in poverty? Much higher under Obama.
> 
> The *facts* don't lie PMZ - you Dumbocrats do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bush left Obama the problems that he created,  to solve.  Obama has,  except for the problem that business caused and only business can solve.  Unemployment.
> 
> You take the measures of Bush's incompetence and attribute them to Obama because it's possible that someone here will fall for that as you have.
> 
> That's a huge insult to everyone here.
Click to expand...


Unemployment has skyrocketed under Obama. That's not "coincidence" stupid. That's because Obama wants to punish success (taxes out of the stratosphere) and reward failure (redistributing wealth to you parasites).

The only incompetence is Obama's and everyone knows it - no matter how many absurd & outrageous lies you post in your panic-stricken state that you won't be allowed to continue being a parasite to your fellow citizens.


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure how canceling people's health insurance by the *millions* is helping anyone...
> 
> Nearly 250,000 Colorado healthcare plans cancelled under Obamacare | KDVR.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Address that with the private health care insurance companies.  They're the only ones cancelling policies.  What do you think?  Make more money regardless of the cost to others?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obamacare is canceling their policies stupid (that's why we weren't seeing this phenomenon before October 1, 2013).
> 
> The fact that you look at 100 years of failed Dumbocrat policy and draw the same conclusion of "coincidence" every time is an astounding level of ignorance.
Click to expand...


The government has no policies to cancel.  Other than Medicare,  Medicaid,  and Tricare which are all working fine,  health care insurance is all from private insurance companies. 

If you object to make more money regardless of the cost to others,  write to your insurance company.


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> No matter, as long as we keep the wee brains out of government.
> 
> Then we can start working on keeping them out of business.



Well that explains why you refuse to work and why you refuse to do your civic duty of creating jobs for your fellow citizen - you recognize you have a "wee brain" and you advocate keeping "wee brains" out of business.

Well, I guess it's good you recognize both of those facts...


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Address that with the private health care insurance companies.  They're the only ones cancelling policies.  What do you think?  Make more money regardless of the cost to others?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obamacare is canceling their policies stupid (that's why we weren't seeing this phenomenon before October 1, 2013).
> 
> The fact that you look at 100 years of failed Dumbocrat policy and draw the same conclusion of "coincidence" every time is an astounding level of ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The government has no policies to cancel*.  Other than Medicare,  Medicaid,  and Tricare which are all working fine,  health care insurance is all from private insurance companies.
> 
> If you object to make more money regardless of the cost to others,  write to your insurance company.
Click to expand...


Which is why they keep forcing private companies to cancel those of their customers (you're so close to waking up for the first time in your miserable and irrelevant life).


----------



## RKMBrown

SMHansen said:


> The thing that perplexes me most about the healthcare law is how it forces citizens into selecting a product not necessarily everyone needs. Furthermore if I don't purchase said product I can be "fined" for not having it. I'd be more than happy to shell out a few extra dollars every year to make sure fellow citizens and the elderly can get their basic healthcare needs and checkups taken care of but I'm completely against paying for someones oxycotins from a bumper rub that happened a decade ago.
> 
> Universal healthcare should be funded by taxes and not by imposition of fines and should only cover basic needs. If you need more comprehensive coverage you should pay for that product.
> 
> It just seems unconstitutional to fine someone to be alive and well.



We live under a tyranny in which our government takes our income whether we agree to it or not, then re-distributes it to people who vote for people who promise to take our income away from us and call us evil scum who profit from the "poor" while doing it.  The fine for not having health care is just one more tax, one of many.  Additionally we have hidden taxes, such as the tax we pay for our cell phone usage, so that Obama can win votes by handing out free cell phones & plans to his loyal voters.  

Is it Constitutional?  Yes.  Amendments were passed to the Constitution that make us Slaves of our Government.  It's all legal like.  All they have to do is have the states administer the programs and agree to take the federal money garnished using the taxing powers given to the federal government.  The feds can take 100% of your income, 100% of all your assets, ... oh yeah and your life and liberty.   All they need to do is show "due process."  What is due process?  Passing bills with a 51% majority and the president signing it.

Your vote matters.  You elect socialist authoritarians like Obama that promise to destroy this country... well you get what you asked for.


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> No matter, as long as we keep the wee brains out of government.
> 
> Then we can start working on keeping them out of business.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well that explains why you refuse to work and why you refuse to do your civic duty of creating jobs for your fellow citizen - you recognize you have a "wee brain" and you advocate keeping "wee brains" out of business.
> 
> Well, I guess it's good you recognize both of those facts...
Click to expand...


I've created lots of jobs.  Hired lots of people.  Made American workers worth high salaries by making them the most productive workers in the world. 

What have you done?  Sent American careers overseas?  Ended American consumerism.  Fouled our earth?  Watched workers not paid a living wage starve? 

Fill us in on the details.


----------



## P@triot

[MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] - how do you expect anyone to take you seriously when you have refused to perform your civic duties and you've been caught lying in every post?


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> No matter, as long as we keep the wee brains out of government.
> 
> Then we can start working on keeping them out of business.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well that explains why you refuse to work and why you refuse to do your civic duty of creating jobs for your fellow citizen - you recognize you have a "wee brain" and you advocate keeping "wee brains" out of business.
> 
> Well, I guess it's good you recognize both of those facts...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've created lots of jobs.  Hired lots of people.  Made American workers worth high salaries by making them the most productive workers in the world.
> 
> What have you done?  Sent American careers overseas?  Ended American consumerism.  Fouled our earth?  Watched workers not paid a living wage starve?
> 
> Fill us in on the details.
Click to expand...


ROFL   You took a job that 10people were doing and identified 1 of the people that were not necessary.  That person was laid off and the salary from that laid of worker went to the CEO.


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> No matter, as long as we keep the wee brains out of government.
> 
> Then we can start working on keeping them out of business.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well that explains why you refuse to work and why you refuse to do your civic duty of creating jobs for your fellow citizen - you recognize you have a "wee brain" and you advocate keeping "wee brains" out of business.
> 
> Well, I guess it's good you recognize both of those facts...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've created lots of jobs.  Hired lots of people.  Made American workers worth high salaries by making them the most productive workers in the world.
> 
> What have you done?  Sent American careers overseas?  Ended American consumerism.  Fouled our earth?  Watched workers not paid a living wage starve?
> 
> Fill us in on the details.
Click to expand...


You're caught lying _again_! You've never hired even ONE person in your entire life for a full time job (sorry chief, paying your 13 year old neighbor less than minimum wage to cut your grass once a week in the summer only does not count as "creating a job" stupid...)


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obamacare is canceling their policies stupid (that's why we weren't seeing this phenomenon before October 1, 2013).
> 
> The fact that you look at 100 years of failed Dumbocrat policy and draw the same conclusion of "coincidence" every time is an astounding level of ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The government has no policies to cancel*.  Other than Medicare,  Medicaid,  and Tricare which are all working fine,  health care insurance is all from private insurance companies.
> 
> If you object to make more money regardless of the cost to others,  write to your insurance company.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is why they keep forcing private companies to cancel those of their customers (you're so close to waking up for the first time in your miserable and irrelevant life).
Click to expand...


There is nothing that Obamacare has done to force private companies to cancel existing policies.  They were grandfathered whether you choose to recognize that or not. 

Some companies chose grandfathering,  some chose to cancel.  

Stop acting like an idiot just making up what you wish was true.


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well that explains why you refuse to work and why you refuse to do your civic duty of creating jobs for your fellow citizen - you recognize you have a "wee brain" and you advocate keeping "wee brains" out of business.
> 
> Well, I guess it's good you recognize both of those facts...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've created lots of jobs.  Hired lots of people.  Made American workers worth high salaries by making them the most productive workers in the world.
> 
> What have you done?  Sent American careers overseas?  Ended American consumerism.  Fouled our earth?  Watched workers not paid a living wage starve?
> 
> Fill us in on the details.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're caught lying _again_! You've never hired even ONE person in your entire life for a full time job (sorry chief, paying your 13 year old neighbor less than minimum wage to cut your grass once a week in the summer only does not count as "creating a job" stupid...)
Click to expand...


You continue to bleat what you wish was true.  It's not.  It's simply not.  That makes you a liar.  A fact that surprises nobody.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well that explains why you refuse to work and why you refuse to do your civic duty of creating jobs for your fellow citizen - you recognize you have a "wee brain" and you advocate keeping "wee brains" out of business.
> 
> Well, I guess it's good you recognize both of those facts...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've created lots of jobs.  Hired lots of people.  Made American workers worth high salaries by making them the most productive workers in the world.
> 
> What have you done?  Sent American careers overseas?  Ended American consumerism.  Fouled our earth?  Watched workers not paid a living wage starve?
> 
> Fill us in on the details.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROFL What a retard.  You took a job that 10people were doing and identified 1 of the people that were not necessary.  That person was laid off and the salary from that laid of worker went to the CEO.
Click to expand...


What a fucking idiot.  You know nothing about me.  You make up stuff that you wish was true,  just like the stuff that you make up about yourself that you wish was true. You're living multiple lies.


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] - how do you expect anyone to take you seriously when you have refused to perform your civic duties and you've been caught lying in every post?



I do not care in any way whether a liar believes me or not.  Every post by you is further proof that conservatism is based on lies and ignorance.  

Everybody with an independent mind sees that clearly.  Everyone else does not count.


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> The people who collapsed Detroit were Bush and Wall St.  I don't consider them winners in any way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bush wasn't mayor for the past 60 years in Detroit - Dumbocrats were. Wall Street wasn't controlling the city council for the past 60 years - Dumbocrats were.
> 
> You have zero credibility my friend. The more you talk, the more people laugh at you. I can only believe at this point that you are a troll. Nobody - no matter how radical - could make such absurd comments as "Bush was mayor of Detroit for the past 60 years".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are so stupid that you think that the Detroit City Council ran General Motors. And the President of the US is subservient to them.
> 
> I honestly had no idea of the depth of your ignorance.  It is astounding.  Breathtaking.  Monumental.
> 
> I apologize for giving you too much credit.  You must be the easiest of all conservatives to reel in.
> 
> You're the only person that I would support letting Fox think for.  Without their opinions, you might be mistaken for a box of hammers.
Click to expand...


Says the man who claimed that Barack Obama has "protected" us from terrorism...


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've created lots of jobs.  Hired lots of people.  Made American workers worth high salaries by making them the most productive workers in the world.
> 
> What have you done?  Sent American careers overseas?  Ended American consumerism.  Fouled our earth?  Watched workers not paid a living wage starve?
> 
> Fill us in on the details.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL What a retard.  You took a job that 10people were doing and identified 1 of the people that were not necessary.  That person was laid off and the salary from that laid of worker went to the CEO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What a fucking idiot.  You know nothing about me.  You make up stuff that you wish was true,  just like the stuff that you make up about yourself that you wish was true. You're living multiple lies.
Click to expand...

Ok, put up or shut up.  Name one process improvement you made that made one person at one American corporation more productive.  Just one.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> SMHansen said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thing that perplexes me most about the healthcare law is how it forces citizens into selecting a product not necessarily everyone needs. Furthermore if I don't purchase said product I can be "fined" for not having it. I'd be more than happy to shell out a few extra dollars every year to make sure fellow citizens and the elderly can get their basic healthcare needs and checkups taken care of but I'm completely against paying for someones oxycotins from a bumper rub that happened a decade ago.
> 
> Universal healthcare should be funded by taxes and not by imposition of fines and should only cover basic needs. If you need more comprehensive coverage you should pay for that product.
> 
> It just seems unconstitutional to fine someone to be alive and well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We live under a tyranny in which our government takes our income whether we agree to it or not, then re-distributes it to people who vote for people who promise to take our income away from us and call us evil scum who profit from the "poor" while doing it.  The fine for not having health care is just one more tax, one of many.  Additionally we have hidden taxes, such as the tax we pay for our cell phone usage, so that Obama can win votes by handing out free cell phones & plans to his loyal voters.
> 
> Is it Constitutional?  Yes.  Amendments were passed to the Constitution that make us Slaves of our Government.  It's all legal like.  All they have to do is have the states administer the programs and agree to take the federal money garnished using the taxing powers given to the federal government.  The feds can take 100% of your income, 100% of all your assets, ... oh yeah and your life and liberty.   All they need to do is show "due process."  What is due process?  Passing bills with a 51% majority and the president signing it.
> 
> Your vote matters.  You elect socialist authoritarians like Obama that promise to destroy this country... well you get what you asked for.
Click to expand...


Look at my earlier graphs.  Look how much Bush tax cuts gave to the wealthy at the expense of the country.  Look at how much was stolen by conservative government to buy your support.  And it obviously worked.  

Pirate captains of industry.  The wealth suckers of our times.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SMHansen said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thing that perplexes me most about the healthcare law is how it forces citizens into selecting a product not necessarily everyone needs. Furthermore if I don't purchase said product I can be "fined" for not having it. I'd be more than happy to shell out a few extra dollars every year to make sure fellow citizens and the elderly can get their basic healthcare needs and checkups taken care of but I'm completely against paying for someones oxycotins from a bumper rub that happened a decade ago.
> 
> Universal healthcare should be funded by taxes and not by imposition of fines and should only cover basic needs. If you need more comprehensive coverage you should pay for that product.
> 
> It just seems unconstitutional to fine someone to be alive and well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We live under a tyranny in which our government takes our income whether we agree to it or not, then re-distributes it to people who vote for people who promise to take our income away from us and call us evil scum who profit from the "poor" while doing it.  The fine for not having health care is just one more tax, one of many.  Additionally we have hidden taxes, such as the tax we pay for our cell phone usage, so that Obama can win votes by handing out free cell phones & plans to his loyal voters.
> 
> Is it Constitutional?  Yes.  Amendments were passed to the Constitution that make us Slaves of our Government.  It's all legal like.  All they have to do is have the states administer the programs and agree to take the federal money garnished using the taxing powers given to the federal government.  The feds can take 100% of your income, 100% of all your assets, ... oh yeah and your life and liberty.   All they need to do is show "due process."  What is due process?  Passing bills with a 51% majority and the president signing it.
> 
> Your vote matters.  You elect socialist authoritarians like Obama that promise to destroy this country... well you get what you asked for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look at my earlier graphs.  Look how much Bush tax cuts gave to the wealthy at the expense of the country.  Look at how much was stolen by conservative government to buy your support.  And it obviously worked.
> 
> Pirate captains of industry.  The wealth suckers of our times.
Click to expand...


Bush's tax cuts to the poor and middle class were MUCH BIGGER than the tax cuts to the rich.  And I've told you ONE THOUSAND AND ONE TIMES that I DO NOT SUPPORT ANYTHING BUSH DID.  You are a lying POS authoritarian socialist, JUST LIKE BUSH WAS.


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The government has no policies to cancel*.  Other than Medicare,  Medicaid,  and Tricare which are all working fine,  health care insurance is all from private insurance companies.
> 
> If you object to make more money regardless of the cost to others,  write to your insurance company.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is why they keep forcing private companies to cancel those of their customers (you're so close to waking up for the first time in your miserable and irrelevant life).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is nothing that Obamacare has done to force private companies to cancel existing policies.  They were grandfathered whether you choose to recognize that or not.
> 
> Some companies chose grandfathering,  some chose to cancel.
> 
> Stop acting like an idiot just making up what you wish was true.
Click to expand...


Like everything with Dumbocrats, there is *no* choice. You don't get to _choose_ "grandfathering" you fuck'n buffoon... 

You either meet the criteria or you don't. The criteria was the policy cannot change. An impossibility in the new Obamacare landscape which has caused healthcare costs to skyrocket.


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bush wasn't mayor for the past 60 years in Detroit - Dumbocrats were. Wall Street wasn't controlling the city council for the past 60 years - Dumbocrats were.
> 
> You have zero credibility my friend. The more you talk, the more people laugh at you. I can only believe at this point that you are a troll. Nobody - no matter how radical - could make such absurd comments as "Bush was mayor of Detroit for the past 60 years".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are so stupid that you think that the Detroit City Council ran General Motors. And the President of the US is subservient to them.
> 
> I honestly had no idea of the depth of your ignorance.  It is astounding.  Breathtaking.  Monumental.
> 
> I apologize for giving you too much credit.  You must be the easiest of all conservatives to reel in.
> 
> You're the only person that I would support letting Fox think for.  Without their opinions, you might be mistaken for a box of hammers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says the man who claimed that Barack Obama has "protected" us from terrorism...
Click to expand...


Remember 9/11?


----------



## P@triot

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> We live under a tyranny in which our government takes our income whether we agree to it or not, then re-distributes it to people who vote for people who promise to take our income away from us and call us evil scum who profit from the "poor" while doing it.  The fine for not having health care is just one more tax, one of many.  Additionally we have hidden taxes, such as the tax we pay for our cell phone usage, so that Obama can win votes by handing out free cell phones & plans to his loyal voters.
> 
> Is it Constitutional?  Yes.  Amendments were passed to the Constitution that make us Slaves of our Government.  It's all legal like.  All they have to do is have the states administer the programs and agree to take the federal money garnished using the taxing powers given to the federal government.  The feds can take 100% of your income, 100% of all your assets, ... oh yeah and your life and liberty.   All they need to do is show "due process."  What is due process?  Passing bills with a 51% majority and the president signing it.
> 
> Your vote matters.  You elect socialist authoritarians like Obama that promise to destroy this country... well you get what you asked for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look at my earlier graphs.  Look how much Bush tax cuts gave to the wealthy at the expense of the country.  Look at how much was stolen by conservative government to buy your support.  And it obviously worked.
> 
> Pirate captains of industry.  The wealth suckers of our times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bush's tax cuts to the poor and middle class were MUCH BIGGER than the tax cuts to the rich.  And I've told you ONE THOUSAND AND ONE TIMES that I DO NOT SUPPORT ANYTHING BUSH DID.  You are a lying POS authoritarian socialist, JUST LIKE BUSH WAS.
Click to expand...


What's hilarious is that PMZ's "logic" actually makes our case for us and defeats his own position.

The more he points to Bush and Republicans as the cause of problems, the more he _proves_ that government intervention and control is the problem. Which is all we've said all along - government is the problem, the free market is the solution.

Yes folks, PMZ really is that stupid...


----------



## RKMBrown

Rottweiler said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look at my earlier graphs.  Look how much Bush tax cuts gave to the wealthy at the expense of the country.  Look at how much was stolen by conservative government to buy your support.  And it obviously worked.
> 
> Pirate captains of industry.  The wealth suckers of our times.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bush's tax cuts to the poor and middle class were MUCH BIGGER than the tax cuts to the rich.  And I've told you ONE THOUSAND AND ONE TIMES that I DO NOT SUPPORT ANYTHING BUSH DID.  You are a lying POS authoritarian socialist, JUST LIKE BUSH WAS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's hilarious is that PMZ's "logic" actually makes our case for us and defeats his own position.
> 
> The more he points to Bush and Republicans as the cause of problems, the more he _proves_ that government intervention and control is the problem. Which is all we've said all along - government is the problem, the free market is the solution.
> 
> Yes folks, PMZ really is that stupid...
Click to expand...

Brace yourself for another blame fox declaration.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> We live under a tyranny in which our government takes our income whether we agree to it or not, then re-distributes it to people who vote for people who promise to take our income away from us and call us evil scum who profit from the "poor" while doing it.  The fine for not having health care is just one more tax, one of many.  Additionally we have hidden taxes, such as the tax we pay for our cell phone usage, so that Obama can win votes by handing out free cell phones & plans to his loyal voters.
> 
> Is it Constitutional?  Yes.  Amendments were passed to the Constitution that make us Slaves of our Government.  It's all legal like.  All they have to do is have the states administer the programs and agree to take the federal money garnished using the taxing powers given to the federal government.  The feds can take 100% of your income, 100% of all your assets, ... oh yeah and your life and liberty.   All they need to do is show "due process."  What is due process?  Passing bills with a 51% majority and the president signing it.
> 
> Your vote matters.  You elect socialist authoritarians like Obama that promise to destroy this country... well you get what you asked for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look at my earlier graphs.  Look how much Bush tax cuts gave to the wealthy at the expense of the country.  Look at how much was stolen by conservative government to buy your support.  And it obviously worked.
> 
> Pirate captains of industry.  The wealth suckers of our times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bush's tax cuts to the poor and middle class were MUCH BIGGER than the tax cuts to the rich.  And I've told you ONE THOUSAND AND ONE TIMES that I DO NOT SUPPORT ANYTHING BUSH DID.  You are a lying POS authoritarian socialist, JUST LIKE BUSH WAS.
Click to expand...


Glad to see that you feel the same as I do about the worst President in American history.  His tax policy was the largest redistribution of wealth that the world has ever seen. 

However,  you continue to lie about who I am and who you are. 

All Americans are socialists as are all citizens of all other countries,  as there is no country in the world that doesn't employ it. If you disagree,  state what country doesn't. 

You know for sure that I am not authoritarian as I've stated numerous times that I'm the world's biggest fan of democracy. 

You are looking for the scapegoats that Fox promised you.  You need to look no further than yourself.


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which is why they keep forcing private companies to cancel those of their customers (you're so close to waking up for the first time in your miserable and irrelevant life).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing that Obamacare has done to force private companies to cancel existing policies.  They were grandfathered whether you choose to recognize that or not.
> 
> Some companies chose grandfathering,  some chose to cancel.
> 
> Stop acting like an idiot just making up what you wish was true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like everything with Dumbocrats, there is *no* choice. You don't get to _choose_ "grandfathering" you fuck'n buffoon...
> 
> You either meet the criteria or you don't. The criteria was the policy cannot change. An impossibility in the new Obamacare landscape which has caused healthcare costs to skyrocket.
Click to expand...


You insist that there was no grandfathering policy in Obamacare which is either blatant ignorance or a blatent lie.  Which?


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL What a retard.  You took a job that 10people were doing and identified 1 of the people that were not necessary.  That person was laid off and the salary from that laid of worker went to the CEO.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a fucking idiot.  You know nothing about me.  You make up stuff that you wish was true,  just like the stuff that you make up about yourself that you wish was true. You're living multiple lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, put up or shut up.  Name one process improvement you made that made one person at one American corporation more productive.  Just one.
Click to expand...


You are trying to get stalking information.  Not going to happen because you are untrustworthy.  

I spent a whole career doing manufacturing process improvement.  While you were sucking up,  I was working creating wealth.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look at my earlier graphs.  Look how much Bush tax cuts gave to the wealthy at the expense of the country.  Look at how much was stolen by conservative government to buy your support.  And it obviously worked.
> 
> Pirate captains of industry.  The wealth suckers of our times.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bush's tax cuts to the poor and middle class were MUCH BIGGER than the tax cuts to the rich.  And I've told you ONE THOUSAND AND ONE TIMES that I DO NOT SUPPORT ANYTHING BUSH DID.  You are a lying POS authoritarian socialist, JUST LIKE BUSH WAS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Glad to see that you feel the same as I do about the worst President in American history.  His tax policy was the largest redistribution of wealth that the world has ever seen.
> 
> However,  you continue to lie about who I am and who you are.
> 
> All Americans are socialists as are all citizens of all other countries,  as there is no country in the world that doesn't employ it. If you disagree,  state what country doesn't.
> 
> You know for sure that I am not authoritarian as I've stated numerous times that I'm the world's biggest fan of democracy.
> 
> You are looking for the scapegoats that Fox promised you.  You need to look no further than yourself.
Click to expand...


Democracy is the very definition of authoritarian.  Authority of the 51% majority to TYRANNIZE the minority.  This is why our formers, created a REPUBLIC, NOT A DEMOCRACY.  Stop acting like a buffoon, it's unbecoming.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> What a fucking idiot.  You know nothing about me.  You make up stuff that you wish was true,  just like the stuff that you make up about yourself that you wish was true. You're living multiple lies.
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, put up or shut up.  Name one process improvement you made that made one person at one American corporation more productive.  Just one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are trying to get stalking information.  Not going to happen because you are untrustworthy.
> 
> I spent a whole career doing manufacturing process improvement.  While you were sucking up,  I was working creating wealth.
Click to expand...


ROFL you didn't even have one process improvement that you can cite did you. ROFL what a joke.  Process improvement does not create wealth you retard.  Granted, one can get a paycheck for reducing costs, but I challenge you to explain how you created a single dollar with a single process improvement.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bush's tax cuts to the poor and middle class were MUCH BIGGER than the tax cuts to the rich.  And I've told you ONE THOUSAND AND ONE TIMES that I DO NOT SUPPORT ANYTHING BUSH DID.  You are a lying POS authoritarian socialist, JUST LIKE BUSH WAS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Glad to see that you feel the same as I do about the worst President in American history.  His tax policy was the largest redistribution of wealth that the world has ever seen.
> 
> However,  you continue to lie about who I am and who you are.
> 
> All Americans are socialists as are all citizens of all other countries,  as there is no country in the world that doesn't employ it. If you disagree,  state what country doesn't.
> 
> You know for sure that I am not authoritarian as I've stated numerous times that I'm the world's biggest fan of democracy.
> 
> You are looking for the scapegoats that Fox promised you.  You need to look no further than yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Democracy is the very definition of authoritarian.  Authority of the 51% majority to TYRANNIZE the minority.  This is why our formers, created a REPUBLIC, NOT A DEMOCRACY.  Stop acting like a buffoon, it's unbecoming.
Click to expand...


The alternative to rule by majority is rule by minority.  Tyranny.  You think that Americans are stupid enough to fall for what you did.  

A rude awakening is on the way.


----------



## beagle9

PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure how canceling people's health insurance by the *millions* is helping anyone...
> 
> Nearly 250,000 Colorado healthcare plans cancelled under Obamacare | KDVR.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Address that with the private health care insurance companies.  They're the only ones cancelling policies.  What do you think?  Make more money regardless of the cost to others?
Click to expand...

But aren't they cancelling those policies based upon the ACA, and them not meeting the new standards in those policies ? If so then it is the ACA that is causing that right ?


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, put up or shut up.  Name one process improvement you made that made one person at one American corporation more productive.  Just one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are trying to get stalking information.  Not going to happen because you are untrustworthy.
> 
> I spent a whole career doing manufacturing process improvement.  While you were sucking up,  I was working creating wealth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROFL you didn't even have one process improvement that you can cite did you. ROFL what a joke.  Process improvement does not create wealth you retard.  Granted, one can get a paycheck for reducing costs, but I challenge you to explain how you created a single dollar with a single process improvement.
Click to expand...


More evidence that you are nothing that you claim. "Process improvement does not create wealth". 

Stalk someone else you creep.


----------



## RKMBrown

beagle9 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure how canceling people's health insurance by the *millions* is helping anyone...
> 
> Nearly 250,000 Colorado healthcare plans cancelled under Obamacare | KDVR.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Address that with the private health care insurance companies.  They're the only ones cancelling policies.  What do you think?  Make more money regardless of the cost to others?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But aren't they cancelling those policies based upon the ACA, and them not meeting the new standards in those policies ? If so then it is the ACA that is causing that right ?
Click to expand...


Most young to middle age Americans prefer low premium cost high deductible insurance plans with free annual checkups.  Obama care does not allow for this type of plan.  This is just one of dozens of epically stupid changes the democrats decided were good for us.


----------



## PMZ

beagle9 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure how canceling people's health insurance by the *millions* is helping anyone...
> 
> Nearly 250,000 Colorado healthcare plans cancelled under Obamacare | KDVR.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Address that with the private health care insurance companies.  They're the only ones cancelling policies.  What do you think?  Make more money regardless of the cost to others?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But aren't they cancelling those policies based upon the ACA, and them not meeting the new standards in those policies ? If so then it is the ACA that is causing that right ?
Click to expand...


Existing policies were grandfathered if they didn't change.  Some companies chose that alternative,  some didn't.   Strictly up to them.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are trying to get stalking information.  Not going to happen because you are untrustworthy.
> 
> I spent a whole career doing manufacturing process improvement.  While you were sucking up,  I was working creating wealth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL you didn't even have one process improvement that you can cite did you. ROFL what a joke.  Process improvement does not create wealth you retard.  Granted, one can get a paycheck for reducing costs, but I challenge you to explain how you created a single dollar with a single process improvement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More evidence that you are nothing that you claim. "Process improvement does not create wealth".
> 
> Stalk someone else you creep.
Click to expand...


You did this for a living and to this day you don't even know what the result of process improvements are?


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL you didn't even have one process improvement that you can cite did you. ROFL what a joke.  Process improvement does not create wealth you retard.  Granted, one can get a paycheck for reducing costs, but I challenge you to explain how you created a single dollar with a single process improvement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More evidence that you are nothing that you claim. "Process improvement does not create wealth".
> 
> Stalk someone else you creep.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You did this for a living and to this day you don't even know what the result of process improvements are?  What a retard.
Click to expand...


Stalk someone else,  you creep.  *XXXXXXXXXX*


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> You did this for a living and to this day you don't even know what the result of process improvements are?  What a retard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stalk someone else,  you creep....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pretty sure what you just posted is against the site rules.  You might want to remove it.  I won't include it in my quote with the expectation that you will remove it.
Click to expand...


Stalking is creepy stuff. Don't try it again.


----------



## beagle9

PMZ said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Address that with the private health care insurance companies.  They're the only ones cancelling policies.  What do you think?  Make more money regardless of the cost to others?
> 
> 
> 
> But aren't they cancelling those policies based upon the ACA, and them not meeting the new standards in those policies ? If so then it is the ACA that is causing that right ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Existing policies were grandfathered if they didn't change.  Some companies chose that alternative,  some didn't.   Strictly up to them.
Click to expand...

If they didn't change ? Change to what, and who was making them change or not change ?


----------



## PMZ

beagle9 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But aren't they cancelling those policies based upon the ACA, and them not meeting the new standards in those policies ? If so then it is the ACA that is causing that right ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Existing policies were grandfathered if they didn't change.  Some companies chose that alternative,  some didn't.   Strictly up to them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If they didn't change ? Change to what, and who was making them change or not change ?
Click to expand...


The private insurance companies writing them.


----------



## Intense

Unions got special deals. Any single change in a policy, even a cost of living rate hike would disqualify the protection for the rest of us.


----------



## boedicca

It's pretty clear that all of the organizations that support ObamaCare either profit from it or will receive waivers and exemptions from it.

The supporters who will suffer from it are the useful idiots who were duped into voting for it.  They've served their purpose in getting ObamaCare passed, and now are needed to overpay to support the program.   So no exemptions for them.

And I'll note again: OBAMACARE IS NOT HEALTH CARE.  IT IS A POLITICAL GOVERNMENT PROGRAM.


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing that Obamacare has done to force private companies to cancel existing policies.  They were grandfathered whether you choose to recognize that or not.
> 
> Some companies chose grandfathering,  some chose to cancel.
> 
> Stop acting like an idiot just making up what you wish was true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like everything with Dumbocrats, there is *no* choice. You don't get to _choose_ "grandfathering" you fuck'n buffoon...
> 
> You either meet the criteria or you don't. The criteria was the policy cannot change. An impossibility in the new Obamacare landscape which has caused healthcare costs to skyrocket.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You insist that there was no grandfathering policy in Obamacare which is either blatant ignorance or a blatent lie.  Which?
Click to expand...


 Um..._where_ did I "insist" that?!? Hell, I never even _implied_ that. Another Dumbocrat who can't read


----------



## PMZ

boedicca said:


> It's pretty clear that all of the organizations that support ObamaCare either profit from it or will receive waivers and exemptions from it.
> 
> The supporters who will suffer from it are the useful idiots who were duped into voting for it.  They've served their purpose in getting ObamaCare passed, and now are needed to overpay to support the program.   So no exemptions for them.
> 
> And I'll note again: OBAMACARE IS NOT HEALTH CARE.  IT IS A POLITICAL GOVERNMENT PROGRAM.



It's insurance regulation.  It's personal responsibility. It's help for those who business chooses to not pay a living wage to for full time work.


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Address that with the private health care insurance companies.  They're the only ones cancelling policies.  What do you think?  Make more money regardless of the cost to others?
> 
> 
> 
> But aren't they cancelling those policies based upon the ACA, and them not meeting the new standards in those policies ? If so then it is the ACA that is causing that right ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Existing policies were grandfathered if they didn't change.  Some companies chose that alternative,  some didn't.   Strictly up to them.
Click to expand...


And once again PMZ exposes his extraordinary ignorance (can you tell this parasite has never held a job and certainly never created one for someone else?).

Obamacare has caused healthcare costs to skyrocket. This has *forced* companies to make changes, which in turn has *forced* companies to drop their policies.

It's the same old story with Dumbocrats. Force & Failure. In fact, if they weren't a bunch of miserable liars, that would be their slogan.

Dumbocrats: the party of FORCE and FAILURE!

Which is why they say [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION]:


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's pretty clear that all of the organizations that support ObamaCare either profit from it or will receive waivers and exemptions from it.
> 
> The supporters who will suffer from it are the useful idiots who were duped into voting for it.  They've served their purpose in getting ObamaCare passed, and now are needed to overpay to support the program.   So no exemptions for them.
> 
> And I'll note again: OBAMACARE IS NOT HEALTH CARE.  IT IS A POLITICAL GOVERNMENT PROGRAM.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's insurance regulation.  It's personal responsibility. It's help for those who business chooses to not pay a living wage to for full time work.
Click to expand...


Personal responsibility would be making parasites like you pay for your own damn healthcare [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION]. *Not* taxing me to pay for your healthcare.

You do realize nobody is buying your false narrative and asinine spin, don't you? 

Only PMZ could try to make the case that forcing me to pay for him is him "taking personal responsibility"...


----------



## PMZ

Intense said:


> Unions got special deals. Any single change in a policy, even a cost of living rate hike would disqualify the protection for the rest of us.



Wrong.


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But aren't they cancelling those policies based upon the ACA, and them not meeting the new standards in those policies ? If so then it is the ACA that is causing that right ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Existing policies were grandfathered if they didn't change.  Some companies chose that alternative,  some didn't.   Strictly up to them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And once again PMZ exposes his extraordinary ignorance (can you tell this parasite has never held a job and certainly never created one for someone else?).
> 
> Obamacare has caused healthcare costs to skyrocket. This has *forced* companies to make changes, which in turn has *forced* companies to drop their policies.
> 
> It's the same old story with Dumbocrats. Force & Failure. In fact, if they weren't a bunch of miserable liars, that would be their slogan.
> 
> Dumbocrats: the party of FORCE and FAILURE!
> 
> Which is why they say [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION]:
Click to expand...


You haven't learned yet that ignorance and lies don't sell here like they do in your living room.


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's pretty clear that all of the organizations that support ObamaCare either profit from it or will receive waivers and exemptions from it.
> 
> The supporters who will suffer from it are the useful idiots who were duped into voting for it.  They've served their purpose in getting ObamaCare passed, and now are needed to overpay to support the program.   So no exemptions for them.
> 
> And I'll note again: OBAMACARE IS NOT HEALTH CARE.  IT IS A POLITICAL GOVERNMENT PROGRAM.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's insurance regulation.  It's personal responsibility. It's help for those who business chooses to not pay a living wage to for full time work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Personal responsibility would be making parasites like you pay for your own damn healthcare [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION]. *Not* taxing me to pay for your healthcare.
> 
> You do realize nobody is buying your false narrative and asinine spin, don't you?
> 
> Only PMZ could try to make the case that forcing me to pay for him is him "taking personal responsibility"...
Click to expand...


No.  Not allowing you to weasel out of paying for you own medical bills is requireing personal responsibility from you.  Which obviously makes you squirm like the worm that you are.


----------



## PMZ

Conservatives are trained to believe everyone left of them are liberals and socialists. 

Conservatives are trained to fear the second most common economic system used in the world and our country. 

Conservatives are trained to support weak government as strong government is what is in the way of them imposing demonstrably dysfunctional conservatism on the majority. 

Conservatives are trained to believe that the tyranny of a minority creates freedom while the democracy of the majority reduces it. 

Conservatives are trained to respect only the unamended Constitution that the founders used to establish an aristocracy of wealthy white males. 

Conservatives are trained to question science and accept mythology. 

Conservatives are trained to believe that spending is the only cause of debt. 

Conservatives are trained to believe that unemployed Americans are good because they are desperate and will therefore work for less 

Conservatives are trained to believe that hard work is all that's required to be wealthy,  and therefore all poor do not work hard enough. 

Conservatives are trained to believe that what's wrong with 20% of the people having 85% of the wealth,  is that the 20% doesn't have more. 

Conservatives are trained to believe that the cause of the decline of America since the rise of conservatism are Democrats,  liberals,  government,  all workers but especially Union members or government workers,  all races other than Caucasian,  all religions other than Christianity,  all nationalities other than American,  women,  the poor,  illegal workers recruited here by business,  customers,  gays,  all of those who don't own guns,  the educated and intelligent,  young and old people,  mainstream media,  Al Gore,  George Soros,  Nancy Pelosi,  Joe Biden and all of the Obamas. 

Conservatives are trained to goose step with precision.


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> Conservatives are trained to support weak government as strong government is what is in the way of them imposing demonstrably dysfunctional conservatism on the majority.



This is 100% right. And do you know why?

Because conservatives support *FREEDOM* over a government nanny-state.

And that's because conservatives support personal responsibiity over being raised to be a lazy, useless parasite like you were...


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But aren't they cancelling those policies based upon the ACA, and them not meeting the new standards in those policies ? If so then it is the ACA that is causing that right ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Existing policies were grandfathered if they didn't change.  Some companies chose that alternative,  some didn't.   Strictly up to them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And once again PMZ exposes his extraordinary ignorance (can you tell this parasite has never held a job and certainly never created one for someone else?).
> 
> Obamacare has caused healthcare costs to skyrocket. This has *forced* companies to make changes, which in turn has *forced* companies to drop their policies.
> 
> It's the same old story with Dumbocrats. Force & Failure. In fact, if they weren't a bunch of miserable liars, that would be their slogan.
> 
> Dumbocrats: the party of FORCE and FAILURE!
> 
> Which is why they say [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION]:
Click to expand...


This is the latest Republican excuse for only creating,  never solving,  problems. 

Problems make us free.


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Existing policies were grandfathered if they didn't change.  Some companies chose that alternative,  some didn't.   Strictly up to them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And once again PMZ exposes his extraordinary ignorance (can you tell this parasite has never held a job and certainly never created one for someone else?).
> 
> Obamacare has caused healthcare costs to skyrocket. This has *forced* companies to make changes, which in turn has *forced* companies to drop their policies.
> 
> It's the same old story with Dumbocrats. Force & Failure. In fact, if they weren't a bunch of miserable liars, that would be their slogan.
> 
> Dumbocrats: the party of FORCE and FAILURE!
> 
> Which is why they say [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION]:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You haven't learned yet that ignorance and lies don't sell here like they do in your living room.
Click to expand...


Wow - way to run from the topic when you know you've been defeated.

If Dumbocrat "solutions" were any good, they wouldn't haven't to be *forced* on other people. People would flock to them voluntarily. It's proof of how bad Dumbocrat policy is and proof that Dumbocrats know their policy ends in failure and misery.


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Existing policies were grandfathered if they didn't change.  Some companies chose that alternative,  some didn't.   Strictly up to them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And once again PMZ exposes his extraordinary ignorance (can you tell this parasite has never held a job and certainly never created one for someone else?).
> 
> Obamacare has caused healthcare costs to skyrocket. This has *forced* companies to make changes, which in turn has *forced* companies to drop their policies.
> 
> It's the same old story with Dumbocrats. Force & Failure. In fact, if they weren't a bunch of miserable liars, that would be their slogan.
> 
> Dumbocrats: the party of FORCE and FAILURE!
> 
> Which is why they say [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION]:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is the latest Republican excuse for only creating,  never solving,  problems.
> 
> Problems make us free.
Click to expand...


Problems are for the INDIVIDUAL to solve - *not* the government.

I'm perfectly capable of solving my own problems. Why can't you solve your own, you worthless parasite?


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives are trained to support weak government as strong government is what is in the way of them imposing demonstrably dysfunctional conservatism on the majority.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is 100% right. And do you know why?
> 
> Because conservatives support *FREEDOM* over a government nanny-state.
> 
> And that's because conservatives support personal responsibiity over being raised to be a lazy, useless parasite like you were...
Click to expand...


Conservatives support their freedom to impose what's best for them on everyone else.  That's why the are anti democracy. 

See them goose stepping all in a row.


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's insurance regulation.  It's personal responsibility. It's help for those who business chooses to not pay a living wage to for full time work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Personal responsibility would be making parasites like you pay for your own damn healthcare  [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION]. *Not* taxing me to pay for your healthcare.
> 
> You do realize nobody is buying your false narrative and asinine spin, don't you?
> 
> Only PMZ could try to make the case that forcing me to pay for him is him "taking personal responsibility"...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  Not allowing you to weasel out of paying for you own medical bills is requireing personal responsibility from you.  Which obviously makes you squirm like the worm that you are.
Click to expand...


There is a SIMPLE solution for that [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] - don't provide treatment for anyone who isn't covered.

But in typical Dumbocrat fashion, you won't accept that freedom. You created the problem with slavery by forcing people to provide healthcare to those who won't pay. Then you compound the problem by trampling Constitutional rights and forcing people to purchase insurance to "fix" the problem you and your idiot Dumbocrtas created in the first place!!!!

It's the vicious cycle of idiot Dumbocrat policy.

We are literally living Atlas Shrugged!


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> And once again PMZ exposes his extraordinary ignorance (can you tell this parasite has never held a job and certainly never created one for someone else?).
> 
> Obamacare has caused healthcare costs to skyrocket. This has *forced* companies to make changes, which in turn has *forced* companies to drop their policies.
> 
> It's the same old story with Dumbocrats. Force & Failure. In fact, if they weren't a bunch of miserable liars, that would be their slogan.
> 
> Dumbocrats: the party of FORCE and FAILURE!
> 
> Which is why they say [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION]:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You haven't learned yet that ignorance and lies don't sell here like they do in your living room.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow - way to run from the topic when you know you've been defeated.
> 
> If Dumbocrat "solutions" were any good, they wouldn't haven't to be *forced* on other people. People would flock to them voluntarily. It's proof of how bad Dumbocrat policy is and proof that Dumbocrats know their policy ends in failure and misery.
Click to expand...


Again,  you are an anarchist.  That's not a new invention.  In fact it's what the earliest humanoids employed and left behind as it didnt allow progress. It's still employed by every animal species, except for humans, today. 

You treat like it's a new creative idea because it just occurred to you.


----------



## dblack

PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives are trained to support weak government as strong government is what is in the way of them imposing demonstrably dysfunctional conservatism on the majority.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is 100% right. And do you know why?
> 
> Because conservatives support *FREEDOM* over a government nanny-state.
> 
> And that's because conservatives support personal responsibiity over being raised to be a lazy, useless parasite like you were...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Conservatives support their freedom to impose what's best for them on everyone else.  That's why the are anti democracy.
> 
> See them goose stepping all in a row.
Click to expand...


I've had similar complaints with conservatives myself, but in the context of ACA, there seems to be bit of pot-calling-the-kettle-black going on here. Were you shooting for irony?


----------



## oreo

This POS bill was never intended to insure the uninsured, it was written to take over 1/6 of the private sector economy in this country.

And if anyone remembers how well FannieMae/FreddieMac was managed by the Federal Government which collapsed our economy in 2000,  by the government co-signing our names to 50 percent of the mortgages in this country that collapsed leaving the American taxpayer holding the bag--we can imagine what health care is going to be like in this country.
http://www.nytimes.com/1999/09/30/business/fannie-mae-eases-credit-to-aid-mortgage-lending.html

In Truth--the Federal Government couldn't manage a lemonade stand without driving it into bankruptcy.


----------



## dblack

oreo said:


> This POS bill was never intended to insure the uninsured, it was written to take over 1/6 of the private sector economy in this country.
> 
> And if anyone remembers how well FannieMae/FreddieMac crashed our economy in 2000, another take-over of the mortgage industry in this country--by the government authorizing our signatures on mortgage backed securities to 50 percent of the mortgages in this country--that collapsed leaving the American taxpayer holding the bag--we can imagine what health care is going to be like in this country.



It's getting really hard to take Democrats seriously when they complain about Republicans being subservient to business, given that they've presided over the two biggest corporate welfare giveaways in my lifetime (ACA and the bankster bailout).


----------



## PMZ

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is 100% right. And do you know why?
> 
> Because conservatives support *FREEDOM* over a government nanny-state.
> 
> And that's because conservatives support personal responsibiity over being raised to be a lazy, useless parasite like you were...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives support their freedom to impose what's best for them on everyone else.  That's why the are anti democracy.
> 
> See them goose stepping all in a row.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've had similar complaints with conservatives myself, but in the context of ACA, there seems to be bit of pot-calling-the-kettle-black going on here. Were you shooting for irony?
Click to expand...


Our freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution have never been breached. 

They're not the only enslaving forces though. 

Poverty is enslaving and inescapable by most.  

Ill health is the most enslaving of all human conditions.  (A close second is ignorance). 

Those are the conditions Obamacare addresses. 

How? 

Regulation prohibiting insurance companies from selling policies that leave major gaps in coverage. 

Empowering people who business chooses to not pay a living wage to, despite full time work,  to afford responsibility for their health care,  at less expensive, more effective venues than emergency rooms. 

Creating standardized market places to empower consumers with reliable information. 

Requiring the personal responsibility to cover your own health care costs. 

Not rocket science. Common sense.  

Despite the Republican zombie parade of closet monsters.


----------



## dblack

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives support their freedom to impose what's best for them on everyone else.  That's why the are anti democracy.
> 
> See them goose stepping all in a row.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've had similar complaints with conservatives myself, but in the context of ACA, there seems to be bit of pot-calling-the-kettle-black going on here. Were you shooting for irony?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution have never been breached.
> 
> They're not the only enslaving forces though. ....
Click to expand...


Uh... yeah. Not really sure what this speech has to do with much of anything. Except maybe, "It's different when we do it!"....


----------



## PMZ

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've had similar complaints with conservatives myself, but in the context of ACA, there seems to be bit of pot-calling-the-kettle-black going on here. Were you shooting for irony?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution have never been breached.
> 
> They're not the only enslaving forces though. ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh... yeah. Not really sure what this speech has to do with much of anything. Except maybe, "It's different when we do it!"....
Click to expand...


Conservatives tend to be focused completely inwardly.  Thats why conservative government and businesses and religion is so prone to failure. 

The liberal view is expansive and inclusive.  

The Union in the Civil War realized that the end of slavery did not benefit everyone,  but was the greater good.  (BTW,  see '12 Years a Slave). 

Greater good is fundamental to democracy.


----------



## dblack

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution have never been breached.
> 
> They're not the only enslaving forces though. ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh... yeah. Not really sure what this speech has to do with much of anything. Except maybe, "It's different when we do it!"....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Conservatives tend to be focused completely inwardly.  Thats why conservative government and businesses and religion is so prone to failure.
> 
> The liberal view is expansive and inclusive.
> 
> The Union in the Civil War realized that the end of slavery did not benefit everyone,  but was the greater good.  (BTW,  see '12 Years a Slave).
> 
> Greater good is fundamental to democracy.
Click to expand...


mkay - I guess we could phrase it this way...

"Liberals support their democratic mandate to impose what's best for them on everyone else. That's why they are anti-freedom. 

See them goose stepping all in a row."

Or, like I said "It's different when we do it!"


----------



## PMZ

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uh... yeah. Not really sure what this speech has to do with much of anything. Except maybe, "It's different when we do it!"....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives tend to be focused completely inwardly.  Thats why conservative government and businesses and religion is so prone to failure.
> 
> The liberal view is expansive and inclusive.
> 
> The Union in the Civil War realized that the end of slavery did not benefit everyone,  but was the greater good.  (BTW,  see '12 Years a Slave).
> 
> Greater good is fundamental to democracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> mkay - I guess we could phrase it this way...
> 
> "Liberals support their democratic mandate to impose what's best for them on everyone else. That's why they are anti-freedom.
> 
> See them goose stepping all in a row."
> 
> Or, like I said "It's different when we do it!"
Click to expand...


It's called solving problems. 

Libertarianism and conservatism,  two identical peas in a pod,  are about avoiding problems.  

Doing nothing and hoping that good fortune will come along before disaster.  

Or,  you might say that conservatism differs from Libertarianism because it's based not on limited government as much as government of,  by,  for the powerful. 

Which do you think?


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You haven't learned yet that ignorance and lies don't sell here like they do in your living room.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow - way to run from the topic when you know you've been defeated.
> 
> If Dumbocrat "solutions" were any good, they wouldn't haven't to be *forced* on other people. People would flock to them voluntarily. It's proof of how bad Dumbocrat policy is and proof that Dumbocrats know their policy ends in failure and misery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again,  you are an anarchist.  That's not a new invention.  In fact it's what the earliest humanoids employed and left behind as it didnt allow progress. It's still employed by every animal species, except for humans, today.
> 
> You treat like it's a new creative idea because it just occurred to you.
Click to expand...


Again, you are an uninformed idiot. All over this board I have bashed anarchists, Sovereign Citizens, and Libertarians as unconstitutional radicals.

Want to try again?


----------



## Antares

PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives are trained to support weak government as strong government is what is in the way of them imposing demonstrably dysfunctional conservatism on the majority.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is 100% right. And do you know why?
> 
> Because conservatives support *FREEDOM* over a government nanny-state.
> 
> And that's because conservatives support personal responsibiity over being raised to be a lazy, useless parasite like you were...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Conservatives support their freedom to impose what's best for them on everyone else.  That's why the are anti democracy.
> 
> See them goose stepping all in a row.
Click to expand...


"ARBEIT MACHT FREI"  Eh adolf?


----------



## PMZ

Antares said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is 100% right. And do you know why?
> 
> Because conservatives support *FREEDOM* over a government nanny-state.
> 
> And that's because conservatives support personal responsibiity over being raised to be a lazy, useless parasite like you were...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives support their freedom to impose what's best for them on everyone else.  That's why the are anti democracy.
> 
> See them goose stepping all in a row.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "ARBEIT MACHT FREI"  Eh adolf?
Click to expand...


I always thought so.  If it's meaningful work to you. Unfortunately lots of Americans have watched business send meaningful work overseas in exchange for executive bonuses. And executives pursuing only riches have forgotten what meaningful work even is. 

Some of the tragic,  huge costs of conservatism.


----------



## Antares

PMZ said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives support their freedom to impose what's best for them on everyone else.  That's why the are anti democracy.
> 
> See them goose stepping all in a row.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "ARBEIT MACHT FREI"  Eh adolf?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I always thought so.  If it's meaningful work to you. Unfortunately lots of Americans have watched business send meaningful work overseas in exchange for executive bonuses. And executives pursuing only riches have forgotten what meaningful work even is.
> 
> Some of the tragic,  huge costs of conservatism.
Click to expand...


Did you wanna start sending us to the camps kid?


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow - way to run from the topic when you know you've been defeated.
> 
> If Dumbocrat "solutions" were any good, they wouldn't haven't to be *forced* on other people. People would flock to them voluntarily. It's proof of how bad Dumbocrat policy is and proof that Dumbocrats know their policy ends in failure and misery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again,  you are an anarchist.  That's not a new invention.  In fact it's what the earliest humanoids employed and left behind as it didnt allow progress. It's still employed by every animal species, except for humans, today.
> 
> You treat like it's a new creative idea because it just occurred to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, you are an uninformed idiot. All over this board I have bashed anarchists, Sovereign Citizens, and Libertarians as unconstitutional radicals.
> 
> Want to try again?
Click to expand...


If it walks like a duck,  quacks like a duck,  flies like a duck,  chances are  it is.


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> Again,  you are an anarchist.  That's not a new invention.  In fact it's what the earliest humanoids employed and left behind as it didnt allow progress.



Is this an astounding display of ignorance by [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] or what? Seriously folks, my jaw is on the floor. The earliest civilizations we have documented were all oppressive dictatorships (from the Egyptian monarchies to the Roman Empires and everything before, during, and after) there was only rulers dictating to the masses what they would and would not do (just like today's Dumbocrat party).

Is there _anything_ you are educated/informed about? Anything?


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again,  you are an anarchist.  That's not a new invention.  In fact it's what the earliest humanoids employed and left behind as it didnt allow progress. It's still employed by every animal species, except for humans, today.
> 
> You treat like it's a new creative idea because it just occurred to you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you are an uninformed idiot. All over this board I have bashed anarchists, Sovereign Citizens, and Libertarians as unconstitutional radicals.
> 
> Want to try again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it walks like a duck,  quacks like a duck,  flies like a duck,  chances are  it is.
Click to expand...


Which is what confirms you are an uninformed idiot. Because you certainly quack like an uninformed idiot. You certainly walk like an uninformed idiot. And you certainly post like an uninformed idiot.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives tend to be focused completely inwardly.  That&#8217;s why conservative government and businesses and religion is so prone to failure.
> 
> The liberal view is expansive and inclusive.
> 
> The Union in the Civil War realized that the end of slavery did not benefit everyone,  but was the greater good.  (BTW,  see '12 Years a Slave).
> 
> Greater good is fundamental to democracy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mkay - I guess we could phrase it this way...
> 
> "Liberals support their democratic mandate to impose what's best for them on everyone else. That's why they are anti-freedom.
> 
> See them goose stepping all in a row."
> 
> Or, like I said "It's different when we do it!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's called solving problems.
> 
> Libertarianism and conservatism,  two identical peas in a pod,  are about avoiding problems.
> 
> Doing nothing and hoping that good fortune will come along before disaster.
> 
> Or,  you might say that conservatism differs from Libertarianism because it's based not on limited government as much as government of,  by,  for the powerful.
> 
> Which do you think?
Click to expand...


Spending someone's money as a hand-out is not solving problems, it's providing hand-outs with that person's money you retard.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> mkay - I guess we could phrase it this way...
> 
> "Liberals support their democratic mandate to impose what's best for them on everyone else. That's why they are anti-freedom.
> 
> See them goose stepping all in a row."
> 
> Or, like I said "It's different when we do it!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's called solving problems.
> 
> Libertarianism and conservatism,  two identical peas in a pod,  are about avoiding problems.
> 
> Doing nothing and hoping that good fortune will come along before disaster.
> 
> Or,  you might say that conservatism differs from Libertarianism because it's based not on limited government as much as government of,  by,  for the powerful.
> 
> Which do you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Spending someone's money as a hand-out is not solving problems, it's providing hand-outs with that person's money you retard.
Click to expand...


You're a Republican,  asshole.  Nobody expects anything from you except greed.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's called solving problems.
> 
> Libertarianism and conservatism,  two identical peas in a pod,  are about avoiding problems.
> 
> Doing nothing and hoping that good fortune will come along before disaster.
> 
> Or,  you might say that conservatism differs from Libertarianism because it's based not on limited government as much as government of,  by,  for the powerful.
> 
> Which do you think?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spending someone's money as a hand-out is not solving problems, it's providing hand-outs with that person's money you retard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're a Republican,  asshole.  Nobody expects anything from you except greed.
Click to expand...

I don't vote republican.  How many times are you gonna repeat that lie you POS?


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you are an uninformed idiot. All over this board I have bashed anarchists, Sovereign Citizens, and Libertarians as unconstitutional radicals.
> 
> Want to try again?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If it walks like a duck,  quacks like a duck,  flies like a duck,  chances are  it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is what confirms you are an uninformed idiot. Because you certainly quack like an uninformed idiot. You certainly walk like an uninformed idiot. And you certainly post like an uninformed idiot.
Click to expand...


Frankly,  jerkwad,  I have no use for anarchists because they are cowards trying to impose their irrationally on the rest of the world.  You can't even scrape up the balls to admit what you are.


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again,  you are an anarchist.  That's not a new invention.  In fact it's what the earliest humanoids employed and left behind as it didnt allow progress.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is this an astounding display of ignorance by [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] or what? Seriously folks, my jaw is on the floor. The earliest civilizations we have documented were all oppressive dictatorships (from the Egyptian monarchies to the Roman Empires and everything before, during, and after) there was only rulers dictating to the masses what they would and would not do (just like today's Dumbocrat party).
> 
> Is there _anything_ you are educated/informed about? Anything?
Click to expand...


You apparently think that early man walked out of the jungle and into the pyramids.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again,  you are an anarchist.  That's not a new invention.  In fact it's what the earliest humanoids employed and left behind as it didnt allow progress.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is this an astounding display of ignorance by [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] or what? Seriously folks, my jaw is on the floor. The earliest civilizations we have documented were all oppressive dictatorships (from the Egyptian monarchies to the Roman Empires and everything before, during, and after) there was only rulers dictating to the masses what they would and would not do (just like today's Dumbocrat party).
> 
> Is there _anything_ you are educated/informed about? Anything?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You apparently think that early man walked out of the jungle and into the pyramids.
Click to expand...


ROFL yeah cause mankind could not have left jungle to build the pyramids.

*PMZ* your are the best example we have of the dumbest type of human on the planet.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is this an astounding display of ignorance by [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] or what? Seriously folks, my jaw is on the floor. The earliest civilizations we have documented were all oppressive dictatorships (from the Egyptian monarchies to the Roman Empires and everything before, during, and after) there was only rulers dictating to the masses what they would and would not do (just like today's Dumbocrat party).
> 
> Is there _anything_ you are educated/informed about? Anything?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You apparently think that early man walked out of the jungle and into the pyramids.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Example of the dumbest human on the planet... *PMZ*
Click to expand...


You even drag the reputation of dixiecrat Texans down.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You apparently think that early man walked out of the jungle and into the pyramids.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Example of the dumbest human on the planet... *PMZ*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You even drag the reputation of dixiecrat Texans down.
Click to expand...


Your ignorance is only surpassed by your stupidity.


----------



## Antares

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Example of the dumbest human on the planet... *PMZ*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You even drag the reputation of dixiecrat Texans down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your ignorance is only surpassed by your stupidity.
Click to expand...


Don't you know that we are to but bask in the greatness that is PMS?


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Example of the dumbest human on the planet... *PMZ*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You even drag the reputation of dixiecrat Texans down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your ignorance is only surpassed by your stupidity.
Click to expand...


Says the poster boy for dixiecrat inbreeding.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You even drag the reputation of dixiecrat Texans down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your ignorance is only surpassed by your stupidity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says the poster boy for dixiecrat inbreeding.
Click to expand...


Let me get this straight.  You rely on government as your daddy, and you accuse my FAMILY OF INBREEDING? How many voices do you hear in your head?  How long have you been off the meds?  What is the reason for your abandoning of your declared republican party, is this your way to make amends for something you did?


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's called solving problems.
> 
> Libertarianism and conservatism,  two identical peas in a pod,  are about avoiding problems.
> 
> Doing nothing and hoping that good fortune will come along before disaster.
> 
> Or,  you might say that conservatism differs from Libertarianism because it's based not on limited government as much as government of,  by,  for the powerful.
> 
> Which do you think?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spending someone's money as a hand-out is not solving problems, it's providing hand-outs with that person's money you retard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're a Republican,  asshole.  Nobody expects anything from you except greed.
Click to expand...


You're a Dumbocrat, asshole. Nobody expects anything from you except being a worthless parasite.

And you are certainly meetings those expectations...


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it walks like a duck,  quacks like a duck,  flies like a duck,  chances are  it is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is what confirms you are an uninformed idiot. Because you certainly quack like an uninformed idiot. You certainly walk like an uninformed idiot. And you certainly post like an uninformed idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Frankly,  jerkwad,  I have no use for anarchists because they are cowards trying to impose their irrationally on the rest of the world.  You can't even scrape up the balls to admit what you are.
Click to expand...


Says the parasite Dumbocrat who pretends to be a registered Republican... 

My posts for years now speak for themselves. I have adamantly opposed the radicals on the right. You're just attempting to create this narrative out of desperation because I have owned you with facts and exposed your astounding ignorance in the process.


----------



## P@triot

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your ignorance is only surpassed by your stupidity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Says the poster boy for dixiecrat inbreeding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me get this straight.  You rely on government as your daddy, and you accuse my FAMILY OF INBREEDING? How many voices do you hear in your head?  How long have you been off the meds?  What is the reason for your abandoning of your declared republican party, is this your way to make amends for something you did?
Click to expand...


Watching the buffoon known as PMS rant like a lunatic because he's afraid America is on the verge of waking up and refusing to allow him to be the parasite to Americans that he has spent his life being is priceless.

He is literally crippled with fear that some day he will be expected to act like a big boy and pay his own way through life.


----------



## boedicca

PMZ said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's pretty clear that all of the organizations that support ObamaCare either profit from it or will receive waivers and exemptions from it.
> 
> The supporters who will suffer from it are the useful idiots who were duped into voting for it.  They've served their purpose in getting ObamaCare passed, and now are needed to overpay to support the program.   So no exemptions for them.
> 
> And I'll note again: OBAMACARE IS NOT HEALTH CARE.  IT IS A POLITICAL GOVERNMENT PROGRAM.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's insurance regulation.  It's personal responsibility. It's help for those who business chooses to not pay a living wage to for full time work.
Click to expand...



No it's not.   Personal responsibility means the individual takes responsibility.  This is government coercion against the will of many of the participants/victims/dupes...who are forced to pay for a bunch of "coverage" they neither want nor need.


----------



## dblack

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives tend to be focused completely inwardly.  Thats why conservative government and businesses and religion is so prone to failure.
> 
> The liberal view is expansive and inclusive.
> 
> The Union in the Civil War realized that the end of slavery did not benefit everyone,  but was the greater good.  (BTW,  see '12 Years a Slave).
> 
> Greater good is fundamental to democracy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mkay - I guess we could phrase it this way...
> 
> "Liberals support their democratic mandate to impose what's best for them on everyone else. That's why they are anti-freedom.
> 
> See them goose stepping all in a row."
> 
> Or, like I said "It's different when we do it!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's called solving problems.
> 
> Libertarianism and conservatism,  two identical peas in a pod,  are about avoiding problems.
> 
> Doing nothing and hoping that good fortune will come along before disaster.
Click to expand...


Nah... libertarianism is about recognizing that most of our problems are best solved through voluntary cooperation, and not forcing others to bend to our will.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is this an astounding display of ignorance by [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] or what? Seriously folks, my jaw is on the floor. The earliest civilizations we have documented were all oppressive dictatorships (from the Egyptian monarchies to the Roman Empires and everything before, during, and after) there was only rulers dictating to the masses what they would and would not do (just like today's Dumbocrat party).
> 
> Is there _anything_ you are educated/informed about? Anything?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You apparently think that early man walked out of the jungle and into the pyramids.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROFL yeah cause mankind could not have left jungle to build the pyramids.
> 
> *PMZ* your are the best example we have of the dumbest type of human on the planet.
Click to expand...


That honor belongs to conservative mind slaves with no apparent ability to think for themselves.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your ignorance is only surpassed by your stupidity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Says the poster boy for dixiecrat inbreeding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me get this straight.  You rely on government as your daddy, and you accuse my FAMILY OF INBREEDING? How many voices do you hear in your head?  How long have you been off the meds?  What is the reason for your abandoning of your declared republican party, is this your way to make amends for something you did?
Click to expand...


Dixiecrats stopped evolving when they gave up work for slavery. They have not moved on.  They feel now, as they did then, that they are entitled to the products of the work of others.


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which is what confirms you are an uninformed idiot. Because you certainly quack like an uninformed idiot. You certainly walk like an uninformed idiot. And you certainly post like an uninformed idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frankly,  jerkwad,  I have no use for anarchists because they are cowards trying to impose their irrationally on the rest of the world.  You can't even scrape up the balls to admit what you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says the parasite Dumbocrat who pretends to be a registered Republican...
> 
> My posts for years now speak for themselves. I have adamantly opposed the radicals on the right. You're just attempting to create this narrative out of desperation because I have owned you with facts and exposed your astounding ignorance in the process.
Click to expand...


You are an anarchist.  The voice of primitive living as all lower forms of life are still stuck with.  The absence of intelligence and ration. I can learn more from gators than you.  At least they admit to who they are.


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which is what confirms you are an uninformed idiot. Because you certainly quack like an uninformed idiot. You certainly walk like an uninformed idiot. And you certainly post like an uninformed idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frankly,  jerkwad,  I have no use for anarchists because they are cowards trying to impose their irrationally on the rest of the world.  You can't even scrape up the balls to admit what you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says the parasite Dumbocrat who pretends to be a registered Republican...
> 
> My posts for years now speak for themselves. I have adamantly opposed the radicals on the right. You're just attempting to create this narrative out of desperation because I have owned you with facts and exposed your astounding ignorance in the process.
Click to expand...


The functional GOP left me decades ago but is returning now.  Worth the wait if they can still find enough leadership to shed their parasites.


----------



## PMZ

boedicca said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's pretty clear that all of the organizations that support ObamaCare either profit from it or will receive waivers and exemptions from it.
> 
> The supporters who will suffer from it are the useful idiots who were duped into voting for it.  They've served their purpose in getting ObamaCare passed, and now are needed to overpay to support the program.   So no exemptions for them.
> 
> And I'll note again: OBAMACARE IS NOT HEALTH CARE.  IT IS A POLITICAL GOVERNMENT PROGRAM.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's insurance regulation.  It's personal responsibility. It's help for those who business chooses to not pay a living wage to for full time work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No it's not.   Personal responsibility means the individual takes responsibility.  This is government coercion against the will of many of the participants/victims/dupes...who are forced to pay for a bunch of "coverage" they neither want nor need.
Click to expand...


People who are personally responsible will see only improvement.  People who are not will feel pressure to become so.  I guess that you are the latter.  

If you're paid enough to afford to pay your own health care bills, you now have to.  If you are stuck with an employer who is living off your work without paying you a living wage,  we are better off making up what he is denying you than sending you for the most expensive,  least effective health care possible,  the emergency room. 

For those who believe that anyone paid less than a living wage should die in the street,  you don't belong here. Go live in the failed countries that share your barbaric beliefs.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You apparently think that early man walked out of the jungle and into the pyramids.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL yeah cause mankind could not have left jungle to build the pyramids.
> 
> *PMZ* your are the best example we have of the dumbest type of human on the planet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That honor belongs to conservative mind slaves with no apparent ability to think for themselves.
Click to expand...


You said you are a conservative.  Does that make you a mind slave with no apparent ability to think for yourself?


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Says the poster boy for dixiecrat inbreeding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me get this straight.  You rely on government as your daddy, and you accuse my FAMILY OF INBREEDING? How many voices do you hear in your head?  How long have you been off the meds?  What is the reason for your abandoning of your declared republican party, is this your way to make amends for something you did?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dixiecrats stopped evolving when they gave up work for slavery. They have not moved on.  They feel now, as they did then, that they are entitled to the products of the work of others.
Click to expand...

Yeah it's called buying products in a free market dipshit.


----------



## PMZ

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> mkay - I guess we could phrase it this way...
> 
> "Liberals support their democratic mandate to impose what's best for them on everyone else. That's why they are anti-freedom.
> 
> See them goose stepping all in a row."
> 
> Or, like I said "It's different when we do it!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's called solving problems.
> 
> Libertarianism and conservatism,  two identical peas in a pod,  are about avoiding problems.
> 
> Doing nothing and hoping that good fortune will come along before disaster.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nah... libertarianism is about recognizing that most of our problems are best solved through voluntary cooperation, and not forcing others to bend to our will.
Click to expand...


Have at it.  Liberals will take on those problems that you fail to solve.


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Says the poster boy for dixiecrat inbreeding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me get this straight.  You rely on government as your daddy, and you accuse my FAMILY OF INBREEDING? How many voices do you hear in your head?  How long have you been off the meds?  What is the reason for your abandoning of your declared republican party, is this your way to make amends for something you did?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dixiecrats stopped evolving when they gave up work for slavery. They have not moved on.  They feel now, as they did then, that they are entitled to the products of the work of others.
Click to expand...


It's comical listening to this parasite attempt to create a new narrative after he has had his ass handed to him with facts.

We point out how Dumbocrat policy is pure, unadulterated slavery. Forcing those of us who labor to provide more than half of the fruits of our labor to parasites like PMZ. He then reads that and thinks "hey, why don't I accuse THEM of slavery" . One problem PMZ - working a job of your own free will and for the wage you agreed to work for is not slavery. It's just a job. So your narrative is as nonsensical and ignorant as you.

We point out how Dumbocrat policy is all about allowing parasites like him to not have to take any personal responsibility in life. Forcing those of us who labor to take responsibility for parasites like PMZ. He then reads that and thinks "hey, why don't I accuse THEM of not taking personal responsibility" . One problem PMZ - when you demand that government tax people like me to pay for health insurance policies of parasites like you, that's the complete opposite of taking personal responsibility.

Parroting our accurate points back at us from your inaccurate perspective to support your failed ideology simply doesn't work PMZ. You continue to make a fool out of yourself and we continue to laugh our asses off at you.

Now why don't you tell us again how Obama has "rescued" the economy and "protected" us from terrorism?


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me get this straight.  You rely on government as your daddy, and you accuse my FAMILY OF INBREEDING? How many voices do you hear in your head?  How long have you been off the meds?  What is the reason for your abandoning of your declared republican party, is this your way to make amends for something you did?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dixiecrats stopped evolving when they gave up work for slavery. They have not moved on.  They feel now, as they did then, that they are entitled to the products of the work of others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's comical listening to this parasite attempt to create a new narrative after he has had his ass handed to him with facts.
> 
> We point out how Dumbocrat policy is pure, unadulterated slavery. Forcing those of us who labor to provide more than half of the fruits of our labor to parasites like PMZ. He then reads that and thinks "hey, why don't I accuse THEM of slavery" . One problem PMZ - working a job of your own free will and for the wage you agreed to work for is not slavery. It's just a job. So your narrative is as nonsensical and ignorant as you.
> 
> We point out how Dumbocrat policy is all about allowing parasites like him to not have to take any personal responsibility in life. Forcing those of us who labor to take responsibility for parasites like PMZ. He then reads that and thinks "hey, why don't I accuse THEM of not taking personal responsibility" . One problem PMZ - when you demand that government tax people like me to pay for health insurance policies of parasites like you, that's the complete opposite of taking personal responsibility.
> 
> Parroting our accurate points back at us from your inaccurate perspective to support your failed ideology simply doesn't work PMZ. You continue to make a fool out of yourself and we continue to laugh our asses off at you.
> 
> Now why don't you tell us again how Obama has "rescued" the economy and "protected" us from terrorism?
Click to expand...


If you can't remember the past,  no wonder you're an anarchist. The past is when mankind learned that it doesn't work.  

If you can't even remember 5 years ago,  get thee into a home for the memory impaired.


----------



## dblack

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's called solving problems.
> 
> Libertarianism and conservatism,  two identical peas in a pod,  are about avoiding problems.
> 
> Doing nothing and hoping that good fortune will come along before disaster.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nah... libertarianism is about recognizing that most of our problems are best solved through voluntary cooperation, and not forcing others to bend to our will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have at it.  Liberals will take on those problems that you fail to solve.
Click to expand...


By forcing others to bend to their will?


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dixiecrats stopped evolving when they gave up work for slavery. They have not moved on.  They feel now, as they did then, that they are entitled to the products of the work of others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's comical listening to this parasite attempt to create a new narrative after he has had his ass handed to him with facts.
> 
> We point out how Dumbocrat policy is pure, unadulterated slavery. Forcing those of us who labor to provide more than half of the fruits of our labor to parasites like PMZ. He then reads that and thinks "hey, why don't I accuse THEM of slavery" . One problem PMZ - working a job of your own free will and for the wage you agreed to work for is not slavery. It's just a job. So your narrative is as nonsensical and ignorant as you.
> 
> We point out how Dumbocrat policy is all about allowing parasites like him to not have to take any personal responsibility in life. Forcing those of us who labor to take responsibility for parasites like PMZ. He then reads that and thinks "hey, why don't I accuse THEM of not taking personal responsibility" . One problem PMZ - when you demand that government tax people like me to pay for health insurance policies of parasites like you, that's the complete opposite of taking personal responsibility.
> 
> Parroting our accurate points back at us from your inaccurate perspective to support your failed ideology simply doesn't work PMZ. You continue to make a fool out of yourself and we continue to laugh our asses off at you.
> 
> Now why don't you tell us again how Obama has "rescued" the economy and "protected" us from terrorism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you can't remember the past,  no wonder you're an anarchist. The past is when mankind learned that it doesn't work.
> 
> If you can't even remember 5 years ago,  get thee into a home for the memory impaired.
Click to expand...


Why are you talking about Dumbocrat past when Dumbocrat present is collapsing the U.S.? $17 trillion in debt. Obamacare causing people to lose their health insurance. Unemployment rampant. The masses living off of food stamps.

Basically the Dumbocrat utopia. You've managed to successfully transform us into Cuba.


----------



## P@triot

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nah... libertarianism is about recognizing that most of our problems are best solved through voluntary cooperation, and not forcing others to bend to our will.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have at it.  Liberals will take on those problems that you fail to solve.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By forcing others to bend to their will?
Click to expand...


Well duh.... it's the staple of the left. Adolf Hitler. Benito Mussolini. Fidel Castro. Joseph Stalin.

The left has always been about forcing others to do their will. It's why they have to strip people of freedom and make everything mandatory.

Good ideas don't need to be made mandatory. People flock to good ideas. Dumbocrats know it, hence force and oppression by their side.


----------



## PMZ

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nah... libertarianism is about recognizing that most of our problems are best solved through voluntary cooperation, and not forcing others to bend to our will.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have at it.  Liberals will take on those problems that you fail to solve.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By forcing others to bend to their will?
Click to expand...


By establishing consequences for irresponsible actions that impose what's best for you on others.


----------



## dblack

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have at it.  Liberals will take on those problems that you fail to solve.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By forcing others to bend to their will?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By establishing consequences for irresponsible actions that impose what's best for you on others.
Click to expand...


???

Is that code for "force people to buy insurance they don't want"?


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's comical listening to this parasite attempt to create a new narrative after he has had his ass handed to him with facts.
> 
> We point out how Dumbocrat policy is pure, unadulterated slavery. Forcing those of us who labor to provide more than half of the fruits of our labor to parasites like PMZ. He then reads that and thinks "hey, why don't I accuse THEM of slavery" . One problem PMZ - working a job of your own free will and for the wage you agreed to work for is not slavery. It's just a job. So your narrative is as nonsensical and ignorant as you.
> 
> We point out how Dumbocrat policy is all about allowing parasites like him to not have to take any personal responsibility in life. Forcing those of us who labor to take responsibility for parasites like PMZ. He then reads that and thinks "hey, why don't I accuse THEM of not taking personal responsibility" . One problem PMZ - when you demand that government tax people like me to pay for health insurance policies of parasites like you, that's the complete opposite of taking personal responsibility.
> 
> Parroting our accurate points back at us from your inaccurate perspective to support your failed ideology simply doesn't work PMZ. You continue to make a fool out of yourself and we continue to laugh our asses off at you.
> 
> Now why don't you tell us again how Obama has "rescued" the economy and "protected" us from terrorism?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you can't remember the past,  no wonder you're an anarchist. The past is when mankind learned that it doesn't work.
> 
> If you can't even remember 5 years ago,  get thee into a home for the memory impaired.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are you talking about Dumbocrat past when Dumbocrat present is collapsing the U.S.? $17 trillion in debt. Obamacare causing people to lose their health insurance. Unemployment rampant. The masses living off of food stamps.
> 
> Basically the Dumbocrat utopia. You've managed to successfully transform us into Cuba.
Click to expand...


All of the $17T debt came from the failure of conservative policies under Bush. 

Our unemployment comes from business shipping millions of American jobs overseas. 

The problems with the ACA startup are minor everywhere but at the Republican propaganda factory where everything Obama is given maximum spin as the only move left after the massive failures of the right.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you can't remember the past,  no wonder you're an anarchist. The past is when mankind learned that it doesn't work.
> 
> If you can't even remember 5 years ago,  get thee into a home for the memory impaired.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you talking about Dumbocrat past when Dumbocrat present is collapsing the U.S.? $17 trillion in debt. Obamacare causing people to lose their health insurance. Unemployment rampant. The masses living off of food stamps.
> 
> Basically the Dumbocrat utopia. You've managed to successfully transform us into Cuba.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All of the $17T debt came from the failure of conservative policies under Bush.
> 
> Our unemployment comes from business shipping millions of American jobs overseas.
> 
> The problems with the ACA startup are minor everywhere but at the Republican propaganda factory where everything Obama is given maximum spin as the only move left after the massive failures of the right.
Click to expand...


Are you an alcoholic?

Even a blind squirrel gets more shit right than you.


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you can't remember the past,  no wonder you're an anarchist. The past is when mankind learned that it doesn't work.
> 
> If you can't even remember 5 years ago,  get thee into a home for the memory impaired.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you talking about Dumbocrat past when Dumbocrat present is collapsing the U.S.? $17 trillion in debt. Obamacare causing people to lose their health insurance. Unemployment rampant. The masses living off of food stamps.
> 
> Basically the Dumbocrat utopia. You've managed to successfully transform us into Cuba.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All of the $17T debt came from the failure of conservative policies under Bush.
> 
> Our unemployment comes from business shipping millions of American jobs overseas.
> 
> The problems with the ACA startup are minor everywhere but at the Republican propaganda factory where everything Obama is given maximum spin as the only move left after the massive failures of the right.
Click to expand...


Bush left office with $10 trillion in debt cupcake. It took Obama and the reckless Dumbocrats only 4 years to add 70% ($7 trillion) of what it had previously taken this nation 230 years to accumulate.

Want to try again?


----------



## RKMBrown

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you talking about Dumbocrat past when Dumbocrat present is collapsing the U.S.? $17 trillion in debt. Obamacare causing people to lose their health insurance. Unemployment rampant. The masses living off of food stamps.
> 
> Basically the Dumbocrat utopia. You've managed to successfully transform us into Cuba.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All of the $17T debt came from the failure of conservative policies under Bush.
> 
> Our unemployment comes from business shipping millions of American jobs overseas.
> 
> The problems with the ACA startup are minor everywhere but at the Republican propaganda factory where everything Obama is given maximum spin as the only move left after the massive failures of the right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bush left office with $10 trillion in debt cupcake. It took Obama and the reckless Dumbocrats only 4 years to add 70% ($7 trillion) of what it had previously taken this nation 230 years to accumulate.
> 
> Want to try again?
Click to expand...


Without bush there is no Iraq war, and no Obama.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you talking about Dumbocrat past when Dumbocrat present is collapsing the U.S.? $17 trillion in debt. Obamacare causing people to lose their health insurance. Unemployment rampant. The masses living off of food stamps.
> 
> Basically the Dumbocrat utopia. You've managed to successfully transform us into Cuba.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All of the $17T debt came from the failure of conservative policies under Bush.
> 
> Our unemployment comes from business shipping millions of American jobs overseas.
> 
> The problems with the ACA startup are minor everywhere but at the Republican propaganda factory where everything Obama is given maximum spin as the only move left after the massive failures of the right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you an alcoholic?
> 
> Even a blind squirrel gets more shit right than you.
Click to expand...


You have a very unrealistic opinion of the value of your thoughts.  

To anyone,  much less everyone.


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you can't remember the past,  no wonder you're an anarchist. The past is when mankind learned that it doesn't work.
> 
> If you can't even remember 5 years ago,  get thee into a home for the memory impaired.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you talking about Dumbocrat past when Dumbocrat present is collapsing the U.S.? $17 trillion in debt. Obamacare causing people to lose their health insurance. Unemployment rampant. The masses living off of food stamps.
> 
> Basically the Dumbocrat utopia. You've managed to successfully transform us into Cuba.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All of the $17T debt came from the failure of conservative policies under Bush.
> 
> Our unemployment comes from business shipping millions of American jobs overseas.
> 
> The problems with the ACA startup are minor everywhere but at the Republican propaganda factory where everything Obama is given maximum spin as the only move left after the massive failures of the right.
Click to expand...


It's pretty remarkable watching you avoid responsibility (like everything else in life for you) for the policies you support.

Obama owns the White House and the Dumbocrats own the Senate. It's the Dumbocrats show - and what they've given us is what Dumbocrats always give us - misery, poverty, and failure.

For 5 years now, Obama has gotten every bill he has requested and the Republican's have yet to get a single bill because Harry Reid won't let the Senate even vote (can you say oppressive dictator?) and Barack Obama won't sign them anyway.

You collapsed Detroit. Now you're collapsing the United States. Be a big boy for once in your miserable life and own it.


----------



## P@triot

RKMBrown said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> All of the $17T debt came from the failure of conservative policies under Bush.
> 
> Our unemployment comes from business shipping millions of American jobs overseas.
> 
> The problems with the ACA startup are minor everywhere but at the Republican propaganda factory where everything Obama is given maximum spin as the only move left after the massive failures of the right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bush left office with $10 trillion in debt cupcake. It took Obama and the reckless Dumbocrats only 4 years to add 70% ($7 trillion) of what it had previously taken this nation 230 years to accumulate.
> 
> Want to try again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Without bush there is no Iraq war, and no Obama.
Click to expand...


So you're admitting that Obama is a FAILURE and one that Bush is responsible for? 

Hey, I agree with you on both of those points! Obama is a failure and Bush did help put him in office. Still, it doesn't change the fact that Dumbocrat policy has added almost as much in 4 years to the debt as our entire nations history accumulated in 230 years prior.


----------



## P@triot

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you talking about Dumbocrat past when Dumbocrat present is collapsing the U.S.? $17 trillion in debt. Obamacare causing people to lose their health insurance. Unemployment rampant. The masses living off of food stamps.
> 
> Basically the Dumbocrat utopia. You've managed to successfully transform us into Cuba.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All of the $17T debt came from the failure of conservative policies under Bush.
> 
> Our unemployment comes from business shipping millions of American jobs overseas.
> 
> The problems with the ACA startup are minor everywhere but at the Republican propaganda factory where everything Obama is given maximum spin as the only move left after the massive failures of the right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you an alcoholic?
> 
> Even a blind squirrel gets more shit right than you.
Click to expand...


He's not an alcoholic - he's a parasite. He's determined to get someone to force you and I to provide for him in life. Even alcoholics are able to function in life better than PMZ.


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you talking about Dumbocrat past when Dumbocrat present is collapsing the U.S.? $17 trillion in debt. Obamacare causing people to lose their health insurance. Unemployment rampant. The masses living off of food stamps.
> 
> Basically the Dumbocrat utopia. You've managed to successfully transform us into Cuba.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All of the $17T debt came from the failure of conservative policies under Bush.
> 
> Our unemployment comes from business shipping millions of American jobs overseas.
> 
> The problems with the ACA startup are minor everywhere but at the Republican propaganda factory where everything Obama is given maximum spin as the only move left after the massive failures of the right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bush left office with $10 trillion in debt cupcake. It took Obama and the reckless Dumbocrats only 4 years to add 70% ($7 trillion) of what it had previously taken this nation 230 years to accumulate.
> 
> Want to try again?
Click to expand...


Bush left office with two unaffordable holy wars going on,  The Great Recession going full blast,  Wall St in the chaos of bankruptcy,  US auto on the ropes,  American business shipping American careers overseas as fast as possible,  and the largest upward wealth redistribution ever seen killing revenue.  Here's how those policies created all of our debt. 







Notice where the debt line goes without Bush. 

Want to try again?


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> All of the $17T debt came from the failure of conservative policies under Bush.
> 
> Our unemployment comes from business shipping millions of American jobs overseas.
> 
> The problems with the ACA startup are minor everywhere but at the Republican propaganda factory where everything Obama is given maximum spin as the only move left after the massive failures of the right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bush left office with $10 trillion in debt cupcake. It took Obama and the reckless Dumbocrats only 4 years to add 70% ($7 trillion) of what it had previously taken this nation 230 years to accumulate.
> 
> Want to try again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Without bush there is no Iraq war, and no Obama.
Click to expand...


If we had gone with the popular vote in 2000, instead of Bush,  we would have had Gore/Lieberman. He would have undoubtedly continued Clintonomics.  He would have avoided Bush's holy wars.  He would have avoided the wealth redistribution tax cuts. He would have avoided the housing boom and bust and it's impact on Wall St and Detroit. And the Great Recession.  

According to the CBO,  the continuation of Clintonomics would have paid off the entire national debt by 2006, and created a total surplus of $2.5T by 2011.

Under those conditions Republicans would have had no chance in 2008, and Obama would have been a shoe in. And inherited a booming country rather than a shipwreck. 

Republicans would be a fully functional party now and a responsible partner in Congress.


----------



## Antares

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bush left office with $10 trillion in debt cupcake. It took Obama and the reckless Dumbocrats only 4 years to add 70% ($7 trillion) of what it had previously taken this nation 230 years to accumulate.
> 
> Want to try again?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Without bush there is no Iraq war, and no Obama.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If we had gone with the popular vote in 2000, instead of Bush,  we would have had Gore/Lieberman. He would have undoubtedly continued Clintonomics.  He would have avoided Bush's holy wars.  He would have avoided the wealth redistribution tax cuts. He would have avoided the housing boom and bust and it's impact on Wall St and Detroit. And the Great Recession.
> 
> According to the CBO,  the continuation of Clintonomics would have paid off the entire national debt by 2006, and created a total surplus of $2.5T by 2011.
> 
> Under those conditions Republicans would have had no chance in 2008, and Obama would have been a shoe in. And inherited a booming country rather than a shipwreck.
> 
> Republicans would be a fully functional party now and a responsible partner in Congress.
Click to expand...


Stupid fuck, if Gore had won his own State....that should tell you what a stupid fuck you.

Now...when bammy starts calling for re-education camps....will you help him round us up?


----------



## PMZ

Antares said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Without bush there is no Iraq war, and no Obama.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If we had gone with the popular vote in 2000, instead of Bush,  we would have had Gore/Lieberman. He would have undoubtedly continued Clintonomics.  He would have avoided Bush's holy wars.  He would have avoided the wealth redistribution tax cuts. He would have avoided the housing boom and bust and it's impact on Wall St and Detroit. And the Great Recession.
> 
> According to the CBO,  the continuation of Clintonomics would have paid off the entire national debt by 2006, and created a total surplus of $2.5T by 2011.
> 
> Under those conditions Republicans would have had no chance in 2008, and Obama would have been a shoe in. And inherited a booming country rather than a shipwreck.
> 
> Republicans would be a fully functional party now and a responsible partner in Congress.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stupid fuck, if Gore had won his own State....that should tell you what a stupid fuck you.
> 
> Now...when bammy starts calling for re-education camps....will you help him round us up?
Click to expand...


Do you have a point to make it is just the beer muscles kicking in.


----------



## PMZ

It's amazing that conservatives don't understand where their reputation for being stupid comes from.


----------



## Antares

PMZ said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> If we had gone with the popular vote in 2000, instead of Bush,  we would have had Gore/Lieberman. He would have undoubtedly continued Clintonomics.  He would have avoided Bush's holy wars.  He would have avoided the wealth redistribution tax cuts. He would have avoided the housing boom and bust and it's impact on Wall St and Detroit. And the Great Recession.
> 
> According to the CBO,  the continuation of Clintonomics would have paid off the entire national debt by 2006, and created a total surplus of $2.5T by 2011.
> 
> Under those conditions Republicans would have had no chance in 2008, and Obama would have been a shoe in. And inherited a booming country rather than a shipwreck.
> 
> Republicans would be a fully functional party now and a responsible partner in Congress.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stupid fuck, if Gore had won his own State....that should tell you what a stupid fuck you.
> 
> Now...when bammy starts calling for re-education camps....will you help him round us up?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have a point to make it is just the beer muscles kicking in.
Click to expand...


(smile) Kid?

Why couldn't Gore win his own State?


----------



## PMZ

Antares said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stupid fuck, if Gore had won his own State....that should tell you what a stupid fuck you.
> 
> Now...when bammy starts calling for re-education camps....will you help him round us up?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have a point to make it is just the beer muscles kicking in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> (smile) Kid?
> 
> Why couldn't Gore win his own State?
Click to expand...


He won the American popular vote.


----------



## PMZ

One of the reasons that I don't suffer from the conservative/libertarian/anarchist angst that's so prevalent here is that it's so rare that I find myself wanting to violate Federal law.  So,  for all intents and purposes,  it zero impact on my daily life.  None.  

The people who do suffer this angst must find themselves at odds with the law all of the time, to fuel this vendetta that rules their lives. 

That says something about who they are.


----------



## Antares

PMZ said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have a point to make it is just the beer muscles kicking in.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (smile) Kid?
> 
> Why couldn't Gore win his own State?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He won the American popular vote.
Click to expand...


Poor PMS if Al **** had won his OWN State he would have been Prez.....did you take Alpha Male lessons from a woman like he did?


----------



## PMZ

Antares said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> (smile) Kid?
> 
> Why couldn't Gore win his own State?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He won the American popular vote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Poor PMS if Al **** had won his OWN State he would have been Prez.....did you take Alpha Male lessons from a woman like he did?
Click to expand...


Beer muscles for sure.


----------



## Antares

PMZ said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> He won the American popular vote.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Poor PMS if Al **** had won his OWN State he would have been Prez.....did you take Alpha Male lessons from a woman like he did?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Beer muscles for sure.
Click to expand...


Gore coulnd't win his own State...all you can do is deflect.....actually I believe you are taking estrogen.....it goes a very long way to expalin how you can NEVER answer a direct question kid.


----------



## PMZ

Antares said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> Poor PMS if Al **** had won his OWN State he would have been Prez.....did you take Alpha Male lessons from a woman like he did?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Beer muscles for sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gore coulnd't win his own State...all you can do is deflect.....actually I believe you are taking estrogen.....it goes a very long way to expalin how you can NEVER answer a direct question kid.
Click to expand...


Gramps,  it's time for you to put the bottle down and shuffle off to bed.  Use your walker and don't forget to take your teeth out.


----------



## Antares

Kid you really don't have a brain in your head.
You are full of Lefty talking points and deflections.
You are less than a man, and far less than a woman.
You have no morals...no integrity and no inner compass...and you fear the conservative boogeyman above all else.
You have no one to think for you...nobody to defend you....and you are all alone in your basement without even the balls to do anything about your belief system...or the lack there of.


----------



## PMZ

Antares said:


> Kid you really don't have a brain in your head.
> You are full of Lefty talking points and deflections.
> You are less than a man, and far less than a woman.
> You have no morals...no integrity and no inner compass...and you fear the conservative boogeyman above all else.
> You have no one to think for you...nobody to defend you....and you are all alone in your basement without even the balls to do anything about your belief system...or the lack there of.



Gramps, you have no sobriety.


----------



## Antares

I enjoy bitch slapping punks like you just for kicks kid....I am sorry that you are fighting the issues from your childhood that you are....but not everyone was abused by those closest to them...again...I am sorry that you had to go through that.


----------



## PMZ

Antares said:


> I enjoy bitch slapping punks like you just for kicks kid....I am sorry that you are fighting the issues from your childhood that you are....but not everyone was abused by those closest to them...again...I am sorry that you had to go through that.



The poster grandfather for conservatism.


----------



## Antares

PMZ said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> I enjoy bitch slapping punks like you just for kicks kid....I am sorry that you are fighting the issues from your childhood that you are....but not everyone was abused by those closest to them...again...I am sorry that you had to go through that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The poster grandfather for conservatism.
Click to expand...


You can get help for what you are feeling kid...there are professionals...


----------



## RKMBrown

Antares said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> I enjoy bitch slapping punks like you just for kicks kid....I am sorry that you are fighting the issues from your childhood that you are....but not everyone was abused by those closest to them...again...I am sorry that you had to go through that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The poster grandfather for conservatism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can get help for what you are feeling kid...there are professionals...
Click to expand...


There's no hope for the likes of PMZ.


----------



## PMZ

Antares said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> I enjoy bitch slapping punks like you just for kicks kid....I am sorry that you are fighting the issues from your childhood that you are....but not everyone was abused by those closest to them...again...I am sorry that you had to go through that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The poster grandfather for conservatism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can get help for what you are feeling kid...there are professionals...
Click to expand...


Gramps,  it's time for you to go back to your "meetings" again.  They helped last time.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> The poster grandfather for conservatism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can get help for what you are feeling kid...there are professionals...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's no hope for the likes of PMZ.
Click to expand...


After seeing '12Years a Slave',  I was thinking. Even after 150 years,  the American experience with slavery still has impacts on our society. 

A significant portion of blacks still feel and act like slaves.  Angry. Bitter.  Uninspired. 

And a significant portion of dixiecrats still feel and act like slave owners. Privileged.  Entitled to the work of others. Viewing others as property. 

Interesting,  no?


----------



## Antares

PMZ said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> The poster grandfather for conservatism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can get help for what you are feeling kid...there are professionals...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gramps,  it's time for you to go back to your "meetings" again.  They helped last time.
Click to expand...


You black kid?

Must we add that to what you went through as a child???/

God I am so sorry....


----------



## PMZ

Antares said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can get help for what you are feeling kid...there are professionals...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gramps,  it's time for you to go back to your "meetings" again.  They helped last time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You black kid?
> 
> Must we add that to what you went through as a child???/
> 
> God I am so sorry....
Click to expand...


Not a kid and not black gramps. Not an alcoholic either.


----------



## Antares

PMZ said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gramps,  it's time for you to go back to your "meetings" again.  They helped last time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You black kid?
> 
> Must we add that to what you went through as a child???/
> 
> God I am so sorry....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not a kid and not black gramps. Not an alcoholic either.
Click to expand...


Buddy the first step is admission...please.....lets get you help?


----------



## PMZ

Boney said:


> I am still laughing at the idiots who like OsamboCare.



Are you one of the ones who has to take personal responsibility for his own health care costs now; or one that will no longer have to pay the bills for others; or a minimum wage earner that now won't have to go to the most expensive,  least effective venue,  the emergency room; or one who has a new tool for comparison shopping; or one who will get inhanced coverage from your employer.


----------



## goong

doesnt matter what the evidence says.  te shills still love it


----------



## PMZ

Antares said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> You black kid?
> 
> Must we add that to what you went through as a child???/
> 
> God I am so sorry....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not a kid and not black gramps. Not an alcoholic either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Buddy the first step is admission...please.....lets get you help?
Click to expand...


I'm fine gramps,  you're a sick puppy.  I hope you get worse.  Your kind are the best recruiters for my kind.


----------



## Antares

PMZ said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not a kid and not black gramps. Not an alcoholic either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Buddy the first step is admission...please.....lets get you help?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm fine gramps,  you're a sick puppy.  I hope you get worse.  Your kind are the best recruiters for my kind.
Click to expand...


Son you aren't up to this 

Hence not a single source from you.


----------



## PMZ

Antares said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> Buddy the first step is admission...please.....lets get you help?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm fine gramps,  you're a sick puppy.  I hope you get worse.  Your kind are the best recruiters for my kind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Son you aren't up to this
> 
> Hence not a single source from you.
Click to expand...


Gramps,  please lay off the bottle.


----------



## Antares

PMZ said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm fine gramps,  you're a sick puppy.  I hope you get worse.  Your kind are the best recruiters for my kind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Son you aren't up to this
> 
> Hence not a single source from you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gramps,  please lay off the bottle.
Click to expand...


Run Foooorest......


----------



## PMZ

Antares said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> Son you aren't up to this
> 
> Hence not a single source from you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gramps,  please lay off the bottle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Run Foooorest......
Click to expand...


Nobody runs from you gramps.  Nobody.


----------



## Antares

PMZ said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gramps,  please lay off the bottle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Run Foooorest......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody runs from you gramps.  Nobody.
Click to expand...


Look kid...just don't hurt anyone close to you likeyou've been hurt.....break the cycle.


----------



## Antares

PMZ said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gramps,  please lay off the bottle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Run Foooorest......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody runs from you gramps.  Nobody.
Click to expand...


Oh yes.....and if thats true....scoot on over to the Qualified Health Plan thread and engage


----------



## oreo

Social Security--Medicare--Medicade--Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac--the US Post office are all considered bankrupt in this country--and the Federal Government just took over medical insurance.

*You Voted for it, You got it.*


----------



## PMZ

Antares said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> Run Foooorest......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody runs from you gramps.  Nobody.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look kid...just don't hurt anyone close to you likeyou've been hurt.....break the cycle.
Click to expand...


Gramps,  you're babbling.  Maybe you'll be ok in the morning.  Maybe not.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can get help for what you are feeling kid...there are professionals...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's no hope for the likes of PMZ.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> After seeing '12Years a Slave',  I was thinking. Even after 150 years,  the American experience with slavery still has impacts on our society.
> 
> A significant portion of blacks still feel and act like slaves.  Angry. Bitter.  Uninspired.
> 
> And a significant portion of dixiecrats still feel and act like slave owners. Privileged.  Entitled to the work of others. Viewing others as property.
> 
> Interesting,  no?
Click to expand...

You are a vile disgusting little POS with your theft, and your worship of Satan, and your constant and never ending lies.  What did your parents do to you to make you like this?


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's no hope for the likes of PMZ.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After seeing '12Years a Slave',  I was thinking. Even after 150 years,  the American experience with slavery still has impacts on our society.
> 
> A significant portion of blacks still feel and act like slaves.  Angry. Bitter.  Uninspired.
> 
> And a significant portion of dixiecrats still feel and act like slave owners. Privileged.  Entitled to the work of others. Viewing others as property.
> 
> Interesting,  no?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are a vile disgusting little POS with your theft, and your worship of Satan, and your constant and never ending lies.  What did your parents do to you to make you like this?
Click to expand...


Honest?  Objective? Principled? Unafraid?  Undaunted? 

My parents told me that I was fortunate to be American.  And that required me to support what made America great.  Democracy.  Strong government.  Successful business.  Responsible citizens.  Diversity. Tolerance.  Progress.  Education. Honesty. 

People like you are set on a different America.  One more suited to enriching you personally. At the expense of America. 

That puts you and I in conflict. 

I used to be worried but now I am sure.  You will lose. 

You will lose because of who you are.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> After seeing '12Years a Slave',  I was thinking. Even after 150 years,  the American experience with slavery still has impacts on our society.
> 
> A significant portion of blacks still feel and act like slaves.  Angry. Bitter.  Uninspired.
> 
> And a significant portion of dixiecrats still feel and act like slave owners. Privileged.  Entitled to the work of others. Viewing others as property.
> 
> Interesting,  no?
> 
> 
> 
> You are a vile disgusting little POS with your theft, and your worship of Satan, and your constant and never ending lies.  What did your parents do to you to make you like this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Honest?  Objective? Principled? Unafraid?  Undaunted?
> 
> My parents told me that I was fortunate to be American.  And that required me to support what made America great.  Democracy.  Strong government.  Successful business.  Responsible citizens.  Diversity. Tolerance.  Progress.  Education. Honesty.
> 
> People like you are set on a different America.  One more suited to enriching you personally. At the expense of America.
> 
> That puts you and I in conflict.
> 
> I used to be worried but now I am sure.  You will lose.
> 
> You will lose because of who you are.
Click to expand...


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are a vile disgusting little POS with your theft, and your worship of Satan, and your constant and never ending lies.  What did your parents do to you to make you like this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Honest?  Objective? Principled? Unafraid?  Undaunted?
> 
> My parents told me that I was fortunate to be American.  And that required me to support what made America great.  Democracy.  Strong government.  Successful business.  Responsible citizens.  Diversity. Tolerance.  Progress.  Education. Honesty.
> 
> People like you are set on a different America.  One more suited to enriching you personally. At the expense of America.
> 
> That puts you and I in conflict.
> 
> I used to be worried but now I am sure.  You will lose.
> 
> You will lose because of who you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


That tells us who you are.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Honest?  Objective? Principled? Unafraid?  Undaunted?
> 
> My parents told me that I was fortunate to be American.  And that required me to support what made America great.  Democracy.  Strong government.  Successful business.  Responsible citizens.  Diversity. Tolerance.  Progress.  Education. Honesty.
> 
> People like you are set on a different America.  One more suited to enriching you personally. At the expense of America.
> 
> That puts you and I in conflict.
> 
> I used to be worried but now I am sure.  You will lose.
> 
> You will lose because of who you are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That tells us who you are.
Click to expand...


----------



## beagle9

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you talking about Dumbocrat past when Dumbocrat present is collapsing the U.S.? $17 trillion in debt. Obamacare causing people to lose their health insurance. Unemployment rampant. The masses living off of food stamps.
> 
> Basically the Dumbocrat utopia. You've managed to successfully transform us into Cuba.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All of the $17T debt came from the failure of conservative policies under Bush.
> 
> Our unemployment comes from business shipping millions of American jobs overseas.
> 
> The problems with the ACA startup are minor everywhere but at the Republican propaganda factory where everything Obama is given maximum spin as the only move left after the massive failures of the right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bush left office with $10 trillion in debt cupcake. It took Obama and the reckless Dumbocrats only 4 years to add 70% ($7 trillion) of what it had previously taken this nation 230 years to accumulate.
> 
> Want to try again?
Click to expand...

Hmmm, wasn't Obama expected or maybe trying to get this nation out of a depression or recession ? If so, then isn't it understandable that the debt would accumulate in that regard faster than a speeding bullet ? Now Obama wasn't only saddled by Republican policies gone wrong, but he was saddled by Democrats policies gone wrong over the years also. Now was he the man to get the job done and get it done right ? I don't think so, because he was ( I think), taking advantage of the weakness created in order to get his agenda on the way born straight out of that weakness. This is why we don't trust the current administration, and why we can't get nothing done that will help move this nation forward until this current crowd is out of office.


----------



## PMZ

beagle9 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> All of the $17T debt came from the failure of conservative policies under Bush.
> 
> Our unemployment comes from business shipping millions of American jobs overseas.
> 
> The problems with the ACA startup are minor everywhere but at the Republican propaganda factory where everything Obama is given maximum spin as the only move left after the massive failures of the right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bush left office with $10 trillion in debt cupcake. It took Obama and the reckless Dumbocrats only 4 years to add 70% ($7 trillion) of what it had previously taken this nation 230 years to accumulate.
> 
> Want to try again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hmmm, wasn't Obama expected or maybe trying to get this nation out of a depression or recession ? If so, then isn't it understandable that the debt would accumulate in that regard faster than a speeding bullet ? Now Obama wasn't only saddled by Republican policies gone wrong, but he was saddled by Democrats policies gone wrong over the years also. Now was he the man to get the job done and get it done right ? I don't think so, because he was ( I think), taking advantage of the weakness created in order to get his agenda on the way born straight out of that weakness. This is why we don't trust the current administration, and why we can't get nothing done that will help move this nation forward until this current crowd is out of office.
Click to expand...


This administration has pulled us out or the valley of Bush with not only no Republican help,  but active resistance by them every step of the way.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bush left office with $10 trillion in debt cupcake. It took Obama and the reckless Dumbocrats only 4 years to add 70% ($7 trillion) of what it had previously taken this nation 230 years to accumulate.
> 
> Want to try again?
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm, wasn't Obama expected or maybe trying to get this nation out of a depression or recession ? If so, then isn't it understandable that the debt would accumulate in that regard faster than a speeding bullet ? Now Obama wasn't only saddled by Republican policies gone wrong, but he was saddled by Democrats policies gone wrong over the years also. Now was he the man to get the job done and get it done right ? I don't think so, because he was ( I think), taking advantage of the weakness created in order to get his agenda on the way born straight out of that weakness. This is why we don't trust the current administration, and why we can't get nothing done that will help move this nation forward until this current crowd is out of office.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This administration has pulled us out or the valley of Bush with not only no Republican help,  but active resistance by them every step of the way.
Click to expand...


ROFL look at the alcoholic retard puke on himself, you need to get back on you meds your bipolar issues are acting up again.

Gotta love it when the libtards in a single sentence manage to take credit for something and also lay blame for the same damn thing.  The stoppage of the increase in spending was due to the Tea Party movement in the republican house, funny how you try to take credit for it at the same time you blame the republicans for it.  

Make up you mind retard, are you for or against limiting the spending in DC?


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm, wasn't Obama expected or maybe trying to get this nation out of a depression or recession ? If so, then isn't it understandable that the debt would accumulate in that regard faster than a speeding bullet ? Now Obama wasn't only saddled by Republican policies gone wrong, but he was saddled by Democrats policies gone wrong over the years also. Now was he the man to get the job done and get it done right ? I don't think so, because he was ( I think), taking advantage of the weakness created in order to get his agenda on the way born straight out of that weakness. This is why we don't trust the current administration, and why we can't get nothing done that will help move this nation forward until this current crowd is out of office.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This administration has pulled us out or the valley of Bush with not only no Republican help,  but active resistance by them every step of the way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROFL look at the alcoholic retard puke on himself, you need to get back on you meds your bipolar issues are acting up again.
> 
> Gotta love it when the libtards in a single sentence manage to take credit for something and also lay blame for the same damn thing.  The stoppage of the increase in spending was due to the Tea Party movement in the republican house, funny how you try to take credit for at the same time you blame the republicans for it.
> 
> Make up you mind retard, are you for or against limiting the spending in DC?
Click to expand...


Still more evidence of my claims of what defines conservatives. 

I'm for business restoring a fully functional economy. Thats the only way to allow us to pay the bills that Bush couldn't.  Or chose not to because of his rewards to friends and family,  the wealth redistribution tax cuts.


----------



## PMZ




----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> This administration has pulled us out or the valley of Bush with not only no Republican help,  but active resistance by them every step of the way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL look at the alcoholic retard puke on himself, you need to get back on you meds your bipolar issues are acting up again.
> 
> Gotta love it when the libtards in a single sentence manage to take credit for something and also lay blame for the same damn thing.  The stoppage of the increase in spending was due to the Tea Party movement in the republican house, funny how you try to take credit for at the same time you blame the republicans for it.
> 
> Make up you mind retard, are you for or against limiting the spending in DC?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still more evidence of my claims of what defines conservatives.
> 
> I'm for business restoring a fully functional economy. Thats the only way to allow us to pay the bills that Bush couldn't.  Or chose not to because of his rewards to friends and family,  the wealth redistribution tax cuts.
Click to expand...


Retard.  It's not against the law to work in this country.  WTF is wrong with you?


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL look at the alcoholic retard puke on himself, you need to get back on you meds your bipolar issues are acting up again.
> 
> Gotta love it when the libtards in a single sentence manage to take credit for something and also lay blame for the same damn thing.  The stoppage of the increase in spending was due to the Tea Party movement in the republican house, funny how you try to take credit for at the same time you blame the republicans for it.
> 
> Make up you mind retard, are you for or against limiting the spending in DC?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still more evidence of my claims of what defines conservatives.
> 
> I'm for business restoring a fully functional economy. Thats the only way to allow us to pay the bills that Bush couldn't.  Or chose not to because of his rewards to friends and family,  the wealth redistribution tax cuts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Retard.  It's not against the law to work in this country.  WTF is wrong with you?
Click to expand...


It's problematic to work when unemployment is high.  That's why business is avoiding growth. Hanging on to record profits to be divided up among those who did nothing to create them,  shareholders and executives,  instead of compensation to those that did,  workers and customers. 

The conservative business model as merely an engine of great wealth for the few is inarguably dysfunctional.  It will take us down unless we disempower it at the polls and in the marketplace.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still more evidence of my claims of what defines conservatives.
> 
> I'm for business restoring a fully functional economy. Thats the only way to allow us to pay the bills that Bush couldn't.  Or chose not to because of his rewards to friends and family,  the wealth redistribution tax cuts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Retard.  It's not against the law to work in this country.  WTF is wrong with you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's problematic to work when unemployment is high.  That's why business is avoiding growth. Hanging on to record profits to be divided up among those who did nothing to create them,  shareholders and executives,  instead of compensation to those that did,  workers and customers.
> 
> The conservative business model as merely an engine of great wealth for the few is inarguably dysfunctional.  It will take us down unless we disempower it at the polls and in the marketplace.
Click to expand...


No its not, the only reason unemployment is high is we pay people to be unemployed you dolt.  All you need to do to get a job in this country is to start working.  One would have to be a complete moron to not be able to come up with something to do that people would pay them for.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Retard.  It's not against the law to work in this country.  WTF is wrong with you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's problematic to work when unemployment is high.  That's why business is avoiding growth. Hanging on to record profits to be divided up among those who did nothing to create them,  shareholders and executives,  instead of compensation to those that did,  workers and customers.
> 
> The conservative business model as merely an engine of great wealth for the few is inarguably dysfunctional.  It will take us down unless we disempower it at the polls and in the marketplace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No its not, the only reason unemployment is high is we pay people to be unemployed you dolt.  All you need to do to get a job in this country is to start working.  One would have to be a complete moron to not be able to come up with something to do that people would pay them for.
Click to expand...


So,  in your mythical world employers are looking for workers that they can't find? 

Can pigs fly there,  too? 

Starving people on the street would be the real America,  right?


----------



## PMZ

Several years ago when she was quite young,  one of my granddaughters picked up from who knows where, the word,"hobo". 

It brought back to me a culture of survival from the depression of mostly men traveling around the country making do on chores that they could find and stealing. Yesterday's homeless. 

The return of this is the current vision of business.  Where most saw desperate survivors,  business sees cheap labor and conservatives see more Americans that they can depersonalize. 

This vision of course puts business at odds with government committed to all of the people and liberals committed to solving,  not ignoring,  problems.  

Voting gives us control over government and consuming over business.  We have to be more thoughtful and deliberate in both if those arenas or risk losing America to corporate interests.


----------



## dblack

PMZ said:


> We have to be more thoughtful and deliberate in both if those arenas or risk losing America to corporate interests.



You can say that again. Except, this time, actually think about it, especially with regard to ACA and the policies you've been advocating. Is Congress 'reining in' the insurance industry? Or is it the other way around? Google Liz Fowler. Look into who really wrote ACA and what their aims are. Seriously, do some reading.


----------



## PMZ

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have to be more thoughtful and deliberate in both if those arenas or risk losing America to corporate interests.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can say that again. Except, this time, actually think about it, especially with regard to ACA and the policies you've been advocating. Is Congress 'reining in' the insurance industry? Or is it the other way around? Google Liz Fowler. Look into who really wrote ACA and what their aims are. Seriously, do some reading.
Click to expand...


My solution would have been to extend Medicare to those who wanted it and charge them for this year's coverage as well as retirement coverage.  When you consider the resistance that the minor changes of ACA brought out from Republicans,  I accept the judgement of the pundits who concluded that bigger changes were not possible in the here and now. 

Unfortunate but not surprising given 24/7/365 Republican propaganda.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's problematic to work when unemployment is high.  That's why business is avoiding growth. Hanging on to record profits to be divided up among those who did nothing to create them,  shareholders and executives,  instead of compensation to those that did,  workers and customers.
> 
> The conservative business model as merely an engine of great wealth for the few is inarguably dysfunctional.  It will take us down unless we disempower it at the polls and in the marketplace.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No its not, the only reason unemployment is high is we pay people to be unemployed you dolt.  All you need to do to get a job in this country is to start working.  One would have to be a complete moron to not be able to come up with something to do that people would pay them for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So,  in your mythical world employers are looking for workers that they can't find?
> 
> Can pigs fly there,  too?
> 
> Starving people on the street would be the real America,  right?
Click to expand...


Yes, Employers are looking for workers all the time.  Some employers are called "customers."  Are you retarded? Show me one person starving in the streets of America.  Just one.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> No its not, the only reason unemployment is high is we pay people to be unemployed you dolt.  All you need to do to get a job in this country is to start working.  One would have to be a complete moron to not be able to come up with something to do that people would pay them for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So,  in your mythical world employers are looking for workers that they can't find?
> 
> Can pigs fly there,  too?
> 
> Starving people on the street would be the real America,  right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, Employers are looking for workers all the time.  Are you retarded? Show me one person starving in the streets of America.  Just one.
Click to expand...


No thanks to you.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> So,  in your mythical world employers are looking for workers that they can't find?
> 
> Can pigs fly there,  too?
> 
> Starving people on the street would be the real America,  right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, Employers are looking for workers all the time.  Are you retarded? Show me one person starving in the streets of America.  Just one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No thanks to you.
Click to expand...


It's not my fault you are retarded.


----------



## PMZ

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have to be more thoughtful and deliberate in both if those arenas or risk losing America to corporate interests.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can say that again. Except, this time, actually think about it, especially with regard to ACA and the policies you've been advocating. Is Congress 'reining in' the insurance industry? Or is it the other way around? Google Liz Fowler. Look into who really wrote ACA and what their aims are. Seriously, do some reading.
Click to expand...


It sounds like you wouldn't have involved the health care insurance industry in improving the health care insurance system.  

I certainly would choose what was done.


----------



## dblack

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have to be more thoughtful and deliberate in both if those arenas or risk losing America to corporate interests.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can say that again. Except, this time, actually think about it, especially with regard to ACA and the policies you've been advocating. Is Congress 'reining in' the insurance industry? Or is it the other way around? Google Liz Fowler. Look into who really wrote ACA and what their aims are. Seriously, do some reading.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It sounds like you wouldn't have involved the health care insurance industry in improving the health care insurance system.
> 
> I certainly would choose what was done.
Click to expand...


Then you need to get down off your soapbox about government catering to corporate interests.


----------



## dblack

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have to be more thoughtful and deliberate in both if those arenas or risk losing America to corporate interests.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can say that again. Except, this time, actually think about it, especially with regard to ACA and the policies you've been advocating. Is Congress 'reining in' the insurance industry? Or is it the other way around? Google Liz Fowler. Look into who really wrote ACA and what their aims are. Seriously, do some reading.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My solution would have been to extend Medicare to those who wanted it and charge them for this year's coverage as well as retirement coverage.  When you consider the resistance that the minor changes of ACA brought out from Republicans,  I accept the judgement of the pundits who concluded that bigger changes were not possible in the here and now.
Click to expand...


This excuse is null and void. No Republicans voted for ACA. There was exactly no reason to worry about any of their 'resistance'. The Democrats in Congress passed the "reform" they wanted to pass. The refused to pass single-payer, 'Medicare for all', and the 'public option' because the insurance lobby complained. Period.


----------



## PMZ

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can say that again. Except, this time, actually think about it, especially with regard to ACA and the policies you've been advocating. Is Congress 'reining in' the insurance industry? Or is it the other way around? Google Liz Fowler. Look into who really wrote ACA and what their aims are. Seriously, do some reading.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It sounds like you wouldn't have involved the health care insurance industry in improving the health care insurance system.
> 
> I certainly would choose what was done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you need to get down off your soapbox about government catering to corporate interests.
Click to expand...


I've always been for collaboration in everything.  Government and business aren't in competition.  When we were strong it was because the two things did support each other. At the moment,  IMO,  government is doing well and business badly. No question that will change at some point. 

The health insurance industry has nothing but opportunity ahead to do well for we,  the people.  We'll see if they live up to people's expectations.  Not a good start for them but it's only the top of the 1st.


----------



## dblack

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> It sounds like you wouldn't have involved the health care insurance industry in improving the health care insurance system.
> 
> I certainly would choose what was done.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you need to get down off your soapbox about government catering to corporate interests.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've always been for collaboration in everything.  Government and business aren't in competition.  When we were strong it was because the two things did support each other. At the moment,  IMO,  government is doing well and business badly. No question that will change at some point.
> 
> The health insurance industry has nothing but opportunity ahead to do well for we,  the people.  We'll see if they live up to people's expectations.  Not a good start for them but it's only the top of the 1st.
Click to expand...


I'm sorry. This kind naivete is just sad.


----------



## dblack

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have to be more thoughtful and deliberate in both if those arenas or risk losing America to corporate interests.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can say that again. Except, this time, actually think about it, especially with regard to ACA and the policies you've been advocating. Is Congress 'reining in' the insurance industry? Or is it the other way around? Google Liz Fowler. Look into who really wrote ACA and what their aims are. Seriously, do some reading.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It sounds like you wouldn't have involved the health care insurance industry in improving the health care insurance system.
> 
> I certainly would choose what was done.
Click to expand...


I wouldn't. I am not a corporatist and it is not the job of government to 'partner' with business.


----------



## PMZ

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can say that again. Except, this time, actually think about it, especially with regard to ACA and the policies you've been advocating. Is Congress 'reining in' the insurance industry? Or is it the other way around? Google Liz Fowler. Look into who really wrote ACA and what their aims are. Seriously, do some reading.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My solution would have been to extend Medicare to those who wanted it and charge them for this year's coverage as well as retirement coverage.  When you consider the resistance that the minor changes of ACA brought out from Republicans,  I accept the judgement of the pundits who concluded that bigger changes were not possible in the here and now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This excuse is null and void. No Republicans voted for ACA. There was exactly no reason to worry about any of their 'resistance'. The Democrats in Congress passed the "reform" they wanted to pass. The refused to pass single-payer, 'Medicare for all', and the 'public option' because the insurance lobby complained. Period.
Click to expand...


I think that you need to brush up on politics.  There is never a surprise vote in Congress.  Proposals that won't pass don't get proposed. 

The real work is not done in public but behind closed doors.


----------



## PMZ

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you need to get down off your soapbox about government catering to corporate interests.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've always been for collaboration in everything.  Government and business aren't in competition.  When we were strong it was because the two things did support each other. At the moment,  IMO,  government is doing well and business badly. No question that will change at some point.
> 
> The health insurance industry has nothing but opportunity ahead to do well for we,  the people.  We'll see if they live up to people's expectations.  Not a good start for them but it's only the top of the 1st.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sorry. This kind naivete is just sad.
Click to expand...


When collaboration becomes naive,  things grind to a halt.  Best example is our current Congress. 

That's why we have some firing to do. To show that collaboration is expected.


----------



## dblack

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> My solution would have been to extend Medicare to those who wanted it and charge them for this year's coverage as well as retirement coverage.  When you consider the resistance that the minor changes of ACA brought out from Republicans,  I accept the judgement of the pundits who concluded that bigger changes were not possible in the here and now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This excuse is null and void. No Republicans voted for ACA. There was exactly no reason to worry about any of their 'resistance'. The Democrats in Congress passed the "reform" they wanted to pass. The refused to pass single-payer, 'Medicare for all', and the 'public option' because the insurance lobby complained. Period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think that you need to brush up on politics.  There is never a surprise vote in Congress.  Proposals that won't pass don't get proposed.
> 
> The real work is not done in public but behind closed doors.
Click to expand...


What exactly do I need to 'brush up' on? If no Republicans voted for ACA, how in the world can you blame them for it??? Democrats colluded with insurance lobbyists (did you google Liz Fowler yet?) to write a law beneficial to their interests. Then they voted on it. It's absurd in the extreme to blame anyone else for their misdeeds.


----------



## dblack

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've always been for collaboration in everything.  Government and business aren't in competition.  When we were strong it was because the two things did support each other. At the moment,  IMO,  government is doing well and business badly. No question that will change at some point.
> 
> The health insurance industry has nothing but opportunity ahead to do well for we,  the people.  We'll see if they live up to people's expectations.  Not a good start for them but it's only the top of the 1st.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry. This kind naivete is just sad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When collaboration becomes naive,  things grind to a halt.  Best example is our current Congress.
> 
> That's why we have some firing to do. To show that collaboration is expected.
Click to expand...


We need to fire the sunsabitches selling us out in the name of 'collaboration'.


----------



## PMZ

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry. This kind naivete is just sad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When collaboration becomes naive,  things grind to a halt.  Best example is our current Congress.
> 
> That's why we have some firing to do. To show that collaboration is expected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We need to fire the sunsabitches selling us out in the name of 'collaboration'.
Click to expand...


Sounds like "power to the minority". That's not democracy. If you took that to heart your minority might have a seat at the table some day.


----------



## dblack

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> When collaboration becomes naive,  things grind to a halt.  Best example is our current Congress.
> 
> That's why we have some firing to do. To show that collaboration is expected.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We need to fire the sunsabitches selling us out in the name of 'collaboration'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds like "power to the minority". That's not democracy. If you took that to heart your minority might have a seat at the table some day.
Click to expand...


Nope.. silly dodge. What I said has nothing to do with that. We're talking about government collusion with wealthy business interests. You're supporting it. Poorly.


----------



## PMZ

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> We need to fire the sunsabitches selling us out in the name of 'collaboration'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like "power to the minority". That's not democracy. If you took that to heart your minority might have a seat at the table some day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope.. silly dodge. What I said has nothing to do with that. We're talking about government collusion with wealthy business interests. You're supporting it. Poorly.
Click to expand...


Is that the difference between conservatives, Libertarians and liberals? 

Conservatives think that everyone in government is incompetent,  while everyone in business is perfect. 

Libertarians (apparently), that everyone is incompetent. 

Liberals, that competence is  normally distributed across all populations and has no correlation with whom you are employed.


----------



## PMZ

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> We need to fire the sunsabitches selling us out in the name of 'collaboration'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like "power to the minority". That's not democracy. If you took that to heart your minority might have a seat at the table some day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope.. silly dodge. What I said has nothing to do with that. We're talking about government collusion with wealthy business interests. You're supporting it. Poorly.
Click to expand...


What's the difference between collusion and collaboration?


----------



## beagle9

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can say that again. Except, this time, actually think about it, especially with regard to ACA and the policies you've been advocating. Is Congress 'reining in' the insurance industry? Or is it the other way around? Google Liz Fowler. Look into who really wrote ACA and what their aims are. Seriously, do some reading.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My solution would have been to extend Medicare to those who wanted it and charge them for this year's coverage as well as retirement coverage.  When you consider the resistance that the minor changes of ACA brought out from Republicans,  I accept the judgement of the pundits who concluded that bigger changes were not possible in the here and now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This excuse is null and void. No Republicans voted for ACA. There was exactly no reason to worry about any of their 'resistance'. The Democrats in Congress passed the "reform" they wanted to pass. The refused to pass single-payer, 'Medicare for all', and the 'public option' because the insurance lobby complained. Period.
Click to expand...

Yes, me and a friend was talking today, and we said that there should have been an insurance card or cards issued to three groups of citizens under Medicare as a single payer plan for the workers, the poor and needy along with a plan for the seniors.  We could take that card and go anywhere we wanted to the lot of us, and it would be good for services in the health care industry with out being discriminated against at all.   If having trouble with a tooth it would get the job done, or if having trouble with your heart it would get the job done. What ever taxes in the amount needed, could be taken out of a workers check each week to pay for most of this. It should show up on the pay stub for all workers who have this card. Example: HCS (Health care services) could have been the code on the stub for it, and it could have been around say $10.00 a week or what ever is figured to be taken out that to be calculated for the plan for workers. People who don't work or are in poverty because they don't work could have a different card issued to them under a different plan for that. Also seniors could have a card suitable for their needs under a plan for them that is identifiable for them also. Three plans parts A, B, and C, and three cards issued for the three groups involved. Then a task force created to battle any fraud, over charging and such would also be established. Game Over! The middle man gone, and direct payments would go to the ones who deserve to be paid the most, the (Doctors, nurses, hospitals, and senior services). I also agree that this tax would be applied to all who work, including the young who work, even if they don't need it right now, because there will come a time when they will need it in the future, and the same will be done for them by the next generation.


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> My solution would have been to extend Medicare to those who wanted it and charge them for this year's coverage as well as retirement coverage.  When you consider the resistance that the minor changes of ACA brought out from Republicans,  I accept the judgement of the pundits who concluded that bigger changes were not possible in the here and now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This excuse is null and void. No Republicans voted for ACA. There was exactly no reason to worry about any of their 'resistance'. The Democrats in Congress passed the "reform" they wanted to pass. The refused to pass single-payer, 'Medicare for all', and the 'public option' because the insurance lobby complained. Period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think that you need to brush up on politics.  There is never a surprise vote in Congress.  Proposals that won't pass don't get proposed.
> 
> The real work is not done in public but behind closed doors.
Click to expand...


The Dumbocrats had FULL control of the House, the Senate, and the White House stupid.

Like your party, all you do is make excuses for the failures of the policies your dumb ass supports.


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still more evidence of my claims of what defines conservatives.
> 
> I'm for business restoring a fully functional economy. Thats the only way to allow us to pay the bills that Bush couldn't.  Or chose not to because of his rewards to friends and family,  the wealth redistribution tax cuts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Retard.  It's not against the law to work in this country.  WTF is wrong with you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's problematic to work when unemployment is high.  That's why business is avoiding growth. *Hanging on to record profits to be divided up among those who did nothing to create them*,  shareholders and executives,  instead of compensation to those that did,  workers and customers.
> 
> The conservative business model as merely an engine of great wealth for the few is inarguably dysfunctional.  It will take us down unless we disempower it at the polls and in the marketplace.
Click to expand...


So the business owners who built the companies, put in the most hours, and took ALL of the risk in PMS's mind "did nothing to create the profits".

Spoken like a true fuck'n asshole communist parasite. It's no wonder PMS is a miserable piece of shit who spent her life in poverty...


----------



## P@triot

beagle9 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> My solution would have been to extend Medicare to those who wanted it and charge them for this year's coverage as well as retirement coverage.  When you consider the resistance that the minor changes of ACA brought out from Republicans,  I accept the judgement of the pundits who concluded that bigger changes were not possible in the here and now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This excuse is null and void. No Republicans voted for ACA. There was exactly no reason to worry about any of their 'resistance'. The Democrats in Congress passed the "reform" they wanted to pass. The refused to pass single-payer, 'Medicare for all', and the 'public option' because the insurance lobby complained. Period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, me and a friend was talking today, and we said that there should have been an insurance card or cards issued to three groups of citizens under Medicare as a single payer plan for the workers, the poor and needy along with a plan for the seniors.  We could take that card and go anywhere we wanted to the lot of us, and it would be good for services in the health care industry with out being discriminated against at all.   If having trouble with a tooth it would get the job done, or if having trouble with your heart it would get the job done. What ever taxes in the amount needed, could be taken out of a workers check each week to pay for most of this. It should show up on the pay stub for all workers who have this card. Example: HCS (Health care services) could have been the code on the stub for it, and it could have been around say $10.00 a week or what ever is figured to be taken out that to be calculated for the plan for workers. People who don't work or are in poverty because they don't work could have a different card issued to them under a different plan for that. Also seniors could have a card suitable for their needs under a plan for them that is identifiable for them also. Three plans parts A, B, and C, and three cards issued for the three groups involved. Then a task force created to battle any fraud, over charging and such would also be established. Game Over! The middle man gone, and direct payments would go to the ones who deserve to be paid the most, the (Doctors, nurses, hospitals, and senior services). I also agree that this tax would be applied to all who work, including the young who work, even if they don't need it right now, because there will come a time when they will need it in the future, and the same will be done for them by the next generation.
Click to expand...


In other words [MENTION=34109]beagle9[/MENTION], America should literally take the U.S. Constitution out of the protective casing that houses it and have people literally piss all over it. All because you (an idiot who can't even construct basic sentences properly) and a few of your trailer-park pals created a "solution" to a problem which has *never* existed. Got it... 

Hey asshat - the U.S. government has *no* authority to create a single player system. They have *no* authority to take choice away from me. They have *no* authority to replace the free market with centralized planning communism.

But hey, don't let a little thing like the highest law in the land get in the way of you and your friends playing U.S. Senator for a day. Now why don't you give us one of your 423 word incoherent run-on sentences again - void of all basic & proper punctuation?


----------



## Geaux4it

Obamacare will derail the economy that is already on life support

-Geaux


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like "power to the minority". That's not democracy. If you took that to heart your minority might have a seat at the table some day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.. silly dodge. What I said has nothing to do with that. We're talking about government collusion with wealthy business interests. You're supporting it. Poorly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's the difference between collusion and collaboration?
Click to expand...


The difference is - we (as FREE men in the United States) have the FREEDOM not to "collaborate" with your communist, parasitic ass.

The fact that you and your Dumbocrats have to *force* people to "collaborate" with you proves what a bunch of miserable failures you people are.


----------



## P@triot

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL look at the alcoholic retard puke on himself, you need to get back on you meds your bipolar issues are acting up again.
> 
> Gotta love it when the libtards in a single sentence manage to take credit for something and also lay blame for the same damn thing.  The stoppage of the increase in spending was due to the Tea Party movement in the republican house, funny how you try to take credit for at the same time you blame the republicans for it.
> 
> Make up you mind retard, are you for or against limiting the spending in DC?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still more evidence of my claims of what defines conservatives.
> 
> I'm for business restoring a fully functional economy. Thats the only way to allow us to pay the bills that Bush couldn't.  Or chose not to because of his rewards to friends and family,  the wealth redistribution tax cuts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Retard.  It's not against the law to work in this country.  WTF is wrong with you?
Click to expand...


But it's against his own beliefs to work in this country because he's such a lazy parasite...


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> It's problematic to work when unemployment is high.



PMS continues to display his extraordinary ignorance for the world. If you're unemployed and there are no jobs to be found, that is the *perfect* opportunity to go into business for yourself. You have no excuses at that moment because you're not taking _any_ risk by quitting a job.

But, assholes like you refuse to do your civic duty (by your own dumb "logic") and provide jobs for your fellow citizens. Instead, you sit on your lazy ass complaining about people who do create and provide jobs. Kind of like the idiot who couldn't make his high school football team screaming from the stands about the performance of NFL players...


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> At the moment,  IMO,  government is doing well and business badly...





Proof positive that PMS maintains willfully ignorant, uninformed opinions!

Government is doing "well"? We're $17 *trillion* in debt. I need not provide one more single shred of evidence to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the federal government is a bunch of inept, unqualified, bumbling buffoons.

If PMS were prevented from lying right now - you'd find that he believes "government is doing well" simply because Barack Obama is a radical marxist who has redistributed someone else's wealth into PMS's greedy, lazy hands.


----------



## P@triot

beagle9 said:


> Yes, me and a friend was talking today, and we said that there should have been an insurance card or cards issued to three groups of citizens under Medicare as a single payer plan...



The Dumbocrats only suggestion for _everything_:


----------



## PMZ

Geaux4it said:


> Obamacare will derail the economy that is already on life support
> 
> -Geaux



You need to tell how insurance regulation is going to do that.


----------



## Katzndogz

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can say that again. Except, this time, actually think about it, especially with regard to ACA and the policies you've been advocating. Is Congress 'reining in' the insurance industry? Or is it the other way around? Google Liz Fowler. Look into who really wrote ACA and what their aims are. Seriously, do some reading.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My solution would have been to extend Medicare to those who wanted it and charge them for this year's coverage as well as retirement coverage.  When you consider the resistance that the minor changes of ACA brought out from Republicans,  I accept the judgement of the pundits who concluded that bigger changes were not possible in the here and now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This excuse is null and void. No Republicans voted for ACA. There was exactly no reason to worry about any of their 'resistance'. The Democrats in Congress passed the "reform" they wanted to pass. The refused to pass single-payer, 'Medicare for all', and the 'public option' because the insurance lobby complained. Period.
Click to expand...


The people would certainly not have tolerated medicare for all, especially since it's failed for those who already have it.   Americans don't want single payer because they already know how it has worked out in Europe.


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.. silly dodge. What I said has nothing to do with that. We're talking about government collusion with wealthy business interests. You're supporting it. Poorly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's the difference between collusion and collaboration?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The difference is - we (as FREE men in the United States) have the FREEDOM not to "collaborate" with your communist, parasitic ass.
> 
> The fact that you and your Dumbocrats have to *force* people to "collaborate" with you proves what a bunch of miserable failures you people are.
Click to expand...


You claim to have run a business.  You are clearly one of the least capable people on the planet. 

Ergo,  anyone can run a business.


----------



## PMZ

Katzndogz said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> My solution would have been to extend Medicare to those who wanted it and charge them for this year's coverage as well as retirement coverage.  When you consider the resistance that the minor changes of ACA brought out from Republicans,  I accept the judgement of the pundits who concluded that bigger changes were not possible in the here and now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This excuse is null and void. No Republicans voted for ACA. There was exactly no reason to worry about any of their 'resistance'. The Democrats in Congress passed the "reform" they wanted to pass. The refused to pass single-payer, 'Medicare for all', and the 'public option' because the insurance lobby complained. Period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The people would certainly not have tolerated medicare for all, especially since it's failed for those who already have it.   Americans don't want single payer because they already know how it has worked out in Europe.
Click to expand...


Never met anyone on Medicare who wasn't very pleased with it.  

European health care is half the cost of ours and significantly more effective. 

The question is why don't American conservatives feel any inclination to tell the truth?  I've never run into any group that lies with more ease.


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, me and a friend was talking today, and we said that there should have been an insurance card or cards issued to three groups of citizens under Medicare as a single payer plan...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Dumbocrats only suggestion for _everything_:
Click to expand...


We've always followed our Constitution.


----------



## beagle9

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Retard.  It's not against the law to work in this country.  WTF is wrong with you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's problematic to work when unemployment is high.  That's why business is avoiding growth. *Hanging on to record profits to be divided up among those who did nothing to create them*,  shareholders and executives,  instead of compensation to those that did,  workers and customers.
> 
> The conservative business model as merely an engine of great wealth for the few is inarguably dysfunctional.  It will take us down unless we disempower it at the polls and in the marketplace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the business owners who built the companies, put in the most hours, and took ALL of the risk in PMS's mind "did nothing to create the profits".
> 
> Spoken like a true fuck'n asshole communist parasite. It's no wonder PMS is a miserable piece of shit who spent her life in poverty...
Click to expand...

I noticed you said* she *as in PMZ is a *she*, and if that is true then how do you justify talking to a female like you do in this way ? Says something about your character doesn't it ? I thought you were talking to another man when carrying on like you do...WOW!

I mean does PMZ warrant this kind of attack by you, and is it all due to the stance she takes on life in which may be wrong or mistaken somehow ? How about just showing that you are educated in some areas that she may be uneducated in, and then try and speak to her in ways that would help her understand better about where she may be going wrong in life or had gone wrong in life. Wouldn't that be a better approach maybe ? Just sayin !


----------



## PMZ

beagle9 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's problematic to work when unemployment is high.  That's why business is avoiding growth. *Hanging on to record profits to be divided up among those who did nothing to create them*,  shareholders and executives,  instead of compensation to those that did,  workers and customers.
> 
> The conservative business model as merely an engine of great wealth for the few is inarguably dysfunctional.  It will take us down unless we disempower it at the polls and in the marketplace.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the business owners who built the companies, put in the most hours, and took ALL of the risk in PMS's mind "did nothing to create the profits".
> 
> Spoken like a true fuck'n asshole communist parasite. It's no wonder PMS is a miserable piece of shit who spent her life in poverty...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I noticed you said* she *as in PMZ is a *she*, and if that is true then how do you justify talking to a female like you do in this way ? Says something about your character doesn't it ? I thought you were talking to another man when carrying on like you do...WOW!
> 
> I mean does PMZ warrant this kind of attack by you, and is it all due to the stance she takes on life in which may be wrong or mistaken somehow ? How about just showing that you are educated in some areas that she may be uneducated in, and then try and speak to her in ways that would help her understand better about where she may be going wrong in life or had gone wrong in life. Wouldn't that be a better approach maybe ? Just sayin !
Click to expand...


If there are conservatives out there who are genuine in their belief that the philosophy really has some value as a solution in some situations,  why on earth would they stand to be associated with the rednecks who post here? 

It makes no sense to me.


----------



## beagle9

Rottweiler said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> This excuse is null and void. No Republicans voted for ACA. There was exactly no reason to worry about any of their 'resistance'. The Democrats in Congress passed the "reform" they wanted to pass. The refused to pass single-payer, 'Medicare for all', and the 'public option' because the insurance lobby complained. Period.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, me and a friend was talking today, and we said that there should have been an insurance card or cards issued to three groups of citizens under Medicare as a single payer plan for the workers, the poor and needy along with a plan for the seniors.  We could take that card and go anywhere we wanted to the lot of us, and it would be good for services in the health care industry with out being discriminated against at all.   If having trouble with a tooth it would get the job done, or if having trouble with your heart it would get the job done. What ever taxes in the amount needed, could be taken out of a workers check each week to pay for most of this. It should show up on the pay stub for all workers who have this card. Example: HCS (Health care services) could have been the code on the stub for it, and it could have been around say $10.00 a week or what ever is figured to be taken out that to be calculated for the plan for workers. People who don't work or are in poverty because they don't work could have a different card issued to them under a different plan for that. Also seniors could have a card suitable for their needs under a plan for them that is identifiable for them also. Three plans parts A, B, and C, and three cards issued for the three groups involved. Then a task force created to battle any fraud, over charging and such would also be established. Game Over! The middle man gone, and direct payments would go to the ones who deserve to be paid the most, the (Doctors, nurses, hospitals, and senior services). I also agree that this tax would be applied to all who work, including the young who work, even if they don't need it right now, because there will come a time when they will need it in the future, and the same will be done for them by the next generation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In other words [MENTION=34109]beagle9[/MENTION], America should literally take the U.S. Constitution out of the protective casing that houses it and have people literally piss all over it. All because you (an idiot who can't even construct basic sentences properly) and a few of your trailer-park pals created a "solution" to a problem which has *never* existed. Got it...
> 
> Hey asshat - the U.S. government has *no* authority to create a single player system. *They have no authority to take choice away from me. *They have *no* authority to replace the free market with centralized planning communism.
> 
> But hey, don't let a little thing like the highest law in the land get in the way of you and your friends playing U.S. Senator for a day. Now why don't you give us one of your 423 word incoherent run-on sentences again - void of all basic & proper punctuation?
Click to expand...


Where in my idea would it be found that your choice would be taken away ? You would have this insurance card issued to you, and it would work anywhere you would choose to go, and it would pay for the services that the card represents paying for, in which would be your total health care needs. You would be able to choose your own doctor, hospital and care, just as long as they are not found to be fraudulent, overcharging and criminals in which has been found in the past among some of these businesses and/or their operators. The health care industry seems to be the one that is out of control, and has been out of control for quite sometime now for many in this nation, but for the ones who could by pass the problems with money, they never experienced the horrors of the greed stricken industry in which was separating people by class. They were raping and pillaging peoples lives without regard of the long term consequences to them and this nation in the end.  I know of a hospital right now that owes the government millions in fines and restitution for double billing and fraud of the Medicare system, and they have been ordered to pay the money back finally. These bad apples are what has made for the whole reform process to get to rolling in this nation, and it's just a shame that everyone wasn't on board with fixing it all.   If they would have been, then maybe the right programs and solutions could have been found.


----------



## beagle9

PMZ said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> This excuse is null and void. No Republicans voted for ACA. There was exactly no reason to worry about any of their 'resistance'. The Democrats in Congress passed the "reform" they wanted to pass. The refused to pass single-payer, 'Medicare for all', and the 'public option' because the insurance lobby complained. Period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The people would certainly not have tolerated medicare for all, especially since it's failed for those who already have it.   Americans don't want single payer because they already know how it has worked out in Europe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Never met anyone on Medicare who wasn't very pleased with it.
> 
> European health care is half the cost of ours and significantly more effective.
> 
> The question is why don't American conservatives feel any inclination to tell the truth?  I've never run into any group that lies with more ease.
Click to expand...

I don't know, this President seems to me as if he can do it with the greatest of ease.


----------



## dblack

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like "power to the minority". That's not democracy. If you took that to heart your minority might have a seat at the table some day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.. silly dodge. What I said has nothing to do with that. We're talking about government collusion with wealthy business interests. You're supporting it. Poorly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that the difference between conservatives, Libertarians and liberals?
> 
> Conservatives think that everyone in government is incompetent,  while everyone in business is perfect.
> 
> Libertarians (apparently), that everyone is incompetent.
> 
> Liberals, that competence is  normally distributed across all populations and has no correlation with whom you are employed.
Click to expand...


Yeah. You don't really get libertarians at all. It has nothing to do with competence. Libertarians are opposed to bullying. We believe in voluntary cooperation as the preferred means of associating with others in all cases. We should resort to coercion and force only when it is truly necessary - primarily in self-defense. Most of our positions are extrapolations of that ethic. Government should be limited because it is coercive, not because it is incompetent or inefficient.


----------



## RKMBrown

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.. silly dodge. What I said has nothing to do with that. We're talking about government collusion with wealthy business interests. You're supporting it. Poorly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that the difference between conservatives, Libertarians and liberals?
> 
> Conservatives think that everyone in government is incompetent,  while everyone in business is perfect.
> 
> Libertarians (apparently), that everyone is incompetent.
> 
> Liberals, that competence is  normally distributed across all populations and has no correlation with whom you are employed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah. You don't really get libertarians at all. It has nothing to do with competence. Libertarians are opposed to bullying. We believe in voluntary cooperation as the preferred means of associating with others in all cases. We should resort to coercion and force only when it is truly necessary - primarily in self-defense. Most of our positions are extrapolations of that ethic. Government should be limited because it is coercive, not because it is incompetent or inefficient.
Click to expand...


He/She, or whatever PMS is, is just lying.  Don't feed the Troll.


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> You claim to have run a business.



 Really? Please tell us the post number where I claimed to have run a business 

I haven't shared that kind of information. You're reading comprehension is pitiful and explains why the Dumbocrats were so easily able to make you there lap dog.


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, me and a friend was talking today, and we said that there should have been an insurance card or cards issued to three groups of citizens under Medicare as a single payer plan...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Dumbocrats only suggestion for _everything_:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We've always followed our Constitution.
Click to expand...


Really? So the Constitution says the federal government can force me to purchase health insurance? Hmm, I must have missed that part. Can you tell me which section empowers the federal government to *force* citizens to purchase a good or service so I can see it for myself?


----------



## P@triot

beagle9 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's problematic to work when unemployment is high.  That's why business is avoiding growth. *Hanging on to record profits to be divided up among those who did nothing to create them*,  shareholders and executives,  instead of compensation to those that did,  workers and customers.
> 
> The conservative business model as merely an engine of great wealth for the few is inarguably dysfunctional.  It will take us down unless we disempower it at the polls and in the marketplace.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the business owners who built the companies, put in the most hours, and took ALL of the risk in PMS's mind "did nothing to create the profits".
> 
> Spoken like a true fuck'n asshole communist parasite. It's no wonder PMS is a miserable piece of shit who spent her life in poverty...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I noticed you said* she *as in PMZ is a *she*, and if that is true then how do you justify talking to a female like you do in this way ? Says something about your character doesn't it ? I thought you were talking to another man when carrying on like you do...WOW!
> 
> I mean does PMZ warrant this kind of attack by you, and is it all due to the stance she takes on life in which may be wrong or mistaken somehow ? How about just showing that you are educated in some areas that she may be uneducated in, and then try and speak to her in ways that would help her understand better about where she may be going wrong in life or had gone wrong in life. Wouldn't that be a better approach maybe ? Just sayin !
Click to expand...


I don't need to justify how I talk to anti-American communists.

Furthermore, I did speak PMS like you suggested. In return, she lied and acted like an asshole and then lied some more (and then kept on lying). I have a zero tolerance policy for liars. I put liars right up there with rapists and pedophiles (and I have a zero tolerance policy for them as well).

The fact is, I am nothing but a mirror. If you don't like what you see, you better look at who I'm responding to in the post, because I am simply a reflection of them. People who are honest and respectful have civilized conversations with me. People who aren't (like PMS) have conversations like PMS.


----------



## P@triot

beagle9 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, me and a friend was talking today, and we said that there should have been an insurance card or cards issued to three groups of citizens under Medicare *as a single payer plan* for the workers, the poor and needy along with a plan for the seniors.  We could take that card and go anywhere we wanted to the lot of us, and it would be good for services in the health care industry with out being discriminated against at all.   If having trouble with a tooth it would get the job done, or if having trouble with your heart it would get the job done. What ever taxes in the amount needed, could be taken out of a workers check each week to pay for most of this. It should show up on the pay stub for all workers who have this card. Example: HCS (Health care services) could have been the code on the stub for it, and it could have been around say $10.00 a week or what ever is figured to be taken out that to be calculated for the plan for workers. People who don't work or are in poverty because they don't work could have a different card issued to them under a different plan for that. Also seniors could have a card suitable for their needs under a plan for them that is identifiable for them also. Three plans parts A, B, and C, and three cards issued for the three groups involved. Then a task force created to battle any fraud, over charging and such would also be established. Game Over! The middle man gone, and direct payments would go to the ones who deserve to be paid the most, the (Doctors, nurses, hospitals, and senior services). I also agree that this tax would be applied to all who work, including the young who work, even if they don't need it right now, because there will come a time when they will need it in the future, and the same will be done for them by the next generation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In other words [MENTION=34109]beagle9[/MENTION], America should literally take the U.S. Constitution out of the protective casing that houses it and have people literally piss all over it. All because you (an idiot who can't even construct basic sentences properly) and a few of your trailer-park pals created a "solution" to a problem which has *never* existed. Got it...
> 
> Hey asshat - the U.S. government has *no* authority to create a single player system. *They have no authority to take choice away from me. *They have *no* authority to replace the free market with centralized planning communism.
> 
> But hey, don't let a little thing like the highest law in the land get in the way of you and your friends playing U.S. Senator for a day. Now why don't you give us one of your 423 word incoherent run-on sentences again - void of all basic & proper punctuation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where in my idea would it be found that your choice would be taken away?
Click to expand...


Really? Seriously? Please see the part highlighted in red and bolded above. I eagerly await your response...


----------



## beagle9

Rottweiler said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> In other words [MENTION=34109]beagle9[/MENTION], America should literally take the U.S. Constitution out of the protective casing that houses it and have people literally piss all over it. All because you (an idiot who can't even construct basic sentences properly) and a few of your trailer-park pals created a "solution" to a problem which has *never* existed. Got it...
> 
> Hey asshat - the U.S. government has *no* authority to create a single player system. *They have no authority to take choice away from me. *They have *no* authority to replace the free market with centralized planning communism.
> 
> But hey, don't let a little thing like the highest law in the land get in the way of you and your friends playing U.S. Senator for a day. Now why don't you give us one of your 423 word incoherent run-on sentences again - void of all basic & proper punctuation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where in my idea would it be found that your choice would be taken away?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? Seriously? Please see the part highlighted in red and bolded above. I eagerly await your response...
Click to expand...

I had written it already in the same post, but you deleted it, and then you just pasted what you wanted to in what you kept. Then you wanted the answer that you had deleted to be what written again by me ?  (Strange)


----------



## P@triot

beagle9 said:


> Where in my idea would it be found that your choice would be taken away ? You would have this insurance card issued to you, and it would work anywhere you would choose to go, and it would pay for the services that the card represents paying for, in which would be your total health care needs. You would be able to choose your own doctor, hospital and care,



But I wouldn't be able to choose my health insurance. Instead, I would be *forced* into an unconstitutional, government-run, single-payer system.



beagle9 said:


> just as long as they are not found to be fraudulent, overcharging and criminals in which has been found in the past among some of these businesses and/or their operators



Do you really want to go down this road? There is more fraud, criminal activity, and unethical behavior in one week of government than you could find in decades of private industry.

And yet you'll sit here all day worshipping government and bashing private industry . How do you explain that?



beagle9 said:


> The health care industry seems to be the one that is out of control, and has been out of control for quite sometime now for many in this nation, but for the ones who could by pass the problems with money, they never experienced the horrors of the greed stricken industry in which was separating people by class. They were raping and pillaging peoples lives without regard of the long term consequences to them and this nation in the end.  I know of a hospital right now that owes the government millions in fines and restitution for double billing and fraud of the Medicare system, and they have been ordered to pay the money back finally. These bad apples are what has made for the whole reform process to get to rolling in this nation, and it's just a shame that everyone wasn't on board with fixing it all.   If they would have been, then maybe the right programs and solutions could have been found.



So because you know of a hospital (hell, lets say a dozen) who were corrupt, we need to shred the Constitution and hand over everything to the "pure", "incorruptible" government? This is the equivalent of saying because Ted Bundy was an animal who brutally beat, raped, and murdered women we need to permanently place _all_ men in prison. 

By the way - had the federal government kept their fucking nose out of healthcare in 1967 (as they were Constitutionally required to) there would be no Medicare/Medicaid for corrupt people to bilk. But you never consider that, do you? All you do is solve a problem created by government by giving government more power and control. If they can't stop fraud for Medicare & Medicaid, what in the _hell_ is Obamacare going to do to stop it?!?!? Please, tell me, what magical fairy tale, pixie dust scenario do you have in your head where Obamacare somehow stops unethical people from acting unethical?


----------



## P@triot

beagle9 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where in my idea would it be found that your choice would be taken away?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? Seriously? Please see the part highlighted in red and bolded above. I eagerly await your response...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I had written it already in the same post, but you deleted it, and then you just pasted what you wanted to in what you kept. Then you wanted the answer that you had deleted to be what written again by me ?  (Strange)
Click to expand...


You had written _what_ [MENTION=34109]beagle9[/MENTION]?!? Your ENTIRE post was there. I simply bolded and highlighted the part where you said "single payer" system which completely strips me of choice. Then you absurdly claim there is no loss of choice


----------



## P@triot

beagle9 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where in my idea would it be found that your choice would be taken away?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? Seriously? Please see the part highlighted in red and bolded above. I eagerly await your response...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I had written it already in the same post, but you deleted it, and then you just pasted what you wanted to in what you kept. Then you wanted the answer that you had deleted to be what written again by me ?  (Strange)
Click to expand...


I deleted *nothing*. Your entire post was there - I simply bolded and highlighted the part in question. Want to try again? Maybe be honest and admit your idea of "single-payer" system robs me of CHOICE and FREEDOM?


----------



## P@triot

Once again, Dumbocrat policy creates misery, failure, and poverty for the masses...

WASHINGTON: Analysis: Tens of millions could be forced out of health insurance they had | White House | McClatchy DC


----------



## P@triot

ROTFLMFAO!!!! So now even government workers are losing their jobs and/or hours due to the "solution" to a problem that never existed created by Dumbocrats in government. Man, I can't wait to see how [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] tries to spin this one... 

Will he go with his standard Tourette's response of "Fox! Fox! Fox!"? Or will he try the hilarious "conservatives are too simple minded to understand the complexity of this 'required' solution which is causing tens of millions to lose their job, their insurance, or their hours - and you'll just have to take my word that this is a GOOD thing" (ie shit - the facts are indisputable, I need to feign mental superiority) . You just never know with PMZ. But one thing is certain - he will _not_ acknowledge the simple, indisputable fact that this Dumbocrat policy is an epic failure which broke something that was previously working damn near flawlessly.

State and Local Governments Cutting Work Hours Due to Obamacare


----------



## PMZ

Keep up your campaign of hate Rotweiner.  The voters love it.  I suspect every day you send another one our way.


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> Keep up your campaign of hate Rotweiner.  The voters love it.  I suspect every day you send another one our way.



Someone running out of excuses for the indisputable FACTS? Only a Dumbocrat would consider the TRUTH to be "a campaign of hate". 

You know why you're so angry and so worried? Because the headlines are sending voters away from your failed Dumbocrat policies and back to freedom and the Constitution:

Barack Obama More Unpopular Than George W. Bush

And you know once that happens, the free ride you've been bilking out of your fellow citizens is over. You're actually going to be forced to provide for yourself like a big boy. Gasp!


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keep up your campaign of hate Rotweiner.  The voters love it.  I suspect every day you send another one our way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Someone running out of excuses for the indisputable FACTS? Only a Dumbocrat would consider the TRUTH to be "a campaign of hate".
> 
> You know why you're so angry and so worried? Because the headlines are sending voters away from your failed Dumbocrat policies and back to freedom and the Constitution:
> 
> Barack Obama More Unpopular Than George W. Bush
> 
> And you know once that happens, the free ride you've been bilking out of your fellow citizens is over. You're actually going to be forced to provide for yourself like a big boy. Gasp!
Click to expand...


I'm not going to change a thing that I'm doing and I hope the same is true of you.


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keep up your campaign of hate Rotweiner.  The voters love it.  I suspect every day you send another one our way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Someone running out of excuses for the indisputable FACTS? Only a Dumbocrat would consider the TRUTH to be "a campaign of hate".
> 
> You know why you're so angry and so worried? Because the headlines are sending voters away from your failed Dumbocrat policies and back to freedom and the Constitution:
> 
> Barack Obama More Unpopular Than George W. Bush
> 
> And you know once that happens, the free ride you've been bilking out of your fellow citizens is over. You're actually going to be forced to provide for yourself like a big boy. Gasp!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not going to change a thing that I'm doing and I hope the same is true of you.
Click to expand...


Well duh! Of course you're not going to change a thing. You're determined to live off of others like a parasite.

Believe me, I've never thought for a split second that you would ever change. People like you are simply too lazy to provide for yourselves. You will always focus what little effort you're willing to give on pushing communism rather than bettering yourself and providing for yourself.


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Someone running out of excuses for the indisputable FACTS? Only a Dumbocrat would consider the TRUTH to be "a campaign of hate".
> 
> You know why you're so angry and so worried? Because the headlines are sending voters away from your failed Dumbocrat policies and back to freedom and the Constitution:
> 
> Barack Obama More Unpopular Than George W. Bush
> 
> And you know once that happens, the free ride you've been bilking out of your fellow citizens is over. You're actually going to be forced to provide for yourself like a big boy. Gasp!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not going to change a thing that I'm doing and I hope the same is true of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well duh! Of course you're not going to change a thing. You're determined to live off of others like a parasite.
> 
> Believe me, I've never thought for a split second that you would ever change. People like you are simply too lazy to provide for yourselves. You will always focus what little effort you're willing to give on pushing communism rather than bettering yourself and providing for yourself.
Click to expand...


Completely wrong but consistent with the rest of your delusions. 

As keeper of the conservative closet monsters we know that you're paid to make scary noises and tell bizarre stories but people who think for themselves consider you the conservative court jester with your silly costume on. 

You're the peewee Herman of conservatives.


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not going to change a thing that I'm doing and I hope the same is true of you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well duh! Of course you're not going to change a thing. You're determined to live off of others like a parasite.
> 
> Believe me, I've never thought for a split second that you would ever change. People like you are simply too lazy to provide for yourselves. You will always focus what little effort you're willing to give on pushing communism rather than bettering yourself and providing for yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Completely wrong but consistent with the rest of your delusions.
> 
> As keeper of the conservative closet monsters we know that you're paid to make scary noises and tell bizarre stories but people who think for themselves consider you the conservative court jester with your silly costume on.
> 
> You're the peewee Herman of conservatives.
Click to expand...


I have link after link after link in this thread alone proving what I've said is 100% fact. Meanwhile, you have nothing but uninformed opinion. Everybody here knows that you are the only one spewing "scary noises" because you want government to force your fellow citizen to provide for you.

You've yet to provide even the slightest semblance of an intelligent response to the FACT that roughly 50 million people are going to lose their health insurance. Instead, you have to focus on "hate" and attempt to pin that on conservatism. I wonder why that is....


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well duh! Of course you're not going to change a thing. You're determined to live off of others like a parasite.
> 
> Believe me, I've never thought for a split second that you would ever change. People like you are simply too lazy to provide for yourselves. You will always focus what little effort you're willing to give on pushing communism rather than bettering yourself and providing for yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Completely wrong but consistent with the rest of your delusions.
> 
> As keeper of the conservative closet monsters we know that you're paid to make scary noises and tell bizarre stories but people who think for themselves consider you the conservative court jester with your silly costume on.
> 
> You're the peewee Herman of conservatives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have link after link after link in this thread alone proving what I've said is 100% fact. Meanwhile, you have nothing but uninformed opinion. Everybody here knows that you are the only one spewing "scary noises" because you want government to force your fellow citizen to provide for you.
> 
> You've yet to provide even the slightest semblance of an intelligent response to the FACT that roughly 50 million people are going to lose their health insurance. Instead, you have to focus on "hate" and attempt to pin that on conservatism. I wonder why that is....
Click to expand...


"50 million people are going to lose their health insurance."

How many who never had insurance will now have it? 

How many of your 50M "lost" their insurance due to their insurance company rejecting grandfathering and choosing instead to offer their customers a new policy? 

Stop being being stupid.


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Completely wrong but consistent with the rest of your delusions.
> 
> As keeper of the conservative closet monsters we know that you're paid to make scary noises and tell bizarre stories but people who think for themselves consider you the conservative court jester with your silly costume on.
> 
> You're the peewee Herman of conservatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have link after link after link in this thread alone proving what I've said is 100% fact. Meanwhile, you have nothing but uninformed opinion. Everybody here knows that you are the only one spewing "scary noises" because you want government to force your fellow citizen to provide for you.
> 
> You've yet to provide even the slightest semblance of an intelligent response to the FACT that roughly 50 million people are going to lose their health insurance. Instead, you have to focus on "hate" and attempt to pin that on conservatism. I wonder why that is....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "50 million people are going to lose their health insurance."
> 
> How many who never had insurance will now have it?
> 
> How many of your 50M "lost" their insurance due to their insurance company rejecting grandfathering and choosing instead to offer their customers a new policy?
> 
> Stop being being stupid.
Click to expand...


Well, by the Dumbocrats own figures - at MOST - 30 million. Which leaves us with a net *loss* of 20 million.

By the way, there is a very important distinction to be made here. The 30 million (at MOST) who didn't have insurance were overwhelmingly to blame (there are always a few exceptions of course). But the 50 million who had insurance and have now had it stripped away from them by the Dumbocrats? Well, they did everything right and had it stuck to them by an unconstitutional, oppressive, communist government who holds 100% (without exception) of the blame for the loss of the insurance.

And that's the problem with the policies that you support. It takes power away from the people and ensures that someone else will decide if you succeed or fail. That's unacceptable. Each person should have the freedom and the power to succeed or fail on their own. That's what the Constitution did for us. It guaranteed and even playing field for all. Now, unconstitutional Dumbocrat government has guaranteed that no matter what you do, you will fail (unless of course you are in the favor of the Dumbocrats - then they will toss you a few pitiful table scraps).


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have link after link after link in this thread alone proving what I've said is 100% fact. Meanwhile, you have nothing but uninformed opinion. Everybody here knows that you are the only one spewing "scary noises" because you want government to force your fellow citizen to provide for you.
> 
> You've yet to provide even the slightest semblance of an intelligent response to the FACT that roughly 50 million people are going to lose their health insurance. Instead, you have to focus on "hate" and attempt to pin that on conservatism. I wonder why that is....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "50 million people are going to lose their health insurance."
> 
> How many who never had insurance will now have it?
> 
> How many of your 50M "lost" their insurance due to their insurance company rejecting grandfathering and choosing instead to offer their customers a new policy?
> 
> Stop being being stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, by the Dumbocrats own figures - at MOST - 30 million. Which leaves us with a net *loss* of 20 million.
> 
> By the way, there is a very important distinction to be made here. The 30 million (at MOST) who didn't have insurance were overwhelmingly to blame (there are always a few exceptions of course). But the 50 million who had insurance and have now had it stripped away from them by the Dumbocrats? Well, they did everything right and had it stuck to them by an unconstitutional, oppressive, communist government who holds 100% (without exception) of the blame for the loss of the insurance.
> 
> And that's the problem with the policies that you support. It takes power away from the people and ensures that someone else will decide if you succeed or fail. That's unacceptable. Each person should have the freedom and the power to succeed or fail on their own. That's what the Constitution did for us. It guaranteed and even playing field for all. Now, unconstitutional Dumbocrat government has guaranteed that no matter what you do, you will fail (unless of course you are in the favor of the Dumbocrats - then they will toss you a few pitiful table scraps).
Click to expand...


Nobody lost their insurance dumbo.  Their insurance companies chose to give them a new and different policy.  Happens almost every year to almost every policy. 

Many companies chose to take advantage of grandfathering.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> "50 million people are going to lose their health insurance."
> 
> How many who never had insurance will now have it?
> 
> How many of your 50M "lost" their insurance due to their insurance company rejecting grandfathering and choosing instead to offer their customers a new policy?
> 
> Stop being being stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, by the Dumbocrats own figures - at MOST - 30 million. Which leaves us with a net *loss* of 20 million.
> 
> By the way, there is a very important distinction to be made here. The 30 million (at MOST) who didn't have insurance were overwhelmingly to blame (there are always a few exceptions of course). But the 50 million who had insurance and have now had it stripped away from them by the Dumbocrats? Well, they did everything right and had it stuck to them by an unconstitutional, oppressive, communist government who holds 100% (without exception) of the blame for the loss of the insurance.
> 
> And that's the problem with the policies that you support. It takes power away from the people and ensures that someone else will decide if you succeed or fail. That's unacceptable. Each person should have the freedom and the power to succeed or fail on their own. That's what the Constitution did for us. It guaranteed and even playing field for all. Now, unconstitutional Dumbocrat government has guaranteed that no matter what you do, you will fail (unless of course you are in the favor of the Dumbocrats - then they will toss you a few pitiful table scraps).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody lost their insurance dumbo.  Their insurance companies chose to give them a new and different policy.  Happens almost every year to almost every policy.
> 
> Many companies chose to take advantage of grandfathering.
Click to expand...


Wrong many lost their insurance and can't afford to pay for the new policies.  Additionally, the insurance companies were not given a choice. This bastard of a law written by the dumbocrats forced the insurance companies to drop customers.


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> "50 million people are going to lose their health insurance."
> 
> How many who never had insurance will now have it?
> 
> How many of your 50M "lost" their insurance due to their insurance company rejecting grandfathering and choosing instead to offer their customers a new policy?
> 
> Stop being being stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, by the Dumbocrats own figures - at MOST - 30 million. Which leaves us with a net *loss* of 20 million.
> 
> By the way, there is a very important distinction to be made here. The 30 million (at MOST) who didn't have insurance were overwhelmingly to blame (there are always a few exceptions of course). But the 50 million who had insurance and have now had it stripped away from them by the Dumbocrats? Well, they did everything right and had it stuck to them by an unconstitutional, oppressive, communist government who holds 100% (without exception) of the blame for the loss of the insurance.
> 
> And that's the problem with the policies that you support. It takes power away from the people and ensures that someone else will decide if you succeed or fail. That's unacceptable. Each person should have the freedom and the power to succeed or fail on their own. That's what the Constitution did for us. It guaranteed and even playing field for all. Now, unconstitutional Dumbocrat government has guaranteed that no matter what you do, you will fail (unless of course you are in the favor of the Dumbocrats - then they will toss you a few pitiful table scraps).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody lost their insurance dumbo.  Their insurance companies chose to give them a new and different policy.  Happens almost every year to almost every policy.
> 
> Many companies chose to take advantage of grandfathering.
Click to expand...


 I've posted article after article after article. And here is another. Word-for-word stupid:

*"Almost 250,000 Colorado residents have or will have their health insurance plans cancelled under ObamaCare."*

Do you know what cancelled means? It means they LOST their insurance...dumbo 

Seriously folks, only a Dumbocrat like [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] could read national headline after national headline of people LOSING their health insurance and then make the outrageous claim that "nobody lost their insurance dumbo" 

And then people like [MENTION=34109]beagle9[/MENTION] wonder why you get treated like the asshole that you are? In the face of facts, you lie like a fuck'n prick because you're afraid of people seeing the truth.

Almost 250,000 Colo. residents lose health plans under ObamaCare


----------



## P@triot

I don't get it [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] - I thought the radical-left unions were huge supporters of your failed policies and of Obama? Now give us another tourette's outburst of "Fox! Fox! Fox!" and tell us all how conservatives "hate" to avoid another conversation about the FACTS.. 

*Employers, as AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka recently said, are "restructuring their workforce to give workers 29- and-a-half hours " to dodge ObamaCare's health coverage mandate.*

White House ObamaCare Math: 29.5-Hour Workweek Equals 30 Hours - Investors.com


----------



## PMZ

Intrawest IPONasal RangerTyphoon HaiyanPeyton ManningTulo Trade TalkLady GagaDWTS StunnerNews TipsMost Popular
Print    Email  
HEALTH
Nearly 250,000 Colorado health policies canceled, many from Obamacare
By Michael Booth
The Denver Post
POSTED:   11/06/2013 04:25:40 PM MST261 COMMENTS
UPDATED:   11/07/2013 08:27:53 AM MST

President Obama talks healthcare
US President Barack Obama speaks about the healthcare reform laws, known as Obamacare, at an Organizing for Action event in Washington, DC, November 4, 2013. (Saul Loeb, Getty Images)
RELATED STORIES
Nov 7:
Sebelius back on hot seat over health care, website
Democrats meet with Obama, press for extending health care deadline
Nov 6:
Colo.'s canceled health insurance count tops 200K
Nov 4:
Health care law finally gets real for Americans
Nov 2:
Day one on health care website: Six people signed up
Oct 31:
Canceled health insurance policies in Colorado create confusion
Sebelius shoulders blame for health care website "debacle"
Fact check: Can Sebelius get insurance in the new exchange?
Oct 30:
Rollout of Affordable Care Act triggers mass cancellations
Health care website official apologizes, says problems were a surprise
Oct 29:
HHS head to testify on troubled website rollout
Obama admin. lowers health sign-up expectations
Health policy cancellations: New blow for admin.
Insurance companies are canceling health policies for nearly 250,000 Coloradans, many because of Affordable Care Act rules, a tally likely to inflame consumers upset with controversial reforms.
The Colorado Division of Insurance said policies for 2013 that do not meet new minimum benefits under Obamacare are being canceled. Other cancellations are the result of business decisions by the insurers as part of normal operations.
Kathleen Baker is among those furious at the changes. She said her Kaiser Permanente policy was canceled, and a replacement would cost 17 percent more a month with higher deductibles.
Colorado health care exchange webpage
A screenshot of the connectforhealthco.com home page taken on October 1, 2013 at 8:55 a.m. (Connect for Health Colorado)
"I would like to know how the president, or anyone in Congress, can say this is better for me," she said.
Opponents of Obamacare said the high number of cancellations is causing bewilderment and anger among consumers who thought they would be able to keep their plans.
Only 3,408 Coloradans have enrolled in the private insurance plans offered on a new state exchange, the conservative advocacy group Compass Colorado said.
"To have almost a hundred health plan cancellations for every exchange sign-up in Colorado under Obamacare is exponentially worse than even the most extreme skeptic could have predicted," said Kelly Maher, executive director for Compass Colorado.
Consumer advocates who welcome health reform said it will take time to decipher whether the cancellations represent disaster or simply transition.
Cancellations

Twenty-three health insurance carriers in Colorado canceled policies by Nov. 1, covering 106,083 lives in the individual market and 143,116 in the small-group market, the insurance division said.
The state did not say how many of those were directly related to existing policies' not meeting new rules under the Affordable Care Act, or were simply business decisions by the carriers. In past years, companies including Aetna have left the Colorado market in personal and small-group health insurance as conditions changed.
The division also did not offer a comparison to the thousands of canceled policies in past years.
There is wide anecdotal variance in consumers' experience after the cancellations.
Some complain that the new policies they were offered are much more expensive. Others say the insurance companies are giving them no help finding new policies on the exchange, which is another feature of the Affordable Care Act.
Still others have said they found better or as-good policies for acceptable prices, and some are receiving federal subsidies that will reduce their overall cost from 2013 prices.
Kaiser and Anthem cover three-quarters of the policies that have been canceled, the division said. Those companies are offering dozens of new, ACA-compliant policies on the exchange, at various prices.
Many of the canceled customers had bare-bones coverage that would not have helped them in 2013 if they had gotten sick, said Dede de Percin of the Colorado Consumer Health Initiative. Some will find replacement policies through the Medicaid expansion, and others will get more useful policies and subsidies on the exchange, she added.
"Is it a legitimate concern right now? Yes," de Percin said. What she will be asking a year from now is: "Are most of those people back on policies, are people overall better off, have we reduced the number of uninsured? I believe the answer will be yes."
"The individual market is a volatile market, and plans come and go all the time," said Elisabeth Arenales, health care program director of the Colorado Center on Law and Policy. "While it's true that some people may wind up paying more, many will pay less."
Michael Booth: 303-954-1686, mbooth@denverpost.com or twitter.com/mboothdp




Read more: Nearly 250,000 Colorado health policies canceled, many from Obamacare - The Denver Post http://www.denverpost.com/politics/...lorado-health-policies-canceled#ixzz2kTInOKU5 
Read The Denver Post's Terms of Use of its content: http://www.denverpost.com/termsofuse
Follow us: [MENTION=28704]Denver[/MENTION]post on Twitter | Denverpost on Facebook


----------



## PMZ

Insurance companies are canceling health policies for nearly 250,000 Coloradans, many because of Affordable Care Act rules, a tally likely to inflame consumers upset with controversial reforms.
The Colorado Division of Insurance said policies for 2013 that do not meet new minimum benefits under Obamacare are being canceled. Other cancellations are the result of business decisions by the insurers as part of normal operations.
Kathleen Baker is among those furious at the changes. She said her Kaiser Permanente policy was canceled, and a replacement would cost 17 percent more a month with higher deductibles.
Colorado health care exchange webpage
A screenshot of the connectforhealthco.com home page taken on October 1, 2013 at 8:55 a.m. (Connect for Health Colorado)
"I would like to know how the president, or anyone in Congress, can say this is better for me," she said.
Opponents of Obamacare said the high number of cancellations is causing bewilderment and anger among consumers who thought they would be able to keep their plans.
Only 3,408 Coloradans have enrolled in the private insurance plans offered on a new state exchange, the conservative advocacy group Compass Colorado said.
"To have almost a hundred health plan cancellations for every exchange sign-up in Colorado under Obamacare is exponentially worse than even the most extreme skeptic could have predicted," said Kelly Maher, executive director for Compass Colorado.
Consumer advocates who welcome health reform said it will take time to decipher whether the cancellations represent disaster or simply transition.
Cancellations

Twenty-three health insurance carriers in Colorado canceled policies by Nov. 1, covering 106,083 lives in the individual market and 143,116 in the small-group market, the insurance division said.
The state did not say how many of those were directly related to existing policies' not meeting new rules under the Affordable Care Act, or were simply business decisions by the carriers. In past years, companies including Aetna have left the Colorado market in personal and small-group health insurance as conditions changed.
The division also did not offer a comparison to the thousands of canceled policies in past years.
There is wide anecdotal variance in consumers' experience after the cancellations.
Some complain that the new policies they were offered are much more expensive. Others say the insurance companies are giving them no help finding new policies on the exchange, which is another feature of the Affordable Care Act.
Still others have said they found better or as-good policies for acceptable prices, and some are receiving federal subsidies that will reduce their overall cost from 2013 prices.
Kaiser and Anthem cover three-quarters of the policies that have been canceled, the division said. Those companies are offering dozens of new, ACA-compliant policies on the exchange, at various prices.
Many of the canceled customers had bare-bones coverage that would not have helped them in 2013 if they had gotten sick, said Dede de Percin of the Colorado Consumer Health Initiative. Some will find replacement policies through the Medicaid expansion, and others will get more useful policies and subsidies on the exchange, she added.
"Is it a legitimate concern right now? Yes," de Percin said. What she will be asking a year from now is: "Are most of those people back on policies, are people overall better off, have we reduced the number of uninsured? I believe the answer will be yes."
"The individual market is a volatile market, and plans come and go all the time," said Elisabeth Arenales, health care program director of the Colorado Center on Law and Policy. "While it's true that some people may wind up paying more, many will pay less."
Michael Booth: 303-954-1686, mbooth@denverpost.com or twitter.com/mboothdp




Read more: Nearly 250,000 Colorado health policies canceled, many from Obamacare - The Denver Post http://www.denverpost.com/politics/...lorado-health-policies-canceled#ixzz2kTInOKU5 
Read The Denver Post's Terms of Use of its content: http://www.denverpost.com/termsofuse
Follow us:  [MENTION=28704]Denver[/MENTION]post on Twitter | Denverpost on Facebook

Rotweiner's Fox News report is a classic example as to how the Republican Party uses Fox media to spread what they want to be true rather than news. 

Every year before I got Medicare my health insurance was canceled.  Every year.  

And it's replacement announced. 

Because every year my company would negotiate a new policy.  It was part of my compensation so it was not known how much of the annual negotiations were related to what my company paid for it and how much were coverage changes. But every year we got a thick book of the new plan. 

The Fox Opinions report if course is written to lead suckers to believe that those people are now without insurance,  at least some of them due to ACA.  But in every case their old policy could have been grandfathered but their insurance company chose not to. 

It's not a bad rule of thumb to assume that every Fox Opinions report was written by the GOP and describes what they wish the truth to be.


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> Every year before I got Medicare my health insurance was canceled.  Every year.
> 
> And it's replacement announced.



Well that's because you're a government parasite who has spent his life living off of people like me and Geaux, and RMK, etc.

But for the rest of us - we've literally gone our ENTIRE lives without our policies being cancelled even once.

So you're out of excuses. Basically this proves that your dumb-ass is just trying to drag the rest of us down to your government parasite level.


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every year before I got Medicare my health insurance was canceled.  Every year.
> 
> And it's replacement announced.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well that's because you're a government parasite who has spent his life living off of people like me and Geaux, and RMK, etc.
> 
> But for the rest of us - we've literally gone our ENTIRE lives without our policies being cancelled even once.
> 
> So you're out of excuses. Basically this proves that your dumb-ass is just trying to drag the rest of us down to your government parasite level.
Click to expand...


No,  what it proves is that you are a fraud.  Nobody has a health insurance policy that covers more than one year.  If you did not know that you must have been one of those leeches with no health insurance, but the expectation that if you got sick the responsibile ones with insurance would keep you alive. 

ACA is making you responsible.  Tough shit if you don't like it.


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every year before I got Medicare my health insurance was canceled.  Every year.
> 
> And it's replacement announced.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well that's because you're a government parasite who has spent his life living off of people like me and Geaux, and RMK, etc.
> 
> But for the rest of us - we've literally gone our ENTIRE lives without our policies being cancelled even once.
> 
> So you're out of excuses. Basically this proves that your dumb-ass is just trying to drag the rest of us down to your government parasite level.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No,  what it proves is that you are a fraud.  Nobody has a health insurance policy that covers more than one year.  If you did not know that you must have been one of those leeches with no health insurance, but the expectation that if you got sick the responsibile ones with insurance would keep you alive.
> 
> ACA is making you responsible.  Tough shit if you don't like it.
Click to expand...


Lying again PMZ. I've had the exact same policy for decades. Never cancelled even once.

And don't pretend like you're about being "responsible" when the focus of everything you do is to be a fuck'n parasite to your fellow citizens. Man up for once and take care of yourself.


----------



## P@triot

Uh-oh [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION]! Looks like Obama's lies almost as much as you do! And this is from MSNBC - so your tourette's of "Fox! Fox! Fox!" simply can't apply.

How does it feel being my personal bitch on USMB? 

Obama admin. knew millions could not keep their health insurance - Investigations


----------



## P@triot

Rottweiler said:


> I don't get it   [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] - I thought the radical-left unions were huge supporters of your failed policies and of Obama? Now give us another tourette's outburst of "Fox! Fox! Fox!" and tell us all how conservatives "hate" to avoid another conversation about the FACTS..
> 
> *Employers, as AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka recently said, are "restructuring their workforce to give workers 29- and-a-half hours " to dodge ObamaCare's health coverage mandate.*
> 
> White House ObamaCare Math: 29.5-Hour Workweek Equals 30 Hours - Investors.com



Obamacare is costing the middle class - specifically _union workers_ - hours on the job. And yet  [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] is conspicuously quiet... 

He always avoids the most damning FACTS.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, by the Dumbocrats own figures - at MOST - 30 million. Which leaves us with a net *loss* of 20 million.
> 
> By the way, there is a very important distinction to be made here. The 30 million (at MOST) who didn't have insurance were overwhelmingly to blame (there are always a few exceptions of course). But the 50 million who had insurance and have now had it stripped away from them by the Dumbocrats? Well, they did everything right and had it stuck to them by an unconstitutional, oppressive, communist government who holds 100% (without exception) of the blame for the loss of the insurance.
> 
> And that's the problem with the policies that you support. It takes power away from the people and ensures that someone else will decide if you succeed or fail. That's unacceptable. Each person should have the freedom and the power to succeed or fail on their own. That's what the Constitution did for us. It guaranteed and even playing field for all. Now, unconstitutional Dumbocrat government has guaranteed that no matter what you do, you will fail (unless of course you are in the favor of the Dumbocrats - then they will toss you a few pitiful table scraps).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody lost their insurance dumbo.  Their insurance companies chose to give them a new and different policy.  Happens almost every year to almost every policy.
> 
> Many companies chose to take advantage of grandfathering.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong many lost their insurance and can't afford to pay for the new policies.  Additionally, the insurance companies were not given a choice. This bastard of a law written by the dumbocrats forced the insurance companies to drop customers.
Click to expand...


Google ACA grandfathering and stop being just plain dumb.


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> No,  what it proves is that you are a fraud.  Nobody has a health insurance policy that covers more than one year.  If you did not know that you must have been one of those leeches with no health insurance, but the expectation that if you got sick the responsibile ones with insurance would keep you alive.
> 
> ACA is making you responsible.  Tough shit if you don't like it.



*Oh [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] - you poor, willfully ignorant little Dumbocrat lapdog. Just a couple posts up, you ignorantly declared "nobody is losing their health insurance dumbo".

Now, all of a sudden, when faced with indisputable facts you come up with a new narrative that everybody loses their health insurance every year... 

Game, Set, Match bitch. You're a lying idiot who can't remember your last lie from your next!*


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well that's because you're a government parasite who has spent his life living off of people like me and Geaux, and RMK, etc.
> 
> But for the rest of us - we've literally gone our ENTIRE lives without our policies being cancelled even once.
> 
> So you're out of excuses. Basically this proves that your dumb-ass is just trying to drag the rest of us down to your government parasite level.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No,  what it proves is that you are a fraud.  Nobody has a health insurance policy that covers more than one year.  If you did not know that you must have been one of those leeches with no health insurance, but the expectation that if you got sick the responsibile ones with insurance would keep you alive.
> 
> ACA is making you responsible.  Tough shit if you don't like it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lying again PMZ. I've had the exact same policy for decades. Never cancelled even once.
> 
> And don't pretend like you're about being "responsible" when the focus of everything you do is to be a fuck'n parasite to your fellow citizens. Man up for once and take care of yourself.
Click to expand...


You're paying the same price with the same coverage for decades?

Liar


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> No,  what it proves is that you are a fraud.  Nobody has a health insurance policy that covers more than one year.  If you did not know that you must have been one of those leeches with no health insurance, but the expectation that if you got sick the responsibile ones with insurance would keep you alive.
> 
> ACA is making you responsible.  Tough shit if you don't like it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Oh [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] - you poor, willfully ignorant little Dumbocrat lapdog. Just a couple posts up, you ignorantly declared "nobody is losing their health insurance dumbo".
> 
> Now, all of a sudden, when faced with indisputable facts you come up with a new narrative that everybody loses their health insurance every year...
> 
> Game, Set, Match bitch. You're a lying idiot who can't remember your last lie from your next!*
Click to expand...


And you've had to resort to lying about your health insurance policies. No wonder Fox Opinions loves you.  You'll believe anything and repeat every lie.


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> Uh-oh [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION]! Looks like Obama's lies almost as much as you do! And this is from MSNBC - so your tourette's of "Fox! Fox! Fox!" simply can't apply.
> 
> How does it feel being my personal bitch on USMB?
> 
> Obama admin. knew millions could not keep their health insurance - Investigations



ACA has no policies.  How can ACA cancel what it does not offer?


----------



## PMZ

Here's the reason for conservative ignorance on health care.  It's complicated.  So they avoid it by staring at the boobs and boobies on Fox Opinions and,  without ever leaving the EZBoy,  absorb what the GOP wants them to believe. 

Liberals are however comfortable and competent with complexity.  So this is for them



Why Was Your Health Insurance Plan Cancelled and Not Upgraded?
Robbie GennetNov 08, 2013
So you got a letter from your insurance company saying your plan is being discontinued. And you're mad at President Obama for telling you that if you liked your plan, you could keep your plan because here you are, losing that very plan you liked. Plus your sticker shock at the higher price to replace it has somehow not been assuaged by the subsidies that may drop the actual cost quite dramatically. Regardless of your general disposition toward the president, let's make sure your anger isn't just a little bit misguided.

You do realize that as part of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) a new set of rules were instituted to protect patients and provide a basic floor for included services? It's a Patient's Bill of Rights and it helps people in a myriad of ways, including ceasing to exclude those with pre-existing conditions, ending lifetime limits on coverage, and covering preventative care for men, women and children, the latter whom can now stay on their parents insurance until they turn 26. These rules form a more compassionate foundation for our health care system and are designed to create a stronger framework for how we handle our individual and collective well-being. Many of these new rules are also not included in your old plan, if it was designed before the ACA went into effect on March 23, 2010 and is now considered "grandfathered."

So of course the health care companies had to discontinue your current plan to offer brand new ones that include the more generous benefits. Or did they? Could they have just upgraded your current plan with the new rules and given you a more robust version of your own plan? That way, you would technically be keeping your plan and benefitting from the new ACA rules. You would think insurance companies would be thrilled with all the new business but instead they took the route of mass cancellations that made it seem as if the president was reneging on his earlier promises. Perhaps this is just an issue of semantics, but the important part is that people feel like their plans are being taken away and that plays into a certain narrative. It certainly seems like the insurance industry could have chosen to keep the plan names and upgrade them all but did not. Adding insult to injury (possibly literally) those of us with grandfathered plans are getting letters referring to this nugget from the HHS website:

"A grandfathered health plan isn't required to comply with some of the consumer protections of the Affordable Care Act that apply to other health plans that are not grandfathered."

That's right. With my grandfathered plan, I don't get preventative services or protections when appealing claims and coverage denials or even protection of my choice of health care provider and my access to emergency care. And for an individual with a health care policy, the insurance companies can also keep annual dollar limits on key benefits in place. Plus, they are not required to eliminate pre-existing condition exclusions for children under 19 years old. All of a sudden, those new plans with protections, preventative care and tax subsidies are looking pretty damn good. Yes, President Obama said if we liked our plan we could keep it, but that doesn't mean that after the ACA kicks in we will still like our plan or even want to keep it.

So yes, you can keep your plan if it was grandfathered in and you deem it worthy of the cost versus benefits, without all those pesky protections. But if you're one of those people who's just mad as hell and feels the individual mandate is an onerous tax, let me ask you one simple question: If you didn't have any health insurance and you got injured -- perhaps seriously, a real life-threatening emergency -- where would you go? Assuming your answer is the emergency room, you'd have a lot of company. Americans make almost 130 million ER visits a year, a whopping 42.8 visits per 100 persons, with 13.3 percent overall resulting in hospital admissions. And the ER is a place that is often utilized by those without insurance because by law the ER cannot turn you away or make you pay. By the rights afforded to every citizen of this country in 1996 by the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, the Emergency Room is de facto socialized medicine:

The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) is a U.S. Act of Congress passed in 1986 as part of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA). It requires hospitals to provide care to anyone needing emergency health care treatment regardless of citizenship, legal status or ability to pay. There are no reimbursement provisions. Participating hospitals may only transfer or discharge patients needing emergency treatment under their own informed consent, after stabilization, or when their condition requires transfer to a hospital better equipped to administer the treatment.
Since 1986, any person -- resident, tourist or undocumented immigrant -- in America has been able to get free emergency care at any ER in the country (thank you, Ronald Reagan!). The rare exemptions are Indian hospitals, veterans hospitals and the Shriners Hospitals for Children, of all places. What if in order to exempt yourself from the ACA mandate you had to sign a waiver that would also exempt you from EMTALA? Even if you were in an accident and were crying for an ambulance, if you were uninsured you could only get one for hire and if you couldn't afford it, well tough! That's the free market for you.

So why hasn't anybody railed against this pervasive form of socialized medicine? Where are the Tea Party protests outside all the ERs in the country? Why is it okay to treat catastrophic injuries with no reimbursement provisions but not catastrophic illness? Or all illness? Those that rail against having to purchase health care may have legitimate beefs against compulsive insurance coverage (like auto insurance) or compulsive protective rules (like seat belts and airbags in cars) but unless they are willing to forego their current socialized emergency care, their protestations against paying towards their own coverage rings hollow. No ACA? No ER for you.

Time will ultimately tell if the ACA is a success or a bump on the road toward universal coverage. The individual experiences of each state will ultimately help guide us with real world examples of what works and what doesn't. For example, in just a few short years, Vermont will be transitioning to a single-payer system. The contrast between that and states like Texas or (26.3 percent of residents uninsured) and Florida (25.35 percent of residents uninsured) who didn't expand Medicaid will be stark and enlightening. Even Pennsylvania may get on board after a study estimated $17 billion of savings for the state under a single payer approach. And Pennsylvania is one of many states considering a single-payer system that can be put into action starting on January 1, 2017, under a provision in the ACA that empowers states by allowing for innovation.

You know what also happens on that date? States can begin allowing large employers and multi-employer health plans to purchase coverage in the health insurance exchange, giving a huge boost to the exchanges in power and numbers. Also by then every single state will offer two federally regulated multi-state plans (one of which must be nonprofit, the other cannot cover abortion) which are already coming to 60 percent of individual state exchanges on January 1, 2014. And that upcoming date more than any other heralds the next big phase of the ACA.

On this upcoming January 1, the ACA really kicks into gear on everything from patients rights to excise taxes on Health Insurance and Pharmaceutical companies. And don't forget the national CO-OP industry adding a nonprofit option to consumers choices (and to the competitive marketplace). Plus, members of Congress and their staff will only be able to purchase health care plans through exchanges or other plans established by the ACA, making them responsible not just for Americans health care but for their own. Read it for yourself to cut through the spin with actual facts and figures.

Remember, we are just over a month in to this transition and nothing on this scale could be expected to work perfectly right out of the box. It's helpful to recall that Social Security began under FDR with the Social Security Act (enacted August 14, 1935) and didn't really mature into its current form until Lyndon Johnson signed the Social Security Amendments on July 30, 1965, also heralding the beginning of Medicare and Medicaid. That's almost 30 years from start to finish, which makes the last month seem like a blip on the radar. Once we get to January 1, we'll see how the law really feels once it's in motion and get a good idea of where we are headed. After that, it will be three more years until we see where the states will lead us in 2017.


----------



## Antares

PMZ said:


> Why Was Your Health Insurance Plan Cancelled and Not Upgraded?
> Robbie GennetNov 08, 2013
> So you got a letter from your insurance company saying your plan is being discontinued. And you're mad at President Obama for telling you that if you liked your plan, you could keep your plan because here you are, losing that very plan you liked. Plus your sticker shock at the higher price to replace it has somehow not been assuaged by the subsidies that may drop the actual cost quite dramatically. Regardless of your general disposition toward the president, let's make sure your anger isn't just a little bit misguided.
> 
> You do realize that as part of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) a new set of rules were instituted to protect patients and provide a basic floor for included services? It's a Patient's Bill of Rights and it helps people in a myriad of ways, including ceasing to exclude those with pre-existing conditions, ending lifetime limits on coverage, and covering preventative care for men, women and children, the latter whom can now stay on their parents insurance until they turn 26. These rules form a more compassionate foundation for our health care system and are designed to create a stronger framework for how we handle our individual and collective well-being. Many of these new rules are also not included in your old plan, if it was designed before the ACA went into effect on March 23, 2010 and is now considered "grandfathered."
> 
> So of course the health care companies had to discontinue your current plan to offer brand new ones that include the more generous benefits. Or did they? Could they have just upgraded your current plan with the new rules and given you a more robust version of your own plan? That way, you would technically be keeping your plan and benefitting from the new ACA rules. You would think insurance companies would be thrilled with all the new business but instead they took the route of mass cancellations that made it seem as if the president was reneging on his earlier promises. Perhaps this is just an issue of semantics, but the important part is that people feel like their plans are being taken away and that plays into a certain narrative. It certainly seems like the insurance industry could have chosen to keep the plan names and upgrade them all but did not. Adding insult to injury (possibly literally) those of us with grandfathered plans are getting letters referring to this nugget from the HHS website:
> 
> "A grandfathered health plan isn't required to comply with some of the consumer protections of the Affordable Care Act that apply to other health plans that are not grandfathered."
> 
> That's right. With my grandfathered plan, I don't get preventative services or protections when appealing claims and coverage denials or even protection of my choice of health care provider and my access to emergency care. And for an individual with a health care policy, the insurance companies can also keep annual dollar limits on key benefits in place. Plus, they are not required to eliminate pre-existing condition exclusions for children under 19 years old. All of a sudden, those new plans with protections, preventative care and tax subsidies are looking pretty damn good. Yes, President Obama said if we liked our plan we could keep it, but that doesn't mean that after the ACA kicks in we will still like our plan or even want to keep it.
> 
> So yes, you can keep your plan if it was grandfathered in and you deem it worthy of the cost versus benefits, without all those pesky protections. But if you're one of those people who's just mad as hell and feels the individual mandate is an onerous tax, let me ask you one simple question: If you didn't have any health insurance and you got injured -- perhaps seriously, a real life-threatening emergency -- where would you go? Assuming your answer is the emergency room, you'd have a lot of company. Americans make almost 130 million ER visits a year, a whopping 42.8 visits per 100 persons, with 13.3 percent overall resulting in hospital admissions. And the ER is a place that is often utilized by those without insurance because by law the ER cannot turn you away or make you pay. By the rights afforded to every citizen of this country in 1996 by the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, the Emergency Room is de facto socialized medicine:
> 
> The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) is a U.S. Act of Congress passed in 1986 as part of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA). It requires hospitals to provide care to anyone needing emergency health care treatment regardless of citizenship, legal status or ability to pay. There are no reimbursement provisions. Participating hospitals may only transfer or discharge patients needing emergency treatment under their own informed consent, after stabilization, or when their condition requires transfer to a hospital better equipped to administer the treatment.
> Since 1986, any person -- resident, tourist or undocumented immigrant -- in America has been able to get free emergency care at any ER in the country (thank you, Ronald Reagan!). The rare exemptions are Indian hospitals, veterans hospitals and the Shriners Hospitals for Children, of all places. What if in order to exempt yourself from the ACA mandate you had to sign a waiver that would also exempt you from EMTALA? Even if you were in an accident and were crying for an ambulance, if you were uninsured you could only get one for hire and if you couldn't afford it, well tough! That's the free market for you.
> 
> So why hasn't anybody railed against this pervasive form of socialized medicine? Where are the Tea Party protests outside all the ERs in the country? Why is it okay to treat catastrophic injuries with no reimbursement provisions but not catastrophic illness? Or all illness? Those that rail against having to purchase health care may have legitimate beefs against compulsive insurance coverage (like auto insurance) or compulsive protective rules (like seat belts and airbags in cars) but unless they are willing to forego their current socialized emergency care, their protestations against paying towards their own coverage rings hollow. No ACA? No ER for you.
> 
> Time will ultimately tell if the ACA is a success or a bump on the road toward universal coverage. The individual experiences of each state will ultimately help guide us with real world examples of what works and what doesn't. For example, in just a few short years, Vermont will be transitioning to a single-payer system. The contrast between that and states like Texas or (26.3 percent of residents uninsured) and Florida (25.35 percent of residents uninsured) who didn't expand Medicaid will be stark and enlightening. Even Pennsylvania may get on board after a study estimated $17 billion of savings for the state under a single payer approach. And Pennsylvania is one of many states considering a single-payer system that can be put into action starting on January 1, 2017, under a provision in the ACA that empowers states by allowing for innovation.
> 
> You know what also happens on that date? States can begin allowing large employers and multi-employer health plans to purchase coverage in the health insurance exchange, giving a huge boost to the exchanges in power and numbers. Also by then every single state will offer two federally regulated multi-state plans (one of which must be nonprofit, the other cannot cover abortion) which are already coming to 60 percent of individual state exchanges on January 1, 2014. And that upcoming date more than any other heralds the next big phase of the ACA.
> 
> On this upcoming January 1, the ACA really kicks into gear on everything from patients rights to excise taxes on Health Insurance and Pharmaceutical companies. And don't forget the national CO-OP industry adding a nonprofit option to consumers choices (and to the competitive marketplace). Plus, members of Congress and their staff will only be able to purchase health care plans through exchanges or other plans established by the ACA, making them responsible not just for Americans health care but for their own. Read it for yourself to cut through the spin with actual facts and figures.
> 
> Remember, we are just over a month in to this transition and nothing on this scale could be expected to work perfectly right out of the box. It's helpful to recall that Social Security began under FDR with the Social Security Act (enacted August 14, 1935) and didn't really mature into its current form until Lyndon Johnson signed the Social Security Amendments on July 30, 1965, also heralding the beginning of Medicare and Medicaid. That's almost 30 years from start to finish, which makes the last month seem like a blip on the radar. Once we get to January 1, we'll see how the law really feels once it's in motion and get a good idea of where we are headed. After that, it will be three more years until we see where the states will lead us in 2017.



Huff Po...go figure.


----------



## PMZ

Antares said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why Was Your Health Insurance Plan Cancelled and Not Upgraded?
> Robbie GennetNov 08, 2013
> So you got a letter from your insurance company saying your plan is being discontinued. And you're mad at President Obama for telling you that if you liked your plan, you could keep your plan because here you are, losing that very plan you liked. Plus your sticker shock at the higher price to replace it has somehow not been assuaged by the subsidies that may drop the actual cost quite dramatically. Regardless of your general disposition toward the president, let's make sure your anger isn't just a little bit misguided.
> 
> You do realize that as part of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) a new set of rules were instituted to protect patients and provide a basic floor for included services? It's a Patient's Bill of Rights and it helps people in a myriad of ways, including ceasing to exclude those with pre-existing conditions, ending lifetime limits on coverage, and covering preventative care for men, women and children, the latter whom can now stay on their parents insurance until they turn 26. These rules form a more compassionate foundation for our health care system and are designed to create a stronger framework for how we handle our individual and collective well-being. Many of these new rules are also not included in your old plan, if it was designed before the ACA went into effect on March 23, 2010 and is now considered "grandfathered."
> 
> So of course the health care companies had to discontinue your current plan to offer brand new ones that include the more generous benefits. Or did they? Could they have just upgraded your current plan with the new rules and given you a more robust version of your own plan? That way, you would technically be keeping your plan and benefitting from the new ACA rules. You would think insurance companies would be thrilled with all the new business but instead they took the route of mass cancellations that made it seem as if the president was reneging on his earlier promises. Perhaps this is just an issue of semantics, but the important part is that people feel like their plans are being taken away and that plays into a certain narrative. It certainly seems like the insurance industry could have chosen to keep the plan names and upgrade them all but did not. Adding insult to injury (possibly literally) those of us with grandfathered plans are getting letters referring to this nugget from the HHS website:
> 
> "A grandfathered health plan isn't required to comply with some of the consumer protections of the Affordable Care Act that apply to other health plans that are not grandfathered."
> 
> That's right. With my grandfathered plan, I don't get preventative services or protections when appealing claims and coverage denials or even protection of my choice of health care provider and my access to emergency care. And for an individual with a health care policy, the insurance companies can also keep annual dollar limits on key benefits in place. Plus, they are not required to eliminate pre-existing condition exclusions for children under 19 years old. All of a sudden, those new plans with protections, preventative care and tax subsidies are looking pretty damn good. Yes, President Obama said if we liked our plan we could keep it, but that doesn't mean that after the ACA kicks in we will still like our plan or even want to keep it.
> 
> So yes, you can keep your plan if it was grandfathered in and you deem it worthy of the cost versus benefits, without all those pesky protections. But if you're one of those people who's just mad as hell and feels the individual mandate is an onerous tax, let me ask you one simple question: If you didn't have any health insurance and you got injured -- perhaps seriously, a real life-threatening emergency -- where would you go? Assuming your answer is the emergency room, you'd have a lot of company. Americans make almost 130 million ER visits a year, a whopping 42.8 visits per 100 persons, with 13.3 percent overall resulting in hospital admissions. And the ER is a place that is often utilized by those without insurance because by law the ER cannot turn you away or make you pay. By the rights afforded to every citizen of this country in 1996 by the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, the Emergency Room is de facto socialized medicine:
> 
> The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) is a U.S. Act of Congress passed in 1986 as part of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA). It requires hospitals to provide care to anyone needing emergency health care treatment regardless of citizenship, legal status or ability to pay. There are no reimbursement provisions. Participating hospitals may only transfer or discharge patients needing emergency treatment under their own informed consent, after stabilization, or when their condition requires transfer to a hospital better equipped to administer the treatment.
> Since 1986, any person -- resident, tourist or undocumented immigrant -- in America has been able to get free emergency care at any ER in the country (thank you, Ronald Reagan!). The rare exemptions are Indian hospitals, veterans hospitals and the Shriners Hospitals for Children, of all places. What if in order to exempt yourself from the ACA mandate you had to sign a waiver that would also exempt you from EMTALA? Even if you were in an accident and were crying for an ambulance, if you were uninsured you could only get one for hire and if you couldn't afford it, well tough! That's the free market for you.
> 
> So why hasn't anybody railed against this pervasive form of socialized medicine? Where are the Tea Party protests outside all the ERs in the country? Why is it okay to treat catastrophic injuries with no reimbursement provisions but not catastrophic illness? Or all illness? Those that rail against having to purchase health care may have legitimate beefs against compulsive insurance coverage (like auto insurance) or compulsive protective rules (like seat belts and airbags in cars) but unless they are willing to forego their current socialized emergency care, their protestations against paying towards their own coverage rings hollow. No ACA? No ER for you.
> 
> Time will ultimately tell if the ACA is a success or a bump on the road toward universal coverage. The individual experiences of each state will ultimately help guide us with real world examples of what works and what doesn't. For example, in just a few short years, Vermont will be transitioning to a single-payer system. The contrast between that and states like Texas or (26.3 percent of residents uninsured) and Florida (25.35 percent of residents uninsured) who didn't expand Medicaid will be stark and enlightening. Even Pennsylvania may get on board after a study estimated $17 billion of savings for the state under a single payer approach. And Pennsylvania is one of many states considering a single-payer system that can be put into action starting on January 1, 2017, under a provision in the ACA that empowers states by allowing for innovation.
> 
> You know what also happens on that date? States can begin allowing large employers and multi-employer health plans to purchase coverage in the health insurance exchange, giving a huge boost to the exchanges in power and numbers. Also by then every single state will offer two federally regulated multi-state plans (one of which must be nonprofit, the other cannot cover abortion) which are already coming to 60 percent of individual state exchanges on January 1, 2014. And that upcoming date more than any other heralds the next big phase of the ACA.
> 
> On this upcoming January 1, the ACA really kicks into gear on everything from patients rights to excise taxes on Health Insurance and Pharmaceutical companies. And don't forget the national CO-OP industry adding a nonprofit option to consumers choices (and to the competitive marketplace). Plus, members of Congress and their staff will only be able to purchase health care plans through exchanges or other plans established by the ACA, making them responsible not just for Americans health care but for their own. Read it for yourself to cut through the spin with actual facts and figures.
> 
> Remember, we are just over a month in to this transition and nothing on this scale could be expected to work perfectly right out of the box. It's helpful to recall that Social Security began under FDR with the Social Security Act (enacted August 14, 1935) and didn't really mature into its current form until Lyndon Johnson signed the Social Security Amendments on July 30, 1965, also heralding the beginning of Medicare and Medicaid. That's almost 30 years from start to finish, which makes the last month seem like a blip on the radar. Once we get to January 1, we'll see how the law really feels once it's in motion and get a good idea of where we are headed. After that, it will be three more years until we see where the states will lead us in 2017.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Huff Po...go figure.
Click to expand...


Did Fox Opinions burn that book for conservatives?


----------



## Antares

PMZ said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why Was Your Health Insurance Plan Cancelled and Not Upgraded?
> Robbie GennetNov 08, 2013
> So you got a letter from your insurance company saying your plan is being discontinued. And you're mad at President Obama for telling you that if you liked your plan, you could keep your plan because here you are, losing that very plan you liked. Plus your sticker shock at the higher price to replace it has somehow not been assuaged by the subsidies that may drop the actual cost quite dramatically. Regardless of your general disposition toward the president, let's make sure your anger isn't just a little bit misguided.
> 
> You do realize that as part of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) a new set of rules were instituted to protect patients and provide a basic floor for included services? It's a Patient's Bill of Rights and it helps people in a myriad of ways, including ceasing to exclude those with pre-existing conditions, ending lifetime limits on coverage, and covering preventative care for men, women and children, the latter whom can now stay on their parents insurance until they turn 26. These rules form a more compassionate foundation for our health care system and are designed to create a stronger framework for how we handle our individual and collective well-being. Many of these new rules are also not included in your old plan, if it was designed before the ACA went into effect on March 23, 2010 and is now considered "grandfathered."
> 
> So of course the health care companies had to discontinue your current plan to offer brand new ones that include the more generous benefits. Or did they? Could they have just upgraded your current plan with the new rules and given you a more robust version of your own plan? That way, you would technically be keeping your plan and benefitting from the new ACA rules. You would think insurance companies would be thrilled with all the new business but instead they took the route of mass cancellations that made it seem as if the president was reneging on his earlier promises. Perhaps this is just an issue of semantics, but the important part is that people feel like their plans are being taken away and that plays into a certain narrative. It certainly seems like the insurance industry could have chosen to keep the plan names and upgrade them all but did not. Adding insult to injury (possibly literally) those of us with grandfathered plans are getting letters referring to this nugget from the HHS website:
> 
> "A grandfathered health plan isn't required to comply with some of the consumer protections of the Affordable Care Act that apply to other health plans that are not grandfathered."
> 
> That's right. With my grandfathered plan, I don't get preventative services or protections when appealing claims and coverage denials or even protection of my choice of health care provider and my access to emergency care. And for an individual with a health care policy, the insurance companies can also keep annual dollar limits on key benefits in place. Plus, they are not required to eliminate pre-existing condition exclusions for children under 19 years old. All of a sudden, those new plans with protections, preventative care and tax subsidies are looking pretty damn good. Yes, President Obama said if we liked our plan we could keep it, but that doesn't mean that after the ACA kicks in we will still like our plan or even want to keep it.
> 
> So yes, you can keep your plan if it was grandfathered in and you deem it worthy of the cost versus benefits, without all those pesky protections. But if you're one of those people who's just mad as hell and feels the individual mandate is an onerous tax, let me ask you one simple question: If you didn't have any health insurance and you got injured -- perhaps seriously, a real life-threatening emergency -- where would you go? Assuming your answer is the emergency room, you'd have a lot of company. Americans make almost 130 million ER visits a year, a whopping 42.8 visits per 100 persons, with 13.3 percent overall resulting in hospital admissions. And the ER is a place that is often utilized by those without insurance because by law the ER cannot turn you away or make you pay. By the rights afforded to every citizen of this country in 1996 by the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, the Emergency Room is de facto socialized medicine:
> 
> The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) is a U.S. Act of Congress passed in 1986 as part of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA). It requires hospitals to provide care to anyone needing emergency health care treatment regardless of citizenship, legal status or ability to pay. There are no reimbursement provisions. Participating hospitals may only transfer or discharge patients needing emergency treatment under their own informed consent, after stabilization, or when their condition requires transfer to a hospital better equipped to administer the treatment.
> Since 1986, any person -- resident, tourist or undocumented immigrant -- in America has been able to get free emergency care at any ER in the country (thank you, Ronald Reagan!). The rare exemptions are Indian hospitals, veterans hospitals and the Shriners Hospitals for Children, of all places. What if in order to exempt yourself from the ACA mandate you had to sign a waiver that would also exempt you from EMTALA? Even if you were in an accident and were crying for an ambulance, if you were uninsured you could only get one for hire and if you couldn't afford it, well tough! That's the free market for you.
> 
> So why hasn't anybody railed against this pervasive form of socialized medicine? Where are the Tea Party protests outside all the ERs in the country? Why is it okay to treat catastrophic injuries with no reimbursement provisions but not catastrophic illness? Or all illness? Those that rail against having to purchase health care may have legitimate beefs against compulsive insurance coverage (like auto insurance) or compulsive protective rules (like seat belts and airbags in cars) but unless they are willing to forego their current socialized emergency care, their protestations against paying towards their own coverage rings hollow. No ACA? No ER for you.
> 
> Time will ultimately tell if the ACA is a success or a bump on the road toward universal coverage. The individual experiences of each state will ultimately help guide us with real world examples of what works and what doesn't. For example, in just a few short years, Vermont will be transitioning to a single-payer system. The contrast between that and states like Texas or (26.3 percent of residents uninsured) and Florida (25.35 percent of residents uninsured) who didn't expand Medicaid will be stark and enlightening. Even Pennsylvania may get on board after a study estimated $17 billion of savings for the state under a single payer approach. And Pennsylvania is one of many states considering a single-payer system that can be put into action starting on January 1, 2017, under a provision in the ACA that empowers states by allowing for innovation.
> 
> You know what also happens on that date? States can begin allowing large employers and multi-employer health plans to purchase coverage in the health insurance exchange, giving a huge boost to the exchanges in power and numbers. Also by then every single state will offer two federally regulated multi-state plans (one of which must be nonprofit, the other cannot cover abortion) which are already coming to 60 percent of individual state exchanges on January 1, 2014. And that upcoming date more than any other heralds the next big phase of the ACA.
> 
> On this upcoming January 1, the ACA really kicks into gear on everything from patients rights to excise taxes on Health Insurance and Pharmaceutical companies. And don't forget the national CO-OP industry adding a nonprofit option to consumers choices (and to the competitive marketplace). Plus, members of Congress and their staff will only be able to purchase health care plans through exchanges or other plans established by the ACA, making them responsible not just for Americans health care but for their own. Read it for yourself to cut through the spin with actual facts and figures.
> 
> Remember, we are just over a month in to this transition and nothing on this scale could be expected to work perfectly right out of the box. It's helpful to recall that Social Security began under FDR with the Social Security Act (enacted August 14, 1935) and didn't really mature into its current form until Lyndon Johnson signed the Social Security Amendments on July 30, 1965, also heralding the beginning of Medicare and Medicaid. That's almost 30 years from start to finish, which makes the last month seem like a blip on the radar. Once we get to January 1, we'll see how the law really feels once it's in motion and get a good idea of where we are headed. After that, it will be three more years until we see where the states will lead us in 2017.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Huff Po...go figure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did Fox Opinions burn that book for conservatives?
Click to expand...


Ummmmm.....what is a qualified health plan?


----------



## PMZ

Antares said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> Huff Po...go figure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did Fox Opinions burn that book for conservatives?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ummmmm.....what is a qualified health plan?
Click to expand...


A liberal would have looked up the answer to that while you were typing this note.


----------



## Antares

PMZ said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did Fox Opinions burn that book for conservatives?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ummmmm.....what is a qualified health plan?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A liberal would have looked up the answer to that while you were typing this note.
Click to expand...


I am asking you, what is a qualified plan?


----------



## PMZ

Antares said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ummmmm.....what is a qualified health plan?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A liberal would have looked up the answer to that while you were typing this note.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am asking you, what is a qualified plan?
Click to expand...


Why are you sucking up to me now?


----------



## Antares

PMZ said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> A liberal would have looked up the answer to that while you were typing this note.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am asking you, what is a qualified plan?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are you sucking up to me now?
Click to expand...


What is a qualified plan?


----------



## PMZ

Antares said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am asking you, what is a qualified plan?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you sucking up to me now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is a qualified plan?
Click to expand...


Which word confuses you.


----------



## Antares

PMZ said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you sucking up to me now?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is a qualified plan?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which word confuses you.
Click to expand...


I am not sure why this is so hard for you.

What is a qualified plan? .


----------



## PMZ

Antares said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is a qualified plan?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which word confuses you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not sure why this is so hard for you.
> 
> What is a qualified plan? .
Click to expand...


Are you confused about "qualified"  or "plan"?


----------



## Antares

PMZ said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which word confuses you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not sure why this is so hard for you.
> 
> What is a qualified plan? .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you confused about "qualified"  or "plan"?
Click to expand...


What is a qualified plan PMZ, surely you can answer?


----------



## PMZ

Antares said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not sure why this is so hard for you.
> 
> What is a qualified plan? .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you confused about "qualified"  or "plan"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is a qualified plan PMZ, surely you can answer?
Click to expand...


I can.  You can't.  Same as always. 

What is a grandfathered plan?
Most health insurance plans that existed on March 23, 2010 are eligible for grandfathered status and therefore do not have to meet all the requirements of the health care law.  But if an insurer or employer makes significant changes to a plans benefits or how much members pay through premiums, copays or deductibles, then the plan loses that status. 
The government's regulations spell out how much plans can change the amount paid by workers or employers before losing their status.
Both individual plans, the kind you buy on your own, and group plans, the kind you receive through an employer, can be grandfathered. If you get coverage through an employer, you can join a grandfathered plan even if you werent enrolled on March 23, 2010.
What rules does a grandfathered plan have to follow?
A grandfathered plan has to follow some of the same rules other plans do under the ACA.  For example, the plans cannot impose lifetime limits on how much health care coverage people may receive, and they must offer dependent coverage for young adults until age 26 (although until 2014, a grandfathered group plan does not have to offer such coverage if a young adult is eligible for coverage elsewhere). They also cannot retroactively cancel your coverage because of a mistake you made when applying, a practice known as a rescission.
More Information For Consumers

FAQ: How Will The Individual Mandate Work?
Five Things To Know About Obamacare Premiums
Deciphering The Health Laws Subsidies For Premiums
Accountable Care Organizations, Explained
'Grandfathered' Health Plans And The ACA
The Health Law and Coverage For Immigrants
However, there are many rules grandfathered plans do not have to follow. For example, they are not required to provide preventive care without cost-sharing.  In addition, they do not have to offer a package of "essential health benefits" that individual and small group plans must offer beginning in 2014.  (Large employer plans are not required to offer the essential benefits package even if they are not grandfathered.)
Furthermore, grandfathered individual plans  the policies you purchase yourself, rather than through work  can still impose annual dollar limits, such as capping key benefits at $750,000 in a given year. Grandfathered individual policies also can still lock out children under 19 if they have a pre-existing conditions.
How many people are enrolled in grandfathered plans?
In 2013, 36 percent of those who get coverage through their jobs are enrolled in a grandfathered health plan, down from 48 percent in 2012 and 56 percent in 2011, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation's most recent Employer Health Benefits Survey. (KHN is an editorially-independent program of KFF.) 
The survey also found that 54 percent of firms that offered health insurance reported that they offered at least one health care plan with grandfathered status, down from 58 percent of firms that did so in 2012 and 72 percent in 2011.
Fewer covered workers at large firms (200 or more workers) are enrolled in a grandfathered health plan than covered workers at smaller firms (30 percent vs. 49 percent).
More plans are expected to lose grandfathered status over time. 
How do I find out if Im in a grandfathered plan?
It is very difficult to determine a plan's grandfathered status simply by reading the plan materials.  If you want to know more about your coverage, your best bet is to ask your insurance company or your employer's human resources department.
But it's important to remember that simply knowing a plan's status doesn't reveal everything you need to know about what kind of coverage you and your family have, according to Larry Levitt, a senior vice president at KFF, who has written about grandfathered plans. 
"It's not clear-cut at all," he said.  For example, if your plan loses grandfathered status, then you could gain additional benefits, such as preventive care without cost-sharing.  However, the plan may have lost that status because it reduced benefits or increased costs which could matter more to your care and to your bottom line.

© Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. All rights reserved.


----------



## Antares

*I can. You can't. Same as always. *

It is a very simple question, what is a qualified health plan PMZ?

Don't throw up a bunch of stuff about granfathered plans and expect to hide from the question.


----------



## PMZ

Antares said:


> *I can. You can't. Same as always. *
> 
> It is a very simple question, what is a qualified health plan PMZ?
> 
> Don't throw up a bunch of stuff about granfathered plans and expect to hide from the question.



Do I have to read it for you too? This isn't Fox Opinions you know.


----------



## Antares

PMZ said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I can. You can't. Same as always. *
> 
> It is a very simple question, what is a qualified health plan PMZ?
> 
> Don't throw up a bunch of stuff about granfathered plans and expect to hide from the question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do I have to read it for you too? This isn't Fox Opinions you know.
Click to expand...


What is a qualified plan PMZ?


----------



## PMZ

Antares said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I can. You can't. Same as always. *
> 
> It is a very simple question, what is a qualified health plan PMZ?
> 
> Don't throw up a bunch of stuff about granfathered plans and expect to hide from the question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do I have to read it for you too? This isn't Fox Opinions you know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is a qualified plan PMZ?
Click to expand...


I've done all for you that I can.  You'll have to assume some personal responsibility, which I know is very hard for little conservatives.  I wouldn't be doing you any favor to help you every step of the way.


----------



## Antares

PMZ said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do I have to read it for you too? This isn't Fox Opinions you know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is a qualified plan PMZ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've done all for you that I can.  You'll have to assume some personal responsibility, which I know is very hard for little conservatives.  I wouldn't be doing you any favor to help you every step of the way.
Click to expand...


(smile) You've done nothing deflect , dodge and run.

We both know it.

What is a qualified plan PMZ?


----------



## PMZ

Antares said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is a qualified plan PMZ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've done all for you that I can.  You'll have to assume some personal responsibility, which I know is very hard for little conservatives.  I wouldn't be doing you any favor to help you every step of the way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> (smile) You've done nothing deflect , dodge and run.
> 
> We both know it.
> 
> What is a qualified plan PMZ?
Click to expand...


You've done,  and added,  nothing. Zero value.


----------



## Antares

Run Foooooorest......


----------



## PMZ

Antares said:


> Run Foooooorest......



From what?


----------



## Antares

PMZ said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> Run Foooooorest......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From what?
Click to expand...


From a factual fun filled discussion filled with truth and eye opening tidbits sure to titilate the brain of those interested in the truth kid.


----------



## P@triot

Antares said:


> Run Foooooorest......





Watching you hold [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION]'s feet to the fire - and watching him run like hell from the most basic questions is hilarious.

The only thing he does more than lie is run!


----------



## PMZ

Antares said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> Run Foooooorest......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From a factual fun filled discussion filled with truth and eye opening tidbits sure to titilate the brain of those interested in the truth kid.
Click to expand...


I don't remember any facts from you. Not that anyone here will be surprised.  Your tutor,  Fox Opinions,  doesn't do facts.  Too inconvenient. They package Republican opinions and issue them to people who don't know better.


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uh-oh [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION]! Looks like Obama's lies almost as much as you do! And this is from MSNBC - so your tourette's of "Fox! Fox! Fox!" simply can't apply.
> 
> How does it feel being my personal bitch on USMB?
> 
> Obama admin. knew millions could not keep their health insurance - Investigations
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ACA has no policies.  How can ACA cancel what it does not offer?
Click to expand...


Because the ACA gave the federal government the unconstiutional power to tell the private sector what to do. Don't act stupid (I mean, I _know_ you are stupid, but don't act dumber than you already are...)


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> Here's the reason for conservative ignorance on health care.  It's complicated.  So they avoid it by staring at the boobs and boobies on Fox Opinions and,  without ever leaving the EZBoy,  absorb what the GOP wants them to believe.
> 
> Liberals are however comfortable and competent with complexity.  So this is for them
> 
> Why Was Your Health Insurance Plan Cancelled and Not Upgraded?
> Robbie GennetNov 08, 2013
> So you got a letter from your insurance company saying your plan is being discontinued. And you're mad at President Obama for telling you that if you liked your plan, you could keep your plan because here you are, losing that very plan you liked. Plus your sticker shock at the higher price to replace it has somehow not been assuaged by the subsidies that may drop the actual cost quite dramatically. Regardless of your general disposition toward the president, let's make sure your anger isn't just a little bit misguided.
> 
> *You do realize that as part of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) a new set of rules were instituted to protect patients and provide a basic floor for included services*?



Yeah [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] - you idiot liberal Dumbocrats are soooo "comfortable and competent with complexity" that you need Obama to mandate to the private industry what type of plans they provide because you're too stupid to read the policy, understand what you're getting, and then choose one that you want... 

You're so fuck'n stupid, you don't even realize you contradict yourself in almost every post. This is another classic example.


----------



## P@triot

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the reason for conservative ignorance on health care.  It's complicated.  So they avoid it by staring at the boobs and boobies on Fox Opinions and,  without ever leaving the EZBoy,  absorb what the GOP wants them to believe.
> 
> Liberals are however comfortable and competent with complexity.  So this is for them
> 
> Why Was Your Health Insurance Plan Cancelled and Not Upgraded?
> Robbie GennetNov 08, 2013
> So you got a letter from your insurance company saying your plan is being discontinued. And you're mad at President Obama for telling you that if you liked your plan, you could keep your plan because here you are, losing that very plan you liked. Plus your sticker shock at the higher price to replace it has somehow not been assuaged by the subsidies that may drop the actual cost quite dramatically. Regardless of your general disposition toward the president, let's make sure your anger isn't just a little bit misguided.
> 
> *You do realize that as part of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) a new set of rules were instituted to protect patients and provide a basic floor for included services*?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah  [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] - you idiot liberal Dumbocrats are soooo "comfortable and competent with complexity" that you need Obama to mandate to the private industry what type of plans they provide because you're too stupid to read the policy, understand what you're getting, and then choose one that you want...
> 
> You're so fuck'n stupid, you don't even realize you contradict yourself in almost every post. This is another classic example.
Click to expand...


Oh, by the way [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION], if Obama felt he needed to "provide a basic floor for included services" to "protect" people because the insurance companies were so bad, then why did he promise over and over and over "if you like your plan, you can keep your plan"?

The more you assholes try to lie your way out of your previous lies, the more you burry yourselves. It's too late to change the narrative now! Obama SWORE "if you like your plan, you can keep your plan". He obviously knew that was a *lie* if he felt the need to create this "basic floor".


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uh-oh [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION]! Looks like Obama's lies almost as much as you do! And this is from MSNBC - so your tourette's of "Fox! Fox! Fox!" simply can't apply.
> 
> How does it feel being my personal bitch on USMB?
> 
> Obama admin. knew millions could not keep their health insurance - Investigations
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ACA has no policies.  How can ACA cancel what it does not offer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because the ACA gave the federal government the unconstiutional power to tell the private sector what to do. Don't act stupid (I mean, I _know_ you are stupid, but don't act dumber than you already are...)
Click to expand...


I don't remember the Constitution giving you any power over it.


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> Why Was Your Health Insurance Plan Cancelled and Not Upgraded?
> Robbie GennetNov 08, 2013
> 
> You do realize that as part of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) a new set of rules were instituted to protect patients and provide a basic floor for included services? It's a Patient's Bill of Rights and it helps people in a myriad of ways, including ceasing to exclude those with pre-existing conditions, ending lifetime limits on coverage, and covering preventative care for men, women and children, the latter whom can now stay on their parents insurance until they turn 26. *These rules form a more compassionate foundation for our health care system* and are designed to create a stronger framework for how we handle our individual and *collective well-being*.



Ah yes - my favorite ignorant libtard Dumbocrat narrative. They are on the wrong side of the Constitution, so they lose that argument. They are on the wrong side of history, so they lose that argument. They are on the wrong side of the FACTS, so they lose that argument. 

What does that leave them with? The old "but I'm displaying 'compassion' and you're just a big meanie conservative" 

"Compassion" created the oppressive U.S.S.R. How did _that_ work out? "Compassion" created the oppressive Fidel Castro Cuba. How did _that_ work out? "Compassion" created the extreme poverty Cambodia where millions starve to death. How did _that_ work out?

If the greedy Dumbocrat has any actual "compassion", how come assholes like [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION], [MENTION=18645]Sarah G[/MENTION] and [MENTION=31258]BDBoop[/MENTION] *never* _once_ covered the cost of a health insurance policy for someone who was not insured?

Because they don't care. At all. Not even a little. But they do harbor tremendous (and disgusting) envy towards those that worked harder and are more successful than they have been, and they want those people to be forced to share with them what was earned.


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> ACA has no policies.  How can ACA cancel what it does not offer?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because the ACA gave the federal government the unconstiutional power to tell the private sector what to do. Don't act stupid (I mean, I _know_ you are stupid, but don't act dumber than you already are...)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't remember the Constitution giving you any power over it.
Click to expand...


Another incoherent response from the Dumbocrat running from his own ignorant posts.

The ACA doesn't need it's own policies because it's busy canceling the polices of the private sector. Now tell us again how "nobody is losing their coverage"


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the reason for conservative ignorance on health care.  It's complicated.  So they avoid it by staring at the boobs and boobies on Fox Opinions and,  without ever leaving the EZBoy,  absorb what the GOP wants them to believe.
> 
> Liberals are however comfortable and competent with complexity.  So this is for them
> 
> Why Was Your Health Insurance Plan Cancelled and Not Upgraded?
> Robbie GennetNov 08, 2013
> So you got a letter from your insurance company saying your plan is being discontinued. And you're mad at President Obama for telling you that if you liked your plan, you could keep your plan because here you are, losing that very plan you liked. Plus your sticker shock at the higher price to replace it has somehow not been assuaged by the subsidies that may drop the actual cost quite dramatically. Regardless of your general disposition toward the president, let's make sure your anger isn't just a little bit misguided.
> 
> *You do realize that as part of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) a new set of rules were instituted to protect patients and provide a basic floor for included services*?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah  [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] - you idiot liberal Dumbocrats are soooo "comfortable and competent with complexity" that you need Obama to mandate to the private industry what type of plans they provide because you're too stupid to read the policy, understand what you're getting, and then choose one that you want...
> 
> You're so fuck'n stupid, you don't even realize you contradict yourself in almost every post. This is another classic example.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, by the way [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION], if Obama felt he needed to "provide a basic floor for included services" to "protect" people because the insurance companies were so bad, then why did he promise over and over and over "if you like your plan, you can keep your plan"?
> 
> The more you assholes try to lie your way out of your previous lies, the more you burry yourselves. It's too late to change the narrative now! Obama SWORE "if you like your plan, you can keep your plan". He obviously knew that was a *lie* if he felt the need to create this "basic floor".
Click to expand...


I know that you love the idea of private business preying on their  customers and our government.  But our government serves those customers,  all of them,  not just the wealthy ones.  And as those customers elected our government to solve some of their problems,  that's what happened. Now those customers will vote in the Obamacare marketplace for which companies to hire and which to fire. 

Those companies that chose to abuse their customers will be taught a lesson about who's in charge.


----------



## PMZ

PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah  [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] - you idiot liberal Dumbocrats are soooo "comfortable and competent with complexity" that you need Obama to mandate to the private industry what type of plans they provide because you're too stupid to read the policy, understand what you're getting, and then choose one that you want...
> 
> You're so fuck'n stupid, you don't even realize you contradict yourself in almost every post. This is another classic example.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, by the way [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION], if Obama felt he needed to "provide a basic floor for included services" to "protect" people because the insurance companies were so bad, then why did he promise over and over and over "if you like your plan, you can keep your plan"?
> 
> The more you assholes try to lie your way out of your previous lies, the more you burry yourselves. It's too late to change the narrative now! Obama SWORE "if you like your plan, you can keep your plan". He obviously knew that was a *lie* if he felt the need to create this "basic floor".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know that you love the idea of private business preying on their  customers and our government.  But our government serves those customers,  all of them,  not just the wealthy ones.  And as those customers elected our government to solve some of their problems,  that's what happened. Now those customers will vote in the Obamacare marketplace for which companies to hire and which to fire.
> 
> Those companies that chose to abuse their customers will be taught a lesson about who's in charge.
> 
> Then those same customers will vote for who in government to hire and fire.
> 
> Looks like you will lose all around.
Click to expand...


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah  [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] - you idiot liberal Dumbocrats are soooo "comfortable and competent with complexity" that you need Obama to mandate to the private industry what type of plans they provide because you're too stupid to read the policy, understand what you're getting, and then choose one that you want...
> 
> You're so fuck'n stupid, you don't even realize you contradict yourself in almost every post. This is another classic example.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, by the way [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION], if Obama felt he needed to "provide a basic floor for included services" to "protect" people because the insurance companies were so bad, then why did he promise over and over and over "if you like your plan, you can keep your plan"?
> 
> The more you assholes try to lie your way out of your previous lies, the more you burry yourselves. It's too late to change the narrative now! Obama SWORE "if you like your plan, you can keep your plan". He obviously knew that was a *lie* if he felt the need to create this "basic floor".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know that you love the idea of private business preying on their  customers and our government.  *But our government serves those customers*,  all of them,  not just the wealthy ones.  And as those customers elected our government to solve some of their problems,  that's what happened. Now those customers will vote in the Obamacare marketplace for which companies to hire and which to fire.
> 
> Those companies that chose to abuse their customers will be taught a lesson about who's in charge.
Click to expand...


Boy you've got that right! Serves them a shit sandwich! Serves them communism. Serves them poverty. Serves them misery. Serves them *$17 trillion* in debt.

By the way - are you admitting you were too incompetent to read your policy? I mean, how else could a private business "prey" on you? You chose to do business with them. And you can choose to drop them any time you want and do business with someone else.

Choice. What PMZ fears the most. He fears that Americans will have the choice not to let him be a parasite.


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, by the way [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION], if Obama felt he needed to "provide a basic floor for included services" to "protect" people because the insurance companies were so bad, then why did he promise over and over and over "if you like your plan, you can keep your plan"?
> 
> The more you assholes try to lie your way out of your previous lies, the more you burry yourselves. It's too late to change the narrative now! Obama SWORE "if you like your plan, you can keep your plan". He obviously knew that was a *lie* if he felt the need to create this "basic floor".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know that you love the idea of private business preying on their  customers and our government.  But our government serves those customers,  all of them,  not just the wealthy ones.  And as those customers elected our government to solve some of their problems,  that's what happened. Now those customers will vote in the Obamacare marketplace for which companies to hire and which to fire.
> 
> Those companies that chose to abuse their customers will be taught a lesson about who's in charge.
> 
> Then those same customers will vote for who in government to hire and fire.
> 
> Looks like you will lose all around.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are you so afraid to have an honest conversation? (Don't worry PMZ - that's rhetorical - we all know why you're afraid of the truth).
> 
> Your incoherent ramblings about "who is in charge" didn't answer the question. If Obama felt that insurance companies and their policies were so awful, he needed to create a "basic floor" for policies to prevent the previous awful policies, why did he adamantly promise over and over and over "if you like your plan, you can keep your plan"?
> 
> You are admitting that he needed to LIE to the American people to get his shit legislation passed?
Click to expand...


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, by the way [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION], if Obama felt he needed to "provide a basic floor for included services" to "protect" people because the insurance companies were so bad, then why did he promise over and over and over "if you like your plan, you can keep your plan"?
> 
> The more you assholes try to lie your way out of your previous lies, the more you burry yourselves. It's too late to change the narrative now! Obama SWORE "if you like your plan, you can keep your plan". He obviously knew that was a *lie* if he felt the need to create this "basic floor".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know that you love the idea of private business preying on their  customers and our government.  *But our government serves those customers*,  all of them,  not just the wealthy ones.  And as those customers elected our government to solve some of their problems,  that's what happened. Now those customers will vote in the Obamacare marketplace for which companies to hire and which to fire.
> 
> Those companies that chose to abuse their customers will be taught a lesson about who's in charge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Boy you've got that right! Serves them a shit sandwich! Serves them communism. Serves them poverty. Serves them misery. Serves them *$17 trillion* in debt.
> 
> By the way - are you admitting you were too incompetent to read your policy? I mean, how else could a private business "prey" on you? You chose to do business with them. And you can choose to drop them any time you want and do business with someone else.
> 
> Choice. What PMZ fears the most. He fears that Americans will have the choice not to let him be a parasite.
Click to expand...


I'm all for choice.  Thats what ACA is aimed at. 

I don't fear anything because I live in a democracy and we have a strong problem solving government and we promote competition in business.  So  I'm in control.  Or,  rather, we are.  We hire and fire government and business.  What could be more freedom than that?


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know that you love the idea of private business preying on their  customers and our government.  But our government serves those customers,  all of them,  not just the wealthy ones.  And as those customers elected our government to solve some of their problems,  that's what happened. Now those customers will vote in the Obamacare marketplace for which companies to hire and which to fire.
> 
> Those companies that chose to abuse their customers will be taught a lesson about who's in charge.
> 
> Then those same customers will vote for who in government to hire and fire.
> 
> Looks like you will lose all around.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you so afraid to have an honest conversation? (Don't worry PMZ - that's rhetorical - we all know why you're afraid of the truth).
> 
> Your incoherent ramblings about "who is in charge" didn't answer the question. If Obama felt that insurance companies and their policies were so awful, he needed to create a "basic floor" for policies to prevent the previous awful policies, why did he adamantly promise over and over and over "if you like your plan, you can keep your plan"?
> 
> You are admitting that he needed to LIE to the American people to get his shit legislation passed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you saying he should have made grandfathering mandatory rather than optional?
Click to expand...


----------



## dblack

PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know that you love the idea of private business preying on their  customers and our government.  *But our government serves those customers*,  all of them,  not just the wealthy ones.  And as those customers elected our government to solve some of their problems,  that's what happened. Now those customers will vote in the Obamacare marketplace for which companies to hire and which to fire.
> 
> Those companies that chose to abuse their customers will be taught a lesson about who's in charge.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boy you've got that right! Serves them a shit sandwich! Serves them communism. Serves them poverty. Serves them misery. Serves them *$17 trillion* in debt.
> 
> By the way - are you admitting you were too incompetent to read your policy? I mean, how else could a private business "prey" on you? You chose to do business with them. And you can choose to drop them any time you want and do business with someone else.
> 
> Choice. What PMZ fears the most. He fears that Americans will have the choice not to let him be a parasite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm all for choice.  Thats what ACA is aimed at.
> 
> I don't fear anything because I live in a democracy and we have a strong problem solving government and we promote competition in business.  So  I'm in control.  Or,  rather, we are.  We hire and fire government and business.  What could be more freedom than that?
Click to expand...


I'm sorry. I've tried to respect your views and give them honest consideration. But you are a fool.


----------



## PMZ

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Boy you've got that right! Serves them a shit sandwich! Serves them communism. Serves them poverty. Serves them misery. Serves them *$17 trillion* in debt.
> 
> By the way - are you admitting you were too incompetent to read your policy? I mean, how else could a private business "prey" on you? You chose to do business with them. And you can choose to drop them any time you want and do business with someone else.
> 
> Choice. What PMZ fears the most. He fears that Americans will have the choice not to let him be a parasite.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm all for choice.  Thats what ACA is aimed at.
> 
> I don't fear anything because I live in a democracy and we have a strong problem solving government and we promote competition in business.  So  I'm in control.  Or,  rather, we are.  We hire and fire government and business.  What could be more freedom than that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sorry. I've tried to respect your views and give them honest consideration. But you are a fool.
Click to expand...


One of us is.  

I'm proud to be an American and of America. I think that we have the most effective system the world has ever seen.  Conservatism was tried and failed spectacularly.  So I'm for returning to what worked.  A majority of Americans agree with me. 

You're looking for something that exists only in your imagination.  A country of only responsible people.  Many families can't achieve that.  The odds of a country achieving it are astronomical and will never happen. 

But,  feel  free to dream. I'll  stay here in the real world.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm all for choice.  Thats what ACA is aimed at.
> 
> I don't fear anything because I live in a democracy and we have a strong problem solving government and we promote competition in business.  So  I'm in control.  Or,  rather, we are.  We hire and fire government and business.  What could be more freedom than that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry. I've tried to respect your views and give them honest consideration. But you are a fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One of us is.
> 
> I'm proud to be an American and of America. I think that we have the most effective system the world has ever seen.  Conservatism was tried and failed spectacularly.  So I'm for returning to what worked.  A majority of Americans agree with me.
> 
> You're looking for something that exists only in your imagination.  A country of only responsible people.  Many families can't achieve that.  The odds of a country achieving it are astronomical and will never happen.
> 
> But,  feel  free to dream. I'll  stay here in the real world.
Click to expand...

I had no idea you were for eliminating all of the federal socialist programs.  Cool.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry. I've tried to respect your views and give them honest consideration. But you are a fool.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of us is.
> 
> I'm proud to be an American and of America. I think that we have the most effective system the world has ever seen.  Conservatism was tried and failed spectacularly.  So I'm for returning to what worked.  A majority of Americans agree with me.
> 
> You're looking for something that exists only in your imagination.  A country of only responsible people.  Many families can't achieve that.  The odds of a country achieving it are astronomical and will never happen.
> 
> But,  feel  free to dream. I'll  stay here in the real world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I had no idea you were for eliminating all of the federal socialist programs.  Cool.
Click to expand...


You mean like the military?  Replace them with private militias commanded by war lords. War for profit.  Soldiers of Fortune. Texas Rangers. 

We actually have that now in many cities.  Competitive street gangs.  

You are a bright one.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> One of us is.
> 
> I'm proud to be an American and of America. I think that we have the most effective system the world has ever seen.  Conservatism was tried and failed spectacularly.  So I'm for returning to what worked.  A majority of Americans agree with me.
> 
> You're looking for something that exists only in your imagination.  A country of only responsible people.  Many families can't achieve that.  The odds of a country achieving it are astronomical and will never happen.
> 
> But,  feel  free to dream. I'll  stay here in the real world.
> 
> 
> 
> I had no idea you were for eliminating all of the federal socialist programs.  Cool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean like the military?  Replace them with private militias commanded by war lords. War for profit.  Soldiers of Fortune. Texas Rangers.
> 
> We actually have that now in many cities.  Competitive street gangs.
> 
> You are a bright one.
Click to expand...


>>> You mean like the military?  Replace them with private militias commanded by war lords. War for profit.  Soldiers of Fortune. Texas Rangers. 

Are you retarded?  Our military is not socialist.  War for profit?  You are one sick sob.

The Texas Rangers are plenty busy policing the state of Texas.  We don't need federal police, and the Rangers would not be a good replacement for the military.  God you are so dumb.

>>> We actually have that now in many cities.  Competitive street gangs.  

Have what in many cities? What drugs are you taking?

>>> You are a bright one.

Why thank you.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> I had no idea you were for eliminating all of the federal socialist programs.  Cool.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like the military?  Replace them with private militias commanded by war lords. War for profit.  Soldiers of Fortune. Texas Rangers.
> 
> We actually have that now in many cities.  Competitive street gangs.
> 
> You are a bright one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> >>> You mean like the military?  Replace them with private militias commanded by war lords. War for profit.  Soldiers of Fortune. Texas Rangers.
> 
> Are you retarded?  Our military is not socialist.  War for profit?  You are one sick sob.
> 
> The Texas Rangers are plenty busy policing the state of Texas.  We don't need federal police, and the Rangers would not be a good replacement for the military.  God you are so dumb.
> 
> >>> We actually have that now in many cities.  Competitive street gangs.
> 
> Have what in many cities? What drugs are you taking?
> 
> >>> You are a bright one.
> 
> Why thank you.
Click to expand...


Socialism is what Brown wants it to be.  Not what the English language says it is.  And it, and all government, needs to be universally bad and capitalism needs to be universally good because that's what Brown remembers his last independent thought was back in the fourth grade.


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know that you love the idea of private business preying on their  customers and our government.  *But our government serves those customers*,  all of them,  not just the wealthy ones.  And as those customers elected our government to solve some of their problems,  that's what happened. Now those customers will vote in the Obamacare marketplace for which companies to hire and which to fire.
> 
> Those companies that chose to abuse their customers will be taught a lesson about who's in charge.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boy you've got that right! Serves them a shit sandwich! Serves them communism. Serves them poverty. Serves them misery. Serves them *$17 trillion* in debt.
> 
> By the way - are you admitting you were too incompetent to read your policy? I mean, how else could a private business "prey" on you? You chose to do business with them. And you can choose to drop them any time you want and do business with someone else.
> 
> Choice. What PMZ fears the most. He fears that Americans will have the choice not to let him be a parasite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm all for choice.  That&#8217;s what ACA is aimed at.
> 
> I don't fear anything because I live in a democracy and we have a strong problem solving government and we promote competition in business.  So  I'm in control.  Or,  rather, we are.  We hire and fire government and business.  What could be more freedom than that?
Click to expand...


Really  [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION]? So I can fire Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Barack Obama right now? Because I can fire my insurance company right now. _That_ is *real* choice. Not the faux "choice" of your communism.

Want to try again? Each time you create a new narrative to "support" your indefensible position, I'm able to disprove your narrative in a single sentence or two. Do try and put more effort in (for once in your life )


----------



## P@triot

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you so afraid to have an honest conversation? (Don't worry PMZ - that's rhetorical - we all know why you're afraid of the truth).
> 
> Your incoherent ramblings about "who is in charge" didn't answer the question. If Obama felt that insurance companies and their policies were so awful, he needed to create a "basic floor" for policies to prevent the previous awful policies, why did he adamantly promise over and over and over "if you like your plan, you can keep your plan"?
> 
> You are admitting that he needed to LIE to the American people to get his shit legislation passed?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying he should have made grandfathering mandatory rather than optional?
Click to expand...


Nice spin, but I'm saying he should *not* have *lied* to the American people to get his bill passed.

But like all parasites who embrace communism to avoid work, you support the lies and the propaganda in the "ends justify the means" mentality.

If you had a shred of decency and integrity in you, you would denounce Obama _and_ the ACA as both required endless lies and back room deals to come to fruition.


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> I don't remember any facts from you. Not that anyone here will be surprised.  Your tutor,  Fox Opinions,  doesn't do facts.  Too inconvenient. They package Republican opinions and issue them to people who don't know better.



Says the buffoon who has been completely duped by the Dumbocrats and parrots their pitiful talking points... 

Why do you think you've been annihilated on this board PMZ? Because you're incapable of forming your own thoughts. Once we examine the Dumbocrat talking points you post and we destroy them with *facts*, you're left confused and are relegated to your absurd "Fox! Fox! Fox!" Tourette's outbursts. You can't come up with a rational response because you are on the wrong side of the facts to start with and you're not terribly bright, so continuing the debate after ThinkProgress doesn't have a talking point in response to our responses becomes impossible for you.


----------



## P@triot

oreo said:


> Social Security--Medicare--Medicade--Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac--the US Post office are all considered bankrupt in this country--and the Federal Government just took over medical insurance.
> 
> *You Voted for it, You got it.*



  

You notice [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] skipped over this post?


----------



## P@triot

Folks, this is proof that [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] is a completely unhinged buffoon who contradicts himself.

In post #1134 on page 76 he writes:


PMZ said:


> It sucks not to be able to be irresponsible about your health care costs.
> 
> Obamacare means that you have to pay your own bills.  No welfare for the wealthy.
> 
> Next thing you know they'll be after other means of avoiding personal responsibility.



So his entire narrative is "I'm all about personal responsibility" (ie conservatism). Now, lets examine post #1407 on page 94:


PMZ said:


> You're looking for something that exists only in your imagination.  A country of only *responsible people.  Many families can't achieve that*.  The odds of a country achieving it are astronomical and will never happen.
> 
> But,  feel  free to dream. I'll  stay here in the real world.



So suddenly his narrative has changed from "I'm all for personal responsibility" to "personal responsibility cannot be achieved". 

Can you say schizophrenic? PMZ - can you give us an honest answer just once? Do you believe in personal responsibility or not? Yes or No?


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Boy you've got that right! Serves them a shit sandwich! Serves them communism. Serves them poverty. Serves them misery. Serves them *$17 trillion* in debt.
> 
> By the way - are you admitting you were too incompetent to read your policy? I mean, how else could a private business "prey" on you? You chose to do business with them. And you can choose to drop them any time you want and do business with someone else.
> 
> Choice. What PMZ fears the most. He fears that Americans will have the choice not to let him be a parasite.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm all for choice.  Thats what ACA is aimed at.
> 
> I don't fear anything because I live in a democracy and we have a strong problem solving government and we promote competition in business.  So  I'm in control.  Or,  rather, we are.  We hire and fire government and business.  What could be more freedom than that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really  [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION]? So I can fire Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Barack Obama right now? Because I can fire my insurance company right now. _That_ is *real* choice. Not the faux "choice" of your communism.
> 
> Want to try again? Each time you create a new narrative to "support" your indefensible position, I'm able to disprove your narrative in a single sentence or two. Do try and put more effort in (for once in your life )
Click to expand...


I'm glad that I don't have to live in your self centered paranoid world.  "We", not you,  hire and fire government.  "We",  not you,  hire and fire businesses. 

You are a legend only in you own mind. In fact,  there seems to be no room in your mind for anyone but you.


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't remember any facts from you. Not that anyone here will be surprised.  Your tutor,  Fox Opinions,  doesn't do facts.  Too inconvenient. They package Republican opinions and issue them to people who don't know better.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Says the buffoon who has been completely duped by the Dumbocrats and parrots their pitiful talking points...
> 
> Why do you think you've been annihilated on this board PMZ? Because you're incapable of forming your own thoughts. Once we examine the Dumbocrat talking points you post and we destroy them with *facts*, you're left confused and are relegated to your absurd "Fox! Fox! Fox!" Tourette's outbursts. You can't come up with a rational response because you are on the wrong side of the facts to start with and you're not terribly bright, so continuing the debate after ThinkProgress doesn't have a talking point in response to our responses becomes impossible for you.
Click to expand...


"Why do you think you've been annihilated on this board PMZ?"

Joke of the day.


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm all for choice.  Thats what ACA is aimed at.
> 
> I don't fear anything because I live in a democracy and we have a strong problem solving government and we promote competition in business.  So  I'm in control.  Or,  rather, we are.  We hire and fire government and business.  What could be more freedom than that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really  [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION]? So I can fire Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Barack Obama right now? Because I can fire my insurance company right now. _That_ is *real* choice. Not the faux "choice" of your communism.
> 
> Want to try again? Each time you create a new narrative to "support" your indefensible position, I'm able to disprove your narrative in a single sentence or two. Do try and put more effort in (for once in your life )
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm glad that I don't have to live in your self centered paranoid world.  "We", not you,  hire and fire government.  "We",  not you,  hire and fire businesses.
> 
> You are a legend only in you own mind. In fact,  there seems to be no room in your mind for anyone but you.
Click to expand...


There you have it folks! Communism! "We". The collective.

Sorry asshole, but *I* fire businesses that I do business with. Not we. *I*. If I don't like my insurance company, *I* fire them. If I don't like the products of a store, *I* don't do business with them - *I* go somewhere else.

Me. I. The individual. That's what America was built on asshole. You can take your collectivism to Cuba where it belongs.


----------



## 007

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really  [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION]? So I can fire Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Barack Obama right now? Because I can fire my insurance company right now. _That_ is *real* choice. Not the faux "choice" of your communism.
> 
> Want to try again? Each time you create a new narrative to "support" your indefensible position, I'm able to disprove your narrative in a single sentence or two. Do try and put more effort in (for once in your life )
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm glad that I don't have to live in your self centered paranoid world.  "We", not you,  hire and fire government.  "We",  not you,  hire and fire businesses.
> 
> You are a legend only in you own mind. In fact,  there seems to be no room in your mind for anyone but you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There you have it folks! Communism! "We". The collective.
> 
> Sorry asshole, but *I* fire businesses that I do business with. Not we. *I*. If I don't like my insurance company, *I* fire them. If I don't like the products of a store, *I* don't do business with them - *I* go somewhere else.
> 
> Me. I. The individual. That's what America was built on asshole. You can take your collectivism to Cuba where it belongs.
Click to expand...

That's the radical leftists of today, and under the radical kenyan they have in the white house, they've really gone wild in the last five years with their commie agenda, they're very emboldened right now. But what they don't realize is, there's a reset coming, a huge push back. Americans are getting fed up with their radical socialist/commie bull shit, and their little boi king, tin pan, wanna be dictator, LIAR.


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really  [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION]? So I can fire Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Barack Obama right now? Because I can fire my insurance company right now. _That_ is *real* choice. Not the faux "choice" of your communism.
> 
> Want to try again? Each time you create a new narrative to "support" your indefensible position, I'm able to disprove your narrative in a single sentence or two. Do try and put more effort in (for once in your life )
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm glad that I don't have to live in your self centered paranoid world.  "We", not you,  hire and fire government.  "We",  not you,  hire and fire businesses.
> 
> You are a legend only in you own mind. In fact,  there seems to be no room in your mind for anyone but you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There you have it folks! Communism! "We". The collective.
> 
> Sorry asshole, but *I* fire businesses that I do business with. Not we. *I*. If I don't like my insurance company, *I* fire them. If I don't like the products of a store, *I* don't do business with them - *I* go somewhere else.
> 
> Me. I. The individual. That's what America was built on asshole. You can take your collectivism to Cuba where it belongs.
Click to expand...


I'm sure that what you do or don't do matters to someone but not me. 

You can do whatever ever you want to but until there's a big we,  you are powerless. 

This is why you have no power in government.  Why your business suppliers laugh at you.  Why your business is so easily beat by the competition. 

You act like the jerk that you portray yourself as here.


----------



## Antares

PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm glad that I don't have to live in your self centered paranoid world.  "We", not you,  hire and fire government.  "We",  not you,  hire and fire businesses.
> 
> You are a legend only in you own mind. In fact,  there seems to be no room in your mind for anyone but you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There you have it folks! Communism! "We". The collective.
> 
> Sorry asshole, but *I* fire businesses that I do business with. Not we. *I*. If I don't like my insurance company, *I* fire them. If I don't like the products of a store, *I* don't do business with them - *I* go somewhere else.
> 
> Me. I. The individual. That's what America was built on asshole. You can take your collectivism to Cuba where it belongs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sure that what you do or don't do matters to someone but not me.
> 
> You can do whatever ever you want to but until there's a big we,  you are powerless.
> 
> This is why you have no power in government.  Why your business suppliers laugh at you.  Why your business is so easily beat by the competition.
> 
> You act like the jerk that you portray yourself as here.
Click to expand...


Projection.

What is a qualified plan?


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like the military?  Replace them with private militias commanded by war lords. War for profit.  Soldiers of Fortune. Texas Rangers.
> 
> We actually have that now in many cities.  Competitive street gangs.
> 
> You are a bright one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >>> You mean like the military?  Replace them with private militias commanded by war lords. War for profit.  Soldiers of Fortune. Texas Rangers.
> 
> Are you retarded?  Our military is not socialist.  War for profit?  You are one sick sob.
> 
> The Texas Rangers are plenty busy policing the state of Texas.  We don't need federal police, and the Rangers would not be a good replacement for the military.  God you are so dumb.
> 
> >>> We actually have that now in many cities.  Competitive street gangs.
> 
> Have what in many cities? What drugs are you taking?
> 
> >>> You are a bright one.
> 
> Why thank you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Socialism is what Brown wants it to be.  Not what the English language says it is.  And it, and all government, needs to be universally bad and capitalism needs to be universally good because that's what Brown remembers his last independent thought was back in the fourth grade.
Click to expand...


Do you have Alzheimers?


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> >>> You mean like the military?  Replace them with private militias commanded by war lords. War for profit.  Soldiers of Fortune. Texas Rangers.
> 
> Are you retarded?  Our military is not socialist.  War for profit?  You are one sick sob.
> 
> The Texas Rangers are plenty busy policing the state of Texas.  We don't need federal police, and the Rangers would not be a good replacement for the military.  God you are so dumb.
> 
> >>> We actually have that now in many cities.  Competitive street gangs.
> 
> Have what in many cities? What drugs are you taking?
> 
> >>> You are a bright one.
> 
> Why thank you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Socialism is what Brown wants it to be.  Not what the English language says it is.  And it, and all government, needs to be universally bad and capitalism needs to be universally good because that's what Brown remembers his last independent thought was back in the fourth grade.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have Alzheimers?
Click to expand...


I don't.  Are you stupid?


----------



## PMZ

Antares said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> There you have it folks! Communism! "We". The collective.
> 
> Sorry asshole, but *I* fire businesses that I do business with. Not we. *I*. If I don't like my insurance company, *I* fire them. If I don't like the products of a store, *I* don't do business with them - *I* go somewhere else.
> 
> Me. I. The individual. That's what America was built on asshole. You can take your collectivism to Cuba where it belongs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure that what you do or don't do matters to someone but not me.
> 
> You can do whatever ever you want to but until there's a big we,  you are powerless.
> 
> This is why you have no power in government.  Why your business suppliers laugh at you.  Why your business is so easily beat by the competition.
> 
> You act like the jerk that you portray yourself as here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Projection.
> 
> What is a qualified plan?
Click to expand...


Apparently,  after all of the help that I've given you,  you still don't know.  

You're on your own now.


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm glad that I don't have to live in your self centered paranoid world.  "We", not you,  hire and fire government.  "We",  not you,  hire and fire businesses.
> 
> You are a legend only in you own mind. In fact,  there seems to be no room in your mind for anyone but you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There you have it folks! Communism! "We". The collective.
> 
> Sorry asshole, but *I* fire businesses that I do business with. Not we. *I*. If I don't like my insurance company, *I* fire them. If I don't like the products of a store, *I* don't do business with them - *I* go somewhere else.
> 
> Me. I. The individual. That's what America was built on asshole. You can take your collectivism to Cuba where it belongs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *I'm sure that what you do or don't do matters to someone but not me*.
> 
> You can do whatever ever you want to but until there's a big we,  you are powerless.
> 
> This is why you have no power in government.  Why your business suppliers laugh at you.  Why your business is so easily beat by the competition.
> 
> You act like the jerk that you portray yourself as here.
Click to expand...


And that's the point asswipe! I should be able to do whatever I want and it should not matter to you.

Unfortunately though, being the communist asshat that you are, you want everyone to be forced to row in the same direction, so that when an idiot like Obama is captaining the ship, we all row right off the cliff and to our death (just like every communist nation in history).

And why do you want that kind of misery and guaranteed failure? Because you don't want to have to get up off of your lazy ass and provide for yourself in life.

Sorry dude, we abandoned the Constitution and tried your idiot liberalism. It's been a spectacular failure. It's had a 100% failure rate world wide and it has now been confirmed to fail here in the U.S. as well.

It's time we return to the only system in world history that works - the Constitution and conservatism. It works because failures like you don't drag down people like me. You fail on your own without doing any damage to the nation or your fellow citizen.


----------



## Antares

PMZ said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure that what you do or don't do matters to someone but not me.
> 
> You can do whatever ever you want to but until there's a big we,  you are powerless.
> 
> This is why you have no power in government.  Why your business suppliers laugh at you.  Why your business is so easily beat by the competition.
> 
> You act like the jerk that you portray yourself as here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Projection.
> 
> What is a qualified plan?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently,  after all of the help that I've given you,  you still don't know.
> 
> You're on your own now.
Click to expand...


Huh....where did you point out what a qualified plan is?


----------



## beagle9

PMZ said:


> Here's the reason for conservative ignorance on health care.  It's complicated.  So they avoid it by staring at the boobs and boobies on Fox Opinions and,  without ever leaving the EZBoy,  absorb what the GOP wants them to believe.
> 
> Liberals are however comfortable and competent with complexity.  So this is for them
> 
> 
> 
> Why Was Your Health Insurance Plan Cancelled and Not Upgraded?
> Robbie GennetNov 08, 2013
> So you got a letter from your insurance company saying your plan is being discontinued. And you're mad at President Obama for telling you that if you liked your plan, you could keep your plan because here you are, losing that very plan you liked. Plus your sticker shock at the higher price to replace it has somehow not been assuaged by the subsidies that may drop the actual cost quite dramatically. Regardless of your general disposition toward the president, let's make sure your anger isn't just a little bit misguided.
> 
> You do realize that as part of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) a new set of rules were instituted to protect patients and provide a basic floor for included services? It's a Patient's Bill of Rights and it helps people in a myriad of ways, including ceasing to exclude those with pre-existing conditions, ending lifetime limits on coverage, and covering preventative care for men, women and children, the latter whom can now stay on their parents insurance until they turn 26. These rules form a more compassionate foundation for our health care system and are designed to create a stronger framework for how we handle our individual and collective well-being. Many of these new rules are also not included in your old plan, if it was designed before the ACA went into effect on March 23, 2010 and is now considered "grandfathered."
> 
> So of course the health care companies had to discontinue your current plan to offer brand new ones that include the more generous benefits. Or did they? Could they have just upgraded your current plan with the new rules and given you a more robust version of your own plan? That way, you would technically be keeping your plan and benefitting from the new ACA rules. You would think insurance companies would be thrilled with all the new business but instead they took the route of mass cancellations that made it seem as if the president was reneging on his earlier promises. Perhaps this is just an issue of semantics, but the important part is that people feel like their plans are being taken away and that plays into a certain narrative. It certainly seems like the insurance industry could have chosen to keep the plan names and upgrade them all but did not. Adding insult to injury (possibly literally) those of us with grandfathered plans are getting letters referring to this nugget from the HHS website:
> 
> "A grandfathered health plan isn't required to comply with some of the consumer protections of the Affordable Care Act that apply to other health plans that are not grandfathered."
> 
> That's right. With my grandfathered plan, I don't get preventative services or protections when appealing claims and coverage denials or even protection of my choice of health care provider and my access to emergency care. And for an individual with a health care policy, the insurance companies can also keep annual dollar limits on key benefits in place. Plus, they are not required to eliminate pre-existing condition exclusions for children under 19 years old. All of a sudden, those new plans with protections, preventative care and tax subsidies are looking pretty damn good. Yes, President Obama said if we liked our plan we could keep it, but that doesn't mean that after the ACA kicks in we will still like our plan or even want to keep it.
> 
> *So yes, you can keep your plan if it was grandfathered in and you deem it worthy of the cost versus benefits, without all those pesky protections.* But if you're one of those people who's just mad as hell and feels the individual mandate is an onerous tax, let me ask you one simple question: If you didn't have any health insurance and you got injured -- perhaps seriously, a real life-threatening emergency -- where would you go? Assuming your answer is the emergency room, you'd have a lot of company. Americans make almost 130 million ER visits a year, a whopping 42.8 visits per 100 persons, with 13.3 percent overall resulting in hospital admissions. And the ER is a place that is often utilized by those without insurance because by law the ER cannot turn you away or make you pay. By the rights afforded to every citizen of this country in 1996 by the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, the Emergency Room is de facto socialized medicine:
> 
> The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) is a U.S. Act of Congress passed in 1986 as part of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA). It requires hospitals to provide care to anyone needing emergency health care treatment regardless of citizenship, legal status or ability to pay. There are no reimbursement provisions. Participating hospitals may only transfer or discharge patients needing emergency treatment under their own informed consent, after stabilization, or when their condition requires transfer to a hospital better equipped to administer the treatment.
> Since 1986, any person -- resident, tourist or undocumented immigrant -- in America has been able to get free emergency care at any ER in the country (thank you, Ronald Reagan!). The rare exemptions are Indian hospitals, veterans hospitals and the Shriners Hospitals for Children, of all places. What if in order to exempt yourself from the ACA mandate you had to sign a waiver that would also exempt you from EMTALA? Even if you were in an accident and were crying for an ambulance, if you were uninsured you could only get one for hire and if you couldn't afford it, well tough! That's the free market for you.
> 
> So why hasn't anybody railed against this pervasive form of socialized medicine? Where are the Tea Party protests outside all the ERs in the country? Why is it okay to treat catastrophic injuries with no reimbursement provisions but not catastrophic illness? Or all illness? Those that rail against having to purchase health care may have legitimate beefs against compulsive insurance coverage (like auto insurance) or compulsive protective rules (like seat belts and airbags in cars) but unless they are willing to forego their current socialized emergency care, their protestations against paying towards their own coverage rings hollow. No ACA? No ER for you.
> 
> Time will ultimately tell if the ACA is a success or a bump on the road toward universal coverage. The individual experiences of each state will ultimately help guide us with real world examples of what works and what doesn't. For example, in just a few short years, Vermont will be transitioning to a single-payer system. The contrast between that and states like Texas or (26.3 percent of residents uninsured) and Florida (25.35 percent of residents uninsured) who didn't expand Medicaid will be stark and enlightening. Even Pennsylvania may get on board after a study estimated $17 billion of savings for the state under a single payer approach. And Pennsylvania is one of many states considering a single-payer system that can be put into action starting on January 1, 2017, under a provision in the ACA that empowers states by allowing for innovation.
> 
> You know what also happens on that date? States can begin allowing large employers and multi-employer health plans to purchase coverage in the health insurance exchange, giving a huge boost to the exchanges in power and numbers. Also by then every single state will offer two federally regulated multi-state plans (one of which must be nonprofit, the other cannot cover abortion) which are already coming to 60 percent of individual state exchanges on January 1, 2014. And that upcoming date more than any other heralds the next big phase of the ACA.
> 
> On this upcoming January 1, the ACA really kicks into gear on everything from patients rights to excise taxes on Health Insurance and Pharmaceutical companies. And don't forget the national CO-OP industry adding a nonprofit option to consumers choices (and to the competitive marketplace). Plus, members of Congress and their staff will only be able to purchase health care plans through exchanges or other plans established by the ACA, making them responsible not just for Americans health care but for their own. Read it for yourself to cut through the spin with actual facts and figures.
> 
> Remember, we are just over a month in to this transition and nothing on this scale could be expected to work perfectly right out of the box. It's helpful to recall that Social Security began under FDR with the Social Security Act (enacted August 14, 1935) and didn't really mature into its current form until Lyndon Johnson signed the Social Security Amendments on July 30, 1965, also heralding the beginning of Medicare and Medicaid. That's almost 30 years from start to finish, which makes the last month seem like a blip on the radar. Once we get to January 1, we'll see how the law really feels once it's in motion and get a good idea of where we are headed. After that, it will be three more years until we see where the states will lead us in 2017.



But where the rubber meets the road, is that the people didn't get to choose the grandfathered plan in which they had, because the insurance companies sent them notices of cancellations all due to the ACA right ?  So where do the people get to choose anything in any of this grandfathering business talked about, because it seems as if it is a fight between the government and the health care providers in the ongoing situation instead ?  Now in the mean time the people are being used as the punching bag in between the action or at least until one or the other side wins the day. So who should be the winner in order for the people to get what they deserve in this situation finally ? 

Should the government win or the insurance companies win the day, and if the insurance companies win, will it spell disaster for the nations citizens down the road when it comes to the maximizing of their health care protections or needs ?  Will the insurance companies be the best for them without intervention by government as it is doing now on the citizens behalf or will they be better off by way or the government doing it all for them instead ?   Will the government punish the citizens if they don't play ball in the right way in which they think that they should play with them in the whole deal also  ?


----------



## Antares

Kids....the truth about grandfathered plans......NEW people CANNOT buy into them...they are closed plans...the ONLY folks that can get into them now are family members of those already in.

Grandfathered plans CANNOT market on the Exchanges..because they are not "qualified" plans.


----------



## P@triot

Rottweiler said:


> Folks, this is proof that  [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] is a completely unhinged buffoon who contradicts himself.
> 
> In post #1134 on page 76 he writes:
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> It sucks not to be able to be irresponsible about your health care costs.
> 
> Obamacare means that you have to pay your own bills.  No welfare for the wealthy.
> 
> Next thing you know they'll be after other means of avoiding personal responsibility.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So his entire narrative is "I'm all about personal responsibility" (ie conservatism). Now, lets examine post #1407 on page 94:
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're looking for something that exists only in your imagination.  A country of only *responsible people.  Many families can't achieve that*.  The odds of a country achieving it are astronomical and will never happen.
> 
> But,  feel  free to dream. I'll  stay here in the real world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So suddenly his narrative has changed from "I'm all for personal responsibility" to "personal responsibility cannot be achieved".
> 
> Can you say schizophrenic? PMZ - can you give us an honest answer just once? Do you believe in personal responsibility or not? Yes or No?
Click to expand...


 [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] - can you explain the contradictions here?


----------



## PMZ

beagle9 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the reason for conservative ignorance on health care.  It's complicated.  So they avoid it by staring at the boobs and boobies on Fox Opinions and,  without ever leaving the EZBoy,  absorb what the GOP wants them to believe.
> 
> Liberals are however comfortable and competent with complexity.  So this is for them
> 
> 
> 
> Why Was Your Health Insurance Plan Cancelled and Not Upgraded?
> Robbie GennetNov 08, 2013
> So you got a letter from your insurance company saying your plan is being discontinued. And you're mad at President Obama for telling you that if you liked your plan, you could keep your plan because here you are, losing that very plan you liked. Plus your sticker shock at the higher price to replace it has somehow not been assuaged by the subsidies that may drop the actual cost quite dramatically. Regardless of your general disposition toward the president, let's make sure your anger isn't just a little bit misguided.
> 
> You do realize that as part of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) a new set of rules were instituted to protect patients and provide a basic floor for included services? It's a Patient's Bill of Rights and it helps people in a myriad of ways, including ceasing to exclude those with pre-existing conditions, ending lifetime limits on coverage, and covering preventative care for men, women and children, the latter whom can now stay on their parents insurance until they turn 26. These rules form a more compassionate foundation for our health care system and are designed to create a stronger framework for how we handle our individual and collective well-being. Many of these new rules are also not included in your old plan, if it was designed before the ACA went into effect on March 23, 2010 and is now considered "grandfathered."
> 
> So of course the health care companies had to discontinue your current plan to offer brand new ones that include the more generous benefits. Or did they? Could they have just upgraded your current plan with the new rules and given you a more robust version of your own plan? That way, you would technically be keeping your plan and benefitting from the new ACA rules. You would think insurance companies would be thrilled with all the new business but instead they took the route of mass cancellations that made it seem as if the president was reneging on his earlier promises. Perhaps this is just an issue of semantics, but the important part is that people feel like their plans are being taken away and that plays into a certain narrative. It certainly seems like the insurance industry could have chosen to keep the plan names and upgrade them all but did not. Adding insult to injury (possibly literally) those of us with grandfathered plans are getting letters referring to this nugget from the HHS website:
> 
> "A grandfathered health plan isn't required to comply with some of the consumer protections of the Affordable Care Act that apply to other health plans that are not grandfathered."
> 
> That's right. With my grandfathered plan, I don't get preventative services or protections when appealing claims and coverage denials or even protection of my choice of health care provider and my access to emergency care. And for an individual with a health care policy, the insurance companies can also keep annual dollar limits on key benefits in place. Plus, they are not required to eliminate pre-existing condition exclusions for children under 19 years old. All of a sudden, those new plans with protections, preventative care and tax subsidies are looking pretty damn good. Yes, President Obama said if we liked our plan we could keep it, but that doesn't mean that after the ACA kicks in we will still like our plan or even want to keep it.
> 
> *So yes, you can keep your plan if it was grandfathered in and you deem it worthy of the cost versus benefits, without all those pesky protections.* But if you're one of those people who's just mad as hell and feels the individual mandate is an onerous tax, let me ask you one simple question: If you didn't have any health insurance and you got injured -- perhaps seriously, a real life-threatening emergency -- where would you go? Assuming your answer is the emergency room, you'd have a lot of company. Americans make almost 130 million ER visits a year, a whopping 42.8 visits per 100 persons, with 13.3 percent overall resulting in hospital admissions. And the ER is a place that is often utilized by those without insurance because by law the ER cannot turn you away or make you pay. By the rights afforded to every citizen of this country in 1996 by the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, the Emergency Room is de facto socialized medicine:
> 
> The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) is a U.S. Act of Congress passed in 1986 as part of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA). It requires hospitals to provide care to anyone needing emergency health care treatment regardless of citizenship, legal status or ability to pay. There are no reimbursement provisions. Participating hospitals may only transfer or discharge patients needing emergency treatment under their own informed consent, after stabilization, or when their condition requires transfer to a hospital better equipped to administer the treatment.
> Since 1986, any person -- resident, tourist or undocumented immigrant -- in America has been able to get free emergency care at any ER in the country (thank you, Ronald Reagan!). The rare exemptions are Indian hospitals, veterans hospitals and the Shriners Hospitals for Children, of all places. What if in order to exempt yourself from the ACA mandate you had to sign a waiver that would also exempt you from EMTALA? Even if you were in an accident and were crying for an ambulance, if you were uninsured you could only get one for hire and if you couldn't afford it, well tough! That's the free market for you.
> 
> So why hasn't anybody railed against this pervasive form of socialized medicine? Where are the Tea Party protests outside all the ERs in the country? Why is it okay to treat catastrophic injuries with no reimbursement provisions but not catastrophic illness? Or all illness? Those that rail against having to purchase health care may have legitimate beefs against compulsive insurance coverage (like auto insurance) or compulsive protective rules (like seat belts and airbags in cars) but unless they are willing to forego their current socialized emergency care, their protestations against paying towards their own coverage rings hollow. No ACA? No ER for you.
> 
> Time will ultimately tell if the ACA is a success or a bump on the road toward universal coverage. The individual experiences of each state will ultimately help guide us with real world examples of what works and what doesn't. For example, in just a few short years, Vermont will be transitioning to a single-payer system. The contrast between that and states like Texas or (26.3 percent of residents uninsured) and Florida (25.35 percent of residents uninsured) who didn't expand Medicaid will be stark and enlightening. Even Pennsylvania may get on board after a study estimated $17 billion of savings for the state under a single payer approach. And Pennsylvania is one of many states considering a single-payer system that can be put into action starting on January 1, 2017, under a provision in the ACA that empowers states by allowing for innovation.
> 
> You know what also happens on that date? States can begin allowing large employers and multi-employer health plans to purchase coverage in the health insurance exchange, giving a huge boost to the exchanges in power and numbers. Also by then every single state will offer two federally regulated multi-state plans (one of which must be nonprofit, the other cannot cover abortion) which are already coming to 60 percent of individual state exchanges on January 1, 2014. And that upcoming date more than any other heralds the next big phase of the ACA.
> 
> On this upcoming January 1, the ACA really kicks into gear on everything from patients rights to excise taxes on Health Insurance and Pharmaceutical companies. And don't forget the national CO-OP industry adding a nonprofit option to consumers choices (and to the competitive marketplace). Plus, members of Congress and their staff will only be able to purchase health care plans through exchanges or other plans established by the ACA, making them responsible not just for Americans health care but for their own. Read it for yourself to cut through the spin with actual facts and figures.
> 
> Remember, we are just over a month in to this transition and nothing on this scale could be expected to work perfectly right out of the box. It's helpful to recall that Social Security began under FDR with the Social Security Act (enacted August 14, 1935) and didn't really mature into its current form until Lyndon Johnson signed the Social Security Amendments on July 30, 1965, also heralding the beginning of Medicare and Medicaid. That's almost 30 years from start to finish, which makes the last month seem like a blip on the radar. Once we get to January 1, we'll see how the law really feels once it's in motion and get a good idea of where we are headed. After that, it will be three more years until we see where the states will lead us in 2017.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But where the rubber meets the road, is that the people didn't get to choose the grandfathered plan in which they had, because the insurance companies sent them notices of cancellations all due to the ACA right ?  So where do the people get to choose anything in any of this grandfathering business talked about, because it seems as if it is a fight between the government and the health care providers in the ongoing situation instead ?  Now in the mean time the people are being used as the punching bag in between the action or at least until one or the other side wins the day. So who should be the winner in order for the people to get what they deserve in this situation finally ?
> 
> Should the government win or the insurance companies win the day, and if the insurance companies win, will it spell disaster for the nations citizens down the road when it comes to the maximizing of their health care protections or needs ?  Will the insurance companies be the best for them without intervention by government as it is doing now on the citizens behalf or will they be better off by way or the government doing it all for them instead ?   Will the government punish the citizens if they don't play ball in the right way in which they think that they should play with them in the whole deal also  ?
Click to expand...


If I understand you points correctly,  what you bring up is the typical challenges of running a country with capitalist markets.  

Capitalists,  following make more money regardless of the cost to others,  try to eliminate competition.  Very often they are not able to, but when they can,  the government protects consumers by regulations restoring and maintaining competition.  Or regulations for safety or any number of ways that businesses make their more money. 

On the other hand,  if regulations are successful,  the competition keeps pressure on to improve quality and features and lower costs. That's good. 

So,  there is always balance to be achieved between regulated capitalism,  and socialism,  market by market.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Socialism is what Brown wants it to be.  Not what the English language says it is.  And it, and all government, needs to be universally bad and capitalism needs to be universally good because that's what Brown remembers his last independent thought was back in the fourth grade.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have Alzheimers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't.  Are you stupid?
Click to expand...


Sometimes.


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Folks, this is proof that  [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] is a completely unhinged buffoon who contradicts himself.
> 
> In post #1134 on page 76 he writes:
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> It sucks not to be able to be irresponsible about your health care costs.
> 
> Obamacare means that you have to pay your own bills.  No welfare for the wealthy.
> 
> Next thing you know they'll be after other means of avoiding personal responsibility.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So his entire narrative is "I'm all about personal responsibility" (ie conservatism). Now, lets examine post #1407 on page 94:
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're looking for something that exists only in your imagination.  A country of only *responsible people.  Many families can't achieve that*.  The odds of a country achieving it are astronomical and will never happen.
> 
> But,  feel  free to dream. I'll  stay here in the real world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So suddenly his narrative has changed from "I'm all for personal responsibility" to "personal responsibility cannot be achieved".
> 
> Can you say schizophrenic? PMZ - can you give us an honest answer just once? Do you believe in personal responsibility or not? Yes or No?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] - can you explain the contradictions here?
Click to expand...


He wants a world of only responsible people so laws imposing consequences for irresponsible people aren't necessary.  

My point is that it's hard enough to get even a small group,  like a family,  of all responsible people.  The odds of getting a large group,  like a whole country  of only responsible people are infinitesimal.


----------



## beagle9

PMZ said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the reason for conservative ignorance on health care.  It's complicated.  So they avoid it by staring at the boobs and boobies on Fox Opinions and,  without ever leaving the EZBoy,  absorb what the GOP wants them to believe.
> 
> Liberals are however comfortable and competent with complexity.  So this is for them
> 
> 
> 
> Why Was Your Health Insurance Plan Cancelled and Not Upgraded?
> Robbie GennetNov 08, 2013
> So you got a letter from your insurance company saying your plan is being discontinued. And you're mad at President Obama for telling you that if you liked your plan, you could keep your plan because here you are, losing that very plan you liked. Plus your sticker shock at the higher price to replace it has somehow not been assuaged by the subsidies that may drop the actual cost quite dramatically. Regardless of your general disposition toward the president, let's make sure your anger isn't just a little bit misguided.
> 
> You do realize that as part of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) a new set of rules were instituted to protect patients and provide a basic floor for included services? It's a Patient's Bill of Rights and it helps people in a myriad of ways, including ceasing to exclude those with pre-existing conditions, ending lifetime limits on coverage, and covering preventative care for men, women and children, the latter whom can now stay on their parents insurance until they turn 26. These rules form a more compassionate foundation for our health care system and are designed to create a stronger framework for how we handle our individual and collective well-being. Many of these new rules are also not included in your old plan, if it was designed before the ACA went into effect on March 23, 2010 and is now considered "grandfathered."
> 
> So of course the health care companies had to discontinue your current plan to offer brand new ones that include the more generous benefits. Or did they? Could they have just upgraded your current plan with the new rules and given you a more robust version of your own plan? That way, you would technically be keeping your plan and benefitting from the new ACA rules. You would think insurance companies would be thrilled with all the new business but instead they took the route of mass cancellations that made it seem as if the president was reneging on his earlier promises. Perhaps this is just an issue of semantics, but the important part is that people feel like their plans are being taken away and that plays into a certain narrative. It certainly seems like the insurance industry could have chosen to keep the plan names and upgrade them all but did not. Adding insult to injury (possibly literally) those of us with grandfathered plans are getting letters referring to this nugget from the HHS website:
> 
> "A grandfathered health plan isn't required to comply with some of the consumer protections of the Affordable Care Act that apply to other health plans that are not grandfathered."
> 
> That's right. With my grandfathered plan, I don't get preventative services or protections when appealing claims and coverage denials or even protection of my choice of health care provider and my access to emergency care. And for an individual with a health care policy, the insurance companies can also keep annual dollar limits on key benefits in place. Plus, they are not required to eliminate pre-existing condition exclusions for children under 19 years old. All of a sudden, those new plans with protections, preventative care and tax subsidies are looking pretty damn good. Yes, President Obama said if we liked our plan we could keep it, but that doesn't mean that after the ACA kicks in we will still like our plan or even want to keep it.
> 
> *So yes, you can keep your plan if it was grandfathered in and you deem it worthy of the cost versus benefits, without all those pesky protections.* But if you're one of those people who's just mad as hell and feels the individual mandate is an onerous tax, let me ask you one simple question: If you didn't have any health insurance and you got injured -- perhaps seriously, a real life-threatening emergency -- where would you go? Assuming your answer is the emergency room, you'd have a lot of company. Americans make almost 130 million ER visits a year, a whopping 42.8 visits per 100 persons, with 13.3 percent overall resulting in hospital admissions. And the ER is a place that is often utilized by those without insurance because by law the ER cannot turn you away or make you pay. By the rights afforded to every citizen of this country in 1996 by the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, the Emergency Room is de facto socialized medicine:
> 
> The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) is a U.S. Act of Congress passed in 1986 as part of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA). It requires hospitals to provide care to anyone needing emergency health care treatment regardless of citizenship, legal status or ability to pay. There are no reimbursement provisions. Participating hospitals may only transfer or discharge patients needing emergency treatment under their own informed consent, after stabilization, or when their condition requires transfer to a hospital better equipped to administer the treatment.
> Since 1986, any person -- resident, tourist or undocumented immigrant -- in America has been able to get free emergency care at any ER in the country (thank you, Ronald Reagan!). The rare exemptions are Indian hospitals, veterans hospitals and the Shriners Hospitals for Children, of all places. What if in order to exempt yourself from the ACA mandate you had to sign a waiver that would also exempt you from EMTALA? Even if you were in an accident and were crying for an ambulance, if you were uninsured you could only get one for hire and if you couldn't afford it, well tough! That's the free market for you.
> 
> So why hasn't anybody railed against this pervasive form of socialized medicine? Where are the Tea Party protests outside all the ERs in the country? Why is it okay to treat catastrophic injuries with no reimbursement provisions but not catastrophic illness? Or all illness? Those that rail against having to purchase health care may have legitimate beefs against compulsive insurance coverage (like auto insurance) or compulsive protective rules (like seat belts and airbags in cars) but unless they are willing to forego their current socialized emergency care, their protestations against paying towards their own coverage rings hollow. No ACA? No ER for you.
> 
> Time will ultimately tell if the ACA is a success or a bump on the road toward universal coverage. The individual experiences of each state will ultimately help guide us with real world examples of what works and what doesn't. For example, in just a few short years, Vermont will be transitioning to a single-payer system. The contrast between that and states like Texas or (26.3 percent of residents uninsured) and Florida (25.35 percent of residents uninsured) who didn't expand Medicaid will be stark and enlightening. Even Pennsylvania may get on board after a study estimated $17 billion of savings for the state under a single payer approach. And Pennsylvania is one of many states considering a single-payer system that can be put into action starting on January 1, 2017, under a provision in the ACA that empowers states by allowing for innovation.
> 
> You know what also happens on that date? States can begin allowing large employers and multi-employer health plans to purchase coverage in the health insurance exchange, giving a huge boost to the exchanges in power and numbers. Also by then every single state will offer two federally regulated multi-state plans (one of which must be nonprofit, the other cannot cover abortion) which are already coming to 60 percent of individual state exchanges on January 1, 2014. And that upcoming date more than any other heralds the next big phase of the ACA.
> 
> On this upcoming January 1, the ACA really kicks into gear on everything from patients rights to excise taxes on Health Insurance and Pharmaceutical companies. And don't forget the national CO-OP industry adding a nonprofit option to consumers choices (and to the competitive marketplace). Plus, members of Congress and their staff will only be able to purchase health care plans through exchanges or other plans established by the ACA, making them responsible not just for Americans health care but for their own. Read it for yourself to cut through the spin with actual facts and figures.
> 
> Remember, we are just over a month in to this transition and nothing on this scale could be expected to work perfectly right out of the box. It's helpful to recall that Social Security began under FDR with the Social Security Act (enacted August 14, 1935) and didn't really mature into its current form until Lyndon Johnson signed the Social Security Amendments on July 30, 1965, also heralding the beginning of Medicare and Medicaid. That's almost 30 years from start to finish, which makes the last month seem like a blip on the radar. Once we get to January 1, we'll see how the law really feels once it's in motion and get a good idea of where we are headed. After that, it will be three more years until we see where the states will lead us in 2017.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But where the rubber meets the road, is that the people didn't get to choose the grandfathered plan in which they had, because the insurance companies sent them notices of cancellations all due to the ACA right ?  So where do the people get to choose anything in any of this grandfathering business talked about, because it seems as if it is a fight between the government and the health care providers in the ongoing situation instead ?  Now in the mean time the people are being used as the punching bag in between the action or at least until one or the other side wins the day. So who should be the winner in order for the people to get what they deserve in this situation finally ?
> 
> Should the government win or the insurance companies win the day, and if the insurance companies win, will it spell disaster for the nations citizens down the road when it comes to the maximizing of their health care protections or needs ?  Will the insurance companies be the best for them without intervention by government as it is doing now on the citizens behalf or will they be better off by way or the government doing it all for them instead ?   Will the government punish the citizens if they don't play ball in the right way in which they think that they should play with them in the whole deal also  ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I understand you points correctly,  what you bring up is the typical challenges of running a country with capitalist markets.
> 
> Capitalists,  following make more money regardless of the cost to others,  try to eliminate competition.  Very often they are not able to, but when they can,  the government protects consumers by regulations restoring and maintaining competition.  Or regulations for safety or any number of ways that businesses make their more money.
> 
> On the other hand,  if regulations are successful,  the competition keeps pressure on to improve quality and features and lower costs. That's good.
> 
> So,  there is always balance to be achieved between regulated capitalism,  and socialism,  market by market.
Click to expand...

So what you are saying is that the government is the counter balancing needed to keep things in balance when they do run astray, but I guess this all depends on who is running the government, and to whether or not it becomes either a hammer or an adjustable wrench in the situation.


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Folks, this is proof that  [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] is a completely unhinged buffoon who contradicts himself.
> 
> In post #1134 on page 76 he writes:
> 
> 
> So his entire narrative is "I'm all about personal responsibility" (ie conservatism). Now, lets examine post #1407 on page 94:
> 
> 
> So suddenly his narrative has changed from "I'm all for personal responsibility" to "personal responsibility cannot be achieved".
> 
> Can you say schizophrenic? PMZ - can you give us an honest answer just once? Do you believe in personal responsibility or not? Yes or No?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] - can you explain the contradictions here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He wants a world of only responsible people so laws imposing consequences for irresponsible people aren't necessary.
> 
> My point is that it's hard enough to get even a small group,  like a family,  of all responsible people.  The odds of getting a large group,  like a whole country  of only responsible people are infinitesimal.
Click to expand...


I agree completely. So why not leave people to fail on their own? Why do you double down and triple down the responsibility on responsible people? Why burden them (and this punish them) for doing the right thing?


----------



## PMZ

beagle9 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But where the rubber meets the road, is that the people didn't get to choose the grandfathered plan in which they had, because the insurance companies sent them notices of cancellations all due to the ACA right ?  So where do the people get to choose anything in any of this grandfathering business talked about, because it seems as if it is a fight between the government and the health care providers in the ongoing situation instead ?  Now in the mean time the people are being used as the punching bag in between the action or at least until one or the other side wins the day. So who should be the winner in order for the people to get what they deserve in this situation finally ?
> 
> Should the government win or the insurance companies win the day, and if the insurance companies win, will it spell disaster for the nations citizens down the road when it comes to the maximizing of their health care protections or needs ?  Will the insurance companies be the best for them without intervention by government as it is doing now on the citizens behalf or will they be better off by way or the government doing it all for them instead ?   Will the government punish the citizens if they don't play ball in the right way in which they think that they should play with them in the whole deal also  ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I understand you points correctly,  what you bring up is the typical challenges of running a country with capitalist markets.
> 
> Capitalists,  following make more money regardless of the cost to others,  try to eliminate competition.  Very often they are not able to, but when they can,  the government protects consumers by regulations restoring and maintaining competition.  Or regulations for safety or any number of ways that businesses make their more money.
> 
> On the other hand,  if regulations are successful,  the competition keeps pressure on to improve quality and features and lower costs. That's good.
> 
> So,  there is always balance to be achieved between regulated capitalism,  and socialism,  market by market.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what you are saying is that the government is the counter balancing needed to keep things in balance when they do run astray, but I guess this all depends on who is running the government, and to whether or not it becomes either a hammer or an adjustable wrench in the situation.
Click to expand...


That's why Americans are so respectful of democracy. We hire and fire our representatives.


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] - can you explain the contradictions here?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He wants a world of only responsible people so laws imposing consequences for irresponsible people aren't necessary.
> 
> My point is that it's hard enough to get even a small group,  like a family,  of all responsible people.  The odds of getting a large group,  like a whole country  of only responsible people are infinitesimal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree completely. So why not leave people to fail on their own? Why do you double down and triple down the responsibility on responsible people? Why burden them (and this punish them) for doing the right thing?
Click to expand...


Failure is expensive. If a business failure results in bankruptcy that consequence is dumped on creditors. Presumably responsible creditors. 

What's your alternative?


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] - can you explain the contradictions here?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He wants a world of only responsible people so laws imposing consequences for irresponsible people aren't necessary.
> 
> My point is that it's hard enough to get even a small group,  like a family,  of all responsible people.  The odds of getting a large group,  like a whole country  of only responsible people are infinitesimal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree completely. So why not leave people to fail on their own? Why do you double down and triple down the responsibility on responsible people? Why burden them (and this punish them) for doing the right thing?
Click to expand...


Another example.  People who don't plan on covering their health care costs are irresponsible and if they need health care,  end up dumping on responsible people.  That practice has been ended by ACA,  exactly as you recommend.


----------



## BlackSand

PMZ said:


> Another example.  People who don't plan on covering their health care costs are irresponsible and if they need health care,  end up dumping on responsible people.  That practice has been ended by ACA,  exactly as you recommend.



*Yep ... All 50,000 of them.*

.


----------



## PMZ

BlackSand said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another example.  People who don't plan on covering their health care costs are irresponsible and if they need health care,  end up dumping on responsible people.  That practice has been ended by ACA,  exactly as you recommend.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Yep ... All 50,000 of them.*
> 
> .
Click to expand...


You're saying that in your opinion there are only 50K Americans without health care insurance?


----------



## BlackSand

PMZ said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another example.  People who don't plan on covering their health care costs are irresponsible and if they need health care,  end up dumping on responsible people.  That practice has been ended by ACA,  exactly as you recommend.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Yep ... All 50,000 of them.*
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're saying that in your opinion there are only 50K Americans without health care insurance?
Click to expand...


No  ... You said that the ACA ended a practice where people without insurance were no longer able to get away without paying for their healthcare.
I agreed with you ... And you must be talking about the less than 50,000 that signed up for President Obama's government provided insurance.

*That is what ACA has accomplished as far as the uninsured getting insurance ... Take it or leave it.*

.


----------



## PMZ

Antares said:


> Kids....the truth about grandfathered plans......NEW people CANNOT buy into them...they are closed plans...the ONLY folks that can get into them now are family members of those already in.
> 
> Grandfathered plans CANNOT market on the Exchanges..because they are not "qualified" plans.



Yes,  that's what would be expected from grandfathering.


----------



## PMZ

BlackSand said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Yep ... All 50,000 of them.*
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're saying that in your opinion there are only 50K Americans without health care insurance?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No  ... You said that the ACA ended a practice where people without insurance were no longer able to get away without paying for their healthcare.
> I agreed with you ... And you must be talking about the less than 50,000 that signed up for President Obama's government provided insurance.
> 
> *That is what ACA has accomplished as far as the uninsured getting insurance ... Take it or leave it.*
> 
> .
Click to expand...


It's not done yet. If people without insurance choose to continue without it they will be taxed,  which will be used to reduce the costs that they will impose on responsible people.


----------



## oreo

Does anyone remember Joe Biden whispering in Obama's hear--"this is one big f....ing deal, when Obamacare passed?  _Well, it's turned out to be one big f....ing DISASTER._

The non-medicade--enrollment is a total FLOP. Meaning those that are getting on these state run Obamacare web-sites are horrified by the premiums--after Obama promised the American public that he could save the average family of 4-- $2500.00 a year.  _NOT TRUE._

Obviously--the 32 times repeated promise of "If you like your plan you can keep it," is taking it's toll on Obama--this administration and democrat politicians.  5 million Americans have received cancellation notices from their insurers--and they're redirected to much more expensive plans--that they cannot afford.  _That is why paid enrollment is so low._

Now that Democrats on the hill are in full panic mode--over thousands of nasty grams and telephone calls they're getting from constituents--they want something done right now.  BUT--they voted for Obamacare--and in they all knew two years ago--that millions would lose their insurance because of the mandates in Obamacare.  There was even a time they could have done something about it on the Senate floor--and they voted against a fix that would have kept the promise of being able to keep your insurance.  This is going to spread like a virus through the employer mandate next year, causing higher unemployment.  Millions more will lose their insurance.

I really don't see how they fix this.  Republicans won't go for subsidizing higher insurance rates for individuals that have lost their insurance.   Obama promised over and over again that Obamacare wouldn't "add a single dime to the deficit."  Obama doesn't want massive changes to Obamacare.  For Obamacare to work--he needed the individual insurance market to collapse--and everyone needed to sign up on these web-sites.  They're not signing up which equates to much higher insurance premiums.

_They really need to put a torch to Obamacare and start over._


----------



## PMZ

oreo said:


> Does anyone remember Joe Biden whispering in Obama's hear--"this is one big f....ing deal, when Obamacare passed?  _Well, it's turned out to be one big f....ing DISASTER._
> 
> The non-medicade--enrollment is a total FLOP. Meaning those that are getting on these state run Obamacare web-sites are horrified by the premiums--after Obama promised the American public that he could save the average family of 4-- $2500.00 a year.  _NOT TRUE._
> 
> Obviously--the 32 times repeated promise of "If you like your plan you can keep it," is taking it's toll on Obama--this administration and democrat politicians.  5 million Americans have received cancellation notices from their insurers--and they're redirected to much more expensive plans--that they cannot afford.  _That is why paid enrollment is so low._
> 
> Now that Democrats on the hill are in full panic mode--over thousands of nasty grams and telephone calls they're getting from constituents--they want something done right now.  BUT--they voted for Obamacare--and in they all knew two years ago--that millions would lose their insurance because of the mandates in Obamacare.  There was even a time they could have done something about it on the Senate floor--and they voted against a fix that would have kept the promise of being able to keep your insurance.  This is going to spread like a virus through the employer mandate next year, causing higher unemployment.  Millions more will lose their insurance.
> 
> I really don't see how they fix this.  Republicans won't go for subsidizing higher insurance rates for individuals that have lost their insurance.   Obama promised over and over again that Obamacare wouldn't "add a single dime to the deficit."  Obama doesn't want massive changes to Obamacare.  For Obamacare to work--he needed the individual insurance market to collapse--and everyone needed to sign up on these web-sites.  They're not signing up which equates to much higher insurance premiums.
> 
> They really need to put a torch to Obamacare and start over.



We need to put a torch to Fox Opinions,  the only real problem with Obamacare. 

The conservative goose steppers are so hypnotized by it that they've completely stopped independent thought.


----------



## beagle9

oreo said:


> Does anyone remember Joe Biden whispering in Obama's hear--"this is one big f....ing deal, when Obamacare passed?  _Well, it's turned out to be one big f....ing DISASTER._
> 
> The non-medicade--enrollment is a total FLOP. Meaning those that are getting on these state run Obamacare web-sites are horrified by the premiums--after Obama promised the American public that he could save the average family of 4-- $2500.00 a year.  _NOT TRUE._
> 
> Obviously--the 32 times repeated promise of "If you like your plan you can keep it," is taking it's toll on Obama--this administration and democrat politicians.  5 million Americans have received cancellation notices from their insurers--and they're redirected to much more expensive plans--that they cannot afford.  _That is why paid enrollment is so low._
> 
> Now that Democrats on the hill are in full panic mode--over thousands of nasty grams and telephone calls they're getting from constituents--they want something done right now.  BUT--they voted for Obamacare--and in they all knew two years ago--that millions would lose their insurance because of the mandates in Obamacare.  There was even a time they could have done something about it on the Senate floor--and they voted against a fix that would have kept the promise of being able to keep your insurance.  This is going to spread like a virus through the employer mandate next year, causing higher unemployment.  Millions more will lose their insurance.
> 
> I really don't see how they fix this.  Republicans won't go for subsidizing higher insurance rates for individuals that have lost their insurance.   Obama promised over and over again that Obamacare wouldn't "add a single dime to the deficit."  Obama doesn't want massive changes to Obamacare.  For Obamacare to work--he needed the individual insurance market to collapse--and everyone needed to sign up on these web-sites.  They're not signing up which equates to much higher insurance premiums.
> 
> _They really need to put a torch to Obamacare and start over._


My daughter who is 22 years old, well she liked my idea about a Medicare single payer plan. This would have 4 cards issued to the individual groups that are out there. One card would represent the workers in America, the other the seniors, the poor and needy another card, and the special needs group their own card. There would be a tax that would come out of the workers pay as shown on their pay stubs called or noted as (HCS), which is code for health care services. 

The tax would pay for their insurance against medical problems, and the cards would be issued.   The worker tax would also pay for the seniors who had come before them in life (it's only right). If the tax isn't to high, then it could also pay for the other two groups as well without being subsidized in any way.  Example: A mandatory $15.00 a week would come out of all workers checks in America (this includes every working citizen to be covered, and they would have to participate), where as this would go to paying for the health care needs of all citizens if possible. These cards could be used anywhere that legitimate health care is offered or provided in America. Each card would represent the plans as needed for each group. There would also be a set up where if a person wanted to pay more for their card to turn gold in color, then they could do that as well. This would then add services that may not be included in the basic plans that the basic cards represent for them as they would then choose. These services would not be covered at the basic tax rate or charge that is taken in the flat rate taken in the basic plan. The government could subsidize for the seniors or which ever group is needed by deducting an amount from the rates if needed, and this would be in order to keep the tax within reason when the nation is going through tougher economic times. Choice would still be America's to choose their own doctors, care, hospitals etc. just as long as they don't choose a care provider that is on a list the government has banned due to fowl play, bad services or fraudulent activities. The current insurance companies in each state could be turned into government run fraud detection agencies, and would manage the cards and plans represented for the citizens within that state for the federal government.

Now is it that the plan here wouldn't work, and all because of the unemployed who would out weigh the worker bee's ten to one now in America ? Is this why America is failing no matter what goes on in these things or ways of thinking now ? I know I would love to have a card that I could go to my doctor, hospital or emergency center for services, and everything would be taken care of without any hassles at all, and also to know that the seniors, the poor, and the special needs group are also covered as well. I would feel proud to contribute in a managed way to the system, just as long as the system worked well and was run well for all involved.

Think about the lottery and how much money this is bringing in, and how much money is being won by the winners, but here we are and we can't get basic or great health care to all citizens in this nation ?


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does anyone remember Joe Biden whispering in Obama's hear--"this is one big f....ing deal, when Obamacare passed?  _Well, it's turned out to be one big f....ing DISASTER._
> 
> The non-medicade--enrollment is a total FLOP. Meaning those that are getting on these state run Obamacare web-sites are horrified by the premiums--after Obama promised the American public that he could save the average family of 4-- $2500.00 a year.  _NOT TRUE._
> 
> Obviously--the 32 times repeated promise of "If you like your plan you can keep it," is taking it's toll on Obama--this administration and democrat politicians.  5 million Americans have received cancellation notices from their insurers--and they're redirected to much more expensive plans--that they cannot afford.  _That is why paid enrollment is so low._
> 
> Now that Democrats on the hill are in full panic mode--over thousands of nasty grams and telephone calls they're getting from constituents--they want something done right now.  BUT--they voted for Obamacare--and in they all knew two years ago--that millions would lose their insurance because of the mandates in Obamacare.  There was even a time they could have done something about it on the Senate floor--and they voted against a fix that would have kept the promise of being able to keep your insurance.  This is going to spread like a virus through the employer mandate next year, causing higher unemployment.  Millions more will lose their insurance.
> 
> I really don't see how they fix this.  Republicans won't go for subsidizing higher insurance rates for individuals that have lost their insurance.   Obama promised over and over again that Obamacare wouldn't "add a single dime to the deficit."  Obama doesn't want massive changes to Obamacare.  For Obamacare to work--he needed the individual insurance market to collapse--and everyone needed to sign up on these web-sites.  They're not signing up which equates to much higher insurance premiums.
> 
> They really need to put a torch to Obamacare and start over.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We need to put a torch to Fox Opinions,  the only real problem with Obamacare.
> 
> The conservative goose steppers are so hypnotized by it that they've completely stopped independent thought.
Click to expand...


The fact that we keep providing concrete evidence that Obamacare is an unmitigated disaster while you can only provide your Tourette's outburst "Fox! Fox! Fox!" is proof of who is right in this discussion and who is a desperate parasite looking to mooch off of the system.

Hell, the architect of Obamacare - Max Baucus (radical left-winger) is on record calling Obamacare "a train wreck".


----------



## BlackSand

PMZ said:


> It's not done yet. If people without insurance choose to continue without it they will be *taxed*,  which will be used to reduce the costs that they will impose on responsible people.



Oh ... The ACA is far from done screwing crap up ... I mean just look at the policies canceled versus the number of people enrolled in the new plans.
If you don't want to talk about what the ACA has done ... And want to keep dreaming about what it will never do ... Then just phrase it that way.

*Otherwise ... I think it would be better if we keep an eye on what is happening ... Since even the President has admitted that what he said about it wasn't necessarily true ... And nothing has lived up to Democrat expectations so far.*

I trust you there ... Even you were finally able to call the fine associated with the Individual Mandate what it really is ... You just called it a tax ... Which is more than the Democrats in Congress would ever admit to.
You know that when the government takes revenue from a fee levied on citizens for not buying a product ... Then turns around and uses that money to provide that same product ... It is a tax for not buying their product.

*You have to admit that would land you in jail if you were in the private sector ... Charging people and forcing them to pay money because they don't buy your crappy product.*

.


----------



## RKMBrown

beagle9 said:


> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does anyone remember Joe Biden whispering in Obama's hear--"this is one big f....ing deal, when Obamacare passed?  _Well, it's turned out to be one big f....ing DISASTER._
> 
> The non-medicade--enrollment is a total FLOP. Meaning those that are getting on these state run Obamacare web-sites are horrified by the premiums--after Obama promised the American public that he could save the average family of 4-- $2500.00 a year.  _NOT TRUE._
> 
> Obviously--the 32 times repeated promise of "If you like your plan you can keep it," is taking it's toll on Obama--this administration and democrat politicians.  5 million Americans have received cancellation notices from their insurers--and they're redirected to much more expensive plans--that they cannot afford.  _That is why paid enrollment is so low._
> 
> Now that Democrats on the hill are in full panic mode--over thousands of nasty grams and telephone calls they're getting from constituents--they want something done right now.  BUT--they voted for Obamacare--and in they all knew two years ago--that millions would lose their insurance because of the mandates in Obamacare.  There was even a time they could have done something about it on the Senate floor--and they voted against a fix that would have kept the promise of being able to keep your insurance.  This is going to spread like a virus through the employer mandate next year, causing higher unemployment.  Millions more will lose their insurance.
> 
> I really don't see how they fix this.  Republicans won't go for subsidizing higher insurance rates for individuals that have lost their insurance.   Obama promised over and over again that Obamacare wouldn't "add a single dime to the deficit."  Obama doesn't want massive changes to Obamacare.  For Obamacare to work--he needed the individual insurance market to collapse--and everyone needed to sign up on these web-sites.  They're not signing up which equates to much higher insurance premiums.
> 
> _They really need to put a torch to Obamacare and start over._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My daughter who is 22 years old, well she liked my idea about a Medicare single payer plan. This would have 4 cards issued to the individual groups that are out there. One card would represent the workers in America, the other the seniors, the poor and needy another card, and the special needs group their own card. There would be a tax that would come out of the workers pay as shown on their pay stubs called or noted as (HCS), which is code for health care services.
> 
> The tax would pay for their insurance against medical problems, and the cards would be issued.   The worker tax would also pay for the seniors who had come before them in life (it's only right). If the tax isn't to high, then it could also pay for the other two groups as well without being subsidized in any way.  Example: A mandatory $15.00 a week would come out of all workers checks in America (this includes every working citizen to be covered, and they would have to participate), where as this would go to paying for the health care needs of all citizens if possible. These cards could be used anywhere that legitimate health care is offered or provided in America. Each card would represent the plans as needed for each group. There would also be a set up where if a person wanted to pay more for their card to turn gold in color, then they could do that as well. This would then add services that may not be included in the basic plans that the basic cards represent for them as they would then choose. These services would not be covered at the basic tax rate or charge that is taken in the flat rate taken in the basic plan. The government could subsidize for the seniors or which ever group is needed by deducting an amount from the rates if needed, and this would be in order to keep the tax within reason when the nation is going through tougher economic times. Choice would still be America's to choose their own doctors, care, hospitals etc. just as long as they don't choose a care provider that is on a list the government has banned due to fowl play, bad services or fraudulent activities. The current insurance companies in each state could be turned into government run fraud detection agencies, and would manage the cards and plans represented for the citizens within that state for the federal government.
> 
> Now is it that the plan here wouldn't work, and all because of the unemployed who would out weigh the worker bee's ten to one now in America ? Is this why America is failing no matter what goes on in these things or ways of thinking now ? I know I would love to have a card that I could go to my doctor, hospital or emergency center for services, and everything would be taken care of without any hassles at all, and also to know that the seniors, the poor, and the special needs group are also covered as well. I would feel proud to contribute in a managed way to the system, just as long as the system worked well and was run well for all involved.
> 
> Think about the lottery and how much money this is bringing in, and how much money is being won by the winners, but here we are and we can't get basic or great health care to all citizens in this nation ?
Click to expand...


And that would solve all our problems all we need is a new tax!  Then life would be just dandy for everyone. We all get what we want!  Back to work slaves!


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does anyone remember Joe Biden whispering in Obama's hear--"this is one big f....ing deal, when Obamacare passed?  _Well, it's turned out to be one big f....ing DISASTER._
> 
> The non-medicade--enrollment is a total FLOP. Meaning those that are getting on these state run Obamacare web-sites are horrified by the premiums--after Obama promised the American public that he could save the average family of 4-- $2500.00 a year.  _NOT TRUE._
> 
> Obviously--the 32 times repeated promise of "If you like your plan you can keep it," is taking it's toll on Obama--this administration and democrat politicians.  5 million Americans have received cancellation notices from their insurers--and they're redirected to much more expensive plans--that they cannot afford.  _That is why paid enrollment is so low._
> 
> Now that Democrats on the hill are in full panic mode--over thousands of nasty grams and telephone calls they're getting from constituents--they want something done right now.  BUT--they voted for Obamacare--and in they all knew two years ago--that millions would lose their insurance because of the mandates in Obamacare.  There was even a time they could have done something about it on the Senate floor--and they voted against a fix that would have kept the promise of being able to keep your insurance.  This is going to spread like a virus through the employer mandate next year, causing higher unemployment.  Millions more will lose their insurance.
> 
> I really don't see how they fix this.  Republicans won't go for subsidizing higher insurance rates for individuals that have lost their insurance.   Obama promised over and over again that Obamacare wouldn't "add a single dime to the deficit."  Obama doesn't want massive changes to Obamacare.  For Obamacare to work--he needed the individual insurance market to collapse--and everyone needed to sign up on these web-sites.  They're not signing up which equates to much higher insurance premiums.
> 
> They really need to put a torch to Obamacare and start over.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We need to put a torch to Fox Opinions,  the only real problem with Obamacare.
> 
> The conservative goose steppers are so hypnotized by it that they've completely stopped independent thought.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact that we keep providing concrete evidence that Obamacare is an unmitigated disaster while you can only provide your Tourette's outburst "Fox! Fox! Fox!" is proof of who is right in this discussion and who is a desperate parasite looking to mooch off of the system.
> 
> Hell, the architect of Obamacare - Max Baucus (radical left-winger) is on record calling Obamacare "a train wreck".
Click to expand...


You've been saying that Obamacare will be a disaster for five years now.  You said that Medicare would be a disaster for 30 years.  You say everything done by government will be a disaster.  Trust only business.  But the things wrong with Obamacare are caused by private business.  The website design.  Private insurance companies resetting their make more money regardless of the cost to others guns. Private insurance companies chosing not to grandfather and blaming it on government. 

It's been a private business clusterfuck since day one that will be saved by Obamacare.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does anyone remember Joe Biden whispering in Obama's hear--"this is one big f....ing deal, when Obamacare passed?  _Well, it's turned out to be one big f....ing DISASTER._
> 
> The non-medicade--enrollment is a total FLOP. Meaning those that are getting on these state run Obamacare web-sites are horrified by the premiums--after Obama promised the American public that he could save the average family of 4-- $2500.00 a year.  _NOT TRUE._
> 
> Obviously--the 32 times repeated promise of "If you like your plan you can keep it," is taking it's toll on Obama--this administration and democrat politicians.  5 million Americans have received cancellation notices from their insurers--and they're redirected to much more expensive plans--that they cannot afford.  _That is why paid enrollment is so low._
> 
> Now that Democrats on the hill are in full panic mode--over thousands of nasty grams and telephone calls they're getting from constituents--they want something done right now.  BUT--they voted for Obamacare--and in they all knew two years ago--that millions would lose their insurance because of the mandates in Obamacare.  There was even a time they could have done something about it on the Senate floor--and they voted against a fix that would have kept the promise of being able to keep your insurance.  This is going to spread like a virus through the employer mandate next year, causing higher unemployment.  Millions more will lose their insurance.
> 
> I really don't see how they fix this.  Republicans won't go for subsidizing higher insurance rates for individuals that have lost their insurance.   Obama promised over and over again that Obamacare wouldn't "add a single dime to the deficit."  Obama doesn't want massive changes to Obamacare.  For Obamacare to work--he needed the individual insurance market to collapse--and everyone needed to sign up on these web-sites.  They're not signing up which equates to much higher insurance premiums.
> 
> _They really need to put a torch to Obamacare and start over._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My daughter who is 22 years old, well she liked my idea about a Medicare single payer plan. This would have 4 cards issued to the individual groups that are out there. One card would represent the workers in America, the other the seniors, the poor and needy another card, and the special needs group their own card. There would be a tax that would come out of the workers pay as shown on their pay stubs called or noted as (HCS), which is code for health care services.
> 
> The tax would pay for their insurance against medical problems, and the cards would be issued.   The worker tax would also pay for the seniors who had come before them in life (it's only right). If the tax isn't to high, then it could also pay for the other two groups as well without being subsidized in any way.  Example: A mandatory $15.00 a week would come out of all workers checks in America (this includes every working citizen to be covered, and they would have to participate), where as this would go to paying for the health care needs of all citizens if possible. These cards could be used anywhere that legitimate health care is offered or provided in America. Each card would represent the plans as needed for each group. There would also be a set up where if a person wanted to pay more for their card to turn gold in color, then they could do that as well. This would then add services that may not be included in the basic plans that the basic cards represent for them as they would then choose. These services would not be covered at the basic tax rate or charge that is taken in the flat rate taken in the basic plan. The government could subsidize for the seniors or which ever group is needed by deducting an amount from the rates if needed, and this would be in order to keep the tax within reason when the nation is going through tougher economic times. Choice would still be America's to choose their own doctors, care, hospitals etc. just as long as they don't choose a care provider that is on a list the government has banned due to fowl play, bad services or fraudulent activities. The current insurance companies in each state could be turned into government run fraud detection agencies, and would manage the cards and plans represented for the citizens within that state for the federal government.
> 
> Now is it that the plan here wouldn't work, and all because of the unemployed who would out weigh the worker bee's ten to one now in America ? Is this why America is failing no matter what goes on in these things or ways of thinking now ? I know I would love to have a card that I could go to my doctor, hospital or emergency center for services, and everything would be taken care of without any hassles at all, and also to know that the seniors, the poor, and the special needs group are also covered as well. I would feel proud to contribute in a managed way to the system, just as long as the system worked well and was run well for all involved.
> 
> Think about the lottery and how much money this is bringing in, and how much money is being won by the winners, but here we are and we can't get basic or great health care to all citizens in this nation ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that would solve all our problems all we need is a new tax!  Then life would be just dandy for everyone. We all get what we want!  Back to work slaves!
Click to expand...


It's unRepublican to tax. They much prefer to finance their lavish spending through debt.  

Why? Grover Norquist has them believing in the tax fairy.  Lower the rates for the wealthy and revenue will go up.  

Except what goes up is only the revenue of the wealthy and debt for everyone else.  

But Fox Opinions keeps telling their loyal cult AVERT YOUR EYES!  WHAT YOU SEE IS NOT WHAT WE GIVE YOU EVEN THOUGH ITS STUCK LIKE GLUE TO OUR POLICUES! BLAME DEMOCRATS.  BLAME LIBERALS.  BLAME OBAMA.  BLAME NANCY PELOSI.  BLAME GEORGE SOROS.  BLAME JOE BIDEN. 

And all of the cultists say amen


----------



## Spoonman

Just think,  had the demcrats listened to the tea party, negotiated and reconsidered this ill fated launch of obamacare, they wouldn't be the laughing stock of the nation they are today


----------



## RKMBrown

Spoonman said:


> Just think,  had the demcrats listened to the tea party, negotiated and reconsidered this ill fated launch of obamacare, they wouldn't be the laughing stock of the nation they are today


Imagine that.


----------



## PMZ

Spoonman said:


> Just think,  had the demcrats listened to the tea party, negotiated and reconsidered this ill fated launch of obamacare, they wouldn't be the laughing stock of the nation they are today



You think that people are laughing with you.  They're not.  They've been laughing at you for as long as you've been jumping up and down at the Obamacare boogeyman.


----------



## BlackSand

Spoonman said:


> Just think,  had the demcrats listened to the tea party, negotiated and reconsidered this ill fated launch of obamacare, they wouldn't be the laughing stock of the nation they are today



*The Democrats didn't do that though ... Because they are the party of "No".*

.


----------



## RKMBrown

BlackSand said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just think,  had the demcrats listened to the tea party, negotiated and reconsidered this ill fated launch of obamacare, they wouldn't be the laughing stock of the nation they are today
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The Democrats didn't do that though ... Because they are the party of "No".*
> 
> .
Click to expand...


No fix no fix!! ROFL


----------



## Kimura

We should just go the single payer route and make Medicare available to everyone. We can also include dental coverage as well.

Our national defense, the military, is a single payer system. Nobody seems to be losing sleep over this obvious fact. The federal government pays private firms to build guns, bullets, tanks, aircraft, ships, submarines, satellite systems, etc.

We should do the same thing for health care. Our human capital is the the most invaluable asset we have. The overall health of our citizenry should be a #1 priority on par with national defense.

I don't see the federal government going around forcing people to purchase national defense insurance. The US government pays for the collective defense of the country.

We'll eventually get to single payer by 2025 if I had to guesstimate.


----------



## PMZ

Every once in a while you see little kids in stores acting like Republicans. Screaming that they are going to hold their breath until they pass out if they don't get their way.  

The answer to the kids and Republicans should be the same.  

Give it your all. While you're doing that,  we'll finish the work that needs to be done.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> Every once in a while you see little kids in stores acting like Republicans. Screaming that they are going to hold their breath until they pass out if they don't get their way.
> 
> The answer to the kids and Republicans should be the same.
> 
> Give it your all. While you're doing that,  we'll finish the work that needs to be done.



ROFL if you don't give me your income I'll scream and call you crybabies. ROFL


----------



## BlackSand

RKMBrown said:


> ROFL if you don't give me your income I'll scream and call you crybabies. ROFL



The only way a Liberal could ever understand what you just mentioned ... Is if they were willing to accept their responsibility in the matter ... And personal responsibility is not high on their list of virtuous character qualities.

.


----------



## PMZ

It's said that Republicans and Democrats want the same things.  Democrats for everyone. 

True enough.  It is obvious reading through forums like this that every Republican leaning post is centered around what's good for Me.  Want I want.  How can life best serve Me.  What I am entitled to. 

Democrats post about how can our lives be improved. What's best for the country or the middle class, or we,  the people. 

Here's good objective info on why Obamacare is good for America.  

Followed,  I'm sure by Republican whining about why it's not good for each of them individually. 

By Kimberly Amadeo, About.com Guide
Question: What Is Obamacare?

Answer: Obamacare is the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010. The name was created by critics of President Obama's efforts to reform health care, but it stuck. Even President Obama likes it, because he says it shows he does care. 

The most important part of this Act requires you to have health insurance in 2014 or be subject to a tax. Coverage starts on January 1, 2014 if you've signed up by December 15, 2013. See When Does Obamacare Start?

Open enrollment through the exchanges ends March 31, 2014. If you don't have insurance by then, you will be taxed 1% of income unless certain conditions apply. Find out How Much Will Obamacare Cost Me?

Here's the Obamacare Facts You Need to Know

The health insurance exchanges opened on October 1, 2013. Some exchanges are run by states, and some by the Federal government. At first, the Federally-run exchange made you wait hours, if you could register at all. However, it's been cleared up and you can now compare plans. 

Keep in mind to compare, not just your monthly premium, but your overall anticipated health care costs. This includes the annual deductible, percentage covered, and copayments.

If you already have insurance, you can keep it IF: 

It was in existence before March 23, 2010. In that case, it's been grandfathered in.
You employer keeps its plans. However, many companies are using this opportunity to dump or change how they provide health insurance.
It meets the minimum requirements, as detailed in the first section below. 
&#8203;Here's more facts, customized to your personal situation:

If You Already Have Insurance - All insurance plans must provide services in 10 essential health benefits categories. In addition, those with pre-existing conditions can no longer be excluded (children in 2010, adults in 2014). Health insurance companies can no longer drop those who get sick. Parents can put their children, up to age 26, on their plans. However, if your plan began before March 23, 2010, then it might be "grandfathered in," and not have to provide all these benefits. Therefore, even if you have insurance, it will be worth your time to review it and compare it to those on the exchanges.

If you have Medicare, the "donut hole" gap in coverage will be eliminated by 2020.

If You Can't Afford Insurance - Medicaid will be extended to those who earn up to 133% of the Federal poverty level. That's $15,281 for an individual, or $31,321.50 for a family of four in 2013. The poverty level usually increases each year to keep up with inflation.

However, not all states have elected to expand Medicaid, even though the Federal government will subsidize it. If you live in a state where you are eligible for Medicaid, but the state won't give you coverage, you won't have to pay the tax if you can't get insurance.

Those who earn too much for Medicaid will receive tax credits if their income is below 400% of the poverty level. In 2013, that's $45,960 for an individual, or $94,200 for a family of four. The credit is applied monthly, rather than as an annual tax rebate. There are also reduced copayments and deductibles. Find out How to Get Obamacare.

If You Don't Get Insurance - If you don't enroll in a health insurance plan by the end of open enrollment (March 31, 2014) you won't be able to get insurance through the exchanges. (Find out about special circumstances here.) You must have coverage for at least nine months in 2014 to avoid the tax.

The Obamacare ruling allows the IRS to tax you 1% of adjusted gross income, but no less than $95 per adult/$47.50 per child in 2013. These taxes rise in 2015 and 2016. For more, see Obamacare Taxes.

If You Make More than $200,000 a Year - Taxes increased in 2013 for wealthy Americans, some health care providers, and other health-related businesses. For more, see Obamacare Bill.

If You're a Business Owner - The mandate to provide health insurance for your employees has been postponed to January 1, 2015. This may be good news for you, because many of your employees may find insurance on the exchanges by then, lowering your costs. If you have 50 or fewer employees, you are eligible to look for better employee coverage on the SHOP exchange starting October 1, 2013.

For more about how Obamacare affects you, depending on the group you're in, see How Will Obamacare Affect Me?

Little-known Facts

The Affordable Care Act contains many provisions that aren't as well known. For example, it created the National Prevention Council that coordinates all Federal health efforts to promote active, drug-free lifestyles. It funds scholarships and loans to double the number of health care providers in five years. It cuts down on fraudulent doctor/supplier relationships. It also requires background checks of all nursing home staff, to prevent abuse of seniors. For more details of all ten Titles, see Obamacare Bill.
Obamcare Pros and Cons

The main advantage of the Affordable Care Act is that it lowers health care costs overall by making insurance affordable for more people. That's because insurance will be extended to two uninsured groups. First, it will include many more younger people, who are healthier. This lowers costs overall because they'll pay premiums, but won't use as many services. Second, insurance will become available to people who now use expensive hospital emergency room treatments instead of going to a primary care physician. This lowers costs because they will have their conditions treated before the expensive critical stage.

Another advantage is it provides insurance more fairly. Prior to the Act, only people who fell into one of four categories could get affordable health care:

Those who work for a company that provides it.
Those who can afford to pay on their own and who have no pre-existing conditions.
The very poor, who have Medicaid.
Those who are 65 and older, who have Medicare.
If you don't fall into one of those categories, you are forced to pay for health care out of your pocket. If you can't afford it, either the hospital must pick up the cost, or you must declare bankruptcy. The U.S. system was set up this way when the Federal government gave tax breaks to companies who provided health insurance for their employees.


The main disadvantage is that the Act could actually increase health care costs over the short term. That's because many people will receive preventive care for the first time in their lives. This could lead to treatment of heretofore unknown illnesses, driving up costs. (Source: CBO, 2009 Study on Preventive Health Care, August 7, 2009)

Most of the disadvantages are accruing to those individuals and businesses that are paying higher taxes. In addition, somewhere between 3-5 million workers could lose their existing, company-sponsored health insurance if their company finds it more cost-effective to let them buy it on their own and pay the penalty. For details, see Obamacare Pros and Cons.

The cost of Obamacare has been listed as both a pro and a con. That's because the calculation depends on the assumptions used. Estimates ranging from $1.76 trillion added to the debt down to $143 billion subtracted from the debt are all correct (in their own way). Find out how in Cost of Obamacare. Article updated November 6, 2013.


----------



## BlackSand

PMZ said:


> Answer: Obamacare is the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010. The name was created by critics of President Obama's efforts to reform health care, but it stuck. Even President Obama likes it, because he says it shows he does care.



*He cares about you enough to lie to you about it.*

.


----------



## RKMBrown

Kid wants a candy bar, starts screaming for it.  Democrat answer, give the kid the candy bar.  Conservative answer, give the kid some chores to earn an allowance, then let him buy the candy bar and be proud that he earned it.


----------



## Spoonman

PMZ said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just think,  had the demcrats listened to the tea party, negotiated and reconsidered this ill fated launch of obamacare, they wouldn't be the laughing stock of the nation they are today
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You think that people are laughing with you.  They're not.  They've been laughing at you for as long as you've been jumping up and down at the Obamacare boogeyman.
Click to expand...


dude,  people are tuning into your failure for a laugh instead of comedy central.   how much more will you need to raise the debt ceiling to deal with this mess?  Time to go back to the CBO for a more realistic budget


----------



## PMZ

BlackSand said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Answer: Obamacare is the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010. The name was created by critics of President Obama's efforts to reform health care, but it stuck. Even President Obama likes it, because he says it shows he does care.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *He cares about you enough to lie to you about it.*
> 
> .
Click to expand...


What he said was absolutely true about Obamacare,  the subject of his talk.  The choices made by  private insurance companies belong to them.  They are accountable for their decisions.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> Kid wants a candy bar, starts screaming for it.  Democrat answer, give the kid the candy bar.  Conservative answer, give the kid some chores to earn an allowance, then let him buy the candy bar and be proud that he earned it.



How come conservatives can only defend their delusions by describing what Fox Opinions propaganda says about how their official scapegoats act?


----------



## PMZ

Spoonman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just think,  had the demcrats listened to the tea party, negotiated and reconsidered this ill fated launch of obamacare, they wouldn't be the laughing stock of the nation they are today
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You think that people are laughing with you.  They're not.  They've been laughing at you for as long as you've been jumping up and down at the Obamacare boogeyman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> dude,  people are tuning into your failure for a laugh instead of comedy central.   how much more will you need to raise the debt ceiling to deal with this mess?  Time to go back to the CBO for a more realistic budget
Click to expand...


Without our eight year disasterous experiment with conservative government,  we'd be debt free. DEBT FREE! Think of what our options would be now if we had only followed the popular vote in 2000 rather than let the SCOTUS appointees of Bush the elder decide.


----------



## BlackSand

PMZ said:


> Without our eight year disasterous experiment with conservative government,  we'd be debt free. DEBT FREE! Think of what our options would be now if we had only followed the popular vote in 2000 rather than let the SCOTUS appointees of Bush the elder decide.



*I guess you haven't been around for the last four and a half years ... They damn sure haven't been debt free ... Retreat to the bushes, because that's all you got ... Nothing worthwhile.*

.


----------



## PMZ

BlackSand said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Without our eight year disasterous experiment with conservative government,  we'd be debt free. DEBT FREE! Think of what our options would be now if we had only followed the popular vote in 2000 rather than let the SCOTUS appointees of Bush the elder decide.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I guess you haven't been around for the last four and a half years ... They damn sure haven't been debt free ... Retreat to the bushes, because that's all you got ... Nothing worthwhile.*
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Another believer in dates causing debt rather than policies.  Thats a real tough sell to intelligent folks but a real easy sell to the cult apparently. 

Not that you are capable of dealing with the truth,  but here it is anyway.


----------



## Spoonman

BlackSand said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just think,  had the demcrats listened to the tea party, negotiated and reconsidered this ill fated launch of obamacare, they wouldn't be the laughing stock of the nation they are today
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The Democrats didn't do that though ... Because they are the party of "No".*
> 
> .
Click to expand...


yes, no clue, no idea, no solution, no plan


----------



## Spoonman

PMZ said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You think that people are laughing with you.  They're not.  They've been laughing at you for as long as you've been jumping up and down at the Obamacare boogeyman.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dude,  people are tuning into your failure for a laugh instead of comedy central.   how much more will you need to raise the debt ceiling to deal with this mess?  Time to go back to the CBO for a more realistic budget
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Without our eight year disasterous experiment with conservative government,  we'd be debt free. DEBT FREE! Think of what our options would be now if we had only followed the popular vote in 2000 rather than let the SCOTUS appointees of Bush the elder decide.
Click to expand...


the only thing the democrats were missing from the launch of obamacare was a seltzer bottle and a couple of creampies to toss.  abbott and costello would have been the perfect pitch men


----------



## dblack

PMZ said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're saying that in your opinion there are only 50K Americans without health care insurance?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No  ... You said that the ACA ended a practice where people without insurance were no longer able to get away without paying for their healthcare.
> I agreed with you ... And you must be talking about the less than 50,000 that signed up for President Obama's government provided insurance.
> 
> *That is what ACA has accomplished as far as the uninsured getting insurance ... Take it or leave it.*
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not done yet. If people without insurance choose to continue without it they will be taxed,  which will be used to reduce the costs that they will impose on responsible people.
Click to expand...


Guilty until proven innocent eh? "costs that they *will* impose" - bullshit. If and when they actually do impose on others, you can wag your finger at them, but until they do - mind your own fucking business.

You have this twisted inside-out conception of 'responsibility' when it comes to insurance. I'm not sure if you've just heard too many insurance company sales pitches, or you really can't see the implications of what you're advocating, but it ends up punishing 'responsible' people, those you claim to be protecting.

Under ACA, if someone has the wherewithal and the foresight to build up a savings for future health problems, they're punished for it. And why? Because the insurance industry doesn't get a cut? That makes no sense to anyone but insurance industry lobbyists and the whores in Congress.


----------



## RKMBrown

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> No  ... You said that the ACA ended a practice where people without insurance were no longer able to get away without paying for their healthcare.
> I agreed with you ... And you must be talking about the less than 50,000 that signed up for President Obama's government provided insurance.
> 
> *That is what ACA has accomplished as far as the uninsured getting insurance ... Take it or leave it.*
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not done yet. If people without insurance choose to continue without it they will be taxed,  which will be used to reduce the costs that they will impose on responsible people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guilty until proven innocent eh? "costs that they *will* impose" - bullshit. If and when they actually do impose on others, you can wag your finger at them, but until they do - mind your own fucking business.
> 
> You have this twisted inside-out conception of 'responsibility' when it comes to insurance. I'm not sure if you've just heard too many insurance company sales pitches, or you really can't see the implications of what you're advocating, but it ends up punishing 'responsible' people, those you claim to be protecting.
> 
> Under ACA, if someone has the wherewithal and the foresight to build up a savings for future health problems, they're punished for it. And why? Because the insurance industry doesn't get a cut? That makes not sense to anyone but insurance industry lobbyists and the whores in Congress.
Click to expand...

Why insult whores? What have they done that is so bad as to be compared with democrat congress members?


----------



## Unkotare

Kimura said:


> human capital is the the most invaluable asset we have.




That's exactly why we shouldn't leave it to the least efficient entity in the nation - the government.


----------



## PMZ

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> No  ... You said that the ACA ended a practice where people without insurance were no longer able to get away without paying for their healthcare.
> I agreed with you ... And you must be talking about the less than 50,000 that signed up for President Obama's government provided insurance.
> 
> *That is what ACA has accomplished as far as the uninsured getting insurance ... Take it or leave it.*
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not done yet. If people without insurance choose to continue without it they will be taxed,  which will be used to reduce the costs that they will impose on responsible people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guilty until proven innocent eh? "costs that they *will* impose" - bullshit. If and when they actually do impose on others, you can wag your finger at them, but until they do - mind your own fucking business.
> 
> You have this twisted inside-out conception of 'responsibility' when it comes to insurance. I'm not sure if you've just heard too many insurance company sales pitches, or you really can't see the implications of what you're advocating, but it ends up punishing 'responsible' people, those you claim to be protecting.
> 
> Under ACA, if someone has the wherewithal and the foresight to build up a savings for future health problems, they're punished for it. And why? Because the insurance industry doesn't get a cut? That makes no sense to anyone but insurance industry lobbyists and the whores in Congress.
Click to expand...


I'll bet that you count the number of adequately self  insured families in the country on one hand.  Yet you want to design our whole health insurance system around them.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not done yet. If people without insurance choose to continue without it they will be taxed,  which will be used to reduce the costs that they will impose on responsible people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guilty until proven innocent eh? "costs that they *will* impose" - bullshit. If and when they actually do impose on others, you can wag your finger at them, but until they do - mind your own fucking business.
> 
> You have this twisted inside-out conception of 'responsibility' when it comes to insurance. I'm not sure if you've just heard too many insurance company sales pitches, or you really can't see the implications of what you're advocating, but it ends up punishing 'responsible' people, those you claim to be protecting.
> 
> Under ACA, if someone has the wherewithal and the foresight to build up a savings for future health problems, they're punished for it. And why? Because the insurance industry doesn't get a cut? That makes not sense to anyone but insurance industry lobbyists and the whores in Congress.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why insult whores? What have they done that is so bad as to be compared with democrat congress members?
Click to expand...


Just think of where the country would be without democrat congress members.  If Bush had only Republicans in Congress we would be at war with most of the world,  Wall St would look like Versailles,  and the rest of the country like the Philippines after the storm. And the Whitehouse would be in the backwaters of Texas.  And we'd be on the third generation of Kings Bush.


----------



## PMZ

Unkotare said:


> Kimura said:
> 
> 
> 
> human capital is the the most invaluable asset we have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's exactly why we shouldn't leave it to the least efficient entity in the nation - the government.
Click to expand...


This is a late breaking Fox opinion.


----------



## dblack

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not done yet. If people without insurance choose to continue without it they will be taxed,  which will be used to reduce the costs that they will impose on responsible people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guilty until proven innocent eh? "costs that they *will* impose" - bullshit. If and when they actually do impose on others, you can wag your finger at them, but until they do - mind your own fucking business.
> 
> You have this twisted inside-out conception of 'responsibility' when it comes to insurance. I'm not sure if you've just heard too many insurance company sales pitches, or you really can't see the implications of what you're advocating, but it ends up punishing 'responsible' people, those you claim to be protecting.
> 
> Under ACA, if someone has the wherewithal and the foresight to build up a savings for future health problems, they're punished for it. And why? Because the insurance industry doesn't get a cut? That makes no sense to anyone but insurance industry lobbyists and the whores in Congress.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll bet that you count the number of adequately self  insured families in the country on one hand.  Yet you want to design our whole health insurance system around them.
Click to expand...


Don't strawman it. I'm not talking about wholly self-insuring. I'm talking about something a reasonably prudent middle class family could do - put 10 - 20k away in an HSA and get dirt cheap catastrophic insurance with a huge deductible. That was the trend before ACA, and it's what the insurance lobby is trying to head off at the pass. They don't want us paying for own health care because it cuts them out of the picture as middlemen. It injects _real_ responsibility into the equation. 

Just like the bankers trying to keep us all addicted to credit, they want to keep themselves in the middle of every single health care transaction. That's why they finally stopped fighting health 'care' reform, and twisted the effort into a scheme to protect their turf. And fools like you are selling it for them.


----------



## dblack

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guilty until proven innocent eh? "costs that they *will* impose" - bullshit. If and when they actually do impose on others, you can wag your finger at them, but until they do - mind your own fucking business.
> 
> You have this twisted inside-out conception of 'responsibility' when it comes to insurance. I'm not sure if you've just heard too many insurance company sales pitches, or you really can't see the implications of what you're advocating, but it ends up punishing 'responsible' people, those you claim to be protecting.
> 
> Under ACA, if someone has the wherewithal and the foresight to build up a savings for future health problems, they're punished for it. And why? Because the insurance industry doesn't get a cut? That makes not sense to anyone but insurance industry lobbyists and the whores in Congress.
> 
> 
> 
> Why insult whores? What have they done that is so bad as to be compared with democrat congress members?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just think of where the country would be without democrat congress members.  If Bush had only Republicans in Congress we would be at war with most of the world,  Wall St would look like Versailles,  and the rest of the country like the Philippines after the storm. And the Whitehouse would be in the backwaters of Texas.  And we'd be on the third generation of Kings Bush.
Click to expand...


Yeah... If Bush was still in there, Guantanamo would still be operating, the PATRIOT Act would be expanded, the NSA would be spying on all of us and we'd be drone bombing everyone under the sun, pissing of the world. I bet he'd have bailed out the banksters with a sweetheart deal to boot! Damn, we're so lucky to have the Democrats looking out for us.


----------



## PMZ

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guilty until proven innocent eh? "costs that they *will* impose" - bullshit. If and when they actually do impose on others, you can wag your finger at them, but until they do - mind your own fucking business.
> 
> You have this twisted inside-out conception of 'responsibility' when it comes to insurance. I'm not sure if you've just heard too many insurance company sales pitches, or you really can't see the implications of what you're advocating, but it ends up punishing 'responsible' people, those you claim to be protecting.
> 
> Under ACA, if someone has the wherewithal and the foresight to build up a savings for future health problems, they're punished for it. And why? Because the insurance industry doesn't get a cut? That makes no sense to anyone but insurance industry lobbyists and the whores in Congress.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll bet that you count the number of adequately self  insured families in the country on one hand.  Yet you want to design our whole health insurance system around them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't strawman it. I'm not talking about wholly self-insuring. I'm talking about something a reasonably prudent middle class family could do - put 10 - 20k away in an HSA and get dirt cheap catastrophic insurance with a huge deductible. That was the trend before ACA, and it's what the insurance lobby is trying to head off at the pass. They don't want us paying for own health care because it cuts them out of the picture as middlemen. It injects _real_ responsibility into the equation.
> 
> Just like the bankers trying to keep us all addicted to credit, they want to keep themselves in the middle of every single health care transaction. That's why they finally stopped fighting health 'care' reform, and twisted the effort into a scheme to protect their turf. And fools like you are selling it for them.
Click to expand...


Ok,  now you've got your population up to two handfuls.  

What is your plan for the millions who either chose or have no option to buy health care insurance?


----------



## Unkotare

PMZ said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kimura said:
> 
> 
> 
> human capital is the the most invaluable asset we have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's exactly why we shouldn't leave it to the least efficient entity in the nation - the government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is a late breaking Fox opinion.
Click to expand...


----------



## dblack

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll bet that you count the number of adequately self  insured families in the country on one hand.  Yet you want to design our whole health insurance system around them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't strawman it. I'm not talking about wholly self-insuring. I'm talking about something a reasonably prudent middle class family could do - put 10 - 20k away in an HSA and get dirt cheap catastrophic insurance with a huge deductible. That was the trend before ACA, and it's what the insurance lobby is trying to head off at the pass. They don't want us paying for own health care because it cuts them out of the picture as middlemen. It injects _real_ responsibility into the equation.
> 
> Just like the bankers trying to keep us all addicted to credit, they want to keep themselves in the middle of every single health care transaction. That's why they finally stopped fighting health 'care' reform, and twisted the effort into a scheme to protect their turf. And fools like you are selling it for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok,  now you've got your population up to two handfuls.
> 
> What is your plan for the millions who either chose or have no option to buy health care insurance?
Click to expand...


My 'plan' for them is to let them decide for themselves how to manage their own health care expenses. Treat them like actual adults; hold them accountable for their own health care costs and stop pretending that there's such a thing as a 'right to be taken care of'.


----------



## PMZ

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't strawman it. I'm not talking about wholly self-insuring. I'm talking about something a reasonably prudent middle class family could do - put 10 - 20k away in an HSA and get dirt cheap catastrophic insurance with a huge deductible. That was the trend before ACA, and it's what the insurance lobby is trying to head off at the pass. They don't want us paying for own health care because it cuts them out of the picture as middlemen. It injects _real_ responsibility into the equation.
> 
> Just like the bankers trying to keep us all addicted to credit, they want to keep themselves in the middle of every single health care transaction. That's why they finally stopped fighting health 'care' reform, and twisted the effort into a scheme to protect their turf. And fools like you are selling it for them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok,  now you've got your population up to two handfuls.
> 
> What is your plan for the millions who either chose or have no option to buy health care insurance?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My 'plan' for them is to let them decide for themselves. Hold them accountable for their own health care costs and stop pretending that there's such a thing as a 'right to be taken care of'.
Click to expand...


I'm not as generous as you about paying the health care costs of anyone who just doesn't want to pay their own.


----------



## dblack

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok,  now you've got your population up to two handfuls.
> 
> What is your plan for the millions who either chose or have no option to buy health care insurance?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My 'plan' for them is to let them decide for themselves. Hold them accountable for their own health care costs and stop pretending that there's such a thing as a 'right to be taken care of'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not as generous as you about paying the health care costs of anyone who just doesn't want to pay their own.
Click to expand...


I hear you. You've done nothing but whine about it for the entire thread. That's what get's me about the 'bleeding hearts'. They're not the slightest bit altruistic, and they don't _really_ want to help out the under privileged - certainly not if it costs them anything. They prefer to use the power of the vote to force some other sucker into doing it instead.


----------



## PMZ

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> My 'plan' for them is to let them decide for themselves. Hold them accountable for their own health care costs and stop pretending that there's such a thing as a 'right to be taken care of'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not as generous as you about paying the health care costs of anyone who just doesn't want to pay their own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I hear you. You've done nothing but whine about it for the entire thread. That's what get's me about the 'bleeding hearts'. They're not the slightest bit altruistic, and the don't want to help out the under privileged - not if it costs them anything. They prefer to use the power of the vote to force some other poor schmoe into doing it instead.
Click to expand...


I hear you Fox Opinions. 

With Obamacare everybody who business chooses to pay a living wage to is required to pay for their own health care,  no exceptions. 

Those that business chooses to not pay a living wage to will receive subsidies to make up for their employers irresponsibility.


----------



## dblack

PMZ said:


> Those that business chooses to not pay a living wage to will receive subsidies to make up for their employers irresponsibility.



Doesn't that just make you hopping mad? Those dastardly irresponsible employers are costing you money! Good thing Obama gave 'em a break, eh?


----------



## PMZ

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those that business chooses to not pay a living wage to will receive subsidies to make up for their employers irresponsibility.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't that just make you hopping mad? Those dastardly irresponsible employers are costing you money! Good thing Obama gave 'em a break, eh?
Click to expand...


Those employers have you fooled into believing that them choosing to not pay a living wage makes things cheaper for you. It just moves the cost of those people from the companies payroll to the governments,  and we know who pays that. 

Once someone is born,  they have to be paid for by somebody for the next 80 years or so.  The ones that cause the economy to grow are the ones who are taught by family and friends and schools to be responsible and skilled and educated. If they are employed. 

All means of welfare are the cost of failure.  Failure of families,  of schools,  of culture,  of business to provide well paying jobs. Countries don't achieve less welfare just by cutting it back.  That inevitably exasperates every cause of failure.

Economies grow by replacing failure in families,  schools,  culture,  and business with success. 

That's progress.  It comes from solving problems.


----------



## dblack

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those that business chooses to not pay a living wage to will receive subsidies to make up for their employers irresponsibility.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't that just make you hopping mad? Those dastardly irresponsible employers are costing you money! Good thing Obama gave 'em a break, eh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those employers have you fooled into believing that them choosing to not pay a living wage makes things cheaper for you.
Click to expand...


Nah.. I didn't say anything like that. I'm not the one shilling for insurance companies.

You just seem awfully selective in which 'irresponsible' people you're willing to subsidize. You don't seem to have a problem with picking up the slack for employers who aren't paying their employees a 'living wage', yet you want to bully middle class working folks into sucking insurance industry cock to keep your premiums down. I'm beginning to think you might have a lot of stock in Wellpoint or something. Is your name Liz Fowler?


----------



## BlackSand

PMZ said:


> All means of welfare are the cost of failure.  Failure of families,  of schools,  of culture,  of *business to provide well paying jobs.* Countries don't achieve less welfare just by cutting it back.  That inevitably exasperates every cause of failure.



You were doing okay right up to the part in bold above.
Here is a link to a website that lists 1000 current openings for positions that pay more than 100k a year ... *And it is just one website.*

100k Jobs, Employment | Indeed.com

*Edit:*
Businesses do offer well paying jobs ... And for the most part, the other three reasons are why they cannot find employees to fill them.

.


----------



## Unkotare

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those that business chooses to not pay a living wage to will receive subsidies to make up for their employers irresponsibility.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't that just make you hopping mad? Those dastardly irresponsible employers are costing you money! Good thing Obama gave 'em a break, eh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those employers have you fooled into believing that them choosing to not pay a living wage makes things cheaper for you.
Click to expand...




 at the lefty talking points. Chapter and verse.


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those that business chooses to not pay a living wage to will receive subsidies to make up for their employers irresponsibility.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't that just make you hopping mad? Those dastardly irresponsible employers are costing you money! Good thing Obama gave 'em a break, eh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those employers have you fooled into believing that them choosing to not pay a living wage makes things cheaper for you. It just moves the cost of those people from the companies payroll to the governments,  and we know who pays that.
> 
> Once someone is born,  they have to be paid for by somebody for the next 80 years or so.  The ones that cause the economy to grow are the ones who are taught by family and friends and schools to be responsible and skilled and educated. If they are employed.
> 
> All means of welfare are the cost of failure.  Failure of families,  of schools,  of culture,  of business to provide well paying jobs. Countries don't achieve less welfare just by cutting it back.  That inevitably exasperates every cause of failure.
> 
> Economies grow by replacing failure in families,  schools,  culture,  and business with success.
> 
> That's progress.  It comes from solving problems.
Click to expand...


And unfortunately [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION], Dumbocrats replace families, schools, culture, and business with FAILURE. Always have, always will.

And yes, that is the Dumbocrats idea of "progress". Sitting on their lazy ass and asking government to do everything for them in exchange for their freedom. "Progress". Ain't it grand!


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> With Obamacare everybody who business chooses to pay a living wage to is required to pay for their own health care,  no exceptions.



In the history of this nation [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION], there has *never* been a single business that didn't pay a "living wage". Never. It has _never_ happened.

The problem comes in the parasite (such as you) definition of "living wage". You believe you are entitled to a $700 iPhone, a $700 iPad, and $3,000 plasma tv, a $65,000 BMW, and a $400,000 home, among other things because you've seen other people with them. What you haven't seen is the work they had to put in to achieve those things.

If you weren't so greedy and lazy, you would realize that the lowest minimum wage job at McDonald's provides more than enough "living wage" in America. And it comes with tremendous perks such as college tuition to better yourself and become whatever you want to become. But a McDonald's minimum wage requires that you forgo the iPhone, the iPad, the plasma tv, the BMW, and the large home for paying your necessities such as food, health insurance, and utilities.

In summary - you want to put in the effort and hours of a minimum wage worker, live like a skilled and hard working executive, and have your fellow tax payer pick up the large gap left over.


----------



## P@triot

Uh-oh [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION]! This isn't "Fox!" and this person is an Obama supporter. Now what chief? What kind of excuse can you come up with this time? Spin it PMZ, spin it!

Will PMZ go with the "she didn't really lose her health insurance and nobody has else either" absurd claim? 

Or will PMZ go with tried and true Tourette's back up of "Fox! Fox! Fox!"? 

Or will PMZ go the schizophrenic route where she suddenly becomes a conservative and pretends that she supports personal responsibility while pretending like we don't and while pretending that's what Obamacare exists for?  (this one is always one of my favorites)? 

Obama supporter miffed at botched healthcare rollout - latimes.com


----------



## PMZ

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't that just make you hopping mad? Those dastardly irresponsible employers are costing you money! Good thing Obama gave 'em a break, eh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those employers have you fooled into believing that them choosing to not pay a living wage makes things cheaper for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nah.. I didn't say anything like that. I'm not the one shilling for insurance companies.
> 
> You just seem awfully selective in which 'irresponsible' people you're willing to subsidize. You don't seem to have a problem with picking up the slack for employers who aren't paying their employees a 'living wage', yet you want to bully middle class working folks into sucking insurance industry cock to keep your premiums down. I'm beginning to think you might have a lot of stock in Wellpoint or something. Is your name Liz Fowler?
Click to expand...


"you want to bully middle class working folks into sucking insurance industry cock to keep your premiums down."

That's quite a bit different than what I said.  I said that I want them to pay for their own health care.  To be personally responsible. 

Your reaction to personal responsibility is bizarre.


----------



## dblack

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those employers have you fooled into believing that them choosing to not pay a living wage makes things cheaper for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nah.. I didn't say anything like that. I'm not the one shilling for insurance companies.
> 
> You just seem awfully selective in which 'irresponsible' people you're willing to subsidize. You don't seem to have a problem with picking up the slack for employers who aren't paying their employees a 'living wage', yet you want to bully middle class working folks into sucking insurance industry cock to keep your premiums down. I'm beginning to think you might have a lot of stock in Wellpoint or something. Is your name Liz Fowler?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "you want to bully middle class working folks into sucking insurance industry cock to keep your premiums down."
> 
> That's quite a bit different than what I said.  I said that I want them to pay for their own health care.  To be personally responsible.
Click to expand...


No, you don't. You want to force them to buy health insurance.


----------



## PMZ

BlackSand said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> All means of welfare are the cost of failure.  Failure of families,  of schools,  of culture,  of *business to provide well paying jobs.* Countries don't achieve less welfare just by cutting it back.  That inevitably exasperates every cause of failure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You were doing okay right up to the part in bold above.
> Here is a link to a website that lists 1000 current openings for positions that pay more than 100k a year ... *And it is just one website.*
> 
> 100k Jobs, Employment | Indeed.com
> 
> *Edit:*
> Businesses do offer well paying jobs ... And for the most part, the other three reasons are why they cannot find employees to fill them.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


You make it sound like businesses here don't benefit from a healthy economy.  How weird is that?  They want poor workers and wealthy customers,  and they're the same people! In other words they want to benefit from other employers being smarter than they. 

And then they want to blame their mess on government. 

And you people fall for it every time.  Yikes!


----------



## PMZ

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nah.. I didn't say anything like that. I'm not the one shilling for insurance companies.
> 
> You just seem awfully selective in which 'irresponsible' people you're willing to subsidize. You don't seem to have a problem with picking up the slack for employers who aren't paying their employees a 'living wage', yet you want to bully middle class working folks into sucking insurance industry cock to keep your premiums down. I'm beginning to think you might have a lot of stock in Wellpoint or something. Is your name Liz Fowler?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "you want to bully middle class working folks into sucking insurance industry cock to keep your premiums down."
> 
> That's quite a bit different than what I said.  I said that I want them to pay for their own health care.  To be personally responsible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you don't. You want to force them to buy health insurance.
Click to expand...


Why do you keep trying to speak for me? 

I said that I expect them to pay for their own health care!


----------



## dblack

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> "you want to bully middle class working folks into sucking insurance industry cock to keep your premiums down."
> 
> That's quite a bit different than what I said.  I said that I want them to pay for their own health care.  To be personally responsible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you don't. You want to force them to buy health insurance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you keep trying to speak for me?
> 
> I said that I expect them to pay for their own health care!
Click to expand...


Are you no longer claiming that as justification for forcing them to buy health insurance? If you've changed your mind, that's great!


----------



## BlackSand

PMZ said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> All means of welfare are the cost of failure.  Failure of families,  of schools,  of culture,  of *business to provide well paying jobs.* Countries don't achieve less welfare just by cutting it back.  That inevitably exasperates every cause of failure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You were doing okay right up to the part in bold above.
> Here is a link to a website that lists 1000 current openings for positions that pay more than 100k a year ... *And it is just one website.*
> 
> 100k Jobs, Employment | Indeed.com
> 
> *Edit:*
> Businesses do offer well paying jobs ... And for the most part, the other three reasons are why they cannot find employees to fill them.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You make it sound like businesses here don't benefit from a healthy economy.  How weird is that?  They want poor workers and wealthy customers,  and they're the same people! In other words they want to benefit from other employers being smarter than they.
> 
> And then they want to blame their mess on government.
> 
> And you people fall for it every time.  Yikes!
Click to expand...


*I provided you with the link to real jobs ...  That pay dang good salaries ... Over a thousand of them that are current and just one website.*

They are all empty ... And it isn't because they cannot find cheap employees.
It is because they don't teach people how to think in school anymore ... They teach them what to think, and a social agenda ... While that kind of thinking isn't innovative, and doesn't produce acceptable results.
It is because society excuses people's failures ... Doesn't expect people to excel anymore ... Makes it easier on people who put out minimal effort.
The ACA, the minimum wage ... And all the other garbage the Progressive Liberals promote now is in lieu of the fact that Democrats can no longer get away with straight over the counter handouts.

*They have to find another way to keep supporting their voter base on the backs of the successful ... And when they cannot tax businesses any further to give away money to their voters ... They will still put it in their hand with minimum wage.*

If anyone is fooling themselves ... it is you.
You cannot argue with the open jobs that pay far more than minimum wage ... And the absence of warm bodies to fill them.
You and your kind are failing your fellow citizens ... And nine times out of ten it is under the guise of attempting to help them.

.


----------



## PMZ

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nah.. I didn't say anything like that. I'm not the one shilling for insurance companies.
> 
> You just seem awfully selective in which 'irresponsible' people you're willing to subsidize. You don't seem to have a problem with picking up the slack for employers who aren't paying their employees a 'living wage', yet you want to bully middle class working folks into sucking insurance industry cock to keep your premiums down. I'm beginning to think you might have a lot of stock in Wellpoint or something. Is your name Liz Fowler?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "you want to bully middle class working folks into sucking insurance industry cock to keep your premiums down."
> 
> That's quite a bit different than what I said.  I said that I want them to pay for their own health care.  To be personally responsible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you don't. You want to force them to buy health insurance.
Click to expand...


Here's the deal.  You talk for you.  I talk for me.


----------



## PMZ

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you don't. You want to force them to buy health insurance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you keep trying to speak for me?
> 
> I said that I expect them to pay for their own health care!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you no longer claiming that as justification for forcing them to buy health insurance? If you've changed your mind, that's great!
Click to expand...


You are a bizarre thinker.


----------



## PMZ

BlackSand said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> You were doing okay right up to the part in bold above.
> Here is a link to a website that lists 1000 current openings for positions that pay more than 100k a year ... *And it is just one website.*
> 
> 100k Jobs, Employment | Indeed.com
> 
> *Edit:*
> Businesses do offer well paying jobs ... And for the most part, the other three reasons are why they cannot find employees to fill them.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You make it sound like businesses here don't benefit from a healthy economy.  How weird is that?  They want poor workers and wealthy customers,  and they're the same people! In other words they want to benefit from other employers being smarter than they.
> 
> And then they want to blame their mess on government.
> 
> And you people fall for it every time.  Yikes!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *I provided you with the link to real jobs ...  That pay dang good salaries ... Over a thousand of them that are current and just one website.*
> 
> They are all empty ... And it isn't because they cannot find cheap employees.
> It is because they don't teach people how to think in school anymore ... They teach them what to think, and a social agenda ... While that kind of thinking isn't innovative, and doesn't produce acceptable results.
> It is because society excuses people's failures ... Doesn't expect people to excel anymore ... Makes it easier on people who put out minimal effort.
> The ACA, the minimum wage ... And all the other garbage the Progressive Liberals promote now is in lieu of the fact that Democrats can no longer get away with straight over the counter handouts.
> 
> *They have to find another way to keep supporting their voter base on the backs of the successful ... And when they cannot tax businesses any further to give away money to their voters ... They will still put it in their hand with minimum wage.*
> 
> If anyone is fooling themselves ... it is you.
> You cannot argue with the open jobs that pay far more than minimum wage ... And the absence of warm bodies to fill them.
> You and your kind are failing your fellow citizens ... And nine times out of ten it is under the guise of attempting to help them.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


"It is because they don't teach people how to think in school anymore ... They teach them what to think, and a social agenda ... While that kind of thinking isn't innovative, and doesn't produce acceptable results."

Certainly you are a classic example of what you claim.  

The essence of conservatism is,  when faced with a problem or opportunity,  do nothing.  Unless you can find a way to do less.  Than do that. 

There is no creativity required to do that.  There is only that one rule of thumb. Don't go near problems,  you'll just make them worst. 

Don't invest in anything because there is always risk.  If you take a risk you will always lose. 

If you have a chance,  take. Take as much and as long as you can. Take from whoever you can. 

There is no tomorrow,  only today. 

Most importantly,  don't think for yourself.  Stay in line.  Goose step just like the guy on your right,  just like the guy on your left. 

America flirted with conservatism.  We lost big time.  Most of us learned.  Some of us can't. Those are the conservatives who never learned to learn.


----------



## dblack

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you keep trying to speak for me?
> 
> I said that I expect them to pay for their own health care!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you no longer claiming that as justification for forcing them to buy health insurance? If you've changed your mind, that's great!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a bizarre thinker.
Click to expand...


No, you're being deliberately evasive and I'm mocking you for it. Sorry. You're trying to pretend that you support the individual mandate to promote 'responsibility', which I've shown to be hypocritical nonsense. You want to force others to buy insurance to keep your premiums down. Others defending ACA are at least honest enough to admit that.


----------



## skookerasbil

The whole Ponzi scheme is collapsing..........and Im laughing!!!


----------



## skookerasbil

PMZ said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You make it sound like businesses here don't benefit from a healthy economy.  How weird is that?  They want poor workers and wealthy customers,  and they're the same people! In other words they want to benefit from other employers being smarter than they.
> 
> And then they want to blame their mess on government.
> 
> And you people fall for it every time.  Yikes!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I provided you with the link to real jobs ...  That pay dang good salaries ... Over a thousand of them that are current and just one website.*
> 
> They are all empty ... And it isn't because they cannot find cheap employees.
> It is because they don't teach people how to think in school anymore ... They teach them what to think, and a social agenda ... While that kind of thinking isn't innovative, and doesn't produce acceptable results.
> It is because society excuses people's failures ... Doesn't expect people to excel anymore ... Makes it easier on people who put out minimal effort.
> The ACA, the minimum wage ... And all the other garbage the Progressive Liberals promote now is in lieu of the fact that Democrats can no longer get away with straight over the counter handouts.
> 
> *They have to find another way to keep supporting their voter base on the backs of the successful ... And when they cannot tax businesses any further to give away money to their voters ... They will still put it in their hand with minimum wage.*
> 
> If anyone is fooling themselves ... it is you.
> You cannot argue with the open jobs that pay far more than minimum wage ... And the absence of warm bodies to fill them.
> You and your kind are failing your fellow citizens ... And nine times out of ten it is under the guise of attempting to help them.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "It is because they don't teach people how to think in school anymore ... They teach them what to think, and a social agenda ... While that kind of thinking isn't innovative, and doesn't produce acceptable results."
> 
> Certainly you are a classic example of what you claim.
> 
> The essence of conservatism is,  when faced with a problem or opportunity,  do nothing.  Unless you can find a way to do less.  Than do that.
> 
> There is no creativity required to do that.  There is only that one rule of thumb. Don't go near problems,  you'll just make them worst.
> 
> Don't invest in anything because there is always risk.  If you take a risk you will always lose.
> 
> If you have a chance,  take. Take as much and as long as you can. Take from whoever you can.
> 
> There is no tomorrow,  only today.
> 
> Most importantly,  don't think for yourself.  Stay in line.  Goose step just like the guy on your right,  just like the guy on your left.
> 
> America flirted with conservatism.  We lost big time.  Most of us learned.  Some of us can't. Those are the conservatives who never learned to learn.
Click to expand...



Oh......ok......


----------



## BlackSand

PMZ said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You make it sound like businesses here don't benefit from a healthy economy.  How weird is that?  They want poor workers and wealthy customers,  and they're the same people! In other words they want to benefit from other employers being smarter than they.
> 
> And then they want to blame their mess on government.
> 
> And you people fall for it every time.  Yikes!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I provided you with the link to real jobs ...  That pay dang good salaries ... Over a thousand of them that are current and just one website.*
> 
> They are all empty ... And it isn't because they cannot find cheap employees.
> It is because they don't teach people how to think in school anymore ... They teach them what to think, and a social agenda ... While that kind of thinking isn't innovative, and doesn't produce acceptable results.
> It is because society excuses people's failures ... Doesn't expect people to excel anymore ... Makes it easier on people who put out minimal effort.
> The ACA, the minimum wage ... And all the other garbage the Progressive Liberals promote now is in lieu of the fact that Democrats can no longer get away with straight over the counter handouts.
> 
> *They have to find another way to keep supporting their voter base on the backs of the successful ... And when they cannot tax businesses any further to give away money to their voters ... They will still put it in their hand with minimum wage.*
> 
> If anyone is fooling themselves ... it is you.
> You cannot argue with the open jobs that pay far more than minimum wage ... And the absence of warm bodies to fill them.
> You and your kind are failing your fellow citizens ... And nine times out of ten it is under the guise of attempting to help them.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "It is because they don't teach people how to think in school anymore ... They teach them what to think, and a social agenda ... While that kind of thinking isn't innovative, and doesn't produce acceptable results."
> 
> Certainly you are a classic example of what you claim.
> 
> The essence of conservatism is,  when faced with a problem or opportunity,  do nothing.  Unless you can find a way to do less.  Than do that.
> 
> There is no creativity required to do that.  There is only that one rule of thumb. Don't go near problems,  you'll just make them worst.
> 
> Don't invest in anything because there is always risk.  If you take a risk you will always lose.
> 
> If you have a chance,  take. Take as much and as long as you can. Take from whoever you can.
> 
> There is no tomorrow,  only today.
> 
> Most importantly,  don't think for yourself.  Stay in line.  Goose step just like the guy on your right,  just like the guy on your left.
> 
> America flirted with conservatism.  We lost big time.  Most of us learned.  Some of us can't. Those are the conservatives who never learned to learn.
Click to expand...


*So in other words ... You don't really disagree with anything I said ... Other than the difference in what the two of us believe is productive thinking.*

In the business world where innovation is key ... It doesn't have anything to do with Socialism versus Conservatism.
That is why there are empty jobs that pay so much money ... And you are silly enough to talk about people not earning a decent wage.

*If what you offered them was what they needed to succeed ... Then we wouldn't be having this discussion ... And I am not surprised you cannot understand that.*

.


----------



## PMZ

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you no longer claiming that as justification for forcing them to buy health insurance? If you've changed your mind, that's great!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are a bizarre thinker.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you're being deliberately evasive and I'm mocking you for it. Sorry. You're trying to pretend that you support the individual mandate to promote 'responsibility', which I've shown to be hypocritical nonsense. You want to force others to buy insurance to keep your premiums down. Others defending ACA are at least honest enough to admit that.
Click to expand...


You've shown nothing except confusion.  Hypocritical nonsense is not wanting to pay for other people's health care but not wanted to prevent it. 

Also preaching that avoiding responsibility is the same as assuming it.


----------



## PMZ

BlackSand said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I provided you with the link to real jobs ...  That pay dang good salaries ... Over a thousand of them that are current and just one website.*
> 
> They are all empty ... And it isn't because they cannot find cheap employees.
> It is because they don't teach people how to think in school anymore ... They teach them what to think, and a social agenda ... While that kind of thinking isn't innovative, and doesn't produce acceptable results.
> It is because society excuses people's failures ... Doesn't expect people to excel anymore ... Makes it easier on people who put out minimal effort.
> The ACA, the minimum wage ... And all the other garbage the Progressive Liberals promote now is in lieu of the fact that Democrats can no longer get away with straight over the counter handouts.
> 
> *They have to find another way to keep supporting their voter base on the backs of the successful ... And when they cannot tax businesses any further to give away money to their voters ... They will still put it in their hand with minimum wage.*
> 
> If anyone is fooling themselves ... it is you.
> You cannot argue with the open jobs that pay far more than minimum wage ... And the absence of warm bodies to fill them.
> You and your kind are failing your fellow citizens ... And nine times out of ten it is under the guise of attempting to help them.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "It is because they don't teach people how to think in school anymore ... They teach them what to think, and a social agenda ... While that kind of thinking isn't innovative, and doesn't produce acceptable results."
> 
> Certainly you are a classic example of what you claim.
> 
> The essence of conservatism is,  when faced with a problem or opportunity,  do nothing.  Unless you can find a way to do less.  Than do that.
> 
> There is no creativity required to do that.  There is only that one rule of thumb. Don't go near problems,  you'll just make them worst.
> 
> Don't invest in anything because there is always risk.  If you take a risk you will always lose.
> 
> If you have a chance,  take. Take as much and as long as you can. Take from whoever you can.
> 
> There is no tomorrow,  only today.
> 
> Most importantly,  don't think for yourself.  Stay in line.  Goose step just like the guy on your right,  just like the guy on your left.
> 
> America flirted with conservatism.  We lost big time.  Most of us learned.  Some of us can't. Those are the conservatives who never learned to learn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *So in other words ... You don't really disagree with anything I said ... Other than the difference in what the two of us believe is productive thinking.*
> 
> In the business world where innovation is key ... It doesn't have anything to do with Socialism versus Conservatism.
> That is why there are empty jobs that pay so much money ... And you are silly enough to talk about people not earning a decent wage.
> 
> *If what you offered them was what they needed to succeed ... Then we wouldn't be having this discussion ... And I am not surprised you cannot understand that.*
> 
> .
Click to expand...


You are very confused.  There are jobs that can be done by people with relatively little education and minimal skills.  In other words,  people who apply for them are not in a good position to negotiate.  Businesses could pay them a wage that allows them to pay for the cost of their minimal lives,  but chooses not to.  The consequences of that are higher taxes. 

At the other end of the spectrum are highly specialized jobs where the demand exceeds the supply of qualified people. Under those circumstances there will always be jobs unfilled. 

Those are not the same populations.  The two problems are unrelated.


----------



## BlackSand

PMZ said:


> You are very confused.  There are jobs that can be done by people with relatively little education and minimal skills.  In other words,  people who apply for them are not in a good position to negotiate.  Businesses could pay them a wage that allows them to pay for the cost of their minimal lives,  but chooses not to.  The consequences of that are higher taxes.
> 
> At the other end of the spectrum are highly specialized jobs where the demand exceeds the supply of qualified people. Under those circumstances there will always be jobs unfilled.
> 
> Those are not the same populations.  The two problems are unrelated.



*I am not confused at all.*

The problem with your assessment is that you think it is satisfactory to leave the people in the lower group ... Without giving them the incentive, initiative or tools to get to the upper group.
Your plan, and inability to facilitate that transfer is what puts the tax burden on all of us ... Not my desire to see everyone do better and become more productive.

*Just because you have given up on the fools you have generated ... Doesn't mean that I have to discard them so easily ... And If they listened to me, they wouldn't need anything from you.*

.


----------



## PMZ

BlackSand said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are very confused.  There are jobs that can be done by people with relatively little education and minimal skills.  In other words,  people who apply for them are not in a good position to negotiate.  Businesses could pay them a wage that allows them to pay for the cost of their minimal lives,  but chooses not to.  The consequences of that are higher taxes.
> 
> At the other end of the spectrum are highly specialized jobs where the demand exceeds the supply of qualified people. Under those circumstances there will always be jobs unfilled.
> 
> Those are not the same populations.  The two problems are unrelated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I am not confused at all.*
> 
> The problem with your assessment is that you think it is satisfactory to leave the people in the lower group ... Without giving them the incentive, initiative or tools to get to the upper group.
> Your plan, and inability to facilitate that transfer is what puts the tax burden on all of us ... Not my desire to see everyone do better and become more productive.
> 
> *Just because you have given up on the fools you have generated ... Doesn't mean that I have to discard them so easily ... And If they listened to me, they wouldn't need anything from you.*
> 
> .
Click to expand...


So by your assessment,  the less that business pays entry level workers,  and therefore the more welfare they need,  the more motivated they will be because of the attractive salaries of jobs that they're not qualified for. 

I don't think so.


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> The essence of conservatism is,  when faced with a problem or opportunity,  do nothing.  Unless you can find a way to do less.  Than do that.



Sadly, the essence of liberalism is: feign a problem. See a problem where no problem actually exists. Lie to create problems. And do all of it so you can force someone else to pay your way through life. You first statement right here is a prime example. You completely and knowningly lie about conservatism. That's to create a problem. You want to create the problem that conservatism is a problem.

The essence of conservatism is: if you have a problem, solve it yourself. The government does not exist because you are too lazy to do for yourself.



PMZ said:


> There is no creativity required to do that.  There is only that one rule of thumb. Don't go near problems,  you'll just make them worst.



Why do you want creativity for the sake of creativity? Furthermore, history has proven that government (especially under Dumbocrats) has made everything exponentially worse. $17 trillion son - enough said!



PMZ said:


> Don't invest in anything because there is always risk.  If you take a risk you will always lose.



Actually, conservatives are the king of investing. The difference is, they invest (ie take risk) with their money. While parasites like you want to invest (ie take risk) with _other_ people's money. You want to take my money and then risk it. Sorry, just proves what an idiot you are. If you want to take risk and invest - do it with YOUR own money.



PMZ said:


> If you have a chance,  take. Take as much and as long as you can. Take from whoever you can.



Yes. That's called competition. The objective is to win. To win within the rules. But to win. You can't understand that being a parasite of the participation trophy mentality.



PMZ said:


> Most importantly,  don't think for yourself.  Stay in line.  Goose step just like the guy on your right,  just like the guy on your left.



You're projecting again PMZ. Everything you just said is the foundation of the liberal ideology. You've proven over and over on this thread alone that you do not think for yourself. You've literally been drowned in overwhelming evidence that Obamcare has been an unmitigated disaster. You just keep goose-stepping while toeing the party line. Remember, Adolf Hitler was left-wing oppressive socialist/stateist. It was your side that created goose-stepping. You can't blame that on conservatives no matter how hard you want to rewrite history.



PMZ said:


> America flirted with conservatism.  We lost big time.  Most of us learned.  Some of us can't. Those are the conservatives who never learned to learn.



Ding! Ding! Ding! Winner-Winner-Chicken-Dinner! You just summed it all up accurately for the first time! American "flirted" with conservatism and we lost big time, because instead of going with the ONLY proven ideology that works (conservatism), we flirted with it while serving the people large doses of the failed ideology known as liberalism.

Here's the bottom line PMZ - your entire ideology has been a spectacular failure worldwide. A 100% failure rate. Socialism failed in Greece and collapsed it. Socialism failed in the U.S.S.R. and collapsed it. Socialism failed in Cuba and collapsed it. Socialism failed in Cambodia and collapsed it.

The truth is - you know it's a failed ideology and you know it will collapse the United States ($17 trillion in debt). But you don't care for two reasons. One, you're a hateful, spiteful, envious little man who wants everyone dragged down to your miserable level. Two, you would rather have the U.S. collapse while your fellow citizens are forced to pay for you than see the U.S. flourish and have to work and provide for yourself.


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> There are jobs that can be done by people with relatively little education and minimal skills.  In other words,  people who apply for them are not in a good position to negotiate.



So who's fault is that PMZ? People with "minimal skills" have no one to blame but themselves. This is still the land of endless opportunity (even if you libtard Dumbocrats are trying to end that). If someone doesn't have the skill set they need, it's because they chose to spend their life getting high (like you) and expecting that someone else would pay their way (like you).

Education in this country through high school is not only FREE, it is MANDATORY. With that high school diploma, no matter how destitute you are, you can get an entry level job with any corporation in America and go to college at the expense of the company. A FREE college education as well. And then there are libraries filled with volumes of information for any profession in the world which are FREE as well. And then, even more jaw dropping that libraries, is the endless volumes of FREE information on the internet for any profession in the world as well.

Game. Set. Match. You _lose_...


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> You are very confused.  There are jobs that can be done by people with relatively little education and minimal skills.  In other words,  people who apply for them are not in a good position to negotiate.  Businesses could pay them a wage that allows them to pay for the cost of their minimal lives,  but chooses not to.  The consequences of that are higher taxes.



PMZ displaying his extraordinary ignorance once again. Businesses paying low wages has not lead to higher taxes. Dumbocrat higher taxes has lead to businesses paying lower wages.

Dumbocrats have made it so that it's nearly impossibly for a business to stay in business. And that's exactly what the Dumbocrats want. To punish business owners for their success.

In their infinite stupidity though, they fail to realize that successful people are successful because they know how to meet challenges and over come adversity. So business owners see they are not welcomed in the U.S. and they ship jobs overseas to nations that do welcome them. As always, the result is the American people pay the ultimate price for Dumbocrat policy - poverty, failure, and misery. It always ends the same with the left.


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> The essence of conservatism is,  when faced with a problem or opportunity,  do nothing.  Unless you can find a way to do less.  Than do that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sadly, the essence of liberalism is: feign a problem. See a problem where no problem actually exists. Lie to create problems. And do all of it so you can force someone else to pay your way through life. You first statement right here is a prime example. You completely and knowningly lie about conservatism. That's to create a problem. You want to create the problem that conservatism is a problem.
> 
> The essence of conservatism is: if you have a problem, solve it yourself. The government does not exist because you are too lazy to do for yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no creativity required to do that.  There is only that one rule of thumb. Don't go near problems,  you'll just make them worst.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you want creativity for the sake of creativity? Furthermore, history has proven that government (especially under Dumbocrats) has made everything exponentially worse. $17 trillion son - enough said!
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, conservatives are the king of investing. The difference is, they invest (ie take risk) with their money. While parasites like you want to invest (ie take risk) with _other_ people's money. You want to take my money and then risk it. Sorry, just proves what an idiot you are. If you want to take risk and invest - do it with YOUR own money.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. That's called competition. The objective is to win. To win within the rules. But to win. You can't understand that being a parasite of the participation trophy mentality.
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most importantly,  don't think for yourself.  Stay in line.  Goose step just like the guy on your right,  just like the guy on your left.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're projecting again PMZ. Everything you just said is the foundation of the liberal ideology. You've proven over and over on this thread alone that you do not think for yourself. You've literally been drowned in overwhelming evidence that Obamcare has been an unmitigated disaster. You just keep goose-stepping while toeing the party line. Remember, Adolf Hitler was left-wing oppressive socialist/stateist. It was your side that created goose-stepping. You can't blame that on conservatives no matter how hard you want to rewrite history.
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> America flirted with conservatism.  We lost big time.  Most of us learned.  Some of us can't. Those are the conservatives who never learned to learn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ding! Ding! Ding! Winner-Winner-Chicken-Dinner! You just summed it all up accurately for the first time! American "flirted" with conservatism and we lost big time, because instead of going with the ONLY proven ideology that works (conservatism), we flirted with it while serving the people large doses of the failed ideology known as liberalism.
> 
> Here's the bottom line PMZ - your entire ideology has been a spectacular failure worldwide. A 100% failure rate. Socialism failed in Greece and collapsed it. Socialism failed in the U.S.S.R. and collapsed it. Socialism failed in Cuba and collapsed it. Socialism failed in Cambodia and collapsed it.
> 
> The truth is - you know it's a failed ideology and you know it will collapse the United States ($17 trillion in debt). But you don't care for two reasons. One, you're a hateful, spiteful, envious little man who wants everyone dragged down to your miserable level. Two, you would rather have the U.S. collapse while your fellow citizens are forced to pay for you than see the U.S. flourish and have to work and provide for yourself.
Click to expand...


So  if 300,000,000 have a problem,  you expect 300,000,000 different solutions. Bizarre. 

"One, you're a hateful, spiteful, envious little man who wants everyone dragged down to your miserable level. Two, you would rather have the U.S. collapse while your fellow citizens are forced to pay for you than see the U.S. flourish and have to work and provide for yourself."

The essence of propaganda.  Scapegoating.


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> There are jobs that can be done by people with relatively little education and minimal skills.  In other words,  people who apply for them are not in a good position to negotiate.  Businesses could pay them a wage that allows them to pay for the cost of their minimal lives,  but chooses not to.  The consequences of that are higher taxes.



Perhaps you could clarify this statement? How/Why are the wages paid by business directly connected to taxes and what makes that connection increase the taxes instead of decreasing the taxes?


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are jobs that can be done by people with relatively little education and minimal skills.  In other words,  people who apply for them are not in a good position to negotiate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So who's fault is that PMZ? People with "minimal skills" have no one to blame but themselves. This is still the land of endless opportunity (even if you libtard Dumbocrats are trying to end that). If someone doesn't have the skill set they need, it's because they chose to spend their life getting high (like you) and expecting that someone else would pay their way (like you).
> 
> Education in this country through high school is not only FREE, it is MANDATORY. With that high school diploma, no matter how destitute you are, you can get an entry level job with any corporation in America and go to college at the expense of the company. A FREE college education as well. And then there are libraries filled with volumes of information for any profession in the world which are FREE as well. And then, even more jaw dropping that libraries, is the endless volumes of FREE information on the internet for any profession in the world as well.
> 
> Game. Set. Match. You _lose_...
Click to expand...


Another conservative myth.  There is no unemployment.  

Let me ask,  how come you're not wealthier than Bill Gates?  You just too lazy?


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> The essence of conservatism is,  when faced with a problem or opportunity,  do nothing.  Unless you can find a way to do less.  Than do that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sadly, the essence of liberalism is: feign a problem. See a problem where no problem actually exists. Lie to create problems. And do all of it so you can force someone else to pay your way through life. You first statement right here is a prime example. You completely and knowningly lie about conservatism. That's to create a problem. You want to create the problem that conservatism is a problem.
> 
> The essence of conservatism is: if you have a problem, solve it yourself. The government does not exist because you are too lazy to do for yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no creativity required to do that.  There is only that one rule of thumb. Don't go near problems,  you'll just make them worst.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you want creativity for the sake of creativity? Furthermore, history has proven that government (especially under Dumbocrats) has made everything exponentially worse. $17 trillion son - enough said!
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, conservatives are the king of investing. The difference is, they invest (ie take risk) with their money. While parasites like you want to invest (ie take risk) with _other_ people's money. You want to take my money and then risk it. Sorry, just proves what an idiot you are. If you want to take risk and invest - do it with YOUR own money.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. That's called competition. The objective is to win. To win within the rules. But to win. You can't understand that being a parasite of the participation trophy mentality.
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most importantly,  don't think for yourself.  Stay in line.  Goose step just like the guy on your right,  just like the guy on your left.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're projecting again PMZ. Everything you just said is the foundation of the liberal ideology. You've proven over and over on this thread alone that you do not think for yourself. You've literally been drowned in overwhelming evidence that Obamcare has been an unmitigated disaster. You just keep goose-stepping while toeing the party line. Remember, Adolf Hitler was left-wing oppressive socialist/stateist. It was your side that created goose-stepping. You can't blame that on conservatives no matter how hard you want to rewrite history.
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> America flirted with conservatism.  We lost big time.  Most of us learned.  Some of us can't. Those are the conservatives who never learned to learn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ding! Ding! Ding! Winner-Winner-Chicken-Dinner! You just summed it all up accurately for the first time! American "flirted" with conservatism and we lost big time, because instead of going with the ONLY proven ideology that works (conservatism), we flirted with it while serving the people large doses of the failed ideology known as liberalism.
> 
> Here's the bottom line PMZ - your entire ideology has been a spectacular failure worldwide. A 100% failure rate. Socialism failed in Greece and collapsed it. Socialism failed in the U.S.S.R. and collapsed it. Socialism failed in Cuba and collapsed it. Socialism failed in Cambodia and collapsed it.
> 
> The truth is - you know it's a failed ideology and you know it will collapse the United States ($17 trillion in debt). But you don't care for two reasons. One, you're a hateful, spiteful, envious little man who wants everyone dragged down to your miserable level. Two, you would rather have the U.S. collapse while your fellow citizens are forced to pay for you than see the U.S. flourish and have to work and provide for yourself.
Click to expand...


No question.  Delusion of the year.  If you elect people that drag your country to the lowest point that it's ever been,  and they do that in only eight years,  elect them again. 

This passes for intelligence in the conservative cult.


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> There are jobs that can be done by people with relatively little education and minimal skills.  In other words,  people who apply for them are not in a good position to negotiate.  *Businesses could pay them a wage that allows them to pay for the cost of their minimal lives*,  but chooses not to.  The consequences of that are higher taxes.



In the history of this nation  [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION], there has *never* been a single business that didn't pay a "living wage". Never. It has _never_ happened.

The problem comes in the parasite (such as you) definition of "living wage". You believe you are entitled to a $700 iPhone, a $700 iPad, and $3,000 plasma tv, a $65,000 BMW, and a $400,000 home, among other things because you've seen other people with them. What you haven't seen is the work they had to put in to achieve those things.

If you weren't so greedy and lazy, you would realize that the lowest minimum wage job at McDonald's provides more than enough "living wage" in America. And it comes with tremendous perks such as college tuition to better yourself and become whatever you want to become. But a McDonald's minimum wage requires that you forgo the iPhone, the iPad, the plasma tv, the BMW, and the large home for paying your necessities such as food, health insurance, and utilities.

In summary - you want to put in the effort and hours of a minimum wage worker, live like a skilled and hard working executive, and have your fellow tax payer pick up the large gap left over.


----------



## RKMBrown

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are jobs that can be done by people with relatively little education and minimal skills.  In other words,  people who apply for them are not in a good position to negotiate.  *Businesses could pay them a wage that allows them to pay for the cost of their minimal lives*,  but chooses not to.  The consequences of that are higher taxes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the history of this nation  [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION], there has *never* been a single business that didn't pay a "living wage". Never. It has _never_ happened.
> 
> The problem comes in the parasite (such as you) definition of "living wage". You believe you are entitled to a $700 iPhone, a $700 iPad, and $3,000 plasma tv, a $65,000 BMW, and a $400,000 home, among other things because you've seen other people with them. What you haven't seen is the work they had to put in to achieve those things.
> 
> If you weren't so greedy and lazy, you would realize that the lowest minimum wage job at McDonald's provides more than enough "living wage" in America. And it comes with tremendous perks such as college tuition to better yourself and become whatever you want to become. But a McDonald's minimum wage requires that you forgo the iPhone, the iPad, the plasma tv, the BMW, and the large home for paying your necessities such as food, health insurance, and utilities.
> 
> In summary - you want to put in the effort and hours of a minimum wage worker, live like a skilled and hard working executive, and have your fellow tax payer pick up the large gap left over.
Click to expand...


Never is a long time.  The problem is the folks were are required to read Grapes of Wrath in HS.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are jobs that can be done by people with relatively little education and minimal skills.  In other words,  people who apply for them are not in a good position to negotiate.  *Businesses could pay them a wage that allows them to pay for the cost of their minimal lives*,  but chooses not to.  The consequences of that are higher taxes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the history of this nation  [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION], there has *never* been a single business that didn't pay a "living wage". Never. It has _never_ happened.
> 
> The problem comes in the parasite (such as you) definition of "living wage". You believe you are entitled to a $700 iPhone, a $700 iPad, and $3,000 plasma tv, a $65,000 BMW, and a $400,000 home, among other things because you've seen other people with them. What you haven't seen is the work they had to put in to achieve those things.
> 
> If you weren't so greedy and lazy, you would realize that the lowest minimum wage job at McDonald's provides more than enough "living wage" in America. And it comes with tremendous perks such as college tuition to better yourself and become whatever you want to become. But a McDonald's minimum wage requires that you forgo the iPhone, the iPad, the plasma tv, the BMW, and the large home for paying your necessities such as food, health insurance, and utilities.
> 
> In summary - you want to put in the effort and hours of a minimum wage worker, live like a skilled and hard working executive, and have your fellow tax payer pick up the large gap left over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Never is a long time.  The problem is the folks were are required to read Grapes of Wrath in HS.
Click to expand...


Yes.  If we employ censorship,  we will be free.


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are jobs that can be done by people with relatively little education and minimal skills.  In other words,  people who apply for them are not in a good position to negotiate.  *Businesses could pay them a wage that allows them to pay for the cost of their minimal lives*,  but chooses not to.  The consequences of that are higher taxes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the history of this nation  [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION], there has *never* been a single business that didn't pay a "living wage". Never. It has _never_ happened.
> 
> The problem comes in the parasite (such as you) definition of "living wage". You believe you are entitled to a $700 iPhone, a $700 iPad, and $3,000 plasma tv, a $65,000 BMW, and a $400,000 home, among other things because you've seen other people with them. What you haven't seen is the work they had to put in to achieve those things.
> 
> If you weren't so greedy and lazy, you would realize that the lowest minimum wage job at McDonald's provides more than enough "living wage" in America. And it comes with tremendous perks such as college tuition to better yourself and become whatever you want to become. But a McDonald's minimum wage requires that you forgo the iPhone, the iPad, the plasma tv, the BMW, and the large home for paying your necessities such as food, health insurance, and utilities.
> 
> In summary - you want to put in the effort and hours of a minimum wage worker, live like a skilled and hard working executive, and have your fellow tax payer pick up the large gap left over.
Click to expand...


How many years did you live on minimum wage without your parents support?


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the history of this nation  [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION], there has *never* been a single business that didn't pay a "living wage". Never. It has _never_ happened.
> 
> The problem comes in the parasite (such as you) definition of "living wage". You believe you are entitled to a $700 iPhone, a $700 iPad, and $3,000 plasma tv, a $65,000 BMW, and a $400,000 home, among other things because you've seen other people with them. What you haven't seen is the work they had to put in to achieve those things.
> 
> If you weren't so greedy and lazy, you would realize that the lowest minimum wage job at McDonald's provides more than enough "living wage" in America. And it comes with tremendous perks such as college tuition to better yourself and become whatever you want to become. But a McDonald's minimum wage requires that you forgo the iPhone, the iPad, the plasma tv, the BMW, and the large home for paying your necessities such as food, health insurance, and utilities.
> 
> In summary - you want to put in the effort and hours of a minimum wage worker, live like a skilled and hard working executive, and have your fellow tax payer pick up the large gap left over.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Never is a long time.  The problem is the folks were are required to read Grapes of Wrath in HS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.  If we employ censorship,  we will be free.
Click to expand...


The dust bowl was a long time ago.. my point wasn't to censor you idiot. My point was people romanticize about how government came in to save the day during the dustbowl. Hello!! The government created the dust bowl and the people helping out were the citizens of this country.


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are jobs that can be done by people with relatively little education and minimal skills.  In other words,  people who apply for them are not in a good position to negotiate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So who's fault is that PMZ? People with "minimal skills" have no one to blame but themselves. This is still the land of endless opportunity (even if you libtard Dumbocrats are trying to end that). If someone doesn't have the skill set they need, it's because they chose to spend their life getting high (like you) and expecting that someone else would pay their way (like you).
> 
> Education in this country through high school is not only FREE, it is MANDATORY. With that high school diploma, no matter how destitute you are, you can get an entry level job with any corporation in America and go to college at the expense of the company. A FREE college education as well. And then there are libraries filled with volumes of information for any profession in the world which are FREE as well. And then, even more jaw dropping that libraries, is the endless volumes of FREE information on the internet for any profession in the world as well.
> 
> Game. Set. Match. You _lose_...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another conservative myth.  There is no unemployment.
> 
> Let me ask,  how come you're not wealthier than Bill Gates?  You just too lazy?
Click to expand...


As a matter of fact....

While I wouldn't call it "lazy", I have made a conscious decision that my children, my family, and life in general are far more important than making a billion dollars and for that reason, I choose to not work the 18 hours per day necessary to become a billionaire.

Part of that is just my personality. Part of that is being highly educated. I read a book called "Win" by Frank Luntz. Allow me to educate you:

In my research on behalf of some of the worlds most successful entrepreneurs and paradigm breakers, I have interviewed dozens of people who at one time or another appeared on some elite list: the richest, the most powerful, the most influential. These are the captains of industry, Hollywood elite, sports celebritiesicons for all ages. They may have different pasts and different futures, but they all have one thing in commonone regret that no amount of money or power can change. In a word, its _family_. In five words, its _the lack of family time_:

I didnt see my kids grow. They werent a part of my life and I wasnt there for them, and theres nothing I can do now to fix what I didnt do then. *I have plenty of time to make money. I dont have any time to make memories*.

Excerpt From: Frank I. Luntz. Win. HarperCollins. iBooks. 
This material may be protected by copyright.

Check out this book on the iBooks Store: https://itunes.apple.com/us/book/win/id403254852?mt=11

See the bolded part above junior? While this was already my personality, that resonated with me strongly. I was - I am - and I will continue to be, dedicated to making memories with my children above and beyond all else. Including making unfathomable sums of money or saving the country from liberal parasites.

Any other questions?


----------



## asterism

PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are jobs that can be done by people with relatively little education and minimal skills.  In other words,  people who apply for them are not in a good position to negotiate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So who's fault is that PMZ? People with "minimal skills" have no one to blame but themselves. This is still the land of endless opportunity (even if you libtard Dumbocrats are trying to end that). If someone doesn't have the skill set they need, it's because they chose to spend their life getting high (like you) and expecting that someone else would pay their way (like you).
> 
> Education in this country through high school is not only FREE, it is MANDATORY. With that high school diploma, no matter how destitute you are, you can get an entry level job with any corporation in America and go to college at the expense of the company. A FREE college education as well. And then there are libraries filled with volumes of information for any profession in the world which are FREE as well. And then, even more jaw dropping that libraries, is the endless volumes of FREE information on the internet for any profession in the world as well.
> 
> Game. Set. Match. You _lose_...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another conservative myth.  There is no unemployment.
> 
> Let me ask,  how come you're not wealthier than Bill Gates?  You just too lazy?
Click to expand...


That's a false zero-sum gain argument.  Am I too lazy to be wealthier than Bill Gates?  Maybe.  However, I certainly never wanted to be unmarried at 39 and didn't want to have gray hair while still changing my own kids' diapers.  While I may have not won the same life's lottery as Gates, he took a chance when he dropped out of college to concentrate on Microsoft.  I've seen and have experienced many situations where that would be a very bad decision.

I don't need the billions to be happy where I am and that's what I love about free-market capitalism with proper government oversight - I can choose to cash out when I wish.


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are jobs that can be done by people with relatively little education and minimal skills.  In other words,  people who apply for them are not in a good position to negotiate.  *Businesses could pay them a wage that allows them to pay for the cost of their minimal lives*,  but chooses not to.  The consequences of that are higher taxes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the history of this nation  [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION], there has *never* been a single business that didn't pay a "living wage". Never. It has _never_ happened.
> 
> The problem comes in the parasite (such as you) definition of "living wage". You believe you are entitled to a $700 iPhone, a $700 iPad, and $3,000 plasma tv, a $65,000 BMW, and a $400,000 home, among other things because you've seen other people with them. What you haven't seen is the work they had to put in to achieve those things.
> 
> If you weren't so greedy and lazy, you would realize that the lowest minimum wage job at McDonald's provides more than enough "living wage" in America. And it comes with tremendous perks such as college tuition to better yourself and become whatever you want to become. But a McDonald's minimum wage requires that you forgo the iPhone, the iPad, the plasma tv, the BMW, and the large home for paying your necessities such as food, health insurance, and utilities.
> 
> In summary - you want to put in the effort and hours of a minimum wage worker, live like a skilled and hard working executive, and have your fellow tax payer pick up the large gap left over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many years did you live on minimum wage without your parents support?
Click to expand...


Truthfully? I never earned minimum wage. Even my first job was above minimum wage.

But you don't have to earn minimum wage to understand it anymore than you need to be smashed in the face with a baseball bat to understand that it would hurt very badly, would knock you unconscious, and would require medical attention. 

See, I can do math. $7.25 (per hour) x 2080 (full time, 40 hours per week) = $15,080. That is with no over time. Bare minimum wage, bare minimum hours.

That's more than enough money to buy food, pay your rent, and pay your utilities. It's NOT enough money, however, to sport a $700 iPhone with a $100 per month service plan, drive a BMW, and buy that 70" HD from Best Buy. And that's what you believe you deserve, regardless of what you actually earn. That is the essence of the Dumbocrat mentality.


----------



## asterism

PMZ said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> "It is because they don't teach people how to think in school anymore ... They teach them what to think, and a social agenda ... While that kind of thinking isn't innovative, and doesn't produce acceptable results."
> 
> Certainly you are a classic example of what you claim.
> 
> The essence of conservatism is,  when faced with a problem or opportunity,  do nothing.  Unless you can find a way to do less.  Than do that.
> 
> There is no creativity required to do that.  There is only that one rule of thumb. Don't go near problems,  you'll just make them worst.
> 
> Don't invest in anything because there is always risk.  If you take a risk you will always lose.
> 
> If you have a chance,  take. Take as much and as long as you can. Take from whoever you can.
> 
> There is no tomorrow,  only today.
> 
> Most importantly,  don't think for yourself.  Stay in line.  Goose step just like the guy on your right,  just like the guy on your left.
> 
> America flirted with conservatism.  We lost big time.  Most of us learned.  Some of us can't. Those are the conservatives who never learned to learn.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *So in other words ... You don't really disagree with anything I said ... Other than the difference in what the two of us believe is productive thinking.*
> 
> In the business world where innovation is key ... It doesn't have anything to do with Socialism versus Conservatism.
> That is why there are empty jobs that pay so much money ... And you are silly enough to talk about people not earning a decent wage.
> 
> *If what you offered them was what they needed to succeed ... Then we wouldn't be having this discussion ... And I am not surprised you cannot understand that.*
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are very confused.  There are jobs that can be done by people with relatively little education and minimal skills.  In other words,  people who apply for them are not in a good position to negotiate.  Businesses could pay them a wage that allows them to pay for the cost of their minimal lives,  but chooses not to.  The consequences of that are higher taxes.
> 
> At the other end of the spectrum are highly specialized jobs where the demand exceeds the supply of qualified people. Under those circumstances there will always be jobs unfilled.
> 
> Those are not the same populations.  The two problems are unrelated.
Click to expand...


Sure they are.  If they don't want to do the job for the agreed upon wage, they don't have to take the job.  That's why McDonalds has signing bonuses for line workers and managers in North Dakota.


----------



## P@triot

asterism said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> So who's fault is that PMZ? People with "minimal skills" have no one to blame but themselves. This is still the land of endless opportunity (even if you libtard Dumbocrats are trying to end that). If someone doesn't have the skill set they need, it's because they chose to spend their life getting high (like you) and expecting that someone else would pay their way (like you).
> 
> Education in this country through high school is not only FREE, it is MANDATORY. With that high school diploma, no matter how destitute you are, you can get an entry level job with any corporation in America and go to college at the expense of the company. A FREE college education as well. And then there are libraries filled with volumes of information for any profession in the world which are FREE as well. And then, even more jaw dropping that libraries, is the endless volumes of FREE information on the internet for any profession in the world as well.
> 
> Game. Set. Match. You _lose_...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another conservative myth.  There is no unemployment.
> 
> Let me ask,  how come you're not wealthier than Bill Gates?  You just too lazy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a false zero-sum gain argument.  Am I too lazy to be wealthier than Bill Gates?  Maybe.  However, I certainly never wanted to be unmarried at 39 and didn't want to have gray hair while still changing my own kids' diapers.  While I may have not won the same life's lottery as Gates, he took a chance when he dropped out of college to concentrate on Microsoft.  I've seen and have experienced many situations where that would be a very bad decision.
> 
> I don't need the billions to be happy where I am and that's what I love about free-market capitalism with proper government oversight - I can *choose* to cash out when I wish.
Click to expand...


Shhh! That is a dirty word with liberals asterism. They don't like choice. They want you to be *forced* to goose-step (in unison) in the same direction.

It's why they say...


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> The essence of conservatism is,  when faced with a problem or opportunity,  do nothing.  Unless you can find a way to do less.  Than do that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sadly, the essence of liberalism is: feign a problem. See a problem where no problem actually exists. Lie to create problems. And do all of it so you can force someone else to pay your way through life. You first statement right here is a prime example. You completely and knowningly lie about conservatism. That's to create a problem. You want to create the problem that conservatism is a problem.
> 
> The essence of conservatism is: if you have a problem, solve it yourself. The government does not exist because you are too lazy to do for yourself.
> 
> 
> Why do you want creativity for the sake of creativity? Furthermore, history has proven that government (especially under Dumbocrats) has made everything exponentially worse. $17 trillion son - enough said!
> 
> 
> Actually, conservatives are the king of investing. The difference is, they invest (ie take risk) with their money. While parasites like you want to invest (ie take risk) with _other_ people's money. You want to take my money and then risk it. Sorry, just proves what an idiot you are. If you want to take risk and invest - do it with YOUR own money.
> 
> 
> Yes. That's called competition. The objective is to win. To win within the rules. But to win. You can't understand that being a parasite of the participation trophy mentality.
> 
> 
> You're projecting again PMZ. Everything you just said is the foundation of the liberal ideology. You've proven over and over on this thread alone that you do not think for yourself. You've literally been drowned in overwhelming evidence that Obamcare has been an unmitigated disaster. You just keep goose-stepping while toeing the party line. Remember, Adolf Hitler was left-wing oppressive socialist/stateist. It was your side that created goose-stepping. You can't blame that on conservatives no matter how hard you want to rewrite history.
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> America flirted with conservatism.  We lost big time.  Most of us learned.  Some of us can't. Those are the conservatives who never learned to learn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ding! Ding! Ding! Winner-Winner-Chicken-Dinner! You just summed it all up accurately for the first time! American "flirted" with conservatism and we lost big time, because instead of going with the ONLY proven ideology that works (conservatism), we flirted with it while serving the people large doses of the failed ideology known as liberalism.
> 
> Here's the bottom line PMZ - your entire ideology has been a spectacular failure worldwide. A 100% failure rate. Socialism failed in Greece and collapsed it. Socialism failed in the U.S.S.R. and collapsed it. Socialism failed in Cuba and collapsed it. Socialism failed in Cambodia and collapsed it.
> 
> The truth is - you know it's a failed ideology and you know it will collapse the United States ($17 trillion in debt). But you don't care for two reasons. One, you're a hateful, spiteful, envious little man who wants everyone dragged down to your miserable level. Two, you would rather have the U.S. collapse while your fellow citizens are forced to pay for you than see the U.S. flourish and have to work and provide for yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No question.  Delusion of the year.  If you elect people that drag your country to the lowest point that it's ever been,  and they do that in only eight years,  elect them again.
> 
> This passes for intelligence in the conservative cult.
Click to expand...


In other words, you can't dispute a single thing I just said... 

But you were shockingly honest for once in your third sentence. The numbers do show that Obama has dragged this country down to it's second lowest point ever. And liberals - through fraud - did ensure he was elected again.


----------



## BlackSand

PMZ said:


> So by your assessment,  the less that business pays entry level workers,  and therefore the more welfare they need,  the more motivated they will be because of the attractive salaries of jobs that they're not qualified for.
> 
> I don't think so.



*I know you don't think so ... Because you are the one confused.*

Low wage earners are not on welfare and demanding more for cost of living ... As the result of entry level employment status.
Entry level workers are what you call 40 year olds with two children ... That have been working a minimum wage job all their lives ... And want more money for it.

*They aren't qualified for better jobs ... Because people like you keep making excuses for them to stay at the bottom ... And want to pay them more to keep them there.*

I mean face it ... You are a terrible person for doing that ... And not helping anyone.
But at the same time ... I don't expect you to understand or agree ... Because the education you received didn't give you the tools necessary to understand it.

.


----------



## PMZ

asterism said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> So who's fault is that PMZ? People with "minimal skills" have no one to blame but themselves. This is still the land of endless opportunity (even if you libtard Dumbocrats are trying to end that). If someone doesn't have the skill set they need, it's because they chose to spend their life getting high (like you) and expecting that someone else would pay their way (like you).
> 
> Education in this country through high school is not only FREE, it is MANDATORY. With that high school diploma, no matter how destitute you are, you can get an entry level job with any corporation in America and go to college at the expense of the company. A FREE college education as well. And then there are libraries filled with volumes of information for any profession in the world which are FREE as well. And then, even more jaw dropping that libraries, is the endless volumes of FREE information on the internet for any profession in the world as well.
> 
> Game. Set. Match. You _lose_...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another conservative myth.  There is no unemployment.
> 
> Let me ask,  how come you're not wealthier than Bill Gates?  You just too lazy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a false zero-sum gain argument.  Am I too lazy to be wealthier than Bill Gates?  Maybe.  However, I certainly never wanted to be unmarried at 39 and didn't want to have gray hair while still changing my own kids' diapers.  While I may have not won the same life's lottery as Gates, he took a chance when he dropped out of college to concentrate on Microsoft.  I've seen and have experienced many situations where that would be a very bad decision.
> 
> I don't need the billions to be happy where I am and that's what I love about free-market capitalism with proper government oversight - I can choose to cash out when I wish.
Click to expand...


You and I are at some level of detail for the same "free-market capitalism with proper government oversight".  I would add in markets in which effective competition can be maintained.


----------



## PMZ

BlackSand said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> So by your assessment,  the less that business pays entry level workers,  and therefore the more welfare they need,  the more motivated they will be because of the attractive salaries of jobs that they're not qualified for.
> 
> I don't think so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I know you don't think so ... Because you are the one confused.*
> 
> Low wage earners are not on welfare and demanding more for cost of living ... As the result of entry level employment status.
> Entry level workers are what you call 40 year olds with two children ... That have been working a minimum wage job all their lives ... And want more money for it.
> 
> *They aren't qualified for better jobs ... Because people like you keep making excuses for them to stay at the bottom ... And want to pay them more to keep them there.*
> 
> I mean face it ... You are a terrible person for doing that ... And not helping anyone.
> But at the same time ... I don't expect you to understand or agree ... Because the education you received didn't give you the tools necessary to understand it.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


You demonstrate the key conservative delusion that the only key to wealth is to work hard.  That's as compared to the liberal belief that life requires hard work from all responsible participants. 

And that what creates responsible participants are family,  friends,  and schools. 

And that combination,  like all things human,  has a certain failure rate. 

Conservatives,  who if nothing else are myopicly focused internally, believe that many things given are earned. 

Did you pick your family,  your schools,  your neighborhood,  your parents income,  your race,  your nationality,  your gender? 

If all of those things worked out for you be thankful,  not proud.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Never is a long time.  The problem is the folks were are required to read Grapes of Wrath in HS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  If we employ censorship,  we will be free.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The dust bowl was a long time ago.. my point wasn't to censor you idiot. My point was people romanticize about how government came in to save the day during the dustbowl. Hello!! The government created the dust bowl and the people helping out were the citizens of this country.
Click to expand...


I can't wait to hear how the government created the dust bowl!


----------



## BlackSand

PMZ said:


> You demonstrate the key conservative delusion that the only key to wealth is to work hard.  That's as compared to the liberal belief that life requires hard work from all responsible participants.
> 
> And that what creates responsible participants are family,  friends,  and schools.
> 
> And that combination,  like all things human,  has a certain failure rate.
> 
> Conservatives,  who if nothing else are myopicly focused internally, believe that many things given are earned.
> 
> Did you pick your family,  your schools,  your neighborhood,  your parents income,  your race,  your nationality,  your gender?
> 
> If all of those things worked out for you be thankful,  not proud.



*What you said only makes a difference to you ... Because of your desire to cling on to the idea that people like me don't understand failure.*

We all fail ... Some of us fail a lot ... myself included.
It is when, where and how you excuse that failure ... And stop insisting people learn from their mistakes and continue to press on ... That you fail the people who need you the most.
You turn your idea of safety net into a cradle ... You treat people like they are helpless children ... You neglect your responsibility to ensure that they get back up and accept the challenge do better themselves.

*Shame on you ... And it is a pity you don't know any better.*

.


----------



## PMZ

BlackSand said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You demonstrate the key conservative delusion that the only key to wealth is to work hard.  That's as compared to the liberal belief that life requires hard work from all responsible participants.
> 
> And that what creates responsible participants are family,  friends,  and schools.
> 
> And that combination,  like all things human,  has a certain failure rate.
> 
> Conservatives,  who if nothing else are myopicly focused internally, believe that many things given are earned.
> 
> Did you pick your family,  your schools,  your neighborhood,  your parents income,  your race,  your nationality,  your gender?
> 
> If all of those things worked out for you be thankful,  not proud.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *What you said only makes a difference to you ... Because of your desire to cling on to the idea that people like me don't understand failure.*
> 
> We all fail ... Some of us fail a lot ... myself included.
> It is when, where and how you excuse that failure ... And stop insisting people learn from their mistakes and continue to press on ... That you fail the people who need you the most.
> You turn your idea of safety net into a cradle ... You treat people like they are helpless children ... You neglect your responsibility to ensure that they get back up and accept the challenge do better themselves.
> 
> *Shame on you ... And it is a pity you don't know any better.*
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Actually what I'm about is solving problems.  The essence of conservatism is to ignore problems and see what happens. My experience with doing nothing is that it is extremely unreliable.  While some problems do go away,  most get worse. 

The most threatening problem that we have in America today is our extreme wealth inequality. Some is good,  but like in most things,  extreme is dysfunctional. 

Conservatives would like to ignore both the problem and the unmistakable trend towards worse. 

I think that we're much smarter than that.


----------



## BlackSand

PMZ said:


> Actually what I'm about is solving problems.  The essence of conservatism is to ignore problems and see what happens. My experience with doing nothing is that it is extremely unreliable.  While some problems do go away,  most get worse.
> 
> The most threatening problem that we have in America today is our extreme wealth inequality. Some is good,  but like in most things,  extreme is dysfunctional.
> 
> Conservatives would like to ignore both the problem and the unmistakable trend towards worse.
> 
> I think that we're much smarter than that.



How the hell is paying someone minimum wage going to ever make a significant dent in the wealth inequity equation?
How is telling someone they cannot achieve better results going to ever get them to a better place?

*Take a look at what you type ... And then talk about what is dysfunctional ... Decades of people like you and your outright neglect  ... Are exactly what has helped provide us with the gap.*

.


----------



## PMZ

BlackSand said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually what I'm about is solving problems.  The essence of conservatism is to ignore problems and see what happens. My experience with doing nothing is that it is extremely unreliable.  While some problems do go away,  most get worse.
> 
> The most threatening problem that we have in America today is our extreme wealth inequality. Some is good,  but like in most things,  extreme is dysfunctional.
> 
> Conservatives would like to ignore both the problem and the unmistakable trend towards worse.
> 
> I think that we're much smarter than that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How the hell is paying someone minimum wage going to ever make a significant dent in the wealth inequity equation?
> How is telling someone they cannot achieve better results going to ever get them to a better place?
> 
> *Take a look at what you type ... And then talk about what is dysfunctional ... Decades of people like you and your outright neglect  ... Are exactly what have provided us with the gap.*
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Employers who choose to pay minimum wage are choosing to push the rest of the cost of living off to taxpayers. 

Conservatives who talk about the fair or flat tax are campaigning to make our wealth inequality worse. 

Republicans who believe that our indebtedness is because of too much spending instead of not enough revenue do so to avoid accountability and in the belief that richer rich and poorer poor is a good thing despite all of the research that shows our extreme to be the root cause of many of our social ills. 

Like all complex problems there is not a single cause that brought us here or a single solution that will get us out.  

But solutions begin  from accepting a problem and that's what we have to do first.


----------



## BlackSand

PMZ said:


> Employers who choose to pay minimum wage are choosing to push the rest of the cost of living off to taxpayers.
> 
> Conservatives who talk about the fair or flat tax are campaigning to make our wealth inequality worse.
> 
> Republicans who believe that our indebtedness is because of too much spending instead of not enough revenue do so to avoid accountability and in the belief that richer rich and poorer poor is a good thing despite all of the research that shows our extreme to be the root cause of many of our social ills.
> 
> Like all complex problems there is not a single cause that brought us here or a single solution that will get us out.
> 
> But solutions begin  from accepting a problem and that's what we have to do first.



*I can go on the record in saying that of course there is not a single cause for wealth inequity ... And blame can be spread all over the place.*

There is no battle about whether or not it indicates a problem ... But that doesn't explain how you think paying someone minimum wage for a minimal job will ever make a difference.
I have pointed out several times to you in this thread where jobs that pay far more are available ... And would at least make a bigger dent in the separation.

*Telling people that they shouldn't make efforts to better provide for themselves is a greater threat to their prosperity than anything else.*

.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  If we employ censorship,  we will be free.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The dust bowl was a long time ago.. my point wasn't to censor you idiot. My point was people romanticize about how government came in to save the day during the dustbowl. Hello!! The government created the dust bowl and the people helping out were the citizens of this country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't wait to hear how the government created the dust bowl!
Click to expand...


The dust bowl was quite literally caused by a lack of regulation of the farming of prairie lands.  The farmers over produced wheat, the price fell through the floor, then the farmers left the land bare instead of replacing the bare dirt with natural prairie grasses.  The result of this miss-management was the dust bowl.  Govco failed to do it's job.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> The dust bowl was a long time ago.. my point wasn't to censor you idiot. My point was people romanticize about how government came in to save the day during the dustbowl. Hello!! The government created the dust bowl and the people helping out were the citizens of this country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't wait to hear how the government created the dust bowl!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The dust bowl was quite literally caused by a lack of regulation of the farming of prairie lands.  The farmers over produced wheat, the price fell through the floor, then the farmers left the land bare instead of replacing the bare dirt with natural prairie grasses.  The result of this miss-management was the dust bowl.  Govco failed to do it's job.
Click to expand...


So,  the government, in your opinion, has the responsibility to prevent,  through regulations,  people from doing stupid,  irresponsible things.


----------



## PMZ

BlackSand said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Employers who choose to pay minimum wage are choosing to push the rest of the cost of living off to taxpayers.
> 
> Conservatives who talk about the fair or flat tax are campaigning to make our wealth inequality worse.
> 
> Republicans who believe that our indebtedness is because of too much spending instead of not enough revenue do so to avoid accountability and in the belief that richer rich and poorer poor is a good thing despite all of the research that shows our extreme to be the root cause of many of our social ills.
> 
> Like all complex problems there is not a single cause that brought us here or a single solution that will get us out.
> 
> But solutions begin  from accepting a problem and that's what we have to do first.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I can go on the record in saying that of course there is not a single cause for wealth inequity ... And blame can be spread all over the place.*
> 
> There is no battle about whether or not it indicates a problem ... But that doesn't explain how you think paying someone minimum wage for a minimal job will ever make a difference.
> I have pointed out several times to you in this thread where jobs that pay far more are available ... And would at least make a bigger dent in the separation.
> 
> *Telling people that they shouldn't make efforts to better provide for themselves is a greater threat to their prosperity than anything else.*
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Apparently,  you know people who don't realize that they should make efforts to better provide for themselves. 

I don't.


----------



## antiquity

&#8216;Let me get this straight &#8230; We&#8217;re going to be &#8220;gifted&#8221; with a health care plan we are forced to purchase and fined if we don&#8217;t. Which purportedly covers at least ten million more people, without adding a single new doctor, but provides for 16,000 new IRS agents, written by a committee whose chairman says he doesn&#8217;t understand it, passed by a Congress that didn&#8217;t read it, but exempted themselves from it, and signed by a President who smokes, with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn&#8217;t pay his taxes, for which we&#8217;ll be taxed for four years before any benefits take effect, by a government which has already bankrupted Social Security and Medicare, all to be overseen by a surgeon general who is obese, and financed by a country that&#8217;s broke!

What the Hell could possibly go wrong?&#8217;


----------



## PMZ

antiquity said:


> Let me get this straight  Were going to be gifted with a health care plan we are forced to purchase and fined if we dont. Which purportedly covers at least ten million more people, without adding a single new doctor, but provides for 16,000 new IRS agents, written by a committee whose chairman says he doesnt understand it, passed by a Congress that didnt read it, but exempted themselves from it, and signed by a President who smokes, with funding administered by a treasury chief who didnt pay his taxes, for which well be taxed for four years before any benefits take effect, by a government which has already bankrupted Social Security and Medicare, all to be overseen by a surgeon general who is obese, and financed by a country thats broke!
> 
> What the Hell could possibly go wrong?



This is an accurate recital of Fox Opinions propaganda as prepared by THE PARTY. 

As good a statement of the problem as I've seen.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't wait to hear how the government created the dust bowl!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The dust bowl was quite literally caused by a lack of regulation of the farming of prairie lands.  The farmers over produced wheat, the price fell through the floor, then the farmers left the land bare instead of replacing the bare dirt with natural prairie grasses.  The result of this miss-management was the dust bowl.  Govco failed to do it's job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So,  the government, in your opinion, has the responsibility to prevent,  through regulations,  people from doing stupid,  irresponsible things.
Click to expand...


Just as liberty does not include the liberty to murder people, preventing someone from causing damage to our country does not include preventing people from having liberty.  

Said another way, in my opinion, the government has the responsibility to prevent,  through regulations,  people from doing stupid irresponsible things that cause harm to other people.  For example, laws regulating use of the highway system.  As another example, mandating farmers put the land back to good condition after harvesting.  Still another example to the OP, mandating minimum requirements for physicians to be able to be licensed to practice.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> The dust bowl was quite literally caused by a lack of regulation of the farming of prairie lands.  The farmers over produced wheat, the price fell through the floor, then the farmers left the land bare instead of replacing the bare dirt with natural prairie grasses.  The result of this miss-management was the dust bowl.  Govco failed to do it's job.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So,  the government, in your opinion, has the responsibility to prevent,  through regulations,  people from doing stupid,  irresponsible things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just as liberty does not include the liberty to murder people, preventing someone from causing damage to our country does not include preventing people from having liberty.
> 
> Said another way, in my opinion, the government has the responsibility to prevent,  through regulations,  people from doing stupid irresponsible things that cause harm to other people.  For example, laws regulating use of the highway system.  As another example, mandating farmers put the land back to good condition after harvesting.  Still another example to the OP, mandating minimum requirements for physicians to be able to be licensed to practice.
Click to expand...


Liberty is an abstraction. Rights are defined as very specific areas of life that the government is prohibited from relating. 

"to prevent,  through regulations,  people from doing stupid irresponsible things that cause harm to other people."

The only word that I would eliminate is "stupid" because it's so subjective. 

None of the real threats to my pursuit of happiness come from the government.  They all come from other people. They are,  as near as I can tell,  all illegal.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> So,  the government, in your opinion, has the responsibility to prevent,  through regulations,  people from doing stupid,  irresponsible things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just as liberty does not include the liberty to murder people, preventing someone from causing damage to our country does not include preventing people from having liberty.
> 
> Said another way, in my opinion, the government has the responsibility to prevent,  through regulations,  people from doing stupid irresponsible things that cause harm to other people.  For example, laws regulating use of the highway system.  As another example, mandating farmers put the land back to good condition after harvesting.  Still another example to the OP, mandating minimum requirements for physicians to be able to be licensed to practice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Liberty is an abstraction. Rights are defined as very specific areas of life that the government is prohibited from relating.
> 
> "to prevent,  through regulations,  people from doing stupid irresponsible things that cause harm to other people."
> 
> The only word that I would eliminate is "stupid" because it's so subjective.
> 
> None of the real threats to my pursuit of happiness come from the government.  They all come from other people. They are,  as near as I can tell,  all illegal.
Click to expand...


The only reason I used the word stupid was to relate my statement to your statement where you used stupid 

>> None of the real threats to my pursuit of happiness come from the government.  They all come from other people. 

As there is no such person named "government" I agree with your statement that the real threats to pursuit of happiness come from people.  

>> They are,  as near as I can tell,  all illegal.

Yes, no one is without sin.  Thus the need to have laws and law enforcement, and national defense, and personal defense, and multiple political parties, and intellectual property rights, and yes even welfare for the needy.

I'm sure we would agree to that point.

Usually the only issue between honest men of differing politics, is the means with which we go forward with some of these items.  For example, authoritarian personalities vs. people who believe in liberty.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just as liberty does not include the liberty to murder people, preventing someone from causing damage to our country does not include preventing people from having liberty.
> 
> Said another way, in my opinion, the government has the responsibility to prevent,  through regulations,  people from doing stupid irresponsible things that cause harm to other people.  For example, laws regulating use of the highway system.  As another example, mandating farmers put the land back to good condition after harvesting.  Still another example to the OP, mandating minimum requirements for physicians to be able to be licensed to practice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liberty is an abstraction. Rights are defined as very specific areas of life that the government is prohibited from relating.
> 
> "to prevent,  through regulations,  people from doing stupid irresponsible things that cause harm to other people."
> 
> The only word that I would eliminate is "stupid" because it's so subjective.
> 
> None of the real threats to my pursuit of happiness come from the government.  They all come from other people. They are,  as near as I can tell,  all illegal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only reason I used the word stupid was to relate my statement to your statement where you used stupid
> 
> >> None of the real threats to my pursuit of happiness come from the government.  They all come from other people.
> 
> As there is no such person named "government" I agree with your statement that the real threats to pursuit of happiness come from people.
> 
> >> They are,  as near as I can tell,  all illegal.
> 
> Yes, no one is without sin.  Thus the need to have laws and law enforcement, and national defense, and personal defense, and multiple political parties, and intellectual property rights, and yes even welfare for the needy.
> 
> I'm sure we would agree to that point.
> 
> Usually the only issue between honest men of differing politics, is the means with which we go forward with some of these items.  For example, authoritarian personalities vs. people who believe in liberty.
Click to expand...


I believe that "authoritarian personalities vs. people who believe in liberty" is fully resolved by democracy. 

More than half the voters have to be happy with where that line is drawn at any given time.  

Every alternative to democracy lowers that percentage.


----------



## dblack

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberty is an abstraction. Rights are defined as very specific areas of life that the government is prohibited from relating.
> 
> "to prevent,  through regulations,  people from doing stupid irresponsible things that cause harm to other people."
> 
> The only word that I would eliminate is "stupid" because it's so subjective.
> 
> None of the real threats to my pursuit of happiness come from the government.  They all come from other people. They are,  as near as I can tell,  all illegal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only reason I used the word stupid was to relate my statement to your statement where you used stupid
> 
> >> None of the real threats to my pursuit of happiness come from the government.  They all come from other people.
> 
> As there is no such person named "government" I agree with your statement that the real threats to pursuit of happiness come from people.
> 
> >> They are,  as near as I can tell,  all illegal.
> 
> Yes, no one is without sin.  Thus the need to have laws and law enforcement, and national defense, and personal defense, and multiple political parties, and intellectual property rights, and yes even welfare for the needy.
> 
> I'm sure we would agree to that point.
> 
> Usually the only issue between honest men of differing politics, is the means with which we go forward with some of these items.  For example, authoritarian personalities vs. people who believe in liberty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe that "authoritarian personalities vs. people who believe in liberty" is fully resolved by democracy.
> 
> More than half the voters have to be happy with where that line is drawn at any given time.
Click to expand...


That line is drawn before voting comes into play. That's the whole point of the Constitution.


----------



## PMZ

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only reason I used the word stupid was to relate my statement to your statement where you used stupid
> 
> >> None of the real threats to my pursuit of happiness come from the government.  They all come from other people.
> 
> As there is no such person named "government" I agree with your statement that the real threats to pursuit of happiness come from people.
> 
> >> They are,  as near as I can tell,  all illegal.
> 
> Yes, no one is without sin.  Thus the need to have laws and law enforcement, and national defense, and personal defense, and multiple political parties, and intellectual property rights, and yes even welfare for the needy.
> 
> I'm sure we would agree to that point.
> 
> Usually the only issue between honest men of differing politics, is the means with which we go forward with some of these items.  For example, authoritarian personalities vs. people who believe in liberty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe that "authoritarian personalities vs. people who believe in liberty" is fully resolved by democracy.
> 
> More than half the voters have to be happy with where that line is drawn at any given time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That line is drawn before voting comes into play. That's the whole point of the Constitution.
Click to expand...


The Bill of Rights were the first amendments to the Constitution.  They prohibit the enforcement of legislation that restricts us in certain specific areas of life.  

I think that Brown's "authoritarian personalities vs. people who believe in liberty" was bringing up a more subtle distinction. Because,  in the real world,  everything governmental falls between authoritarian personalities (tyranny) and people who believe in liberty (anarchy).


----------



## dblack

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe that "authoritarian personalities vs. people who believe in liberty" is fully resolved by democracy.
> 
> More than half the voters have to be happy with where that line is drawn at any given time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That line is drawn before voting comes into play. That's the whole point of the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Bill of Rights were the first amendments to the Constitution.  They prohibit the enforcement of legislation that restricts us in certain specific areas of life.
> 
> I think that Brown's "authoritarian personalities vs. people who believe in liberty" was bringing up a more subtle distinction. Because,  in the real world,  everything governmental falls between authoritarian personalities (tyranny) and people who believe in liberty (anarchy).
Click to expand...


Wow... you think 'people who believe in liberty' are anarchists???

Also - tyranny isn't just about 'personalities'. You can have tyranny of the majority as well.


----------



## PMZ

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> That line is drawn before voting comes into play. That's the whole point of the Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Bill of Rights were the first amendments to the Constitution.  They prohibit the enforcement of legislation that restricts us in certain specific areas of life.
> 
> I think that Brown's "authoritarian personalities vs. people who believe in liberty" was bringing up a more subtle distinction. Because,  in the real world,  everything governmental falls between authoritarian personalities (tyranny) and people who believe in liberty (anarchy).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow... you think 'people who believe in liberty' are anarchists???
> 
> Also - tyranny isn't just about 'personalities'. You can have tyranny of the majority as well.
Click to expand...


I never use the word liberty because,  as I said earlier, it is an abstraction. 

How would you define it?


----------



## PMZ

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> That line is drawn before voting comes into play. That's the whole point of the Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Bill of Rights were the first amendments to the Constitution.  They prohibit the enforcement of legislation that restricts us in certain specific areas of life.
> 
> I think that Brown's "authoritarian personalities vs. people who believe in liberty" was bringing up a more subtle distinction. Because,  in the real world,  everything governmental falls between authoritarian personalities (tyranny) and people who believe in liberty (anarchy).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow... you think 'people who believe in liberty' are anarchists???
> 
> Also - tyranny isn't just about 'personalities'. You can have tyranny of the majority as well.
Click to expand...


Any government that is run by less than a majority is a tyranny.  A power class imposing on a ruled class.


----------



## dblack

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Bill of Rights were the first amendments to the Constitution.  They prohibit the enforcement of legislation that restricts us in certain specific areas of life.
> 
> I think that Brown's "authoritarian personalities vs. people who believe in liberty" was bringing up a more subtle distinction. Because,  in the real world,  everything governmental falls between authoritarian personalities (tyranny) and people who believe in liberty (anarchy).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow... you think 'people who believe in liberty' are anarchists???
> 
> Also - tyranny isn't just about 'personalities'. You can have tyranny of the majority as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Any government that is run by less than a majority is a tyranny.  A power class imposing on a ruled class.
Click to expand...


Is any government run by a majority NOT a tyranny, in your view?


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> Employers who choose to pay minimum wage are choosing to push the rest of the cost of living off to taxpayers.



You still haven't explained this absurd and insane theory (probably because, like all Dumbocrats, you can't explain your theories since there is no thought, facts, or rationale behind them).

If you would have gotten up off of your lazy ass just once in your miserable life and actually provided a job for someone else (instead of being a parasite), you would know that businesses are forced to pay minimum wage in the instances where they do.

But you are far too ignorant of economics and business to understand any of this.



PMZ said:


> Conservatives who talk about the fair or flat tax are campaigning to make our wealth inequality worse.



We have no "wealth inequality". We never have. We never will. What we do have is *effort* inequality. Parasites like you expect people like me and RKM to do all of the work and then split the results of that work with you.



PMZ said:


> Republicans who believe that our indebtedness is because of too much spending instead of not enough revenue do so to avoid accountability and in the belief that richer rich and poorer poor is a good thing despite all of the research that shows our extreme to be the root cause of many of our social ills.



Our revenues to the federal government are the highest they have been in U.S. history. Period. You continue to display your ignorance. Would you like to try a new narrative now?



PMZ said:


> Like all complex problems there is not a single cause that brought us here or a single solution that will get us out.



Not true at all. The single cause that got us here is liberalism (fact). The single cause that will get us out is conservatism (fact).



PMZ said:


> But solutions begin from accepting a problem and that's what we have to do first.



Well said [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION]. Now can you accept that your liberalism is the disease which has given America a problem? If so, I think we can make some real progress here today (and you love "progress").


----------



## dblack

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Bill of Rights were the first amendments to the Constitution.  They prohibit the enforcement of legislation that restricts us in certain specific areas of life.
> 
> I think that Brown's "authoritarian personalities vs. people who believe in liberty" was bringing up a more subtle distinction. Because,  in the real world,  everything governmental falls between authoritarian personalities (tyranny) and people who believe in liberty (anarchy).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow... you think 'people who believe in liberty' are anarchists???
> 
> Also - tyranny isn't just about 'personalities'. You can have tyranny of the majority as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never use the word liberty because,  as I said earlier, it is an abstraction.
> 
> How would you define it?
Click to expand...


You never use abstractions???


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> You demonstrate the key conservative delusion that the only key to wealth is to work hard.  That's as compared to the liberal belief that life requires hard work from all responsible participants.
> 
> And that what creates responsible participants are family,  friends,  and schools.
> 
> And that combination,  like all things human,  has a certain failure rate.
> 
> Conservatives,  who if nothing else are myopicly focused internally, believe that many things given are earned.
> 
> Did you pick your family,  your schools,  your neighborhood,  your parents income,  your race,  your nationality,  your gender?
> 
> If all of those things worked out for you be thankful,  not proud.



Ah yes - the foundation of the liberal ideology: playing the victim!

History is filled with stories of people being born into the most unfortunate and disadvantaged situations and all they did was go on to live the American dream.

Chris Gardner - homeless to millionaire

Michael Ohrer - homeless to millionaire

Steve Jobs - given up for adoption to billionaire

Barack Obama - son of a white woman and foreign black father. Abandoned by father for life, by mother at some points. Now occupies the White House and is a millionaire.

But playing the victim is much easier for you than working, so that's what you choose - the easy way out.


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> Employers who choose to pay minimum wage are choosing to push the rest of the cost of living off to taxpayers.



So the question remains [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] - why have you _refused_ to do your civic duty and create good paying jobs for your fellow citizens?

Nobody is asking you to create a global conglomerate. How about just 5 people that you provide six-figure salaries for? Just 5 people in your community that you take from minimum wage to a six-figure salary?

How can you cry (like a little bitch) about other people not doing what you yourself also refuses to do?


----------



## PMZ

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow... you think 'people who believe in liberty' are anarchists???
> 
> Also - tyranny isn't just about 'personalities'. You can have tyranny of the majority as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any government that is run by less than a majority is a tyranny.  A power class imposing on a ruled class.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is any government run by a majority NOT a tyranny, in your view?
Click to expand...


It's the least tyrannical alternative. Nothing better.


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> Conservatives who talk about the fair or flat tax are campaigning to make our wealth inequality worse.



So the question remains [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] - why have you _refused_ to do your civic duty and pay more taxes that the bare minimum you are required to close that "wealth inequality" gap?

Nobody is asking you to cover the entire national debt. How about just paying an additional $15,000 per year beyond the minimum taxes you are requires to pay? If every liberal did that, there would be no "wealth inequality".

How can you cry (like a little bitch) about other people not doing what you yourself also refuses to do?


----------



## PMZ

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow... you think 'people who believe in liberty' are anarchists???
> 
> Also - tyranny isn't just about 'personalities'. You can have tyranny of the majority as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never use the word liberty because,  as I said earlier, it is an abstraction.
> 
> How would you define it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You never use abstractions???
Click to expand...


Can you give us a definition of "liberty"?


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives who talk about the fair or flat tax are campaigning to make our wealth inequality worse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the question remains [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] - why have you _refused_ to do your civic duty and pay more taxes that the bare minimum you are required to close that "wealth inequality" gap?
> 
> Nobody is asking you to cover the entire national debt. How about just paying an additional $15,000 per year beyond the minimum taxes you are requires to pay? If every liberal did that, there would be no "wealth inequality".
> 
> How can you cry (like a little bitch) about other people not doing what you yourself also refuses to do?
Click to expand...


I pay what I owe.  Just like you do.  I just don't whine about it.


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> Republicans who believe that our indebtedness is because of too much spending instead of not enough revenue do so to avoid accountability and in the belief that richer rich and poorer poor is a good thing despite all of the research that shows our extreme to be the root cause of many of our social ills.



So let me get this straight [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] - you refuse to provide good, high paying jobs to your fellow citizens which would create valuable payroll taxes for Uncle Sam and you refuse to pay more taxes than the absolute bare minimum required by you, but you're going to complain about what people who _do_ create jobs pay and what people who do pay taxes pay?


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe that "authoritarian personalities vs. people who believe in liberty" is fully resolved by democracy.
> 
> More than half the voters have to be happy with where that line is drawn at any given time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That line is drawn before voting comes into play. That's the whole point of the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Bill of Rights were the first amendments to the Constitution.  They prohibit the enforcement of legislation that restricts us in certain specific areas of life.
> 
> I think that Brown's "authoritarian personalities vs. people who believe in liberty" was bringing up a more subtle distinction. Because,  in the real world,  everything governmental falls between authoritarian personalities (tyranny) and people who believe in liberty (anarchy).
Click to expand...

It is more subtle.  Authority is a necessity.  But power corrupts.  Thus the dichotomy of the desire for freedom and the need for security.  Many humans have not yet advanced to a place where they can lead with a desire to allow others maximum liberty.  Most humans fail miserably even if they try.  Why? Because power really does corrupt.  

Of course some humans have no desire for others to have liberty at all. Those typically will say liberty is anarchy when discussing their opposing political camp, but then turn around and demand liberty for themselves their own groups and their political camp. I like to call these particular folks authoritarians.  I think the term fits aptly.  Of course people who seek power over others, gravitate to positions of power such as political positions.   It is a rare thing when an already successful person enters politics to serve and improve their country.  Reagan comes to mind.  Ron Paul.  

I trust people who choose politics as their second career much more than I trust political science students with a law degree.


----------



## dblack

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any government that is run by less than a majority is a tyranny.  A power class imposing on a ruled class.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is any government run by a majority NOT a tyranny, in your view?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's the least tyrannical alternative. Nothing better.
Click to expand...


Dodger you!... Answer the question. You're trying to pretend that rule by majority is never tyrannical. The fact is, it can certainly be so - which is why Constitutional limits on government power, regardless of whether it's majority rule or not, are so important.


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives who talk about the fair or flat tax are campaigning to make our wealth inequality worse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the question remains [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] - why have you _refused_ to do your civic duty and pay more taxes that the bare minimum you are required to close that "wealth inequality" gap?
> 
> Nobody is asking you to cover the entire national debt. How about just paying an additional $15,000 per year beyond the minimum taxes you are requires to pay? If every liberal did that, there would be no "wealth inequality".
> 
> How can you cry (like a little bitch) about other people not doing what you yourself also refuses to do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I pay what I owe.  Just like you do.  I just don't whine about it.
Click to expand...


Well of course you don't, because you don't owe much and you get tax rates slanted heavily in your favor while other people are forced to make up that gap you created by having taxes slanted against them.

We should all pay 10% and then we are all *equally* burdened. Aren't you the one crying for "wealth equality"? Well, here's the first step. Time to put your money where your mouth is...


----------



## P@triot

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Employers who choose to pay minimum wage are choosing to push the rest of the cost of living off to taxpayers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the question remains [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] - why have you _refused_ to do your civic duty and create good paying jobs for your fellow citizens?
> 
> Nobody is asking you to create a global conglomerate. How about just 5 people that you provide six-figure salaries for? Just 5 people in your community that you take from minimum wage to a six-figure salary?
> 
> How can you cry (like a little bitch) about other people not doing what you yourself also refuses to do?
Click to expand...


When PMZ is proven wrong - he runs! How sad that he can't take an honest debate head on. Kind of proves he's on the wrong side of the facts and he knows it.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> That line is drawn before voting comes into play. That's the whole point of the Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Bill of Rights were the first amendments to the Constitution.  They prohibit the enforcement of legislation that restricts us in certain specific areas of life.
> 
> I think that Brown's "authoritarian personalities vs. people who believe in liberty" was bringing up a more subtle distinction. Because,  in the real world,  everything governmental falls between authoritarian personalities (tyranny) and people who believe in liberty (anarchy).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is more subtle.  Authority is a necessity.  But power corrupts.  Thus the dichotomy of the desire for freedom and the need for security.  Many humans have not yet advanced to a place where they can lead with a desire to allow others maximum liberty.  Most humans fail miserably even if they try.  Why? Because power really does corrupt.
> 
> Of course some humans have no desire for others to have liberty at all. Those typically will say liberty is anarchy when discussing their opposing political camp, but then turn around and demand liberty for themselves their own groups and their political camp. I like to call these particular folks authoritarians.  I think the term fits aptly.  Of course people who seek power over others, gravitate to positions of power such as political positions.   It is a rare thing when an already successful person enters politics to serve and improve their country.  Reagan comes to mind.
Click to expand...


As I've said before, our current laws do not prevent me from doing anything that I want to do.  Perfect liberty? 

People  who are prevented from doing what they want to do by our current laws should be, IMO. 

So,  I conclude our laws are about right. 

Could they go to a dysfunctional extreme some day? 

Again,  I feel that democracy is about as much protection as is possible.


----------



## dblack

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Bill of Rights were the first amendments to the Constitution.  They prohibit the enforcement of legislation that restricts us in certain specific areas of life.
> 
> I think that Brown's "authoritarian personalities vs. people who believe in liberty" was bringing up a more subtle distinction. Because,  in the real world,  everything governmental falls between authoritarian personalities (tyranny) and people who believe in liberty (anarchy).
> 
> 
> 
> It is more subtle.  Authority is a necessity.  But power corrupts.  Thus the dichotomy of the desire for freedom and the need for security.  Many humans have not yet advanced to a place where they can lead with a desire to allow others maximum liberty.  Most humans fail miserably even if they try.  Why? Because power really does corrupt.
> 
> Of course some humans have no desire for others to have liberty at all. Those typically will say liberty is anarchy when discussing their opposing political camp, but then turn around and demand liberty for themselves their own groups and their political camp. I like to call these particular folks authoritarians.  I think the term fits aptly.  Of course people who seek power over others, gravitate to positions of power such as political positions.   It is a rare thing when an already successful person enters politics to serve and improve their country.  Reagan comes to mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I've said before, our current laws do not prevent me from doing anything that I want to do.  Perfect liberty?
> 
> People  who are prevented from doing what they want to do by our current laws should be, IMO.
> 
> So,  I conclude our laws are about right.
> 
> Could they go to a dysfunctional extreme some day?
> 
> Again,  I feel that democracy is about as much protection as is possible.
Click to expand...


Circular much?


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Bill of Rights were the first amendments to the Constitution.  They prohibit the enforcement of legislation that restricts us in certain specific areas of life.
> 
> I think that Brown's "authoritarian personalities vs. people who believe in liberty" was bringing up a more subtle distinction. Because,  in the real world,  everything governmental falls between authoritarian personalities (tyranny) and people who believe in liberty (anarchy).
> 
> 
> 
> It is more subtle.  Authority is a necessity.  But power corrupts.  Thus the dichotomy of the desire for freedom and the need for security.  Many humans have not yet advanced to a place where they can lead with a desire to allow others maximum liberty.  Most humans fail miserably even if they try.  Why? Because power really does corrupt.
> 
> Of course some humans have no desire for others to have liberty at all. Those typically will say liberty is anarchy when discussing their opposing political camp, but then turn around and demand liberty for themselves their own groups and their political camp. I like to call these particular folks authoritarians.  I think the term fits aptly.  Of course people who seek power over others, gravitate to positions of power such as political positions.   It is a rare thing when an already successful person enters politics to serve and improve their country.  Reagan comes to mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I've said before, our current laws do not prevent me from doing anything that I want to do.  Perfect liberty?
> 
> People  who are prevented from doing what they want to do by our current laws should be, IMO.
> 
> So,  I conclude our laws are about right.
> 
> Could they go to a dysfunctional extreme some day?
> 
> Again,  I feel that democracy is about as much protection as is possible.
Click to expand...


I was brought up to believe taking money from someone was a crime.   I was also brought up to defend women and children from men who abuse women and children, such as by taking their money.  

I understand your point about the folks you feel have taken this country for a ride.  I put it to you that the democrats and republicans are not doing anything to resolve this.  I also put it to you that you stealing money from folks like me to fund your own desires for wealth and revenge... It's not gonna end well.

I'm a firm believer in liberty, but I won't hesitate to fight someone who attacks my children.  I consider this current line of laws to be an attack of theft on my children.  In short, the line has been drawn in the sand and we are about to find out just how far we have to go to push you folks back across.


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> Again,  I feel that democracy is about as much protection as is possible.



Folks - this sums it up.

Democracy is about freedom. Communism is about "protection".


----------



## P@triot

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is more subtle.  Authority is a necessity.  But power corrupts.  Thus the dichotomy of the desire for freedom and the need for security.  Many humans have not yet advanced to a place where they can lead with a desire to allow others maximum liberty.  Most humans fail miserably even if they try.  Why? Because power really does corrupt.
> 
> Of course some humans have no desire for others to have liberty at all. Those typically will say liberty is anarchy when discussing their opposing political camp, but then turn around and demand liberty for themselves their own groups and their political camp. I like to call these particular folks authoritarians.  I think the term fits aptly.  Of course people who seek power over others, gravitate to positions of power such as political positions.   It is a rare thing when an already successful person enters politics to serve and improve their country.  Reagan comes to mind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I've said before, our current laws do not prevent me from doing anything that I want to do.  Perfect liberty?
> 
> People  who are prevented from doing what they want to do by our current laws should be, IMO.
> 
> So,  I conclude our laws are about right.
> 
> Could they go to a dysfunctional extreme some day?
> 
> Again,  I feel that democracy is about as much protection as is possible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was brought up to believe taking money from someone was a crime.   I was also brought up to defend women and children from men who abuse women and children, such as by taking their money.
> 
> I understand your point about the folks you feel have taken this country for a ride.  I put it to you that the democrats and republicans are not doing anything to resolve this.  I also put it to you that you stealing money from folks like me to fund your own desires for wealth and revenge... It's not gonna end well.
> 
> I'm a firm believer in liberty, but I won't hesitate to fight someone who attacks my children.*  I consider this current line of laws to be an attack of theft on my children.  In short, the line has been drawn in the sand and we are about to find out just how far we have to go to push you folks back across*.
Click to expand...


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is more subtle.  Authority is a necessity.  But power corrupts.  Thus the dichotomy of the desire for freedom and the need for security.  Many humans have not yet advanced to a place where they can lead with a desire to allow others maximum liberty.  Most humans fail miserably even if they try.  Why? Because power really does corrupt.
> 
> Of course some humans have no desire for others to have liberty at all. Those typically will say liberty is anarchy when discussing their opposing political camp, but then turn around and demand liberty for themselves their own groups and their political camp. I like to call these particular folks authoritarians.  I think the term fits aptly.  Of course people who seek power over others, gravitate to positions of power such as political positions.   It is a rare thing when an already successful person enters politics to serve and improve their country.  Reagan comes to mind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I've said before, our current laws do not prevent me from doing anything that I want to do.  Perfect liberty?
> 
> People  who are prevented from doing what they want to do by our current laws should be, IMO.
> 
> So,  I conclude our laws are about right.
> 
> Could they go to a dysfunctional extreme some day?
> 
> Again,  I feel that democracy is about as much protection as is possible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was brought up to believe taking money from someone was a crime.   I was also brought up to defend women and children from men who abuse women and children, such as by taking their money.
> 
> I understand your point about the folks you feel have taken this country for a ride.  I put it to you that the democrats and republicans are not doing anything to resolve this.  I also put it to you that you stealing money from folks like me to fund your own desires for wealth and revenge... It's not gonna end well.
> 
> I'm a firm believer in liberty, but I won't hesitate to fight someone who attacks my children.  I consider this current line of laws to be an attack of theft on my children.  In short, the line has been drawn in the sand and we are about to find out just how far we have to go to push you folks back across.
Click to expand...


I don't consider taxes as any more onerous than paying other bills. I believe that there is no better tax deal in the world than here.  We don't pay more,  but we get more. 

It's not theft,  it's the cost of living amongst the greatest national resources in the world.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I've said before, our current laws do not prevent me from doing anything that I want to do.  Perfect liberty?
> 
> People  who are prevented from doing what they want to do by our current laws should be, IMO.
> 
> So,  I conclude our laws are about right.
> 
> Could they go to a dysfunctional extreme some day?
> 
> Again,  I feel that democracy is about as much protection as is possible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was brought up to believe taking money from someone was a crime.   I was also brought up to defend women and children from men who abuse women and children, such as by taking their money.
> 
> I understand your point about the folks you feel have taken this country for a ride.  I put it to you that the democrats and republicans are not doing anything to resolve this.  I also put it to you that you stealing money from folks like me to fund your own desires for wealth and revenge... It's not gonna end well.
> 
> I'm a firm believer in liberty, but I won't hesitate to fight someone who attacks my children.  I consider this current line of laws to be an attack of theft on my children.  In short, the line has been drawn in the sand and we are about to find out just how far we have to go to push you folks back across.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't consider taxes as any more onerous than paying other bills. I believe that there is no better tax deal in the world than here.  We don't pay more,  but we get more.
> 
> It's not theft,  it's the cost of living amongst the greatest national resources in the world.
Click to expand...


Sales tax we all pay voluntarily for services is not theft.  Income and asset taxes taken by force from peter and handed over to paul, that is the very definition of theft.  You may think it's funny.  You may sit there trolling laughing and declaring the redistribution as a cost of living fact of life.   But I put this to you, when you get to the pearly gates good luck explaining to your god why your taking money for your own benefit from families struggling to pay their bills was just justified.  Burn in hell comes to mind.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was brought up to believe taking money from someone was a crime.   I was also brought up to defend women and children from men who abuse women and children, such as by taking their money.
> 
> I understand your point about the folks you feel have taken this country for a ride.  I put it to you that the democrats and republicans are not doing anything to resolve this.  I also put it to you that you stealing money from folks like me to fund your own desires for wealth and revenge... It's not gonna end well.
> 
> I'm a firm believer in liberty, but I won't hesitate to fight someone who attacks my children.  I consider this current line of laws to be an attack of theft on my children.  In short, the line has been drawn in the sand and we are about to find out just how far we have to go to push you folks back across.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't consider taxes as any more onerous than paying other bills. I believe that there is no better tax deal in the world than here.  We don't pay more,  but we get more.
> 
> It's not theft,  it's the cost of living amongst the greatest national resources in the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sales tax we all pay voluntarily for services is not theft.  Income and asset taxes taken by force from peter and handed over to paul, that is the very definition of theft.  You may think it's funny.  You may sit there trolling laughing and declaring the redistribution as a cost of living fact of life.   But I put this to you, when you get to the pearly gates good luck explaining to your god why your taking money for your own benefit from families struggling to pay their bills was just justified.  Burn in hell comes to mind.
Click to expand...


Nobody is giving me money that I didn't earn. Nobody.  

My money,  like yours,  goes to keep people that don't make a living wage,  off of the street.  I'd much rather their employers pay them enough to do that.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't consider taxes as any more onerous than paying other bills. I believe that there is no better tax deal in the world than here.  We don't pay more,  but we get more.
> 
> It's not theft,  it's the cost of living amongst the greatest national resources in the world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sales tax we all pay voluntarily for services is not theft.  Income and asset taxes taken by force from peter and handed over to paul, that is the very definition of theft.  You may think it's funny.  You may sit there trolling laughing and declaring the redistribution as a cost of living fact of life.   But I put this to you, when you get to the pearly gates good luck explaining to your god why your taking money for your own benefit from families struggling to pay their bills was just justified.  Burn in hell comes to mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody is giving me money that I didn't earn. Nobody.
> 
> My money,  like yours,  goes to keep people that don't make a living wage,  off of the street.  I'd much rather their employers pay them enough to do that.
Click to expand...

What's the difference between defending the act, nay even encouraging it, and benefiting?  Is that like watching a rape but not participating?  Just cheering on?


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> My money,  like yours,  goes to keep people that don't make a living wage,  off of the street.  I'd much rather their employers pay them enough to do that.



Where is the origin of this debt PMZ? Where do you come to the conclusion that I am somehow indebted (slavery) to someone too lazy to earn a "living wage"?


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> Employers who choose to pay minimum wage are choosing to push the rest of the cost of living off to taxpayers.



So the question remains [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] - why have you _refused_ to do your civic duty and create good paying jobs for your fellow citizens?

Nobody is asking you to create a global conglomerate. How about just 5 people that you provide six-figure salaries for? Just 5 people in your community that you take from minimum wage to a six-figure salary?

How can you cry about other people not doing what you yourself also refuses to do?


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Employers who choose to pay minimum wage are choosing to push the rest of the cost of living off to taxpayers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the question remains [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] - why have you _refused_ to do your civic duty and create good paying jobs for your fellow citizens?
> 
> Nobody is asking you to create a global conglomerate. How about just 5 people that you provide six-figure salaries for? Just 5 people in your community that you take from minimum wage to a six-figure salary?
> 
> How can you cry about other people not doing what you yourself also refuses to do?
Click to expand...


Clearly wealth redistribution up is addictive.  An insatiable appetite. Never enough if your worldview is me,  me,  me. 

These fat cats love biting the hand that feeds them.  They stay here because they know that it's the country that allowed them their wealth but they whine piteously and continuously because enough is never enough.  They covet the 15% of the total wealth that is divided up among 80% of the country. 

They want it all. ALL.


----------



## Meister

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Employers who choose to pay minimum wage are choosing to push the rest of the cost of living off to taxpayers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the question remains [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] - why have you _refused_ to do your civic duty and create good paying jobs for your fellow citizens?
> 
> Nobody is asking you to create a global conglomerate. How about just 5 people that you provide six-figure salaries for? Just 5 people in your community that you take from minimum wage to a six-figure salary?
> 
> How can you cry about other people not doing what you yourself also refuses to do?
Click to expand...


PMZ does not like our form of government, I figured that one out in another thread.  He's a socialist.


----------



## PMZ

Meister said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Employers who choose to pay minimum wage are choosing to push the rest of the cost of living off to taxpayers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the question remains [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] - why have you _refused_ to do your civic duty and create good paying jobs for your fellow citizens?
> 
> Nobody is asking you to create a global conglomerate. How about just 5 people that you provide six-figure salaries for? Just 5 people in your community that you take from minimum wage to a six-figure salary?
> 
> How can you cry about other people not doing what you yourself also refuses to do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> PMZ does not like our form of government, I figured that one out in another thread.  He's a socialist.
Click to expand...


Every one in the world is a socialist because every country in the world employs the socialist economic system in appropriate markets.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the question remains [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] - why have you _refused_ to do your civic duty and create good paying jobs for your fellow citizens?
> 
> Nobody is asking you to create a global conglomerate. How about just 5 people that you provide six-figure salaries for? Just 5 people in your community that you take from minimum wage to a six-figure salary?
> 
> How can you cry about other people not doing what you yourself also refuses to do?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ does not like our form of government, I figured that one out in another thread.  He's a socialist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every one in the world is a socialist because every country in the world employs the socialist economic system in appropriate markets.
Click to expand...


The level of your libtardation exceeds all socialists who came before you.


----------



## Meister

PMZ said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the question remains [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] - why have you _refused_ to do your civic duty and create good paying jobs for your fellow citizens?
> 
> Nobody is asking you to create a global conglomerate. How about just 5 people that you provide six-figure salaries for? Just 5 people in your community that you take from minimum wage to a six-figure salary?
> 
> How can you cry about other people not doing what you yourself also refuses to do?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ does not like our form of government, I figured that one out in another thread.  He's a socialist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every one in the world is a socialist because every country in the world employs the socialist economic system in appropriate markets.
Click to expand...


To a defined extent, this is true, but you go way beyond that, you're anti capitalism....redistribute the wealth kind of a person


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ does not like our form of government, I figured that one out in another thread.  He's a socialist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every one in the world is a socialist because every country in the world employs the socialist economic system in appropriate markets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The level of your libtardation exceeds all socialists who came before you.
Click to expand...


I see that there is nothing in my post that you would dispute.


----------



## beagle9

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the question remains [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] - why have you _refused_ to do your civic duty and pay more taxes that the bare minimum you are required to close that "wealth inequality" gap?
> 
> Nobody is asking you to cover the entire national debt. How about just paying an additional $15,000 per year beyond the minimum taxes you are requires to pay? If every liberal did that, there would be no "wealth inequality".
> 
> How can you cry (like a little bitch) about other people not doing what you yourself also refuses to do?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I pay what I owe.  Just like you do.  I just don't whine about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well of course you don't, because you don't owe much and you get tax rates slanted heavily in your favor while other people are forced to make up that gap you created by having taxes slanted against them.
> 
> We should all pay 10% and then we are all *equally* burdened. Aren't you the one crying for "wealth equality"? Well, here's the first step. Time to put your money where your mouth is...
Click to expand...

Well maybe 12% if you add health care services to that, then it's a done deal..


----------



## PMZ

Meister said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ does not like our form of government, I figured that one out in another thread.  He's a socialist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every one in the world is a socialist because every country in the world employs the socialist economic system in appropriate markets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To a defined extent, this is true, but you go way beyond that, you're anti capitalism....redistribute the wealth kind of a person
Click to expand...


Again the age old trick of propagandists.  Speak for your scapegoats. Tell people what THEY are thinking.  

I'm every bit as much a capitalist as socialist just as I bear no prejudice against either hammers or screwdrivers. The right tool for the right job. 

You've been led to your place of ignorance by capitalist propaganda drooling over markets in which there is no competition. Nirvana for them,  hell for the consumers. 

There is no bigger obstacle to make more money regardless of the cost to others than competition.


----------



## PMZ

beagle9 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I pay what I owe.  Just like you do.  I just don't whine about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well of course you don't, because you don't owe much and you get tax rates slanted heavily in your favor while other people are forced to make up that gap you created by having taxes slanted against them.
> 
> We should all pay 10% and then we are all *equally* burdened. Aren't you the one crying for "wealth equality"? Well, here's the first step. Time to put your money where your mouth is...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well maybe 12% if you add health care services to that, then it's a done deal..
Click to expand...


Life isn't fair.  If it was we'd all be equally intelligent,  born to equal parentage, with equal ambition and be equally trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, and reverent. 

If we were, we'd all be equally wealthy. 

Those born into good fortune in life have misfortune in taxes. If you don't like that,  it's easy to change to misfortune in life,  good fortune in taxes.  You are in control.


----------



## beagle9

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> My money,  like yours,  goes to keep people that don't make a living wage,  off of the street.  I'd much rather their employers pay them enough to do that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where is the origin of this debt PMZ? Where do you come to the conclusion that I am somehow indebted (slavery) to someone too lazy to earn a "living wage"?
Click to expand...

Are they all just to lazy to earn a living wage by your understanding of things in the way that you see it Rot, and if so, is this why you feel that you are over burdened by the weight of it all ?

How about something has gone bad wrong over the years in which has created this out of balance situation over time in America, in which is one that no one seems to currently be able to quite put their little finger upon or refuses to. Can you really define the exact reasons for this whole problem the way that you have been attempting to, in which we are experiencing now as a whole nation?  Maybe you are in personal protect mode just trying to hang on to what you have left in your life, and you are not trying to resolve the issues properly for your nation as a whole ?  It appears that you are in a battle with the current crop that is trying to take advantage of the weakness that has came as a result for all or rather the many who are involved in this today, but are you coming up with results for your nation while in this battle (or) are you just thinking of yourself when battling this crowd on the issues ? I liked your 10% and so I moved it to 12% to include health care also.


----------



## PMZ

The answer. 

http://economy.money.cnn.com/2013/03/08/wealth-video/


----------



## beagle9

PMZ said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every one in the world is a socialist because every country in the world employs the socialist economic system in appropriate markets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To a defined extent, this is true, but you go way beyond that, you're anti capitalism....redistribute the wealth kind of a person
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again the age old trick of propagandists.  Speak for your scapegoats. Tell people what THEY are thinking.
> 
> I'm every bit as much a capitalist as socialist just as I bear no prejudice against either hammers or screwdrivers. The right tool for the right job.
> 
> You've been led to your place of ignorance by capitalist propaganda drooling over markets in which there is no competition. Nirvana for them,  hell for the consumers.
> 
> There is no bigger obstacle to make more money regardless of the cost to others than competition.
Click to expand...

We need to go back to a mom and pops nation, where manufacturing is connected to mom and pops operations in each town and city again, and these major chains are done away with in the forms that they have taken now. It has led to poor quality of service, less personable contacts, and the products we consume now are mostly inferior to what they once were in the past.   We have been duped badly by all of this in America, and that is a shame. Wal-Mart was fought throughout America for as long as they could be fought off, and now we see why people back then knew what they knew, and why they were insightful as to what was coming. With the help of our government sucking up to these concepts and ideas, and getting into bed with these strange bed fellows, the people of this nation now see what the results of it all was on them, and it isn't good.  

Like you say* healthy competition* was the only way that it worked for all, and what this nation has allowed is an anti-competition/consumer driven exploitation economic engine or device to be created, in which is run to exploit the consumers in every way that it can, and to eliminate the competition in ever way that it can. We see this in many things now, as it became a trend, and yet a trend that was fueled by greed mainly.  Look at Wal-Mart now, and the commercials they are running in the wake of their not paying a living wage to their employee's or offering them decent benefits in the past in which they got some bad publicity over recently. Now they are supposed to be some kind of great company as shown in these commercials, (give me a break) when Americans know better as to what was going on. Look at McDonalds where they are telling their employee's that they will help them qualify for foods stamps and such (kidding me right), as I couldn't believe my own eyes when that report was given on the news of this. Local governments consisting of town councils and such, have all but stopped the creation of competition against these giants by imposed rules and regulations that are used against new small business ideas born of the citizenry, and this has made them corrupt also. How many small business ventures last for more than a few years now against these kinds of heavy weights and corruption that protects them ?

How much more can America take of this idiocy that has been going on against her citizens ?


----------



## Meister

PMZ said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every one in the world is a socialist because every country in the world employs the socialist economic system in appropriate markets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To a defined extent, this is true, but you go way beyond that, you're anti capitalism....redistribute the wealth kind of a person
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again the age old trick of propagandists.  Speak for your scapegoats. Tell people what THEY are thinking.
> 
> I'm every bit as much a capitalist as socialist just as I bear no prejudice against either hammers or screwdrivers. The right tool for the right job.
> 
> You've been led to your place of ignorance by capitalist propaganda drooling over markets in which there is no competition. Nirvana for them,  hell for the consumers.
> 
> There is no bigger obstacle to make more money regardless of the cost to others than competition.
Click to expand...

When you keep posting, it just keeps telling everyone else all they need to know about you, comrade.


----------



## beagle9

PMZ said:


> The answer.
> 
> Viral video shows how wealth is really distributed - Economy


Can't see the video, I wonder why ? I'm running windows 7.. Thanks


----------



## beagle9

Meister said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> To a defined extent, this is true, but you go way beyond that, you're anti capitalism....redistribute the wealth kind of a person
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again the age old trick of propagandists.  Speak for your scapegoats. Tell people what THEY are thinking.
> 
> I'm every bit as much a capitalist as socialist just as I bear no prejudice against either hammers or screwdrivers. The right tool for the right job.
> 
> You've been led to your place of ignorance by capitalist propaganda drooling over markets in which there is no competition. Nirvana for them,  hell for the consumers.
> 
> There is no bigger obstacle to make more money regardless of the cost to others than competition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you keep posting, it just keeps telling everyone else all they need to know about you, comrade.
Click to expand...

I don't know, as she said the right tool for the right job and at the right time right ? What she means by this maybe, is that sometimes these tools have to be pulled out for a short length of time to fix things, so does that make her a communist in your opinion ? Would she not put the tools back up when the system is fixed or would she not ease the screw back off in order to make the wheel turn a little more freely once the problem has been resolved ? What the fear is I guess, is that once these tools are brought out, then they won't be put back up so that the wheels of freedom can resume turning freely again.


----------



## PMZ

beagle9 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> The answer.
> 
> Viral video shows how wealth is really distributed - Economy
> 
> 
> 
> Can't see the video, I wonder why ? I'm running windows 7.. Thanks
Click to expand...


Don't know why.  The link and video work on my phone. Sorry. 

If you Google something like YouTube US wealth inequality you could probably find it.


----------



## PMZ

Meister said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> To a defined extent, this is true, but you go way beyond that, you're anti capitalism....redistribute the wealth kind of a person
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again the age old trick of propagandists.  Speak for your scapegoats. Tell people what THEY are thinking.
> 
> I'm every bit as much a capitalist as socialist just as I bear no prejudice against either hammers or screwdrivers. The right tool for the right job.
> 
> You've been led to your place of ignorance by capitalist propaganda drooling over markets in which there is no competition. Nirvana for them,  hell for the consumers.
> 
> There is no bigger obstacle to make more money regardless of the cost to others than competition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you keep posting, it just keeps telling everyone else all they need to know about you, comrade.
Click to expand...


ja wohl, mein Fuhrer


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every one in the world is a socialist because every country in the world employs the socialist economic system in appropriate markets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The level of your libtardation exceeds all socialists who came before you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see that there is nothing in my post that you would dispute.
Click to expand...


You can force me to pay taxes at the point of a gun to fund your socialist programs, but you can't force me to be a socialist.  You can claim I'm a socialist if you want but if you do on my property you best come with friends.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> The level of your libtardation exceeds all socialists who came before you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see that there is nothing in my post that you would dispute.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can force me to pay taxes at the point of a gun to fund your socialist programs, but you can't force me to be a socialist.  You can claim I'm a socialist if you want but if you do on my property you best come with friends.
Click to expand...


You do understand that capitalism and socialism are economic systems,  right?  They are not religions.  They are no more good or evil than hammers and screwdrivers are.  

Capitalism just doesn't work without competition.  Socialism is not as efficient as capitalism with competition. 

The right tool for a particular job is just common sense.


----------



## BlackSand

PMZ said:


> Again the age old trick of propagandists.  Speak for your scapegoats. Tell people what THEY are thinking.
> 
> I'm every bit as much a capitalist as socialist just as I bear no prejudice against either hammers or screwdrivers. The right tool for the right job.
> 
> You've been led to your place of ignorance by capitalist propaganda drooling over markets in which there is no competition. Nirvana for them,  hell for the consumers.
> 
> There is no bigger obstacle to make more money regardless of the cost to others than competition.



*Talk about propaganda ... You are so full of it you don't recognize it in yourself.*

It really doesn't matter if you think you are a capitalist or a socialist.
It doesn't matter if you like hammers, screwdrivers ... Taxes, markets or the Federal Reserve.
The problem is that you don't have a clue which tool to use on the job ... Much less the ability to understand the right job.

*If you think that wealth redistribution is a tool that creates competition ... By punishing the people that succeed when competitive ... Then I think it is fair to say that you are neither a capitalist nor a socialist ... And more along the lines of an idiot.*

.


----------



## PMZ

BlackSand said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again the age old trick of propagandists.  Speak for your scapegoats. Tell people what THEY are thinking.
> 
> I'm every bit as much a capitalist as socialist just as I bear no prejudice against either hammers or screwdrivers. The right tool for the right job.
> 
> You've been led to your place of ignorance by capitalist propaganda drooling over markets in which there is no competition. Nirvana for them,  hell for the consumers.
> 
> There is no bigger obstacle to make more money regardless of the cost to others than competition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Talk about propaganda ... You are so full of it you don't recognize it in yourself.*
> 
> It really doesn't matter if you think you are a capitalist or a socialist.
> It doesn't matter if you like hammers, screwdrivers ... Taxes, markets or the Federal Reserve.
> The problem is that you don't have a clue which tool to use on the job ... Much less the ability to understand the right job.
> 
> *If you think that wealth redistribution is a tool that creates competition ... By punishing the people that succeed when competitive ... Then I think it is fair to say that you are neither a capitalist nor a socialist ... And more along the lines of an idiot.*
> 
> .
Click to expand...


How do you punish a wealthy person?


----------



## PMZ

BlackSand said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again the age old trick of propagandists.  Speak for your scapegoats. Tell people what THEY are thinking.
> 
> I'm every bit as much a capitalist as socialist just as I bear no prejudice against either hammers or screwdrivers. The right tool for the right job.
> 
> You've been led to your place of ignorance by capitalist propaganda drooling over markets in which there is no competition. Nirvana for them,  hell for the consumers.
> 
> There is no bigger obstacle to make more money regardless of the cost to others than competition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Talk about propaganda ... You are so full of it you don't recognize it in yourself.*
> 
> It really doesn't matter if you think you are a capitalist or a socialist.
> It doesn't matter if you like hammers, screwdrivers ... Taxes, markets or the Federal Reserve.
> The problem is that you don't have a clue which tool to use on the job ... Much less the ability to understand the right job.
> 
> *If you think that wealth redistribution is a tool that creates competition ... By punishing the people that succeed when competitive ... Then I think it is fair to say that you are neither a capitalist nor a socialist ... And more along the lines of an idiot.*
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Everyone likes wealth redistribution their way.  How do you think that the GOP bought the support of the wealthy?


----------



## billyerock1991

it hasn't gone into operation yet and because of a web site problem its a catastrophic FAILURE ... you sure are fuck up ...


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see that there is nothing in my post that you would dispute.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can force me to pay taxes at the point of a gun to fund your socialist programs, but you can't force me to be a socialist.  You can claim I'm a socialist if you want but if you do on my property you best come with friends.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do understand that capitalism and socialism are economic systems,  right?  They are not religions.  They are no more good or evil than hammers and screwdrivers are.
> 
> Capitalism just doesn't work without competition.  Socialism is not as efficient as capitalism with competition.
> 
> The right tool for a particular job is just common sense.
Click to expand...


>> You do understand that capitalism and socialism are economic systems,  right? 
Yes.

>> They are no more good or evil than hammers and screwdrivers are.  
Incorrect assumption.

>> Capitalism just doesn't work without competition.  
Correct assumption.

>> Socialism is not as efficient as capitalism with competition. 
Correct assumption.

>> The right tool for a particular job is just common sense.
I agree with this postulate.


----------



## BlackSand

PMZ said:


> How do you punish a wealthy person?



I didn't say that you were punishing just wealthy people ... I said there is no benefit to competition ... If the result of that competition is to have your rewards stolen from you and handed to the loser.

.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can force me to pay taxes at the point of a gun to fund your socialist programs, but you can't force me to be a socialist.  You can claim I'm a socialist if you want but if you do on my property you best come with friends.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do understand that capitalism and socialism are economic systems,  right?  They are not religions.  They are no more good or evil than hammers and screwdrivers are.
> 
> Capitalism just doesn't work without competition.  Socialism is not as efficient as capitalism with competition.
> 
> The right tool for a particular job is just common sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> >> You do understand that capitalism and socialism are economic systems,  right?
> Yes.
> 
> >> They are no more good or evil than hammers and screwdrivers are.
> Incorrect assumption.
> 
> >> Capitalism just doesn't work without competition.
> Correct assumption.
> 
> >> Socialism is not as efficient as capitalism with competition.
> Correct assumption.
> 
> >> The right tool for a particular job is just common sense.
> I agree with this postulate.
Click to expand...


>> They are no more good or evil than hammers and screwdrivers are.  

Incorrect assumption.

Which one is good,  which evil,  and why?


----------



## PMZ

BlackSand said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you punish a wealthy person?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say that you were punishing just wealthy people ... I said there is no benefit to competition ... If the result of that competition is to have your rewards stolen from you and handed to the loser.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Then why do you work?  Why not choose poverty?


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do understand that capitalism and socialism are economic systems,  right?  They are not religions.  They are no more good or evil than hammers and screwdrivers are.
> 
> Capitalism just doesn't work without competition.  Socialism is not as efficient as capitalism with competition.
> 
> The right tool for a particular job is just common sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >> You do understand that capitalism and socialism are economic systems,  right?
> Yes.
> 
> >> They are no more good or evil than hammers and screwdrivers are.
> Incorrect assumption.
> 
> >> Capitalism just doesn't work without competition.
> Correct assumption.
> 
> >> Socialism is not as efficient as capitalism with competition.
> Correct assumption.
> 
> >> The right tool for a particular job is just common sense.
> I agree with this postulate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> >> They are no more good or evil than hammers and screwdrivers are.
> 
> Incorrect assumption.
> 
> Which one is good,  which evil,  and why?
Click to expand...


Hammers and screwdrivers are inanimate objects, thus incapable of good or evil. 
Economic systems, however, apply to people as they control a person's life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.  As such these systems are capable of good and evil.


----------



## beagle9

PMZ said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again the age old trick of propagandists.  Speak for your scapegoats. Tell people what THEY are thinking.
> 
> I'm every bit as much a capitalist as socialist just as I bear no prejudice against either hammers or screwdrivers. The right tool for the right job.
> 
> You've been led to your place of ignorance by capitalist propaganda drooling over markets in which there is no competition. Nirvana for them,  hell for the consumers.
> 
> There is no bigger obstacle to make more money regardless of the cost to others than competition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Talk about propaganda ... You are so full of it you don't recognize it in yourself.*
> 
> It really doesn't matter if you think you are a capitalist or a socialist.
> It doesn't matter if you like hammers, screwdrivers ... Taxes, markets or the Federal Reserve.
> The problem is that you don't have a clue which tool to use on the job ... Much less the ability to understand the right job.
> 
> *If you think that wealth redistribution is a tool that creates competition ... By punishing the people that succeed when competitive ... Then I think it is fair to say that you are neither a capitalist nor a socialist ... And more along the lines of an idiot.*
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you punish a wealthy person?
Click to expand...

Wealthy people as a blanket term to punish is just plain wrong, and it should be more about how to fix a system without punishing the wrong people when the hammer and screwdriver is applied for the fix.

Wouldn't you agree ? 

I mean why would you want to create enemies in people for whom no enemies should exist ? Or is it that the wealthy have to be grouped together in this as a whole, in order to make them a bigger target to be zeroed in on when the redistribution takes place in the many forms that it will take ? I think it is more of a targeting of a culture than it is of a problem with their wealth as the target per sae, where as if you take their wealth and redistribute it away from them, then you leave them more powerless as a group to be effective in empowering their culture with such wealth right on and right on. 

Otherwise in order to fundamentally transform America, you first have to shift the wealth out of the hands of those who have acquired it, and you must use any means possible to do this in order to affectively make this threat of a fundamental change viable & meaningful. Is this what it is all about when one gets right down to it ?


----------



## BlackSand

PMZ said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you punish a wealthy person?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say that you were punishing just wealthy people ... I said there is no benefit to competition ... If the result of that competition is to have your rewards stolen from you and handed to the loser.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why do you work?  Why not choose poverty?
Click to expand...


*Great Question ... And I can say I certainly don't work so you can choose to keep someone else in poverty.*

I don't choose poverty because it is not beneficial towards achieving my goal to become a productive member of society ... Self-Reliance and the Freedom to enjoy the fruits of my labor are not paramount above my ability to help others.
They are principles I have ... And that I choose to employ in a manner that helps others achieve those same goals ... I respect others, understand their difficulties (been there) ... But never give up on them.
I don't need the government handling that responsibility ... Just because people like you are too lazy and neglect your own duties ... Then get the idea that making excuses for your failures somehow makes it okay.

*Your hammer, screwdriver, paintbrush or bulldozer ... Mean absolutely nothing until you take them out of the hands of the government ... Put them in the hands of the people ... And allow us all to build better lives for ourselves.*

.


----------



## beagle9

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> >> You do understand that capitalism and socialism are economic systems,  right?
> Yes.
> 
> >> They are no more good or evil than hammers and screwdrivers are.
> Incorrect assumption.
> 
> >> Capitalism just doesn't work without competition.
> Correct assumption.
> 
> >> Socialism is not as efficient as capitalism with competition.
> Correct assumption.
> 
> >> The right tool for a particular job is just common sense.
> I agree with this postulate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >> They are no more good or evil than hammers and screwdrivers are.
> 
> Incorrect assumption.
> 
> Which one is good,  which evil,  and why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hammers and screwdrivers are inanimate objects, thus incapable of good or evil.
> Economic systems, however, apply to people as they control a person's life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.  As such these systems are capable of good and evil.
Click to expand...

Ummm, the hammers and screwdrivers are given a new character or task in her meaning to represent specific terms for fixing things, so them being as inanimate objects really doesn't apply within her analogy. Right ?


----------



## beagle9

BlackSand said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say that you were punishing just wealthy people ... I said there is no benefit to competition ... If the result of that competition is to have your rewards stolen from you and handed to the loser.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why do you work?  Why not choose poverty?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Great Question ... And I can say I certainly don't work so you can choose to keep someone else in poverty.*
> 
> I don't choose poverty because it is not beneficial towards achieving my goal to become a productive member of society ... Self-Reliance and the Freedom to enjoy the fruits of my labor are not paramount above my ability to help others.
> They are principles I have ... And that I choose to employ in a manner that helps others achieve those same goals ... I respect others, understand their difficulties (been there) ... But never give up on them.
> I don't need the government handling that responsibility ... Just because people like you are too lazy and neglect your own duties ... Then get the idea that making excuses for your failures somehow makes it okay.
> 
> *Your hammer, screwdriver, paintbrush or bulldozer ... Mean absolutely nothing until you take them out of the hands of the government ... Put them in the hands of the people ... And allow us all to build better lives for ourselves.*
> 
> .
Click to expand...

The fear that PMZ has, is that putting this power and/or keeping this power in the hands of a people gone greedy as is her opinion, is not acceptable any longer for her. She feels that they had forgotten their responsibility to the poor as found in the scheme of things over time, where as the rich were more than willing to cast that responsibility onto the government in the past just as they still are now.

This way they could focus on the business of getting richer and richer without being bogged down by problems such as this within their greedy lives as according to PMZ's thinking. Now the government recognizes that allowing this off balanced situation to build and build and build, along with their mismanagement of the poor on their part, has come to a head. 

Now what to do, what to do right ?

What the government has been doing, is it has been handling it for them *this responsibility *in which it had been given. The problem is, is that the government is the poorest manager of these things that there is, and that is a huge problem for us all. The government actually incentivized the creation of more poverty on top of poverty under their management, so you can understand why people don't trust the government to do these things any longer. So this may be why you are saying what you are saying upon what you are saying about putting the responsibility back into the hands of the people right ?


----------



## Kathy58




----------



## beagle9

What should have been done, is that there should have been a specific website built by each state under federal regulations that would have guided them to add the new regulations as represented for their state, and they should have been placed at the entrance of each state on the web concerning health care in that state, and not some single website built and run by the government for the whole thing, I mean if this is what the situation is now.


----------



## RKMBrown

beagle9 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> >> They are no more good or evil than hammers and screwdrivers are.
> 
> Incorrect assumption.
> 
> Which one is good,  which evil,  and why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hammers and screwdrivers are inanimate objects, thus incapable of good or evil.
> Economic systems, however, apply to people as they control a person's life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.  As such these systems are capable of good and evil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ummm, the hammers and screwdrivers are given a new character or task in her meaning to represent specific terms for fixing things, so them being as inanimate objects really doesn't apply within her analogy. Right ?
Click to expand...


Hammers and screwdrivers are inanimate objects. They are tools used by people to accomplish tasks according to systems for completing said tasks. Treating people like tools to be used and tossed about against their will in an economic system is just plain evil. Why?  Because people are not inanimate objects.


----------



## BlackSand

beagle9 said:


> What the government has been doing, is it has been handling it for them *this responsibility *in which it had been given. The problem is, is that the government is the poorest manager of these things that there is, and that is a huge problem for us all. The government actually incentivized the creation of more poverty on top of poverty under their management, so you can understand why people don't trust the government to do these things any longer. So this may be why you are saying what you are saying upon what you are saying about putting the responsibility back into the hands of the people right ?



I can say whatever I say until the day is done ... But it is only what I do that ever makes a difference.

*Simple analogy ...*

If I am driving down the road and see my neighbor's truck stuck in the ditch ... I have choices.
I can choose to call 911 ... And unnecessarily clog the emergency switchboard with a complaint and request they are neither equipped nor responsible in handling.
They can tell me to hang up the phone ... Call the local towing agency ... And send me the bill ... But that isn't what I want either.

I can choose to go to the barn ... Get my tractor and a cargo strap ... Then pull my neighbor out of the ditch.
I don't need help from the 911 switchboard that isn't interested in helping me nor my neighbor ... Unless they might happen to get a kickback from the towing company for sending them business.

*It would only be if I made the choice to call 911 ... Who never fixed the problem to start with ... And then had them send you the bill ... That I would be both stupid and disingenuous trying to tell you that is a good thing.*

.


----------



## PMZ

BlackSand said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say that you were punishing just wealthy people ... I said there is no benefit to competition ... If the result of that competition is to have your rewards stolen from you and handed to the loser.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why do you work?  Why not choose poverty?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Great Question ... And I can say I certainly don't work so you can choose to keep someone else in poverty.*
> 
> I don't choose poverty because it is not beneficial towards achieving my goal to become a productive member of society ... Self-Reliance and the Freedom to enjoy the fruits of my labor are not paramount above my ability to help others.
> They are principles I have ... And that I choose to employ in a manner that helps others achieve those same goals ... I respect others, understand their difficulties (been there) ... But never give up on them.
> I don't need the government handling that responsibility ... Just because people like you are too lazy and neglect your own duties ... Then get the idea that making excuses for your failures somehow makes it okay.
> 
> *Your hammer, screwdriver, paintbrush or bulldozer ... Mean absolutely nothing until you take them out of the hands of the government ... Put them in the hands of the people ... And allow us all to build better lives for ourselves.*
> 
> .
Click to expand...


It's interesting that you don't see government as of,  by,  and for the people but as something alien and evil.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hammers and screwdrivers are inanimate objects, thus incapable of good or evil.
> Economic systems, however, apply to people as they control a person's life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.  As such these systems are capable of good and evil.
> 
> 
> 
> Ummm, the hammers and screwdrivers are given a new character or task in her meaning to represent specific terms for fixing things, so them being as inanimate objects really doesn't apply within her analogy. Right ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hammers and screwdrivers are inanimate objects. They are tools used by people to accomplish tasks according to systems for completing said tasks. Treating people like tools to be used and tossed about against their will in an economic system is just plain evil. Why?  Because people are not inanimate objects.
Click to expand...


You sure get worked up about capitalism vs socialism where the only difference is whether,  in a particular market,  the means of production are owned by some of the people or all of the people.


----------



## BlackSand

PMZ said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then why do you work?  Why not choose poverty?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Great Question ... And I can say I certainly don't work so you can choose to keep someone else in poverty.*
> 
> I don't choose poverty because it is not beneficial towards achieving my goal to become a productive member of society ... Self-Reliance and the Freedom to enjoy the fruits of my labor are not paramount above my ability to help others.
> They are principles I have ... And that I choose to employ in a manner that helps others achieve those same goals ... I respect others, understand their difficulties (been there) ... But never give up on them.
> I don't need the government handling that responsibility ... Just because people like you are too lazy and neglect your own duties ... Then get the idea that making excuses for your failures somehow makes it okay.
> 
> *Your hammer, screwdriver, paintbrush or bulldozer ... Mean absolutely nothing until you take them out of the hands of the government ... Put them in the hands of the people ... And allow us all to build better lives for ourselves.*
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's interesting that you don't see government as of,  by,  and for the people but as something alien and evil.
Click to expand...


I didn't say the government was evil at all ... 
*I said it was ill-equipped to handle the problem ... Then came closer to calling people like you evil for neglecting your responsibilities, blaming someone else ... Then sending me the bill.*

.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ummm, the hammers and screwdrivers are given a new character or task in her meaning to represent specific terms for fixing things, so them being as inanimate objects really doesn't apply within her analogy. Right ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hammers and screwdrivers are inanimate objects. They are tools used by people to accomplish tasks according to systems for completing said tasks. Treating people like tools to be used and tossed about against their will in an economic system is just plain evil. Why?  Because people are not inanimate objects.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You sure get worked up about capitalism vs socialism where the only difference is whether,  in a particular market,  the means of production are owned by some of the people or all of the people.
Click to expand...

Where did I say a single thing about capitalism vs. socialism in that post?

To your point of means of production, the issue is earned vs unearned ownership.  Progress through effort or progress through theft, rape, abuse of others.


----------



## PMZ

BlackSand said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What the government has been doing, is it has been handling it for them *this responsibility *in which it had been given. The problem is, is that the government is the poorest manager of these things that there is, and that is a huge problem for us all. The government actually incentivized the creation of more poverty on top of poverty under their management, so you can understand why people don't trust the government to do these things any longer. So this may be why you are saying what you are saying upon what you are saying about putting the responsibility back into the hands of the people right ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can say whatever I say until the day is done ... But it is only what I do that ever makes a difference.
> 
> *Simple analogy ...*
> 
> If I am driving down the road and see my neighbor's truck stuck in the ditch ... I have choices.
> I can choose to call 911 ... And unnecessarily clog the emergency switchboard with a complaint and request they are neither equipped nor responsible in handling.
> They can tell me to hang up the phone ... Call the local towing agency ... And send me the bill ... But that isn't what I want either.
> 
> I can choose to go to the barn ... Get my tractor and a cargo strap ... Then pull my neighbor out of the ditch.
> I don't need help from the 911 switchboard that isn't interested in helping me nor my neighbor ... Unless they might happen to get a kickback from the towing company for sending them business.
> 
> *It would only be if I made the choice to call 911 ... Who never fixed the problem to start with ... And then had them send you the bill ... That I would be both stupid and disingenuous trying to tell you that is a good thing.*
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Another possibility is to take the conservative approach and ignore the problem. After all,  it's not yours. 

If you did call 911 they would tell that they are only equipped to handle emergencies and this is no one. 

You could stop and ask your neighbor if he had already called for help or if he would like to borrow your phone to call. 

Or perhaps the neighbor was in a hurry to get someplace and you could offer him a ride.


----------



## BlackSand

PMZ said:


> Another possibility is to take the conservative approach and ignore the problem. After all,  it's not yours.
> 
> If you did call 911 they would tell that they are only equipped to handle emergencies and this is no one.
> 
> You could stop and ask your neighbor if he had already called for help or if he would like to borrow your phone to call.
> 
> Or perhaps the neighbor was in a hurry to get someplace and you could offer him a ride.



*I am a Conservative ... And the approach you offered is not acceptable for me ... So you would be incorrect ... Again.*

I mean face it ... I didn't even think of that excuse ... You did!
That is because that is all you ever offer ... passing the responsibility off to others or the government ... It is practically second nature for you and your kind, and I bet it didn't take you a second to think up.

Being stupid enough to ask 911 to handle a problem they are obviously not equipped to handle ... Is just as stupid as asking the government to handle what they are not equipped to handle.
At least that made a dent ... And we found something to agree on ... Thank God you got that point right.

I don't have to ask my neighbor if he needs help genius ... His truck is stuck in the ditch. 
It won't matter if he called someone else when I show up with the tractor and the strap ... And he will get where he needs to go a lot easier and quicker when I get his truck out of the ditch.
The only reason he would need to use my phone ... Is if he needs to call someone and tell them he is on his way.

*You really are stupid aren't you ... !?!!*

Edit: Progressive Liberals need to get the hell out of the world of "what-if's" ... And start living in the world of "what is".

.


----------



## beagle9

RKMBrown said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hammers and screwdrivers are inanimate objects, thus incapable of good or evil.
> Economic systems, however, apply to people as they control a person's life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.  As such these systems are capable of good and evil.
> 
> 
> 
> Ummm, the hammers and screwdrivers are given a new character or task in her meaning to represent specific terms for fixing things, so them being as inanimate objects really doesn't apply within her analogy. Right ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hammers and screwdrivers are inanimate objects. They are tools used by people to accomplish tasks according to systems for completing said tasks. Treating people like tools to be used and tossed about against their will in an economic system is just plain evil. Why?  Because people are not inanimate objects.
Click to expand...

I don't think the analogy was meant by her to suggest that people were inanimate objects, but rather her tool analogy was used to adjust or tweek the system in ways that would fix it, now with said tools representing different fixes, then I guess we need to find out what the tools represent in her mind. What does the screwdriver represent and what does the hammer represent, and then will it fix the problem or not when applied in the way that it is applied by her ?  Lets say that the hammer represents single payer, would that fix the problem finally ?


----------



## RKMBrown

beagle9 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ummm, the hammers and screwdrivers are given a new character or task in her meaning to represent specific terms for fixing things, so them being as inanimate objects really doesn't apply within her analogy. Right ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hammers and screwdrivers are inanimate objects. They are tools used by people to accomplish tasks according to systems for completing said tasks. Treating people like tools to be used and tossed about against their will in an economic system is just plain evil. Why?  Because people are not inanimate objects.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't think the analogy was meant by her to suggest that people were inanimate objects, but rather her tool analogy was used to adjust or tweek the system in ways that would fix it, now with said tools representing different fixes, then I guess we need to find out what the tools represent in her mind. What does the screwdriver represent and what does the hammer represent, and then will it fix the problem or not when applied in the way that it is applied by her ?  Lets say that the hammer represents single payer, would that fix the problem finally ?
Click to expand...


That's a lot guessing.  But you lost me on what he/she was saying is evil.  The tools, the policies, the people, or some metaphor about fixing things?  Maybe you could rewrite what he/she said while still using the same terms, then we could discussion that version..  all i did was read it as written, subject verb and all that.

>> You do understand that capitalism and socialism are economic systems, right?  They are no more good or evil than hammers and screwdrivers are.

Please rewrite the second sentence in context of the first sentence.

They are the economic systems.   Thus he/she is saying, capitalism and socialism are no more good or evil than hammers and screwdivers are.  

IMO this sentence means the author equates economic systems with tools, and as such are impossible of evil.  IMO that is grossly incorrect.


----------



## beagle9

RKMBrown said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hammers and screwdrivers are inanimate objects. They are tools used by people to accomplish tasks according to systems for completing said tasks. Treating people like tools to be used and tossed about against their will in an economic system is just plain evil. Why?  Because people are not inanimate objects.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think the analogy was meant by her to suggest that people were inanimate objects, but rather her tool analogy was used to adjust or tweek the system in ways that would fix it, now with said tools representing different fixes, then I guess we need to find out what the tools represent in her mind. What does the screwdriver represent and what does the hammer represent, and then will it fix the problem or not when applied in the way that it is applied by her ?  Lets say that the hammer represents single payer, would that fix the problem finally ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a lot guessing.  But you lost me on what he/she was saying is evil.  The tools, the policies, the people, or some metaphor about fixing things?  Maybe you could rewrite what he/she said while still using the same terms, then we could discussion that version..  all i did was read it as written, subject verb and all that.
> 
> >> You do understand that capitalism and socialism are economic systems, right?  They are no more good or evil than hammers and screwdrivers are.
> 
> Please rewrite the second sentence in context of the first sentence.
> 
> They are the economic systems.   Thus he/she is saying, capitalism and socialism are no more good or evil than hammers and screwdivers are.
> 
> *IMO this sentence means the author equates economic systems with tools, and as such are impossible of evil.  IMO that is grossly incorrect*.
Click to expand...


Maybe PMZ will expand on this, and let us know what the tools represented to her. When taking a hammer out, I guess it means to do something extreme in order to get the job done, but when taking a screwdriver out it could be just to tweek it some, and this in order to get the job done, so the question is finally; what do these tools represent as far as a plan or solution goes in representation of either one ?


----------



## freedombecki

PMZ said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every one in the world is a socialist because every country in the world employs the socialist economic system in appropriate markets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To a defined extent, this is true, but you go way beyond that, you're anti capitalism....redistribute the wealth kind of a person
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again the age old trick of propagandists. Speak for your scapegoats. Tell people what THEY are thinking.
> 
> I'm every bit as much a capitalist as socialist just as I bear no prejudice against either hammers or screwdrivers. The right tool for the right job.
> 
> You've been led to your place of ignorance by capitalist propaganda drooling over markets in which there is no competition. Nirvana for them, hell for the consumers.
> 
> There is no bigger obstacle to make more money regardless of the cost to others than competition.
Click to expand...

*I'm every bit as much a capitalist as socialist just as I bear no prejudice against either hammers or screwdrivers. The right tool for the right job*. ​You certainly have made yourself completely misunderstood on every thread you've posted on at USMB that I've seen.


----------



## RKMBrown

beagle9 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think the analogy was meant by her to suggest that people were inanimate objects, but rather her tool analogy was used to adjust or tweek the system in ways that would fix it, now with said tools representing different fixes, then I guess we need to find out what the tools represent in her mind. What does the screwdriver represent and what does the hammer represent, and then will it fix the problem or not when applied in the way that it is applied by her ?  Lets say that the hammer represents single payer, would that fix the problem finally ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a lot guessing.  But you lost me on what he/she was saying is evil.  The tools, the policies, the people, or some metaphor about fixing things?  Maybe you could rewrite what he/she said while still using the same terms, then we could discussion that version..  all i did was read it as written, subject verb and all that.
> 
> >> You do understand that capitalism and socialism are economic systems, right?  They are no more good or evil than hammers and screwdrivers are.
> 
> Please rewrite the second sentence in context of the first sentence.
> 
> They are the economic systems.   Thus he/she is saying, capitalism and socialism are no more good or evil than hammers and screwdivers are.
> 
> *IMO this sentence means the author equates economic systems with tools, and as such are impossible of evil.  IMO that is grossly incorrect*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe PMZ will expand on this, and let us know what the tools represented to her. When taking a hammer out, I guess it means to do something extreme in order to get the job done, but when taking a screwdriver out it could be just to tweek it some, and this in order to get the job done, so the question is finally; what do these tools represent as far as a plan or solution goes in representation of either one ?
Click to expand...

I guess you just have to be a liberal to understand all the nuances of feeling, to compare people to a hammer and screwdriver.


----------



## BlackSand

beagle9 said:


> Maybe PMZ will expand on this, and let us know what the tools represented to her. When taking a hammer out, I guess it means to do something extreme in order to get the job done, but when taking a screwdriver out it could be just to tweek it some, and this in order to get the job done, so the question is finally; what do these tools represent as far as a plan or solution goes in representation of either one ?



I say we use a chainsaw ... Start at the top of Government  ... And work our way down.
Once we get to a rake and burn pile ... The job will be easier ... And the yard will look a lot better.

.


----------



## Antares

beagle9 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think the analogy was meant by her to suggest that people were inanimate objects, but rather her tool analogy was used to adjust or tweek the system in ways that would fix it, now with said tools representing different fixes, then I guess we need to find out what the tools represent in her mind. What does the screwdriver represent and what does the hammer represent, and then will it fix the problem or not when applied in the way that it is applied by her ?  Lets say that the hammer represents single payer, would that fix the problem finally ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a lot guessing.  But you lost me on what he/she was saying is evil.  The tools, the policies, the people, or some metaphor about fixing things?  Maybe you could rewrite what he/she said while still using the same terms, then we could discussion that version..  all i did was read it as written, subject verb and all that.
> 
> >> You do understand that capitalism and socialism are economic systems, right?  They are no more good or evil than hammers and screwdrivers are.
> 
> Please rewrite the second sentence in context of the first sentence.
> 
> They are the economic systems.   Thus he/she is saying, capitalism and socialism are no more good or evil than hammers and screwdivers are.
> 
> *IMO this sentence means the author equates economic systems with tools, and as such are impossible of evil.  IMO that is grossly incorrect*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe PMZ will expand on this, and let us know what the tools represented to her. When taking a hammer out, I guess it means to do something extreme in order to get the job done, but when taking a screwdriver out it could be just to tweek it some, and this in order to get the job done, so the question is finally; what do these tools represent as far as a plan or solution goes in representation of either one ?
Click to expand...


Honey PMS is a moron, try thinking for yourself.


----------



## PMZ

BlackSand said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another possibility is to take the conservative approach and ignore the problem. After all,  it's not yours.
> 
> If you did call 911 they would tell that they are only equipped to handle emergencies and this is no one.
> 
> You could stop and ask your neighbor if he had already called for help or if he would like to borrow your phone to call.
> 
> Or perhaps the neighbor was in a hurry to get someplace and you could offer him a ride.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I am a Conservative ... And the approach you offered is not acceptable for me ... So you would be incorrect ... Again.*
> 
> I mean face it ... I didn't even think of that excuse ... You did!
> That is because that is all you ever offer ... passing the responsibility off to others or the government ... It is practically second nature for you and your kind, and I bet it didn't take you a second to think up.
> 
> Being stupid enough to ask 911 to handle a problem they are obviously not equipped to handle ... Is just as stupid as asking the government to handle what they are not equipped to handle.
> At least that made a dent ... And we found something to agree on ... Thank God you got that point right.
> 
> I don't have to ask my neighbor if he needs help genius ... His truck is stuck in the ditch.
> It won't matter if he called someone else when I show up with the tractor and the strap ... And he will get where he needs to go a lot easier and quicker when I get his truck out of the ditch.
> The only reason he would need to use my phone ... Is if he needs to call someone and tell them he is on his way.
> 
> *You really are stupid aren't you ... !?!!*
> 
> Edit: Progressive Liberals need to get the hell out of the world of "what-if's" ... And start living in the world of "what is".
> 
> .
Click to expand...


I love it when conservatives have nothing to say except call people names.


----------



## PMZ

freedombecki said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> To a defined extent, this is true, but you go way beyond that, you're anti capitalism....redistribute the wealth kind of a person
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again the age old trick of propagandists. Speak for your scapegoats. Tell people what THEY are thinking.
> 
> I'm every bit as much a capitalist as socialist just as I bear no prejudice against either hammers or screwdrivers. The right tool for the right job.
> 
> You've been led to your place of ignorance by capitalist propaganda drooling over markets in which there is no competition. Nirvana for them, hell for the consumers.
> 
> There is no bigger obstacle to make more money regardless of the cost to others than competition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I'm every bit as much a capitalist as socialist just as I bear no prejudice against either hammers or screwdrivers. The right tool for the right job*. ​You certainly have made yourself completely misunderstood on every thread you've posted on at USMB that I've seen.
Click to expand...


Your inability to understand the written language comes from having all of your opinions implanted from the TV. A common conservative condition.


----------



## PMZ

BlackSand said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe PMZ will expand on this, and let us know what the tools represented to her. When taking a hammer out, I guess it means to do something extreme in order to get the job done, but when taking a screwdriver out it could be just to tweek it some, and this in order to get the job done, so the question is finally; what do these tools represent as far as a plan or solution goes in representation of either one ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I say we use a chainsaw ... Start at the top of Government  ... And work our way down.
> Once we get to a rake and burn pile ... The job will be easier ... And the yard will look a lot better.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


You don't have to tear down our government. Just move to someplace without one.


----------



## PMZ

beagle9 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think the analogy was meant by her to suggest that people were inanimate objects, but rather her tool analogy was used to adjust or tweek the system in ways that would fix it, now with said tools representing different fixes, then I guess we need to find out what the tools represent in her mind. What does the screwdriver represent and what does the hammer represent, and then will it fix the problem or not when applied in the way that it is applied by her ?  Lets say that the hammer represents single payer, would that fix the problem finally ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a lot guessing.  But you lost me on what he/she was saying is evil.  The tools, the policies, the people, or some metaphor about fixing things?  Maybe you could rewrite what he/she said while still using the same terms, then we could discussion that version..  all i did was read it as written, subject verb and all that.
> 
> >> You do understand that capitalism and socialism are economic systems, right?  They are no more good or evil than hammers and screwdrivers are.
> 
> Please rewrite the second sentence in context of the first sentence.
> 
> They are the economic systems.   Thus he/she is saying, capitalism and socialism are no more good or evil than hammers and screwdivers are.
> 
> *IMO this sentence means the author equates economic systems with tools, and as such are impossible of evil.  IMO that is grossly incorrect*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe PMZ will expand on this, and let us know what the tools represented to her. When taking a hammer out, I guess it means to do something extreme in order to get the job done, but when taking a screwdriver out it could be just to tweek it some, and this in order to get the job done, so the question is finally; what do these tools represent as far as a plan or solution goes in representation of either one ?
Click to expand...


Economic systems are mere tools like hammers and screwdrivers. A craftsman chooses the best tool for a particular job. 

To even suggest using capitalism in a market absent of competition is to open ones checkbook to "make more money regardless of the cost to others". Might as well send the corporation a blank check.

To use socialism in a market suitable for competition would be not quite as bad, but not as good as using capitalism.

Part of the scapegoating that's a big feature of Republican propaganda through Fox Opinions is to identify the tool of socialism as the devil incarnate. Why? People who don't even know what it is will fall for it, it can be associated with Democrats and through that association democrats become the devil incarnate. 

Every day you see the conservatives lined up in a row here goosestepping to that tune.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's a lot guessing.  But you lost me on what he/she was saying is evil.  The tools, the policies, the people, or some metaphor about fixing things?  Maybe you could rewrite what he/she said while still using the same terms, then we could discussion that version..  all i did was read it as written, subject verb and all that.
> 
> >> You do understand that capitalism and socialism are economic systems, right?  They are no more good or evil than hammers and screwdrivers are.
> 
> Please rewrite the second sentence in context of the first sentence.
> 
> They are the economic systems.   Thus he/she is saying, capitalism and socialism are no more good or evil than hammers and screwdivers are.
> 
> *IMO this sentence means the author equates economic systems with tools, and as such are impossible of evil.  IMO that is grossly incorrect*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe PMZ will expand on this, and let us know what the tools represented to her. When taking a hammer out, I guess it means to do something extreme in order to get the job done, but when taking a screwdriver out it could be just to tweek it some, and this in order to get the job done, so the question is finally; what do these tools represent as far as a plan or solution goes in representation of either one ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I guess you just have to be a liberal to understand all the nuances of feeling, to compare people to a hammer and screwdriver.
Click to expand...


I'll have to remember that nuance is beyond you.


----------



## BlackSand

PMZ said:


> You don't have to tear down our government. Just move to someplace without one.



Technically ... I don't have to do either ... Because I don't need anything from the government ... I just think it would be nicer if they stayed out of my business.
That way I could help more people ... Better than the government ever does ... And it would quit creating more problems that you would want to make more government fix.




PMZ said:


> I love it when conservatives have nothing to say except call people names.



What are you talking about ... I didn't call you stupid ... I asked you to clarify if my assessment that you were stupid was correct ... minor difference.
I will take your added response as an adequate clarification of my previous assessment though. 

.


----------



## PMZ

BlackSand said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't have to tear down our government. Just move to someplace without one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Technically ... I don't have to do either ... Because I don't need anything from the government ... I just think it would be nicer if they stayed out of my business.
> That way I could help more people ... Better than the government ever does ... And it would quit creating more problems that you would want to make more government fix.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


I don't know of a single law that prevents you from helping other people. In fact, if you gave others all of your money you wouldn't have to pay taxes.


----------



## BlackSand

PMZ said:


> I don't know of a single law that prevents you from helping other people. In fact, if you gave others all of your money you wouldn't have to pay taxes.



There aren't any laws that keep me from using money to help people out in more ways than the government ever will.
There are laws that take my money and give it to the government ... So they can do a crappy job attempting to fix a problem they make ... So you can feel better about doing nothing.

And people like me pay taxes when we make money ... Not just when the government wants to take more of it ... But people like you wouldn't know that.
Just so you know ... You can reduce your taxes by giving money away ... But you cannot eliminate all your taxes by giving money away ... And if you do give your money away, whoever you give it to still has to pay taxes on it.
You think the government is going to let people get away with giving away money that would leave the government broke ... Hell no.


.


----------



## Kathy58

From The Hill;

   Timeline of botched ObamaCare rollout

By Patrick Mortiere


Its been a rough stretch for the Obama administration, and it doesnt look to get any better any time soon.

A month after Republicans suffered a massive political hit because of the government shutdown, the White House is now taking a beating.


The following is a timeline of the administrations rollout of ObamaCare.

Sept. 26: Obama said, most of the stories you'll hear about how ObamaCare just can't work is just not based on facts. Every time they have predicted something not working, it's worked."

Sept. 27: Obama said, "Those marketplaces will be open for business on Tuesday, no matter what, even if there's a government shutdown. That's a done deal."

Oct. 1: People begin shopping for health insurance on HealthCare.gov, but the site crashes.

Oct. 1: Obama said, "Now, like every new law, every new product rollout, there are going to be some glitches in the signup process along the way that we will fix. Ive been saying this from the start. For example, we found out that there have been times this morning where the site has been running more slowly than it normally will."

Oct. 16: Government shutdown ends.

Oct. 21: Obama makes a speech in the White House Rose Garden to discuss the ObamaCare website as well as explaining the enrollment process.

Oct. 24: Federal contractors who worked on administration blamed the administration for its decision to allow people to create accounts before they could browse health plans.

Oct. 27: A malfunction brought the ObamaCare website down.

 Oct. 28: Amid reports of people losing their insurance coverage, House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) introduces a bill, the Keep Your Health Plan Act of 2013, which would allow people to keep their health plans.

Oct. 29: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Administrator Marilyn Tavenner testifies before the House Ways and Means Committee on the failed launch of the ObamaCare website and assures the public that the website can be fixed.

Oct. 30: Obama said, "Now if you had one of these substandard plans before the Affordable Care Act became law and you really liked that plan, you were able to keep it. That's what I said when I was running for office. That was part of the promise we made. But ever since the law was passed, if insurers decided to downgrade or cancel these substandard plans, what we said under the law is, you've got to replace them with quality, comprehensive coverage because that too was a central premise of the Affordable Care Act from the very beginning."

Oct. 31: The ObamaCare website crashes for the second time in a week  during Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius' testimony to the House Energy and Commerce Committee. 

Oct. 31: Sebelius tells the House Energy and Commerce panel: "Hold me accountable for the debacle. I'm responsible."

Oct. 31: Julie Bataille, director of communications for CMS, announced in a blog that the ObamaCare website team was bringing personnel from companies such as Google, Red Hat and Oracle to contribute to the ongoing maintenance of the site. 

Oct 31: House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) issues a subpoena to Sebelius over the ObamaCare website technical problems, and says in a statement, The American people deserve to know why the administration spent significant taxpayer money on a product that is entirely dysfunctional and puts their personal information at risk."

Nov. 3: HHS announces the site will undergo maintenance every night until improvements are made to the site. 

Nov. 4: Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) introduces a bill, titled the Keeping the Affordable Care Act Promise Act, which would allow people to keep their health plans. 

Nov. 4: The enrollment and application system for the ObamaCare website crashed for 90 minutes after an overload of a small amount of servers.

Nov. 5: Rep. Dave Camp (R-Mich.), chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, issues a subpoena to the CMS for the ObamaCare enrollment data, saying to administration officials, "Congress needs to know what you know so Congress, the American people's representatives, can also take corrective action."

Nov. 6: Sebelius admits that it was possible convicted felons could be hired as ObamaCare "navigators," giving them access to personal information such as Social Security numbers and addresses of anyone signing up for the program.

Nov. 7: Obama apologizes for making promises that he couldn't keep. He tells Chuck Todd of MSNBC, "I am sorry that they are finding themselves in this situation based on assurances they got from me."

Nov. 9: Rep. Kurt Schrader (D-Ore.) rips the president on his broken promise: "I think the president was grossly misleading to the American public." 

Nov. 12: Former President Bill Clinton says in an interview, "I personally believe, even if it takes a change in the law, the president should honor the commitment the federal government made to those people and let them keep what they've got.

Nov. 12: House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said, I think the president was not precise, and I think that, he should have been precise. We all should have been more precise." He added, "We knew that there would be some policies that would not qualify, and therefore people would be required to get more extensive coverage."

Nov. 13: HHS releases figures for ObamaCare enrollment for the first time, estimating around 106,185 people have enrolled in a plan, with only about 26,794 enrolling through the federal website. 

Nov. 14: Obama announced in a press briefing that people whose plans were canceled or going to be canceled can keep their plan or re-enroll for 2014. He said, It's legitimate to expect us to have win back some credibility on this healthcare law and other issues ... we fumbled the rollout."

Nov. 14: Some Senate Democrats announce their moving forward with legislation beyond Obama's one-year proposal, with Mark Begich (D-Alaska) saying, Were moving forward on the legislation...Id make it permanent if I could but Im thinking at least two years should be on the table.

Nov. 14: Obama threatens a veto of the Upton legislation; House Democratic leaders opt not to whip against it.

Nov. 15: The House passes Upton bill, 261-157. Thirty-nine Democrats defect.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's a lot guessing.  But you lost me on what he/she was saying is evil.  The tools, the policies, the people, or some metaphor about fixing things?  Maybe you could rewrite what he/she said while still using the same terms, then we could discussion that version..  all i did was read it as written, subject verb and all that.
> 
> >> You do understand that capitalism and socialism are economic systems, right?  They are no more good or evil than hammers and screwdrivers are.
> 
> Please rewrite the second sentence in context of the first sentence.
> 
> They are the economic systems.   Thus he/she is saying, capitalism and socialism are no more good or evil than hammers and screwdivers are.
> 
> *IMO this sentence means the author equates economic systems with tools, and as such are impossible of evil.  IMO that is grossly incorrect*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe PMZ will expand on this, and let us know what the tools represented to her. When taking a hammer out, I guess it means to do something extreme in order to get the job done, but when taking a screwdriver out it could be just to tweek it some, and this in order to get the job done, so the question is finally; what do these tools represent as far as a plan or solution goes in representation of either one ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Economic systems are mere tools like hammers and screwdrivers. A craftsman chooses the best tool for a particular job.
> 
> To even suggest using capitalism in a market absent of competition is to open ones checkbook to "make more money regardless of the cost to others". Might as well send the corporation a blank check.
> 
> To use socialism in a market suitable for competition would be not quite as bad, but not as good as using capitalism.
> 
> Part of the scapegoating that's a big feature of Republican propaganda through Fox Opinions is to identify the tool of socialism as the devil incarnate. Why? People who don't even know what it is will fall for it, it can be associated with Democrats and through that association democrats become the devil incarnate.
> 
> Every day you see the conservatives lined up in a row here goosestepping to that tune.
Click to expand...

Thus my read on what you meant was correct.

As to your point... this is a fundamental difference between authoritarians and libertarians.  You believe the evil is in using people in a bad way, I believe the evil is in using people.  Said another way, you believe the ends justify the means.  Correct me If I misstate your view, but I believe you have said if the ends is helping the needy it's ok to take money from peter to pay paul (I call that stealing), if the ends is making rich people even richer, it's not ok to take money from paul to pay peter (you call that stealing).  The truth is they are both stealing and they are both wrong.


----------



## beagle9

BlackSand said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe PMZ will expand on this, and let us know what the tools represented to her. When taking a hammer out, I guess it means to do something extreme in order to get the job done, but when taking a screwdriver out it could be just to tweek it some, and this in order to get the job done, so the question is finally; what do these tools represent as far as a plan or solution goes in representation of either one ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I say we use a chainsaw ... Start at the top of Government  ... And work our way down.
> Once we get to a rake and burn pile ... The job will be easier ... And the yard will look a lot better.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Good analogy A+..


----------



## beagle9

PMZ said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe PMZ will expand on this, and let us know what the tools represented to her. When taking a hammer out, I guess it means to do something extreme in order to get the job done, but when taking a screwdriver out it could be just to tweek it some, and this in order to get the job done, so the question is finally; what do these tools represent as far as a plan or solution goes in representation of either one ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I say we use a chainsaw ... Start at the top of Government  ... And work our way down.
> Once we get to a rake and burn pile ... The job will be easier ... And the yard will look a lot better.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't have to tear down our government. Just move to someplace without one.
Click to expand...

She has it right, where as the powers need to be rattled here and there a bit, and this just to let them know that we the people are still in charge, and that they work for us. Problem is, is that they haven't been rattled enough lately, and therefore they have become to controlling in a dictatorship fashion now.


----------



## PMZ

BlackSand said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know of a single law that prevents you from helping other people. In fact, if you gave others all of your money you wouldn't have to pay taxes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There aren't any laws that keep me from using money to help people out in more ways than the government ever will.
> There are laws that take my money and give it to the government ... So they can do a crappy job attempting to fix a problem they make ... So you can feel better about doing nothing.
> 
> And people like me pay taxes when we make money ... Not just when the government wants to take more of it ... But people like you wouldn't know that.
> Just so you know ... You can reduce your taxes by giving money away ... But you cannot eliminate all your taxes by giving money away ... And if you do give your money away, whoever you give it to still has to pay taxes on it.
> You think the government is going to let people get away with giving away money that would leave the government broke ... Hell no.
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Are you an anarchist too?


----------



## BlackSand

PMZ said:


> Are you an anarchist too?



No ... I am a business owner ... But I can see where a Progressive Liberal like yourself ... Who neglects their obligations and lacks the initiative or ability to actually achieve a goal could make that mistake.

.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe PMZ will expand on this, and let us know what the tools represented to her. When taking a hammer out, I guess it means to do something extreme in order to get the job done, but when taking a screwdriver out it could be just to tweek it some, and this in order to get the job done, so the question is finally; what do these tools represent as far as a plan or solution goes in representation of either one ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Economic systems are mere tools like hammers and screwdrivers. A craftsman chooses the best tool for a particular job.
> 
> To even suggest using capitalism in a market absent of competition is to open ones checkbook to "make more money regardless of the cost to others". Might as well send the corporation a blank check.
> 
> To use socialism in a market suitable for competition would be not quite as bad, but not as good as using capitalism.
> 
> Part of the scapegoating that's a big feature of Republican propaganda through Fox Opinions is to identify the tool of socialism as the devil incarnate. Why? People who don't even know what it is will fall for it, it can be associated with Democrats and through that association democrats become the devil incarnate.
> 
> Every day you see the conservatives lined up in a row here goosestepping to that tune.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thus my read on what you meant was correct.
> 
> As to your point... this is a fundamental difference between authoritarians and libertarians.  You believe the evil is in using people in a bad way, I believe the evil is in using people.  Said another way, you believe the ends justify the means.  Correct me If I misstate your view, but I believe you have said if the ends is helping the needy it's ok to take money from peter to pay paul (I call that stealing), if the ends is making rich people even richer, it's not ok to take money from paul to pay peter (you call that stealing).  The truth is they are both stealing and they are both wrong.
Click to expand...


What I believe is that our life stories are profoundly affected by the country or countries that we live in. And the family that we are born to. And the friends that we make. And the schools that we attend. And the companies that we work for. All of those are part of us.

We are either happy and proud of what we made from all of those ingredients or disappointed.

I'm happy and proud. I want others to share in my good fortune. Along the way I made some money. More than I need to be happy. 

I just can't relate to king of the mountain. The one who dies with the most toys wins. 

The success of my country ranks right up there with the success of my family in terms of what I would like to leave behind. My role in both of those goals is to do what I can to fix things that are obstacles to that.

Simple. Pragmatic. Objective.

Your histrionics of entitlement do not move me an inch. The risks to the success of my family and country move me greatly.

It is that simple.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## PMZ

BlackSand said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you an anarchist too?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No ... I am a business owner ... But I can see where a Progressive Liberal like yourself ... Who neglects their obligations and lacks the initiative or ability to actually achieve a goal could make that mistake.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


I am a proud progressive liberal Republican. 

" Who neglects their obligations and lacks the initiative or ability to actually achieve a goal could make that mistake."

This in no way describes me. What it does is to describe what must be true of Americans for your propaganda to be true. And you love to think that of Americans because if it's not true you're not the hotshot you dream of being. 

You're the perfect mark for propaganda.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Economic systems are mere tools like hammers and screwdrivers. A craftsman chooses the best tool for a particular job.
> 
> To even suggest using capitalism in a market absent of competition is to open ones checkbook to "make more money regardless of the cost to others". Might as well send the corporation a blank check.
> 
> To use socialism in a market suitable for competition would be not quite as bad, but not as good as using capitalism.
> 
> Part of the scapegoating that's a big feature of Republican propaganda through Fox Opinions is to identify the tool of socialism as the devil incarnate. Why? People who don't even know what it is will fall for it, it can be associated with Democrats and through that association democrats become the devil incarnate.
> 
> Every day you see the conservatives lined up in a row here goosestepping to that tune.
> 
> 
> 
> Thus my read on what you meant was correct.
> 
> As to your point... this is a fundamental difference between authoritarians and libertarians.  You believe the evil is in using people in a bad way, I believe the evil is in using people.  Said another way, you believe the ends justify the means.  Correct me If I misstate your view, but I believe you have said if the ends is helping the needy it's ok to take money from peter to pay paul (I call that stealing), if the ends is making rich people even richer, it's not ok to take money from paul to pay peter (you call that stealing).  The truth is they are both stealing and they are both wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I believe our life stories are profoundly affected by the country or countries that we live in. And the family that we are born to. And the friends that we make. And the schools that we attend. And the companies that we work for. All of those are part of us.
> 
> We are either happy and proud of what we made from all of those ingredients or disappointed.
> 
> I'm happy and proud. I want others to share in my good fortune. Along the way I made some money. More than I need to be happy.
> 
> I just can't relate to king of the mountain. The one who dies with the most toys wins.
> 
> The success of my country ranks right up there with the success of my family in terms of what I would like to leave behind. My role in both of those goals is to do what I can to fix things that are obstacles to that.
> 
> Simple. Pragmatic. Objective.
> 
> Your histrionics of entitlement do not move me an inch. The risks to the success of my family and country move me greatly.
> 
> It is that simple.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
Click to expand...


Yeah, I'd like to say that was moving, but I really don't care what your motives are.  The ends do not justify the means that your profess.  No matter how eloquently you explain it, the means is the same, you are stealing money from one person to hand over money to another person.  Worse you defend the theft being done it in a completely arbitrary way, progressively by level of income.

Then to pour salt on the wound, your "team" distributes the income as hand-outs instead of hand-ups.  This presumably to ensure the receiver never progresses.  The evidence showing that the people receiving hand-outs are kept down to be a permanent voting class for even more hand-outs.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thus my read on what you meant was correct.
> 
> As to your point... this is a fundamental difference between authoritarians and libertarians.  You believe the evil is in using people in a bad way, I believe the evil is in using people.  Said another way, you believe the ends justify the means.  Correct me If I misstate your view, but I believe you have said if the ends is helping the needy it's ok to take money from peter to pay paul (I call that stealing), if the ends is making rich people even richer, it's not ok to take money from paul to pay peter (you call that stealing).  The truth is they are both stealing and they are both wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What I believe our life stories are profoundly affected by the country or countries that we live in. And the family that we are born to. And the friends that we make. And the schools that we attend. And the companies that we work for. All of those are part of us.
> 
> We are either happy and proud of what we made from all of those ingredients or disappointed.
> 
> I'm happy and proud. I want others to share in my good fortune. Along the way I made some money. More than I need to be happy.
> 
> I just can't relate to king of the mountain. The one who dies with the most toys wins.
> 
> The success of my country ranks right up there with the success of my family in terms of what I would like to leave behind. My role in both of those goals is to do what I can to fix things that are obstacles to that.
> 
> Simple. Pragmatic. Objective.
> 
> Your histrionics of entitlement do not move me an inch. The risks to the success of my family and country move me greatly.
> 
> It is that simple.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, I'd like to say that was moving, but I really don't care what your motives are.  The ends do not justify the means your profess, no matter how eloquently you protest that they do.
Click to expand...


And I really don't care anything about you other than your impact on what I do care about, America. Those are my ends.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I believe our life stories are profoundly affected by the country or countries that we live in. And the family that we are born to. And the friends that we make. And the schools that we attend. And the companies that we work for. All of those are part of us.
> 
> We are either happy and proud of what we made from all of those ingredients or disappointed.
> 
> I'm happy and proud. I want others to share in my good fortune. Along the way I made some money. More than I need to be happy.
> 
> I just can't relate to king of the mountain. The one who dies with the most toys wins.
> 
> The success of my country ranks right up there with the success of my family in terms of what I would like to leave behind. My role in both of those goals is to do what I can to fix things that are obstacles to that.
> 
> Simple. Pragmatic. Objective.
> 
> Your histrionics of entitlement do not move me an inch. The risks to the success of my family and country move me greatly.
> 
> It is that simple.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I'd like to say that was moving, but I really don't care what your motives are.  The ends do not justify the means your profess, no matter how eloquently you protest that they do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I really don't care anything about you other than your impact on what I do care about, America. Those are my ends.
Click to expand...


Caring about America, or my personal impact on it, is not an ends.  Perhaps you confuse emotion for results?


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I'd like to say that was moving, but I really don't care what your motives are.  The ends do not justify the means your profess, no matter how eloquently you protest that they do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I really don't care anything about you other than your impact on what I do care about, America. Those are my ends.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Caring about America, or my personal impact on it, is not an ends.  Perhaps you confuse emotion for results?
Click to expand...


Taking care of America is.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I really don't care anything about you other than your impact on what I do care about, America. Those are my ends.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Caring about America, or my personal impact on it, is not an ends.  Perhaps you confuse emotion for results?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Taking care of America is.
Click to expand...


Which part, the part you are stealing from or the part you are redistributing to?  What makes you think redistribution, is the solution?  What makes you think 50% of Americans need help from the other half?  What makes you think hand-outs are gonna make the bottom half better off in the long run?  You say you never received hand-outs, yet that is the answer you want. Is that because you think you are better than everyone else?


----------



## BlackSand

PMZ said:


> I am a proud progressive liberal Republican.
> 
> " Who neglects their obligations and lacks the initiative or ability to actually achieve a goal could make that mistake."
> 
> This in no way describes me. What it does is to describe what must be true of Americans for your propaganda to be true. And you love to think that of Americans because if it's not true you're not the hotshot you dream of being.
> 
> Your the perfect mark for propaganda.



Propaganda would only work if someone had something I either desired or needed ... Politically speaking anyway.
I am a Conservative ... I didn't describe you as anything you haven't already described yourself as ... Although you like your own propaganda a little better than the way things look in broad daylight.

*So if it isn't true ... What I think about you ... *

What part of wanting the government to fail at doing what you should be doing and it cannot do ... Because you are too lazy to or inept at accomplishing the goals on your own ... Do you actually disagree with?

*And realize that even if you disagree with the first part of it ... It still means the other is true.*

.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Caring about America, or my personal impact on it, is not an ends.  Perhaps you confuse emotion for results?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taking care of America is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which part, the part you are stealing from or the part you are redistributing to?  What makes you think redistribution, is the solution?  What makes you think 50% of Americans need help from the other half?  What makes you think hand-outs are gonna make the bottom half better off in the long run?  You say you never received hand-outs, yet that is the answer you want. Is that because you think you are better than everyone else?
Click to expand...


I believe all of the research that concluded that wealth inequality is the only thing that correlates with the bulk of social ills that this country is suffering from. 

Whereas there is no research that I've seen that says making the poor poorer and the rich richer solves any problem. In fact from my experience in Africa, I'd say that the evidence is overwhelming that it would make things much worse here.


----------



## PMZ

BlackSand said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am a proud progressive liberal Republican.
> 
> " Who neglects their obligations and lacks the initiative or ability to actually achieve a goal could make that mistake."
> 
> This in no way describes me. What it does is to describe what must be true of Americans for your propaganda to be true. And you love to think that of Americans because if it's not true you're not the hotshot you dream of being.
> 
> Your the perfect mark for propaganda.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Propaganda would only work if someone had something I either desired or needed ... Politically speaking anyway.
> I am a Conservative ... I didn't describe you as anything you haven't already described yourself as ... Although you like your own propaganda a little better than the way things look in broad daylight.
> 
> *So if it isn't true ... What I think about you ... *
> 
> What part of wanting the government to fail at doing what you should be doing and it cannot do ... Because you are too lazy to or inept at accomplishing the goals on your own ... Do you actually disagree with?
> 
> *And realize that even if you disagree with the first part of it ... It still means the other is true.*
> 
> .
Click to expand...


You are a fine mark for propaganda because they do offer what you want. Importance. They tell you that you are superior, and the scapegoats inferior, because of your conservatism and their liberalism. For someone in desperate need of attention that is the siren's song. You get all worked up here because I expose you as not only not important, but not very bright. Ouch!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## BlackSand

PMZ said:


> You are a fine mark for propaganda because they do offer what you want. Importance. They tell you that you are superior, and the scapegoats inferior, because of your conservatism and their liberalism. For someone in desperate need of attention that is the siren's song. You get all worked up here because I expose you as not only not important, but not very bright. Ouch!



Nobody has told me I am superior ... And if doing what I am supposed to do makes me superior ... What the hell does that say about you?
I don't think people are inferior ... You are the one that goes around saying that some people cannot do any better ... I am the person that helps them get to a better place.
Being a Conservative doesn't make me superior ... It just means that I don't need your money, or your government to do what needs to be done.

.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Taking care of America is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which part, the part you are stealing from or the part you are redistributing to?  What makes you think redistribution, is the solution?  What makes you think 50% of Americans need help from the other half?  What makes you think hand-outs are gonna make the bottom half better off in the long run?  You say you never received hand-outs, yet that is the answer you want. Is that because you think you are better than everyone else?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe all of the research that concluded that wealth inequality is the only thing that correlates with the bulk of social ills that this country is suffering from.
> 
> Whereas there is no research that I've seen that says making the poor poorer and the rich richer solves any problem. In fact from my experience in Africa, I'd say that the evidence is overwhelming that it would make things much worse here.
Click to expand...


Just keep telling yourself that hand-outs are better than hand-ups.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which part, the part you are stealing from or the part you are redistributing to?  What makes you think redistribution, is the solution?  What makes you think 50% of Americans need help from the other half?  What makes you think hand-outs are gonna make the bottom half better off in the long run?  You say you never received hand-outs, yet that is the answer you want. Is that because you think you are better than everyone else?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe all of the research that concluded that wealth inequality is the only thing that correlates with the bulk of social ills that this country is suffering from.
> 
> Whereas there is no research that I've seen that says making the poor poorer and the rich richer solves any problem. In fact from my experience in Africa, I'd say that the evidence is overwhelming that it would make things much worse here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just keep telling yourself that hand-outs are better than hand-ups.
Click to expand...


I'm not telling myself.  Statistics are telling me.  Data. I have evidence to support solutions,  you have what you wish was true because it allows you to dream of a bigger victory over America.


----------



## PMZ

BlackSand said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are a fine mark for propaganda because they do offer what you want. Importance. They tell you that you are superior, and the scapegoats inferior, because of your conservatism and their liberalism. For someone in desperate need of attention that is the siren's song. You get all worked up here because I expose you as not only not important, but not very bright. Ouch!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody has told me I am superior ... And if doing what I am supposed to do makes me superior ... What the hell does that say about you?
> I don't think people are inferior ... You are the one that goes around saying that some people cannot do any better ... I am the person that helps them get to a better place.
> Being a Conservative doesn't make me superior ... It just means that I don't need your money, or your government to do what needs to be done.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Fox Opinions every time you turn it on tells that you are superior,  and those "others",  the scapegoats, are decidedly inferior,  and stealing from you, and that's why you are entitled to lots more comfort  than they.  Big luxurious cars,  houses,  fashion,  vacations,  furnishings. 

They drag you around by the nose everyday  and you follow happily,  while visions of sugarplums dance in your head.  More for me,  more for me,  more for me.


----------



## BlackSand

PMZ said:


> I'm not telling myself.  Statistics is telling me.  I have evidence to support solutions,  you have what you wish was true because it allows you to dream of a bigger victory over America.



*Your attempts to turn government into statistics ... Is why you couldn't apply simple reasoning to get a truck out of a ditch.*

It isn't math ... It is labor and what you do to make things better that makes a difference.
The evidence is plain enough to see as soon as the truck is out of the ditch ... And the only solution worth looking at is the one that accomplished the job most efficiently.

*If you have to build a ladder to get over a fence ... Because you are too stupid to walk through the gate ... It doesn't matter what the statistics are ... And the evidence will support the fact you got over the fence either anyway.*

.


----------



## PMZ

BlackSand said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not telling myself.  Statistics is telling me.  I have evidence to support solutions,  you have what you wish was true because it allows you to dream of a bigger victory over America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Your attempts to turn government into statistics ... Is why you couldn't apply simple reasoning to get a truck out of a ditch.*
> 
> It isn't math ... It is labor and what you do to make things better that makes a difference.
> The evidence is plain enough to see as soon as the truck is out of the ditch ... And the only solution worth looking at is the one that accomplished the job most efficiently.
> 
> *If you have to build a ladder to get over a fence ... Because you are too stupid to walk through the gate ... It doesn't matter what the statistics are ... And the evidence will support the fact you got over the fence either anyway.*
> 
> .
Click to expand...


I came up with more solutions to the "truck problem"  than you did.  You limited yourself to conservative over simplified black and white thinking.  Exactly the reason why conservatism is destructive in business,  government,  and religion. 

Your posts reek of Fox Opinions arrogance.


----------



## BlackSand

PMZ said:


> Fox Opinions every time you turn it on tells that you are superior,  and those "others",  the scapegoats, are decidedly inferior,  and stealing from you, and that's why you are entitled to lots more comfort  than they.  Big luxurious cars,  houses,  fashion,  vacations,  furnishings.
> 
> They drag you around by the nose everyday  and you follow happily,  while visions of sugarplums dance in your head.  More for me,  more for me,  more for me.



*I am afraid it is people like you that want to express that we are not entitled to keep what we earn ... Or use what we earn to better the world around us without your wanton corruption, abuse and waste.*

The only person identifying scapegoats around here is you ... Every time you mention Fox News ... Along with what you think they tell me and what you think it means to me.
That is just a reflection of how easily you are influenced by the media ... And identifies where you find whatever is necessary to support your ideas.

*The only people screaming "More for me" are the people that don't have it to start with and want to take it from someone else ... And whether or not you want to call it theft is up to you.*

.


----------



## PMZ

One way to look at conservatism vs liberalism is from the perspective of offense and defense. 

Conservatives focus on defense.  Not losing.  Protecting what one has.  Caution and risk avoidance.  

Liberals focus on offense.  Aggressive progress.  Winning.  More for everyone instead of more for me. 

If you're losing,  conservativism can slow down the rate.  But liberalism will still go for the win.


----------



## BlackSand

PMZ said:


> I came up with more solutions to the "truck problem"  than you did.  You limited yourself to conservative over simplified black and white thinking.  Exactly the reason why conservatism is destructive in business,  government,  and religion.
> 
> Your posts reek of Fox Opinions arrogance.



*You didn't have single solution ...*

You said I needed to ask if my neighbor needed help ... When he is sitting there with his truck stuck in a ditch.
You said I needed to investigate whether or not he had already called someone ... When I am sitting there with the ability to get his truck out of the ditch.
You suggested I offer my neighbor a ride ... When I can get his truck out the ditch and he can drive himself.
You suggested I let my neighbor use my phone ... When I said I would be glad to let him use my phone to tell someone he was on his way.
None of what you suggested would have done anything to get his truck out of the ditch and solve the problem.

*The simple fact that you believe you offered any solution that wasn't already trumped by the fact the problem was solved ... Is a testament to Progressive Liberal idiocy. *

.


----------



## beagle9

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thus my read on what you meant was correct.
> 
> As to your point... this is a fundamental difference between authoritarians and libertarians.  You believe the evil is in using people in a bad way, I believe the evil is in using people.  Said another way, you believe the ends justify the means.  Correct me If I misstate your view, but I believe you have said if the ends is helping the needy it's ok to take money from peter to pay paul (I call that stealing), if the ends is making rich people even richer, it's not ok to take money from paul to pay peter (you call that stealing).  The truth is they are both stealing and they are both wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What I believe our life stories are profoundly affected by the country or countries that we live in. And the family that we are born to. And the friends that we make. And the schools that we attend. And the companies that we work for. All of those are part of us.
> 
> We are either happy and proud of what we made from all of those ingredients or disappointed.
> 
> I'm happy and proud. I want others to share in my good fortune. Along the way I made some money. More than I need to be happy.
> 
> I just can't relate to king of the mountain. The one who dies with the most toys wins.
> 
> The success of my country ranks right up there with the success of my family in terms of what I would like to leave behind. My role in both of those goals is to do what I can to fix things that are obstacles to that.
> 
> Simple. Pragmatic. Objective.
> 
> Your histrionics of entitlement do not move me an inch. The risks to the success of my family and country move me greatly.
> 
> It is that simple.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, I'd like to say that was moving, but I really don't care what your motives are.  The ends do not justify the means that your profess.  No matter how eloquently you explain it, the means is the same, you are stealing money from one person to hand over money to another person.  Worse you defend the theft being done it in a completely arbitrary way, progressively by level of income.
> 
> Then to pour salt on the wound, your "team" distributes the income as hand-outs instead of hand-ups.  This presumably to ensure the receiver never progresses.  The evidence showing that the people receiving hand-outs are kept down to be a permanent voting class for even more hand-outs.
Click to expand...

I agree that there is a mindset that is dangerous today, and it has been for quite sometime now, because like you say if it was a hand up instead of a handout then no one would have a problem with helping out in the biggest ways (yet wanting solid results in return), but the evidence is hard to refute as to what has been going on over the years. Then people wonder why there is so much defensiveness and divisiveness about these kinds of issues that go on and on and on.

What I have seen is a government that has tried to take these programs from way back, and to try and transform America into the way that it is now (unbalanced) or (off balance). 

So far they have been successful with it all, but the people are just now and are finally waking up to what has gone on in it all, and so I ask why is that you reckon ? I think it's because it is attacking their wallet in ways that it never has before, and so now they are awaken to it all finally. If this nation was truly working to eradicate poverty as much as possible, and to bring it to a nation that is more united, then it wouldn't have gone the route that it has taken in all of this over the years. The problem is that we have all these victim groups that are determined to remain the victims until the cows come home now, and they do this for a reason.  They are going to exploit the issues until they get where they want to be or get what they want finally out of it all, and they are going to make everyone pay for this by the hammer of the federal government upon us all until the end results are acquired finally by them.  It is a problem! The government is to blame for it all, because it has mismanaged the whole thing for the past 50 years now, and it is still mismanaging it to this day.

When ever they took tax payers money, and used it as a *handout* instead of a *hand up*, then they had done wrong, and when they *incentivized growth in poverty *by way of those very same taxes, then they done wrong again, and when they placed roofs over the heads of those who would use those shelters for baby making factories, then they had done wrong again. This is what has happened in America, and it is still happening to this very day. The feds trying to shift the balance of power in this nation over time, seems to have been a long term agenda of theirs. It should have been that they would not have lied about all of this over the years, and they would have been working to achieve true equality and opportunity for all Americans under the laws that were created, but what we are seeing is a reversal of fortunes by way of the feds hammers upon this nation, instead of a free society that is a merit based society in which it should be as based upon certain agreements by all who are on board with such agreements.

The biggest tragedy is the incentivizing of poverty by way of our tax dollars taken by the feds, in which then caused the swelling up of a population by the millions, and all because of this ideology or failed plan that was used on this nation for to long now. It was a plan in which has placed us all in the predicament that we are in and/or we are all constantly having to grapple with in this nation, especially when it comes to poverty and what to do with it in the right ways instead of the wrong ways finally.


----------



## Antares

BlackSand said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I came up with more solutions to the "truck problem"  than you did.  You limited yourself to conservative over simplified black and white thinking.  Exactly the reason why conservatism is destructive in business,  government,  and religion.
> 
> Your posts reek of Fox Opinions arrogance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *You didn't have single solution ...*
> 
> You said I needed to ask if my neighbor needed help ... When he is sitting there with his truck stuck in a ditch.
> You said I needed to investigate whether or not he had already called someone ... When I am sitting there with the ability to get his truck out of the ditch.
> You suggested I offer my neighbor a ride ... When I can get his truck out the ditch and he can drive himself.
> You suggested I let my neighbor use my phone ... When I said I would be glad to let him use my phone to tell someone he was on his way.
> None of what you suggested would have done anything to get his truck out of the ditch and solve the problem.
> 
> *The simple fact that you believe you offered any solution that wasn't already trumped by the fact the problem was solved ... Is a testament to Progressive Liberal idiocy. *
> 
> .
Click to expand...


PMS simply runs in circles with its words and throws out "Fox News" as if it's making a salient point...it feels its "opinions" are facts and therefore indisputable.

When it's cornered it acts as if it has won something and pretends to feel sorry for you.


----------



## BlackSand

Antares said:


> PMS simply runs in circles with its words and throws out "Fox News" as if it's making a salient point...it feels its "opinions" are facts and therefore indisputable.
> 
> When it's cornered it acts as if it has won something and pretends to feel sorry for you.



I kind of figured that out about two days ago.
But hey ... I like tossing the ball out in the backyard ... And watching my dog bring it back, even though I know what is going to happen.
The dog gets exercise ... My throwing arm gets better ... And we both have fun playing fetch.

*Edit:* The only difference is that sooner or later the dog gets tired. 


.


----------



## beagle9

BlackSand said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fox Opinions every time you turn it on tells that you are superior,  and those "others",  the scapegoats, are decidedly inferior,  and stealing from you, and that's why you are entitled to lots more comfort  than they.  Big luxurious cars,  houses,  fashion,  vacations,  furnishings.
> 
> They drag you around by the nose everyday  and you follow happily,  while visions of sugarplums dance in your head.  More for me,  more for me,  more for me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I am afraid it is people like you that want to express that we are not entitled to keep what we earn ... Or use what we earn to better the world around us without your wanton corruption, abuse and waste.*
> 
> The only person identifying scapegoats around here is you ... Every time you mention Fox News ... Along with what you think they tell me and what you think it means to me.
> That is just a reflection of how easily you are influenced by the media ... And identifies where you find whatever is necessary to support your ideas.
> 
> *The only people screaming "More for me" are the people that don't have it to start with and want to take it from someone else ... And whether or not you want to call it theft is up to you.*
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Yes the word *TAKE *is the word to focus on as you say, because one could gain much more in help I feel, if *Humbleness* & being *GOOD * as a people on whole were to replace the word *take* in exchange for the word *help* again in our society. The hate & revenge groups love the word *TAKE*, because they see it as getting back or taking back what they feel they are deserving of, even if they are in no way connected to the past nor are the ones they want to take from connected to the past as well. It's time for this nation to eradicate the excuses used of the past, along with the poverty that is blamed on the past in which has no connection to it today. It's time, but watch how they keep it all alive, and how it is all for a reason in which keeps punishing the generation's even though they had nothing to do with it all in which they are being accused of by this government constantly.


----------



## BlackSand

beagle9 said:


> Yes the word *TAKE *is the word to focus on as you say, because one could gain much more in help I feel, if *Humbleness* & being *GOOD * as a people on whole were to replace the word *take* in exchange for the word *help* again in our society. The hate & revenge groups love the word *TAKE*, because they see it as getting back or taking back what they feel they are deserving of, even if they are in no way connected to the past nor are the ones they want to take from connected to the past as well. It's time for this nation to eradicate the excuses used of the past, along with the poverty that is blamed on the past in which has no connection to it today. It's time, but watch how they keep it all alive, and how it is all for a reason in which keeps punishing the generation's even though they had nothing to do with it all in which they are being accused of by this government constantly.



When something is taken it is always different than when it is given ... No matter what the context is intended to be.
I long ago gave up on the idea that the government could take (by law) ... What I could give (by desire to help) ... And use it more efficiently.
The people who propagate the idea that it is necessary for us to surrender our individual duty, responsibility and ability to help others ... So that the government can take what we have earned and waste it accomplishing nothing ... Are wrong in every sense.

.


----------



## PMZ

BlackSand said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I came up with more solutions to the "truck problem"  than you did.  You limited yourself to conservative over simplified black and white thinking.  Exactly the reason why conservatism is destructive in business,  government,  and religion.
> 
> Your posts reek of Fox Opinions arrogance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *You didn't have single solution ...*
> 
> You said I needed to ask if my neighbor needed help ... When he is sitting there with his truck stuck in a ditch.
> You said I needed to investigate whether or not he had already called someone ... When I am sitting there with the ability to get his truck out of the ditch.
> You suggested I offer my neighbor a ride ... When I can get his truck out the ditch and he can drive himself.
> You suggested I let my neighbor use my phone ... When I said I would be glad to let him use my phone to tell someone he was on his way.
> None of what you suggested would have done anything to get his truck out of the ditch and solve the problem.
> 
> *The simple fact that you believe you offered any solution that wasn't already trumped by the fact the problem was solved ... Is a testament to Progressive Liberal idiocy. *
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Simple conservative arrogance.  Any solution that doesn't come from a conservative is not a solution. That's the entire ACA story.  Also AGW. Also our $17T debt that conservatives caused. While they caused it all,  they still publish the myth that only they can solve it.  By weakening our government and our country. 

The weaker the government,  the easier it will be to create richer rich and poorer poor.  Their real goal.  Solve that vexing problem of the rich only having 85% of the wealth. 

Of course when the aristocracy reaches their goal there will be the problem of nobody doing the work of creating wealth. 

But that's still a couple of years away so let's ignore it.  Along with AGW.  And health care.


----------



## PMZ

BlackSand said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes the word *TAKE *is the word to focus on as you say, because one could gain much more in help I feel, if *Humbleness* & being *GOOD * as a people on whole were to replace the word *take* in exchange for the word *help* again in our society. The hate & revenge groups love the word *TAKE*, because they see it as getting back or taking back what they feel they are deserving of, even if they are in no way connected to the past nor are the ones they want to take from connected to the past as well. It's time for this nation to eradicate the excuses used of the past, along with the poverty that is blamed on the past in which has no connection to it today. It's time, but watch how they keep it all alive, and how it is all for a reason in which keeps punishing the generation's even though they had nothing to do with it all in which they are being accused of by this government constantly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When something is taken it is always different than when it is given ... No matter what the context is intended to be.
> I long ago gave up on the idea that the government could take (by law) ... What I could give (by desire to help) ... And use it more efficiently.
> The people who propagate the idea that it is necessary for us to surrender our individual duty, responsibility and ability to help others ... So that the government can take what we have earned and waste it accomplishing nothing ... Are wrong in every sense.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


There's a reason why Fox Opinions worked so hard to sell to their minions that America is not a democracy.  A fundamental reason.  If you fall for that,  government becomes 'them'.  A disconnected band of thieves that can then become a whole army of scapegoats. And,  the minions can be programmed to support weaker government,  the only thing standing in the way of the wealthy sweeping up that last 15%.

If you accept the truth that America is the world's preeminent democracy,  then it is government of,  by and for the people.  Our government. We,  the people. 

There is a long list of lies that Fox Opinions are based on.  And they have been methodically installed in the Fox base. 

But I think that the notion that America is not a democracy is most destructive to America,  and most diabolically supportive of Republican aristocracy.


----------



## RKMBrown

beagle9 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I believe our life stories are profoundly affected by the country or countries that we live in. And the family that we are born to. And the friends that we make. And the schools that we attend. And the companies that we work for. All of those are part of us.
> 
> We are either happy and proud of what we made from all of those ingredients or disappointed.
> 
> I'm happy and proud. I want others to share in my good fortune. Along the way I made some money. More than I need to be happy.
> 
> I just can't relate to king of the mountain. The one who dies with the most toys wins.
> 
> The success of my country ranks right up there with the success of my family in terms of what I would like to leave behind. My role in both of those goals is to do what I can to fix things that are obstacles to that.
> 
> Simple. Pragmatic. Objective.
> 
> Your histrionics of entitlement do not move me an inch. The risks to the success of my family and country move me greatly.
> 
> It is that simple.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I'd like to say that was moving, but I really don't care what your motives are.  The ends do not justify the means that your profess.  No matter how eloquently you explain it, the means is the same, you are stealing money from one person to hand over money to another person.  Worse you defend the theft being done it in a completely arbitrary way, progressively by level of income.
> 
> Then to pour salt on the wound, your "team" distributes the income as hand-outs instead of hand-ups.  This presumably to ensure the receiver never progresses.  The evidence showing that the people receiving hand-outs are kept down to be a permanent voting class for even more hand-outs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree that there is a mindset that is dangerous today, and it has been for quite sometime now, because like you say if it was a hand up instead of a handout then no one would have a problem with helping out in the biggest ways (yet wanting solid results in return), but the evidence is hard to refute as to what has been going on over the years. Then people wonder why there is so much defensiveness and divisiveness about these kinds of issues that go on and on and on.
> 
> What I have seen is a government that has tried to take these programs from way back, and to try and transform America into the way that it is now (unbalanced) or (off balance).
> 
> So far they have been successful with it all, but the people are just now and are finally waking up to what has gone on in it all, and so I ask why is that you reckon ? I think it's because it is attacking their wallet in ways that it never has before, and so now they are awaken to it all finally. If this nation was truly working to eradicate poverty as much as possible, and to bring it to a nation that is more united, then it wouldn't have gone the route that it has taken in all of this over the years. The problem is that we have all these victim groups that are determined to remain the victims until the cows come home now, and they do this for a reason.  They are going to exploit the issues until they get where they want to be or get what they want finally out of it all, and they are going to make everyone pay for this by the hammer of the federal government upon us all until the end results are acquired finally by them.  It is a problem! The government is to blame for it all, because it has mismanaged the whole thing for the past 50 years now, and it is still mismanaging it to this day.
> 
> When ever they took tax payers money, and used it as a *handout* instead of a *hand up*, then they had done wrong, and when they *incentivized growth in poverty *by way of those very same taxes, then they done wrong again, and when they placed roofs over the heads of those who would use those shelters for baby making factories, then they had done wrong again. This is what has happened in America, and it is still happening to this very day. The feds trying to shift the balance of power in this nation over time, seems to have been a long term agenda of theirs. It should have been that they would not have lied about all of this over the years, and they would have been working to achieve true equality and opportunity for all Americans under the laws that were created, but what we are seeing is a reversal of fortunes by way of the feds hammers upon this nation, instead of a free society that is a merit based society in which it should be as based upon certain agreements by all who are on board with such agreements.
> 
> The biggest tragedy is the incentivizing of poverty by way of our tax dollars taken by the feds, in which then caused the swelling up of a population by the millions, and all because of this ideology or failed plan that was used on this nation for to long now. It was a plan in which has placed us all in the predicament that we are in and/or we are all constantly having to grapple with in this nation, especially when it comes to poverty and what to do with it in the right ways instead of the wrong ways finally.
Click to expand...

Very well said. 

In a free capitalist market regulated to eliminate monopolies, consumers shop to buy the best product they can afford.  In a mandated monopoly run market, such as government managed poverty programs, the monopoly controls the price and product. 

This is not rocket science. Nor is it cheap.  In the short run hand-up programs are more expensive and time consuming.   In the long run, however productive people end up carrying their own weight and then some.  Thus, penny wise and pound foolish comes to mind.

Public education is improving with the movement to High Schools hosting college and trade school courses.  This needs to be emphasized.  Graduating from HS with a 2year degree is a huge hand-up.  

Habitat for Humanity is a fantastic program.  You want a house?  Show us stable income and we help you get in one that the program builds for you, but it does not end there as we'll keep track make sure you pay the bills stay working and don't trash the house etc.  Fail and we find someone more worthy.

EBT may be a great deal for the people receiving it but does it include a means to get folks off?  Or is it a transition program till they get SS?  Would folks change their life plans to figure out a way to earn more income if they knew they would loose EBT?  What incentive is there to get off?  Why not exchange EBT credit for work community work?  What's the incentive for me to want to help people stay on EBT?  No offense intended to the folks on it.  I just would like to understand what's the long run plan.  

For example, while my kids are in college I make sure they have money for food, I make sure they have a working car, health care, etc..  They also work for running money, cause I won't give them cash for partying and buying "stuff."  The goal for this hand-up is to help them have more time for studying while in college.  I also co-sign on loans to keep the loan rate down.  They are very appreciative of the coolers full of food they get when they visit home.  In return I get to check on progress. Additionally they all know I'd love to have them live at home after college while they are paying off the loans and creating a savings account for retirement and another for getting their own home or apartment, well at least till they get married.  When they are in my home food and rent are free but they help out around the house.  IOW I'm here to give them a hand-up. And in return they let me know about the progress they are making toward major life goals that will make them independent productive people.  They also all know that if they are ever in trouble their family will always be welcome in my home.  We'll work it out together.  The "safety" net of family allows them to take calculated risks (investments of time and money) they could not take if they did not have a safety net at home.

My personal family goal is to have raised three "extremely" productive and happy children.  So far so good.


----------



## beagle9

PMZ said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I came up with more solutions to the "truck problem"  than you did.  You limited yourself to conservative over simplified black and white thinking.  Exactly the reason why conservatism is destructive in business,  government,  and religion.
> 
> Your posts reek of Fox Opinions arrogance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *You didn't have single solution ...*
> 
> You said I needed to ask if my neighbor needed help ... When he is sitting there with his truck stuck in a ditch.
> You said I needed to investigate whether or not he had already called someone ... When I am sitting there with the ability to get his truck out of the ditch.
> You suggested I offer my neighbor a ride ... When I can get his truck out the ditch and he can drive himself.
> You suggested I let my neighbor use my phone ... When I said I would be glad to let him use my phone to tell someone he was on his way.
> None of what you suggested would have done anything to get his truck out of the ditch and solve the problem.
> 
> *The simple fact that you believe you offered any solution that wasn't already trumped by the fact the problem was solved ... Is a testament to Progressive Liberal idiocy. *
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Simple conservative arrogance.  Any solution that doesn't come from a conservative is not a solution. That's the entire ACA story.  Also AGW. Also our $17T debt that conservatives caused. While they caused it all,  they still publish the myth that only they can solve it.  By weakening our government and our country.
> 
> The weaker the government,  they easier it will be to create richer rich and poorer poor.  Their real goal.  Solve that vexing problem of the rich only having 85% of the wealth.
> 
> Of course when the aristocracy reaches their goal there will be the problem of nobody doing the work of creating wealth.
> 
> But that's still a couple of years away so let's ignore it.  Along with AGW.  And health care.
Click to expand...

No, you have some valid points also, but you just have to stay out of the camp that thinks taking or forcing at the end of a federal gun is the best policy to solve matters. Now instead of bi-partisanship on the issues winning the day in order to work together to solve the problems of today, you want anarchy instead ? Taking or forcing will soon lead to major problems, and that is what we are seeing in all of this today.   

Because of this constant suspicion by a wanta be victim group forever, and yet for political reasons now do they do this more than ever now is highly revealing, also in what we are finding in these other certain groups who want to get on the band wagon as well, makes this the very reason why we are getting what we are getting without relief upon such issues (or) in the solving of these issues to this very day in America. 

These groups see the other groups as their arch-enemies till the very end in this nation, and so I think it will only get worse and worse I'm afraid before it gets better if it all keeps on going like this. The stage gets set and the show goes on every single day and in every single way.


----------



## PMZ

I notice lots of use of the code word hand up.  

I don't have the secret Fox decoder ring but my interpretation of it is that it stands for help that erases poverty. 

How great is that! 

Let's do it.  Here's the only way that I know how. 

Jobs.  Well paying jobs.  Jobs that can be done by the people that we have,  not the people that we wish we had. 

On your mark,  get set,  Go! 

Has poverty gone away yet?


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> I notice lots of use of the code word hand up.
> 
> I don't have the secret Fox decoder ring but my interpretation of it is that it stands for help that erases poverty.
> 
> How great is that!
> 
> Let's do it.  Here's the only way that I know how.
> 
> Jobs.  Well paying jobs.  Jobs that can be done by the people that we have,  not the people that we wish we had.
> 
> On your mark,  get set,  Go!
> 
> Has poverty gone away yet?



I would never give a retard like you a paycheck.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I'd like to say that was moving, but I really don't care what your motives are.  The ends do not justify the means that your profess.  No matter how eloquently you explain it, the means is the same, you are stealing money from one person to hand over money to another person.  Worse you defend the theft being done it in a completely arbitrary way, progressively by level of income.
> 
> Then to pour salt on the wound, your "team" distributes the income as hand-outs instead of hand-ups.  This presumably to ensure the receiver never progresses.  The evidence showing that the people receiving hand-outs are kept down to be a permanent voting class for even more hand-outs.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that there is a mindset that is dangerous today, and it has been for quite sometime now, because like you say if it was a hand up instead of a handout then no one would have a problem with helping out in the biggest ways (yet wanting solid results in return), but the evidence is hard to refute as to what has been going on over the years. Then people wonder why there is so much defensiveness and divisiveness about these kinds of issues that go on and on and on.
> 
> What I have seen is a government that has tried to take these programs from way back, and to try and transform America into the way that it is now (unbalanced) or (off balance).
> 
> So far they have been successful with it all, but the people are just now and are finally waking up to what has gone on in it all, and so I ask why is that you reckon ? I think it's because it is attacking their wallet in ways that it never has before, and so now they are awaken to it all finally. If this nation was truly working to eradicate poverty as much as possible, and to bring it to a nation that is more united, then it wouldn't have gone the route that it has taken in all of this over the years. The problem is that we have all these victim groups that are determined to remain the victims until the cows come home now, and they do this for a reason.  They are going to exploit the issues until they get where they want to be or get what they want finally out of it all, and they are going to make everyone pay for this by the hammer of the federal government upon us all until the end results are acquired finally by them.  It is a problem! The government is to blame for it all, because it has mismanaged the whole thing for the past 50 years now, and it is still mismanaging it to this day.
> 
> When ever they took tax payers money, and used it as a *handout* instead of a *hand up*, then they had done wrong, and when they *incentivized growth in poverty *by way of those very same taxes, then they done wrong again, and when they placed roofs over the heads of those who would use those shelters for baby making factories, then they had done wrong again. This is what has happened in America, and it is still happening to this very day. The feds trying to shift the balance of power in this nation over time, seems to have been a long term agenda of theirs. It should have been that they would not have lied about all of this over the years, and they would have been working to achieve true equality and opportunity for all Americans under the laws that were created, but what we are seeing is a reversal of fortunes by way of the feds hammers upon this nation, instead of a free society that is a merit based society in which it should be as based upon certain agreements by all who are on board with such agreements.
> 
> The biggest tragedy is the incentivizing of poverty by way of our tax dollars taken by the feds, in which then caused the swelling up of a population by the millions, and all because of this ideology or failed plan that was used on this nation for to long now. It was a plan in which has placed us all in the predicament that we are in and/or we are all constantly having to grapple with in this nation, especially when it comes to poverty and what to do with it in the right ways instead of the wrong ways finally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Very well said.
> 
> In a free capitalist market regulated to eliminate monopolies, consumers shop to buy the best product they can afford.  In a mandated monopoly run market, such as government managed poverty programs, the monopoly controls the price and product.
> 
> This is not rocket science. Nor is it cheap.  In the short run hand-up programs are more expensive and time consuming.   In the long run, however productive people end up carrying their own weight and then some.  Thus, penny wise and pound foolish comes to mind.
> 
> Public education is improving with the movement to High Schools hosting college and trade school courses.  This needs to be emphasized.  Graduating from HS with a 2year degree is a huge hand-up.
> 
> Habitat for Humanity is a fantastic program.  You want a house?  Show us stable income and we help you get in one that the program builds for you, but it does not end there as we'll keep track make sure you pay the bills stay working and don't trash the house etc.  Fail and we find someone more worthy.
> 
> EBT may be a great deal for the people receiving it but does it include a means to get folks off?  Or is it a transition program till they get SS?  Would folks change their life plans to figure out a way to earn more income if they knew they would loose EBT?  What incentive is there to get off?  Why not exchange EBT credit for work community work?  What's the incentive for me to want to help people stay on EBT?  No offense intended to the folks on it.  I just would like to understand what's the long run plan.
> 
> For example, while my kids are in college I make sure they have money for food, I make sure they have a working car, health care, etc..  They also work for running money, cause I won't give them cash for partying and buying "stuff."  The goal for this hand-up is to help them have more time for studying while in college.  I also co-sign on loans to keep the loan rate down.  They are very appreciative of the coolers full of food they get when they visit home.  In return I get to check on progress. Additionally they all know I'd love to have them live at home after college while they are paying off the loans and creating a savings account for retirement and another for getting their own home or apartment, well at least till they get married.  When they are in my home food and rent are free but they help out around the house.  IOW I'm here to give them a hand-up. And in return they let me know about the progress they are making toward major life goals that will make them independent productive people.  They also all know that if they are ever in trouble their family will always be welcome in my home.  We'll work it out together.  The "safety" net of family allows them to take calculated risks (investments of time and money) they could not take if they did not have a safety net at home.
> 
> My personal family goal is to have raised three "extremely" productive and happy children.  So far so good.
Click to expand...


Congratulations. You are to be commended.  Three happy productive kids.  Just like mine. 

Don't you wish every family could do as well? 

Of course it probably costs a million bucks or so to do that but it's the best investment in the world.  I certainly thought so. 

Now,  let's get back to the poor people.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that there is a mindset that is dangerous today, and it has been for quite sometime now, because like you say if it was a hand up instead of a handout then no one would have a problem with helping out in the biggest ways (yet wanting solid results in return), but the evidence is hard to refute as to what has been going on over the years. Then people wonder why there is so much defensiveness and divisiveness about these kinds of issues that go on and on and on.
> 
> What I have seen is a government that has tried to take these programs from way back, and to try and transform America into the way that it is now (unbalanced) or (off balance).
> 
> So far they have been successful with it all, but the people are just now and are finally waking up to what has gone on in it all, and so I ask why is that you reckon ? I think it's because it is attacking their wallet in ways that it never has before, and so now they are awaken to it all finally. If this nation was truly working to eradicate poverty as much as possible, and to bring it to a nation that is more united, then it wouldn't have gone the route that it has taken in all of this over the years. The problem is that we have all these victim groups that are determined to remain the victims until the cows come home now, and they do this for a reason.  They are going to exploit the issues until they get where they want to be or get what they want finally out of it all, and they are going to make everyone pay for this by the hammer of the federal government upon us all until the end results are acquired finally by them.  It is a problem! The government is to blame for it all, because it has mismanaged the whole thing for the past 50 years now, and it is still mismanaging it to this day.
> 
> When ever they took tax payers money, and used it as a *handout* instead of a *hand up*, then they had done wrong, and when they *incentivized growth in poverty *by way of those very same taxes, then they done wrong again, and when they placed roofs over the heads of those who would use those shelters for baby making factories, then they had done wrong again. This is what has happened in America, and it is still happening to this very day. The feds trying to shift the balance of power in this nation over time, seems to have been a long term agenda of theirs. It should have been that they would not have lied about all of this over the years, and they would have been working to achieve true equality and opportunity for all Americans under the laws that were created, but what we are seeing is a reversal of fortunes by way of the feds hammers upon this nation, instead of a free society that is a merit based society in which it should be as based upon certain agreements by all who are on board with such agreements.
> 
> The biggest tragedy is the incentivizing of poverty by way of our tax dollars taken by the feds, in which then caused the swelling up of a population by the millions, and all because of this ideology or failed plan that was used on this nation for to long now. It was a plan in which has placed us all in the predicament that we are in and/or we are all constantly having to grapple with in this nation, especially when it comes to poverty and what to do with it in the right ways instead of the wrong ways finally.
> 
> 
> 
> Very well said.
> 
> In a free capitalist market regulated to eliminate monopolies, consumers shop to buy the best product they can afford.  In a mandated monopoly run market, such as government managed poverty programs, the monopoly controls the price and product.
> 
> This is not rocket science. Nor is it cheap.  In the short run hand-up programs are more expensive and time consuming.   In the long run, however productive people end up carrying their own weight and then some.  Thus, penny wise and pound foolish comes to mind.
> 
> Public education is improving with the movement to High Schools hosting college and trade school courses.  This needs to be emphasized.  Graduating from HS with a 2year degree is a huge hand-up.
> 
> Habitat for Humanity is a fantastic program.  You want a house?  Show us stable income and we help you get in one that the program builds for you, but it does not end there as we'll keep track make sure you pay the bills stay working and don't trash the house etc.  Fail and we find someone more worthy.
> 
> EBT may be a great deal for the people receiving it but does it include a means to get folks off?  Or is it a transition program till they get SS?  Would folks change their life plans to figure out a way to earn more income if they knew they would loose EBT?  What incentive is there to get off?  Why not exchange EBT credit for work community work?  What's the incentive for me to want to help people stay on EBT?  No offense intended to the folks on it.  I just would like to understand what's the long run plan.
> 
> For example, while my kids are in college I make sure they have money for food, I make sure they have a working car, health care, etc..  They also work for running money, cause I won't give them cash for partying and buying "stuff."  The goal for this hand-up is to help them have more time for studying while in college.  I also co-sign on loans to keep the loan rate down.  They are very appreciative of the coolers full of food they get when they visit home.  In return I get to check on progress. Additionally they all know I'd love to have them live at home after college while they are paying off the loans and creating a savings account for retirement and another for getting their own home or apartment, well at least till they get married.  When they are in my home food and rent are free but they help out around the house.  IOW I'm here to give them a hand-up. And in return they let me know about the progress they are making toward major life goals that will make them independent productive people.  They also all know that if they are ever in trouble their family will always be welcome in my home.  We'll work it out together.  The "safety" net of family allows them to take calculated risks (investments of time and money) they could not take if they did not have a safety net at home.
> 
> My personal family goal is to have raised three "extremely" productive and happy children.  So far so good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Congratulations. You are to be commended.  Three happy productive kids.  Just like mine.
> 
> Don't you wish every family could do as well?
> 
> Of course it probably costs a million bucks or so to do that but it's the best investment in the world.  I certainly thought so.
> 
> Now,  let's get back to the poor people.
Click to expand...


>> Don't you wish every family could do as well? 

Yes, absolutely.  That's why I'm against hand-out programs that are designed to make sure families don't do as well.  Paying people to not work, paying people to sit on the couch, sell and do drugs, steal, ...  Look at our "free" hospital system.  My daughter (RN) tells me that well over 50% of the visitors to the emergency room are drug addicts seeking a free fix.  A free fix that our government mandates they hand out, the bill for which is passed on to consumers through higher emergency room costs.  She tells me that only 1 in a hundred of the people coming to the ER that don't have insurance and/or are not paying, are people that have an honest need for help.  Most folks that need help have Medicare, Medicaid, Insurance, or cash.


----------



## beagle9

RKMBrown said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I'd like to say that was moving, but I really don't care what your motives are.  The ends do not justify the means that your profess.  No matter how eloquently you explain it, the means is the same, you are stealing money from one person to hand over money to another person.  Worse you defend the theft being done it in a completely arbitrary way, progressively by level of income.
> 
> Then to pour salt on the wound, your "team" distributes the income as hand-outs instead of hand-ups.  This presumably to ensure the receiver never progresses.  The evidence showing that the people receiving hand-outs are kept down to be a permanent voting class for even more hand-outs.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that there is a mindset that is dangerous today, and it has been for quite sometime now, because like you say if it was a hand up instead of a handout then no one would have a problem with helping out in the biggest ways (yet wanting solid results in return), but the evidence is hard to refute as to what has been going on over the years. Then people wonder why there is so much defensiveness and divisiveness about these kinds of issues that go on and on and on.
> 
> What I have seen is a government that has tried to take these programs from way back, and to try and transform America into the way that it is now (unbalanced) or (off balance).
> 
> So far they have been successful with it all, but the people are just now and are finally waking up to what has gone on in it all, and so I ask why is that you reckon ? I think it's because it is attacking their wallet in ways that it never has before, and so now they are awaken to it all finally. If this nation was truly working to eradicate poverty as much as possible, and to bring it to a nation that is more united, then it wouldn't have gone the route that it has taken in all of this over the years. The problem is that we have all these victim groups that are determined to remain the victims until the cows come home now, and they do this for a reason.  They are going to exploit the issues until they get where they want to be or get what they want finally out of it all, and they are going to make everyone pay for this by the hammer of the federal government upon us all until the end results are acquired finally by them.  It is a problem! The government is to blame for it all, because it has mismanaged the whole thing for the past 50 years now, and it is still mismanaging it to this day.
> 
> When ever they took tax payers money, and used it as a *handout* instead of a *hand up*, then they had done wrong, and when they *incentivized growth in poverty *by way of those very same taxes, then they done wrong again, and when they placed roofs over the heads of those who would use those shelters for baby making factories, then they had done wrong again. This is what has happened in America, and it is still happening to this very day. The feds trying to shift the balance of power in this nation over time, seems to have been a long term agenda of theirs. It should have been that they would not have lied about all of this over the years, and they would have been working to achieve true equality and opportunity for all Americans under the laws that were created, but what we are seeing is a reversal of fortunes by way of the feds hammers upon this nation, instead of a free society that is a merit based society in which it should be as based upon certain agreements by all who are on board with such agreements.
> 
> The biggest tragedy is the incentivizing of poverty by way of our tax dollars taken by the feds, in which then caused the swelling up of a population by the millions, and all because of this ideology or failed plan that was used on this nation for to long now. It was a plan in which has placed us all in the predicament that we are in and/or we are all constantly having to grapple with in this nation, especially when it comes to poverty and what to do with it in the right ways instead of the wrong ways finally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Very well said.
> 
> In a free capitalist market regulated to eliminate monopolies, consumers shop to buy the best product they can afford.  In a mandated monopoly run market, such as government managed poverty programs, the monopoly controls the price and product.
> 
> This is not rocket science. Nor is it cheap.  In the short run hand-up programs are more expensive and time consuming.   In the long run, however productive people end up carrying their own weight and then some.  Thus, penny wise and pound foolish comes to mind.
> 
> Public education is improving with the movement to High Schools hosting college and trade school courses.  This needs to be emphasized.  Graduating from HS with a 2year degree is a huge hand-up.
> 
> Habitat for Humanity is a fantastic program.  You want a house?  Show us stable income and we help you get in one that the program builds for you, but it does not end there as we'll keep track make sure you pay the bills stay working and don't trash the house etc.  Fail and we find someone more worthy.
> 
> EBT may be a great deal for the people receiving it but does it include a means to get folks off?  Or is it a transition program till they get SS?  Would folks change their life plans to figure out a way to earn more income if they knew they would loose EBT?  What incentive is there to get off?  Why not exchange EBT credit for work community work?  What's the incentive for me to want to help people stay on EBT?  No offense intended to the folks on it.  I just would like to understand what's the long run plan.
> 
> For example, while my kids are in college I make sure they have money for food, I make sure they have a working car, health care, etc..  They also work for running money, cause I won't give them cash for partying and buying "stuff."  The goal for this hand-up is to help them have more time for studying while in college.  I also co-sign on loans to keep the loan rate down.  They are very appreciative of the coolers full of food they get when they visit home.  In return I get to check on progress. Additionally they all know I'd love to have them live at home after college while they are paying off the loans and creating a savings account for retirement and another for getting their own home or apartment, well at least till they get married.  When they are in my home food and rent are free but they help out around the house.  IOW I'm here to give them a hand-up. And in return they let me know about the progress they are making toward major life goals that will make them independent productive people.  They also all know that if they are ever in trouble their family will always be welcome in my home.  We'll work it out together.  The "safety" net of family allows them to take calculated risks (investments of time and money) they could not take if they did not have a safety net at home.
> 
> My personal family goal is to have raised three "extremely" productive and happy children.  So far so good.
Click to expand...

Exactly, and now apply your concepts to the government in the same ways of thinking that you have, and we should be getting the same results that you are, but the government couldn't manage thinking like that if it tried to anymore, because it is in a constant struggle always against being led around by the nose by the wrong people.  It appears that the wrong people are winning the prize these days (control of our government and the nation also through this control). The problem today is that the wrong people are leading it around by it's nose, and telling it what to do and who to do it to.  We are all being abused by this now, so how do the right people take back the government is what this nation needs to wonder about and soon plan to do. People know what is right, but I think monopolizing corporations big part in all of this has made our government vulnerable also, because it has affectively separated it from we the people in that way, and so when you see the government being over generous in certain ways over a feel good issue (or) on programs that it picks to be sensitive upon, it usually does this to show the nation that look we are still the government in which you expect us to be, even though it is not that government we think that it is any longer.


----------



## beagle9

PMZ said:


> I notice lots of use of the code word hand up.
> 
> I don't have the secret Fox decoder ring but my interpretation of it is that it stands for help that erases poverty.
> 
> How great is that!
> 
> Let's do it.  Here's the only way that I know how.
> 
> Jobs.  Well paying jobs.  Jobs that can be done by the people that we have,  not the people that we wish we had.
> 
> On your mark,  get set,  Go!
> 
> Has poverty gone away yet?


It would if you wasn't late on the starting line because of your confusion in life, so why are you dragging your heels on doing what is right again ? Oh that's right, just to many distractions right ? 

Your kind of like that rabbit in the race with the turtle aren't you ? Think about it.


----------



## RKMBrown

beagle9 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that there is a mindset that is dangerous today, and it has been for quite sometime now, because like you say if it was a hand up instead of a handout then no one would have a problem with helping out in the biggest ways (yet wanting solid results in return), but the evidence is hard to refute as to what has been going on over the years. Then people wonder why there is so much defensiveness and divisiveness about these kinds of issues that go on and on and on.
> 
> What I have seen is a government that has tried to take these programs from way back, and to try and transform America into the way that it is now (unbalanced) or (off balance).
> 
> So far they have been successful with it all, but the people are just now and are finally waking up to what has gone on in it all, and so I ask why is that you reckon ? I think it's because it is attacking their wallet in ways that it never has before, and so now they are awaken to it all finally. If this nation was truly working to eradicate poverty as much as possible, and to bring it to a nation that is more united, then it wouldn't have gone the route that it has taken in all of this over the years. The problem is that we have all these victim groups that are determined to remain the victims until the cows come home now, and they do this for a reason.  They are going to exploit the issues until they get where they want to be or get what they want finally out of it all, and they are going to make everyone pay for this by the hammer of the federal government upon us all until the end results are acquired finally by them.  It is a problem! The government is to blame for it all, because it has mismanaged the whole thing for the past 50 years now, and it is still mismanaging it to this day.
> 
> When ever they took tax payers money, and used it as a *handout* instead of a *hand up*, then they had done wrong, and when they *incentivized growth in poverty *by way of those very same taxes, then they done wrong again, and when they placed roofs over the heads of those who would use those shelters for baby making factories, then they had done wrong again. This is what has happened in America, and it is still happening to this very day. The feds trying to shift the balance of power in this nation over time, seems to have been a long term agenda of theirs. It should have been that they would not have lied about all of this over the years, and they would have been working to achieve true equality and opportunity for all Americans under the laws that were created, but what we are seeing is a reversal of fortunes by way of the feds hammers upon this nation, instead of a free society that is a merit based society in which it should be as based upon certain agreements by all who are on board with such agreements.
> 
> The biggest tragedy is the incentivizing of poverty by way of our tax dollars taken by the feds, in which then caused the swelling up of a population by the millions, and all because of this ideology or failed plan that was used on this nation for to long now. It was a plan in which has placed us all in the predicament that we are in and/or we are all constantly having to grapple with in this nation, especially when it comes to poverty and what to do with it in the right ways instead of the wrong ways finally.
> 
> 
> 
> Very well said.
> 
> In a free capitalist market regulated to eliminate monopolies, consumers shop to buy the best product they can afford.  In a mandated monopoly run market, such as government managed poverty programs, the monopoly controls the price and product.
> 
> This is not rocket science. Nor is it cheap.  In the short run hand-up programs are more expensive and time consuming.   In the long run, however productive people end up carrying their own weight and then some.  Thus, penny wise and pound foolish comes to mind.
> 
> Public education is improving with the movement to High Schools hosting college and trade school courses.  This needs to be emphasized.  Graduating from HS with a 2year degree is a huge hand-up.
> 
> Habitat for Humanity is a fantastic program.  You want a house?  Show us stable income and we help you get in one that the program builds for you, but it does not end there as we'll keep track make sure you pay the bills stay working and don't trash the house etc.  Fail and we find someone more worthy.
> 
> EBT may be a great deal for the people receiving it but does it include a means to get folks off?  Or is it a transition program till they get SS?  Would folks change their life plans to figure out a way to earn more income if they knew they would loose EBT?  What incentive is there to get off?  Why not exchange EBT credit for work community work?  What's the incentive for me to want to help people stay on EBT?  No offense intended to the folks on it.  I just would like to understand what's the long run plan.
> 
> For example, while my kids are in college I make sure they have money for food, I make sure they have a working car, health care, etc..  They also work for running money, cause I won't give them cash for partying and buying "stuff."  The goal for this hand-up is to help them have more time for studying while in college.  I also co-sign on loans to keep the loan rate down.  They are very appreciative of the coolers full of food they get when they visit home.  In return I get to check on progress. Additionally they all know I'd love to have them live at home after college while they are paying off the loans and creating a savings account for retirement and another for getting their own home or apartment, well at least till they get married.  When they are in my home food and rent are free but they help out around the house.  IOW I'm here to give them a hand-up. And in return they let me know about the progress they are making toward major life goals that will make them independent productive people.  They also all know that if they are ever in trouble their family will always be welcome in my home.  We'll work it out together.  The "safety" net of family allows them to take calculated risks (investments of time and money) they could not take if they did not have a safety net at home.
> 
> My personal family goal is to have raised three "extremely" productive and happy children.  So far so good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly, and now apply your concepts to the government in the same ways of thinking that you have, and we should be getting the same results that you are, but the government couldn't manage thinking like that if it tried to anymore, because it is in a constant struggle always against being led around by the nose by the wrong people.  It appears that the wrong people are winning the prize these days (control of our government and the nation also through this control). The problem today is that the wrong people are leading it around by it's nose, and telling it what to do and who to do it to.  We are all being abused by this now, so how do the right people take back the government is what this nation needs to wonder about and soon plan to do. People know what is right, but I think monopolizing corporations big part in all of this has made our government vulnerable also, because it has affectively separated it from we the people in that way, and so when you see the government being over generous in certain ways over a feel good issue (or) on programs that it picks to be sensitive upon, it usually does this to show the nation that look we are still the government in which you expect us to be, even though it is not that government we think that it is any longer.
Click to expand...


When conservatives, like me, look at these programs our response is, well duh you can't solve poverty by having a guy in DC send out checks.  Hand-ups are best done by people who care about and/or at least have an incentive to monitor and mange the person's progress. Hand-ups require "local" management, not remote management.  

Take FHA loans, the DC approach to housing is to hand-out loans to everyone.  The Habitat approach is to carefully select and manage help to turn deserving families around.

The liberal approach is to just "solve" problems by throwing other people's money at it. Every weather event.. throw a large sum at it to "solve" the problem.  Never do we think, maybe they should have to pay for their poor choice to live in a flood plain.  Instead, we bail them out rebuild and they get flooded out again, and again, and again, and ... Refuse to fork over what seems to be an undue amount of money, and you get accused of tossing grandma off the cliff.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very well said.
> 
> In a free capitalist market regulated to eliminate monopolies, consumers shop to buy the best product they can afford.  In a mandated monopoly run market, such as government managed poverty programs, the monopoly controls the price and product.
> 
> This is not rocket science. Nor is it cheap.  In the short run hand-up programs are more expensive and time consuming.   In the long run, however productive people end up carrying their own weight and then some.  Thus, penny wise and pound foolish comes to mind.
> 
> Public education is improving with the movement to High Schools hosting college and trade school courses.  This needs to be emphasized.  Graduating from HS with a 2year degree is a huge hand-up.
> 
> Habitat for Humanity is a fantastic program.  You want a house?  Show us stable income and we help you get in one that the program builds for you, but it does not end there as we'll keep track make sure you pay the bills stay working and don't trash the house etc.  Fail and we find someone more worthy.
> 
> EBT may be a great deal for the people receiving it but does it include a means to get folks off?  Or is it a transition program till they get SS?  Would folks change their life plans to figure out a way to earn more income if they knew they would loose EBT?  What incentive is there to get off?  Why not exchange EBT credit for work community work?  What's the incentive for me to want to help people stay on EBT?  No offense intended to the folks on it.  I just would like to understand what's the long run plan.
> 
> For example, while my kids are in college I make sure they have money for food, I make sure they have a working car, health care, etc..  They also work for running money, cause I won't give them cash for partying and buying "stuff."  The goal for this hand-up is to help them have more time for studying while in college.  I also co-sign on loans to keep the loan rate down.  They are very appreciative of the coolers full of food they get when they visit home.  In return I get to check on progress. Additionally they all know I'd love to have them live at home after college while they are paying off the loans and creating a savings account for retirement and another for getting their own home or apartment, well at least till they get married.  When they are in my home food and rent are free but they help out around the house.  IOW I'm here to give them a hand-up. And in return they let me know about the progress they are making toward major life goals that will make them independent productive people.  They also all know that if they are ever in trouble their family will always be welcome in my home.  We'll work it out together.  The "safety" net of family allows them to take calculated risks (investments of time and money) they could not take if they did not have a safety net at home.
> 
> My personal family goal is to have raised three "extremely" productive and happy children.  So far so good.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Congratulations. You are to be commended.  Three happy productive kids.  Just like mine.
> 
> Don't you wish every family could do as well?
> 
> Of course it probably costs a million bucks or so to do that but it's the best investment in the world.  I certainly thought so.
> 
> Now,  let's get back to the poor people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> >> Don't you wish every family could do as well?
> 
> Yes, absolutely.  That's why I'm against hand-out programs that are designed to make sure families don't do as well.  Paying people to not work, paying people to sit on the couch, sell and do drugs, steal, ...  Look at our "free" hospital system.  My daughter (RN) tells me that well over 50% of the visitors to the emergency room are drug addicts seeking a free fix.  A free fix that our government mandates they hand out, the bill for which is passed on to consumers through higher emergency room costs.  She tells me that only 1 in a hundred of the people coming to the ER that don't have insurance and/or are not paying, are people that have an honest need for help.  Most folks that need help have Medicare, Medicaid, Insurance, or cash.
Click to expand...


About 7% of hospital costs don't get collected.  They end up getting collected in our hospital costs and payed by our insurance.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very well said.
> 
> In a free capitalist market regulated to eliminate monopolies, consumers shop to buy the best product they can afford.  In a mandated monopoly run market, such as government managed poverty programs, the monopoly controls the price and product.
> 
> This is not rocket science. Nor is it cheap.  In the short run hand-up programs are more expensive and time consuming.   In the long run, however productive people end up carrying their own weight and then some.  Thus, penny wise and pound foolish comes to mind.
> 
> Public education is improving with the movement to High Schools hosting college and trade school courses.  This needs to be emphasized.  Graduating from HS with a 2year degree is a huge hand-up.
> 
> Habitat for Humanity is a fantastic program.  You want a house?  Show us stable income and we help you get in one that the program builds for you, but it does not end there as we'll keep track make sure you pay the bills stay working and don't trash the house etc.  Fail and we find someone more worthy.
> 
> EBT may be a great deal for the people receiving it but does it include a means to get folks off?  Or is it a transition program till they get SS?  Would folks change their life plans to figure out a way to earn more income if they knew they would loose EBT?  What incentive is there to get off?  Why not exchange EBT credit for work community work?  What's the incentive for me to want to help people stay on EBT?  No offense intended to the folks on it.  I just would like to understand what's the long run plan.
> 
> For example, while my kids are in college I make sure they have money for food, I make sure they have a working car, health care, etc..  They also work for running money, cause I won't give them cash for partying and buying "stuff."  The goal for this hand-up is to help them have more time for studying while in college.  I also co-sign on loans to keep the loan rate down.  They are very appreciative of the coolers full of food they get when they visit home.  In return I get to check on progress. Additionally they all know I'd love to have them live at home after college while they are paying off the loans and creating a savings account for retirement and another for getting their own home or apartment, well at least till they get married.  When they are in my home food and rent are free but they help out around the house.  IOW I'm here to give them a hand-up. And in return they let me know about the progress they are making toward major life goals that will make them independent productive people.  They also all know that if they are ever in trouble their family will always be welcome in my home.  We'll work it out together.  The "safety" net of family allows them to take calculated risks (investments of time and money) they could not take if they did not have a safety net at home.
> 
> My personal family goal is to have raised three "extremely" productive and happy children.  So far so good.
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly, and now apply your concepts to the government in the same ways of thinking that you have, and we should be getting the same results that you are, but the government couldn't manage thinking like that if it tried to anymore, because it is in a constant struggle always against being led around by the nose by the wrong people.  It appears that the wrong people are winning the prize these days (control of our government and the nation also through this control). The problem today is that the wrong people are leading it around by it's nose, and telling it what to do and who to do it to.  We are all being abused by this now, so how do the right people take back the government is what this nation needs to wonder about and soon plan to do. People know what is right, but I think monopolizing corporations big part in all of this has made our government vulnerable also, because it has affectively separated it from we the people in that way, and so when you see the government being over generous in certain ways over a feel good issue (or) on programs that it picks to be sensitive upon, it usually does this to show the nation that look we are still the government in which you expect us to be, even though it is not that government we think that it is any longer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When conservatives, like me, look at these programs our response is, well duh you can't solve poverty by having a guy in DC send out checks.  Hand-ups are best done by people who care about and/or at least have an incentive to monitor and mange the person's progress. Hand-ups require "local" management, not remote management.
> 
> Take FHA loans, the DC approach to housing is to hand-out loans to everyone.  The Habitat approach is to carefully select and manage help to turn deserving families around.
> 
> The liberal approach is to just "solve" problems by throwing other people's money at it. Every weather event.. throw a large sum at it to "solve" the problem.  Never do we think, maybe they should have to pay for their poor choice to live in a flood plain.  Instead, we bail them out rebuild and they get flooded out again, and again, and again, and ... Refuse to fork over what seems to be an undue amount of money, and you get accused of tossing grandma off the cliff.
Click to expand...


Do you agree that the only way to get from here to what you want is a living wage paying job for everyone who wants one?


----------



## Antares

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly, and now apply your concepts to the government in the same ways of thinking that you have, and we should be getting the same results that you are, but the government couldn't manage thinking like that if it tried to anymore, because it is in a constant struggle always against being led around by the nose by the wrong people.  It appears that the wrong people are winning the prize these days (control of our government and the nation also through this control). The problem today is that the wrong people are leading it around by it's nose, and telling it what to do and who to do it to.  We are all being abused by this now, so how do the right people take back the government is what this nation needs to wonder about and soon plan to do. People know what is right, but I think monopolizing corporations big part in all of this has made our government vulnerable also, because it has affectively separated it from we the people in that way, and so when you see the government being over generous in certain ways over a feel good issue (or) on programs that it picks to be sensitive upon, it usually does this to show the nation that look we are still the government in which you expect us to be, even though it is not that government we think that it is any longer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When conservatives, like me, look at these programs our response is, well duh you can't solve poverty by having a guy in DC send out checks.  Hand-ups are best done by people who care about and/or at least have an incentive to monitor and mange the person's progress. Hand-ups require "local" management, not remote management.
> 
> Take FHA loans, the DC approach to housing is to hand-out loans to everyone.  The Habitat approach is to carefully select and manage help to turn deserving families around.
> 
> The liberal approach is to just "solve" problems by throwing other people's money at it. Every weather event.. throw a large sum at it to "solve" the problem.  Never do we think, maybe they should have to pay for their poor choice to live in a flood plain.  Instead, we bail them out rebuild and they get flooded out again, and again, and again, and ... Refuse to fork over what seems to be an undue amount of money, and you get accused of tossing grandma off the cliff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you agree that the only way to get from here to what you want is a living wage paying job for everyone who wants one?
Click to expand...


What IS a living wage PMS?


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I'd like to say that was moving, but I really don't care what your motives are.  The ends do not justify the means that your profess.  No matter how eloquently you explain it, the means is the same, you are stealing money from one person to hand over money to another person.  Worse you defend the theft being done it in a completely arbitrary way, progressively by level of income.
> 
> Then to pour salt on the wound, your "team" distributes the income as hand-outs instead of hand-ups.  This presumably to ensure the receiver never progresses.  The evidence showing that the people receiving hand-outs are kept down to be a permanent voting class for even more hand-outs.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that there is a mindset that is dangerous today, and it has been for quite sometime now, because like you say if it was a hand up instead of a handout then no one would have a problem with helping out in the biggest ways (yet wanting solid results in return), but the evidence is hard to refute as to what has been going on over the years. Then people wonder why there is so much defensiveness and divisiveness about these kinds of issues that go on and on and on.
> 
> What I have seen is a government that has tried to take these programs from way back, and to try and transform America into the way that it is now (unbalanced) or (off balance).
> 
> So far they have been successful with it all, but the people are just now and are finally waking up to what has gone on in it all, and so I ask why is that you reckon ? I think it's because it is attacking their wallet in ways that it never has before, and so now they are awaken to it all finally. If this nation was truly working to eradicate poverty as much as possible, and to bring it to a nation that is more united, then it wouldn't have gone the route that it has taken in all of this over the years. The problem is that we have all these victim groups that are determined to remain the victims until the cows come home now, and they do this for a reason.  They are going to exploit the issues until they get where they want to be or get what they want finally out of it all, and they are going to make everyone pay for this by the hammer of the federal government upon us all until the end results are acquired finally by them.  It is a problem! The government is to blame for it all, because it has mismanaged the whole thing for the past 50 years now, and it is still mismanaging it to this day.
> 
> When ever they took tax payers money, and used it as a *handout* instead of a *hand up*, then they had done wrong, and when they *incentivized growth in poverty *by way of those very same taxes, then they done wrong again, and when they placed roofs over the heads of those who would use those shelters for baby making factories, then they had done wrong again. This is what has happened in America, and it is still happening to this very day. The feds trying to shift the balance of power in this nation over time, seems to have been a long term agenda of theirs. It should have been that they would not have lied about all of this over the years, and they would have been working to achieve true equality and opportunity for all Americans under the laws that were created, but what we are seeing is a reversal of fortunes by way of the feds hammers upon this nation, instead of a free society that is a merit based society in which it should be as based upon certain agreements by all who are on board with such agreements.
> 
> The biggest tragedy is the incentivizing of poverty by way of our tax dollars taken by the feds, in which then caused the swelling up of a population by the millions, and all because of this ideology or failed plan that was used on this nation for to long now. It was a plan in which has placed us all in the predicament that we are in and/or we are all constantly having to grapple with in this nation, especially when it comes to poverty and what to do with it in the right ways instead of the wrong ways finally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Very well said.
> 
> In a free capitalist market regulated to eliminate monopolies, consumers shop to buy the best product they can afford.  In a mandated monopoly run market, such as government managed poverty programs, the monopoly controls the price and product.
> 
> This is not rocket science. Nor is it cheap.  In the short run hand-up programs are more expensive and time consuming.   In the long run, however productive people end up carrying their own weight and then some.  Thus, penny wise and pound foolish comes to mind.
> 
> Public education is improving with the movement to High Schools hosting college and trade school courses.  This needs to be emphasized.  Graduating from HS with a 2year degree is a huge hand-up.
> 
> Habitat for Humanity is a fantastic program.  You want a house?  Show us stable income and we help you get in one that the program builds for you, but it does not end there as we'll keep track make sure you pay the bills stay working and don't trash the house etc.  Fail and we find someone more worthy.
> 
> EBT may be a great deal for the people receiving it but does it include a means to get folks off?  Or is it a transition program till they get SS?  Would folks change their life plans to figure out a way to earn more income if they knew they would loose EBT?  What incentive is there to get off?  Why not exchange EBT credit for work community work?  What's the incentive for me to want to help people stay on EBT?  No offense intended to the folks on it.  I just would like to understand what's the long run plan.
> 
> For example, while my kids are in college I make sure they have money for food, I make sure they have a working car, health care, etc..  They also work for running money, cause I won't give them cash for partying and buying "stuff."  The goal for this hand-up is to help them have more time for studying while in college.  I also co-sign on loans to keep the loan rate down.  They are very appreciative of the coolers full of food they get when they visit home.  In return I get to check on progress. Additionally they all know I'd love to have them live at home after college while they are paying off the loans and creating a savings account for retirement and another for getting their own home or apartment, well at least till they get married.  When they are in my home food and rent are free but they help out around the house.  IOW I'm here to give them a hand-up. And in return they let me know about the progress they are making toward major life goals that will make them independent productive people.  They also all know that if they are ever in trouble their family will always be welcome in my home.  We'll work it out together.  The "safety" net of family allows them to take calculated risks (investments of time and money) they could not take if they did not have a safety net at home.
> 
> My personal family goal is to have raised three "extremely" productive and happy children.  So far so good.
Click to expand...


BTW,  I agree with you about HFH. 
A wonderful idea that I have done volunteer work for.  

It's win,  win,  win.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Congratulations. You are to be commended.  Three happy productive kids.  Just like mine.
> 
> Don't you wish every family could do as well?
> 
> Of course it probably costs a million bucks or so to do that but it's the best investment in the world.  I certainly thought so.
> 
> Now,  let's get back to the poor people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >> Don't you wish every family could do as well?
> 
> Yes, absolutely.  That's why I'm against hand-out programs that are designed to make sure families don't do as well.  Paying people to not work, paying people to sit on the couch, sell and do drugs, steal, ...  Look at our "free" hospital system.  My daughter (RN) tells me that well over 50% of the visitors to the emergency room are drug addicts seeking a free fix.  A free fix that our government mandates they hand out, the bill for which is passed on to consumers through higher emergency room costs.  She tells me that only 1 in a hundred of the people coming to the ER that don't have insurance and/or are not paying, are people that have an honest need for help.  Most folks that need help have Medicare, Medicaid, Insurance, or cash.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> About 7% of hospital costs don't get collected.  They end up getting collected in our hospital costs and payed by our insurance.
Click to expand...


I'm just talking about the emergency room.  The government does not mandate that any of the other operations in the hospital be provided "free" of charge.  With regard to the other operations of the hospital, the big issues are medicare/medicare mandated processes, procedures, and prices that pass on a large % of the costs for those patients to private insurance; and the government mandated and/or managed monopolies on drugs and equipment.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I notice lots of use of the code word hand up.
> 
> I don't have the secret Fox decoder ring but my interpretation of it is that it stands for help that erases poverty.
> 
> How great is that!
> 
> Let's do it.  Here's the only way that I know how.
> 
> Jobs.  Well paying jobs.  Jobs that can be done by the people that we have,  not the people that we wish we had.
> 
> On your mark,  get set,  Go!
> 
> Has poverty gone away yet?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would never give a retard like you a paycheck.
Click to expand...


That's how I know that you're not much of a business man.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I notice lots of use of the code word hand up.
> 
> I don't have the secret Fox decoder ring but my interpretation of it is that it stands for help that erases poverty.
> 
> How great is that!
> 
> Let's do it.  Here's the only way that I know how.
> 
> Jobs.  Well paying jobs.  Jobs that can be done by the people that we have,  not the people that we wish we had.
> 
> On your mark,  get set,  Go!
> 
> Has poverty gone away yet?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would never give a retard like you a paycheck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's how I know that you're not much of a business man.
Click to expand...


I've found that having people on the payroll like you never pays in the long run, because you are incapable of thinking long run.  You'd improve a sub-process to get credit for it, while breaking parallel sub-process to get someone fired.  You'd be the guy that does not care about the success of the program so far as you get a check.  

I'd hire beagle in a heartbeat.


----------



## Antares

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I notice lots of use of the code word hand up.
> 
> I don't have the secret Fox decoder ring but my interpretation of it is that it stands for help that erases poverty.
> 
> How great is that!
> 
> Let's do it.  Here's the only way that I know how.
> 
> Jobs.  Well paying jobs.  Jobs that can be done by the people that we have,  not the people that we wish we had.
> 
> On your mark,  get set,  Go!
> 
> Has poverty gone away yet?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would never give a retard like you a paycheck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's how I know that you're not much of a business man.
Click to expand...


What is a "living wage" PMS?


----------



## PMZ

beagle9 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> *You didn't have single solution ...*
> 
> You said I needed to ask if my neighbor needed help ... When he is sitting there with his truck stuck in a ditch.
> You said I needed to investigate whether or not he had already called someone ... When I am sitting there with the ability to get his truck out of the ditch.
> You suggested I offer my neighbor a ride ... When I can get his truck out the ditch and he can drive himself.
> You suggested I let my neighbor use my phone ... When I said I would be glad to let him use my phone to tell someone he was on his way.
> None of what you suggested would have done anything to get his truck out of the ditch and solve the problem.
> 
> *The simple fact that you believe you offered any solution that wasn't already trumped by the fact the problem was solved ... Is a testament to Progressive Liberal idiocy. *
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Simple conservative arrogance.  Any solution that doesn't come from a conservative is not a solution. That's the entire ACA story.  Also AGW. Also our $17T debt that conservatives caused. While they caused it all,  they still publish the myth that only they can solve it.  By weakening our government and our country.
> 
> The weaker the government,  they easier it will be to create richer rich and poorer poor.  Their real goal.  Solve that vexing problem of the rich only having 85% of the wealth.
> 
> Of course when the aristocracy reaches their goal there will be the problem of nobody doing the work of creating wealth.
> 
> But that's still a couple of years away so let's ignore it.  Along with AGW.  And health care.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you have some valid points also, but you just have to stay out of the camp that thinks taking or forcing at the end of a federal gun is the best policy to solve matters. Now instead of bi-partisanship on the issues winning the day in order to work together to solve the problems of today, you want anarchy instead ? Taking or forcing will soon lead to major problems, and that is what we are seeing in all of this today.
> 
> Because of this constant suspicion by a wanta be victim group forever, and yet for political reasons now do they do this more than ever now is highly revealing, also in what we are finding in these other certain groups who want to get on the band wagon as well, makes this the very reason why we are getting what we are getting without relief upon such issues (or) in the solving of these issues to this very day in America.
> 
> These groups see the other groups as their arch-enemies till the very end in this nation, and so I think it will only get worse and worse I'm afraid before it gets better if it all keeps on going like this. The stage gets set and the show goes on every single day and in every single way.
Click to expand...


In my experience,  our government traditionally has been the greatest example of statemenship in the world.  Thats the government of my younger days.  Thats the government that worked. 

Over the last couple of decades that government that worked has been replaced by one that doesn't. 

I know what I think caused that change,  what do you think caused it?


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would never give a retard like you a paycheck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's how I know that you're not much of a business man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've found that having people on the payroll like you never pays in the long run, because you are incapable of thinking long run.  You'd improve a sub-process to get credit for it, while breaking parallel sub-process to get someone fired.  You'd be the guy that does not care about the success of the program so far as you get a check.
> 
> I'd hire beagle in a heartbeat.
Click to expand...


You're almost completely wrong about me.  You let politics get in the way of business.  Awfully hard to be successful in business that way. Only hiring goose steppers.


----------



## PMZ

Antares said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would never give a retard like you a paycheck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's how I know that you're not much of a business man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is a "living wage" PMS?
Click to expand...


A wage that for full time work allows a family of four to stay above the poverty line. IOW,  not requiring external support.


----------



## Meister

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would never give a retard like you a paycheck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's how I know that you're not much of a business man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've found that having people on the payroll like you never pays in the long run, because you are incapable of thinking long run.  You'd improve a sub-process to get credit for it, while breaking parallel sub-process to get someone fired.  You'd be the guy that does not care about the success of the program so far as you get a check.
> 
> I'd hire beagle in a heartbeat.
Click to expand...


PMZ would be constantly flaming the management to the other employees.
He would be limiting his own success (if any) in reality.


----------



## PMZ

Meister said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's how I know that you're not much of a business man.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've found that having people on the payroll like you never pays in the long run, because you are incapable of thinking long run.  You'd improve a sub-process to get credit for it, while breaking parallel sub-process to get someone fired.  You'd be the guy that does not care about the success of the program so far as you get a check.
> 
> I'd hire beagle in a heartbeat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> PMZ would be constantly flaming the management to the other employees.
> He would be limiting his own success (if any) in reality.
Click to expand...


More Fox Opinions propaganda tactics of talking for the scapegoats. It's classic.  How else can the minions feel superior? 

So simple,  but so effective.

"PMZ would be constantly flaming the management to the other employees."

The biggest threat to the modern corporation.  Employees thinking for themselves.  Needs to be squashed and replaced with goose stepping.  

And we wonder where innovation went.


----------



## Meister

PMZ said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've found that having people on the payroll like you never pays in the long run, because you are incapable of thinking long run.  You'd improve a sub-process to get credit for it, while breaking parallel sub-process to get someone fired.  You'd be the guy that does not care about the success of the program so far as you get a check.
> 
> I'd hire beagle in a heartbeat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ would be constantly flaming the management to the other employees.
> He would be limiting his own success (if any) in reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More Fox Opinions propaganda tactics of talking for the scapegoats. It's classic.  How else can the minions feel superior?
> 
> So simple,  but so effective.
> 
> "PMZ would be constantly flaming the management to the other employees."
> 
> The biggest threat to the modern corporation.  Employees thinking for themselves.  Needs to be squashed and replaced with goose stepping.
> 
> And we wonder where innovation went.
Click to expand...

Who was talking about corporations, PMZ?  Seems only you were.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's how I know that you're not much of a business man.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've found that having people on the payroll like you never pays in the long run, because you are incapable of thinking long run.  You'd improve a sub-process to get credit for it, while breaking parallel sub-process to get someone fired.  You'd be the guy that does not care about the success of the program so far as you get a check.
> 
> I'd hire beagle in a heartbeat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're almost completely wrong about me.  You let politics get in the way of business.  Awfully hard to be successful in business that way. Only hiring goose steppers.
Click to expand...


What you call politics, I call amoral criminal behavior.


----------



## PMZ

Meister said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ would be constantly flaming the management to the other employees.
> He would be limiting his own success (if any) in reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More Fox Opinions propaganda tactics of talking for the scapegoats. It's classic.  How else can the minions feel superior?
> 
> So simple,  but so effective.
> 
> "PMZ would be constantly flaming the management to the other employees."
> 
> The biggest threat to the modern corporation.  Employees thinking for themselves.  Needs to be squashed and replaced with goose stepping.
> 
> And we wonder where innovation went.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who was talking about corporations, PMZ?  Seems only you were.
Click to expand...


You were. 

" PMZ would be constantly flaming the management to the other employees."


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've found that having people on the payroll like you never pays in the long run, because you are incapable of thinking long run.  You'd improve a sub-process to get credit for it, while breaking parallel sub-process to get someone fired.  You'd be the guy that does not care about the success of the program so far as you get a check.
> 
> I'd hire beagle in a heartbeat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're almost completely wrong about me.  You let politics get in the way of business.  Awfully hard to be successful in business that way. Only hiring goose steppers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you call politics, I call amoral criminal behavior.
Click to expand...


Politics creates laws.  Laws determine criminal behavior.


----------



## Antares

PMZ said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's how I know that you're not much of a business man.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is a "living wage" PMS?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A wage that for full time work allows a family of four to stay above the poverty line. IOW,  not requiring external support.
Click to expand...


How much is that...exactly?


----------



## PMZ

Antares said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is a "living wage" PMS?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A wage that for full time work allows a family of four to stay above the poverty line. IOW,  not requiring external support.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How much is that...exactly?
Click to expand...


$12 something an hour.  More if  we wanted to end the ACA health care subsidies.


----------



## Ernie S.

PMZ said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's how I know that you're not much of a business man.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is a "living wage" PMS?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A wage that for full time work allows a family of four to stay above the poverty line. IOW,  not requiring external support.
Click to expand...


And what should an employer get in return for such a wage.

Should a kid fresh out of high school cooking fries at Mickey D's get a living wage? Should a single mother of 3 doing the same job receive more?
What makes her more valuable?


----------



## BlackSand

PMZ said:


> About 7% of hospital costs don't get collected.  They end up getting collected in our hospital costs and payed by our insurance.



*Some of us actually pay for insurance ... So that means the costs are collected one way or the other.*
Even you said that ... Right after you said the exact opposite.

.


----------



## PMZ

Ernie S. said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is a "living wage" PMS?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A wage that for full time work allows a family of four to stay above the poverty line. IOW,  not requiring external support.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what should an employer get in return for such a wage.
> 
> Should a kid fresh out of high school cooking fries at Mickey D's get a living wage? Should a single mother of 3 doing the same job receive more?
> What makes her more valuable?
Click to expand...


The employer would get higher prices.  The tax payer would get lower taxes.  Conservatives would get less to whine about.  Liberals would get less to worry about.  The individual would get the pride of worthwhile work.  

A win for everyone.


----------



## BlackSand

PMZ said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> A wage that for full time work allows a family of four to stay above the poverty line. IOW,  not requiring external support.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And what should an employer get in return for such a wage.
> 
> Should a kid fresh out of high school cooking fries at Mickey D's get a living wage? Should a single mother of 3 doing the same job receive more?
> What makes her more valuable?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The employer would get higher prices.  The tax payer would get lower taxes.  Conservatives would get less to whine about.  Liberals would get less to worry about.  The individual would get the pride of worthwhile work.
> 
> A win for everyone.
Click to expand...


You cannot ask actual questions Ernie ... They don't make it through PMZ's broken Cracker Jack decoder ring.

.


----------



## Meister

PMZ said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> A wage that for full time work allows a family of four to stay above the poverty line. IOW,  not requiring external support.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And what should an employer get in return for such a wage.
> 
> Should a kid fresh out of high school cooking fries at Mickey D's get a living wage? Should a single mother of 3 doing the same job receive more?
> What makes her more valuable?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The employer would get higher prices.  The tax payer would get lower taxes.  Conservatives would get less to whine about.  Liberals would get less to worry about.  The individual would get the pride of worthwhile work.
> 
> A win for everyone.
Click to expand...


Liberal code talk meaning "I got nothing for you".


----------



## percysunshine

I hate to pee on this party, but Obamacare has, so far, been a success. The intent of the legislation is to bankrupt the healthcare insurance industry and bring about socialized medicine as the only option for providing healthcare.

It is working quite well.


----------



## Ernie S.

PMZ said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> A wage that for full time work allows a family of four to stay above the poverty line. IOW,  not requiring external support.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And what should an employer get in return for such a wage.
> 
> Should a kid fresh out of high school cooking fries at Mickey D's get a living wage? Should a single mother of 3 doing the same job receive more?
> What makes her more valuable?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The employer would get higher prices.  The tax payer would get lower taxes.  Conservatives would get less to whine about.  Liberals would get less to worry about.  The individual would get the pride of worthwhile work.
> 
> A win for everyone.
Click to expand...

Inflation is a win????
The employer would get higher prices and so would every other employer. Every single thing you buy would cost more and in no time at all, your "living wage" wouldn't be a living wage any more.

The hardest hit would be those living on a fixed income.

NOW! Will you make another attempt to answer questions 2,3 and 4?


----------



## Ernie S.

BlackSand said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> And what should an employer get in return for such a wage.
> 
> Should a kid fresh out of high school cooking fries at Mickey D's get a living wage? Should a single mother of 3 doing the same job receive more?
> What makes her more valuable?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The employer would get higher prices.  The tax payer would get lower taxes.  Conservatives would get less to whine about.  Liberals would get less to worry about.  The individual would get the pride of worthwhile work.
> 
> A win for everyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You cannot ask actual questions Ernie ... They don't make it through PMZ's broken Cracker Jack decoder ring.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Maybe he can write the DNC. They might give him a new and better way of avoiding reality.


----------



## PMZ

I see that the conservative clown car arrived. 

All of this talk about solutions has them jittery.


----------



## PMZ

Ernie S. said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> And what should an employer get in return for such a wage.
> 
> Should a kid fresh out of high school cooking fries at Mickey D's get a living wage? Should a single mother of 3 doing the same job receive more?
> What makes her more valuable?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The employer would get higher prices.  The tax payer would get lower taxes.  Conservatives would get less to whine about.  Liberals would get less to worry about.  The individual would get the pride of worthwhile work.
> 
> A win for everyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Inflation is a win????
> The employer would get higher prices and so would every other employer. Every single thing you buy would cost more and in no time at all, your "living wage" wouldn't be a living wage any more.
> 
> The hardest hit would be those living on a fixed income.
> 
> NOW! Will you make another attempt to answer questions 2,3 and 4?
Click to expand...


Then,  I guess that we are stuck with welfare.


----------



## BlackSand

PMZ said:


> Then,  I guess that we are stuck with welfare.



That's what everyone has been pointing out regarding your ideas for fixing things ... That is what you have to offer ... And what you wanted all a long.
It is a shame it took you so long to recognize what you have been saying all this time ... But my bet is that you still don't understand it.

.


----------



## PMZ

BlackSand said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then,  I guess that we are stuck with welfare.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's what everyone has been pointing out regarding your ideas for fixing things ... That is what you have to offer ... And what you wanted all a long.
> It is a shame it took you so long to recognize what you have been saying all this time ... But my bet is that you still don't understand it.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


But we have yet to read a conservative solution other than do nothing.


----------



## BlackSand

PMZ said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then,  I guess that we are stuck with welfare.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's what everyone has been pointing out regarding your ideas for fixing things ... That is what you have to offer ... And what you wanted all a long.
> It is a shame it took you so long to recognize what you have been saying all this time ... But my bet is that you still don't understand it.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But we have yet to read a conservative solution other than do nothing.
Click to expand...


I am a Conservative and help out people in realistic ways every day.
If you need a solution to a problem, the best thing to do is get to fixing it yourself.

.


----------



## PMZ

BlackSand said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's what everyone has been pointing out regarding your ideas for fixing things ... That is what you have to offer ... And what you wanted all a long.
> It is a shame it took you so long to recognize what you have been saying all this time ... But my bet is that you still don't understand it.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But we have yet to read a conservative solution other than do nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am a Conservative and help out people in realistic ways every day.
> If you need a solution to a problem, the best thing to do is get to fixing it yourself.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


I'm pretty sure that you can't fix them all,  but nothing is stopping you from trying. 

We'll know if you prove me wrong and poverty goes away.


----------



## dblack

PMZ said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then,  I guess that we are stuck with welfare.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's what everyone has been pointing out regarding your ideas for fixing things ... That is what you have to offer ... And what you wanted all a long.
> It is a shame it took you so long to recognize what you have been saying all this time ... But my bet is that you still don't understand it.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But we have yet to read a conservative solution other than do nothing.
Click to expand...


Can you not conceive of solving problems voluntarily?


----------



## SecularistMan

I haven't read this entire thread because it's super long and I'm afraid Rottweiler asked some questions that didn't really get addressed. So heres my, poor attempt:



> So _why_ exactly does the federal government have to piss away billions to *promote* an existing law?!?



Because it's in law, they have to commit to it, they really have no choice now.



> Has this _ever_ been done with any other law in U.S. _history_?



Just about every law that has happened to. 



> So why are they so desperate to reach people through Hollywood and sports?



This is part of any large political move, they have to create propaganda and they know that their target demographic watches foosball and movies.

Everything else that you mention is a bunch of name calling and claiming that you know what someone else is thinking (which by the way for an adult to do to another adult is a form of manipulation and abuse).



Rottweiler said:


> As the Dumbocrats on USMB love to crow about - Obamacare was passed into law by Congress, signed into law by the president, and upheld by the Supreme Court. So _why_ exactly does the federal government have to piss away billions to *promote* an existing law?!? Has this _ever_ been done with any other law in U.S. _history_?
> 
> They begged the NBA to help promote it and the NBA said yes. They begged the NFL to help promote it, and the NFL told them to go fuck themselves (doh!). So why are they so desperate to reach people through Hollywood and sports? Because even the Dumbocrats know this is a miserable failure, and they _know_ it is going to be repealed eventually unless they can do major damage control and brainwash the masses (especially the young and impressionable - hence the NBA, NFL, etc.) that this is a "good" thing.
> 
> Super Bowl champ Baltimore Ravens getting paid $130,000 to promote Obamacare |


----------



## Ernie S.

PMZ said:


> I see that the conservative clown car arrived.
> 
> All of this talk about solutions has them jittery.



If you actually proposed a solution that worked. we might actually take you seriously. 

Living wage? What you're saying is minimum wage should be, what $14/hour? or roughly twice what it is now so someone on minimum wage can support a family of 4???

Minimum wage was historically intended for minimum wage jobs typically held by unskilled high school students.
Higher wages generally came as a worker learned a job and became more valuable to an employer.
Sorry guy, but just about anyone should be able to flip a burger or tend a fryolator..
If you think you are worth $14/hour, you could, like, acquire an education or a skill set?

What if, say the electric company decided they were worth twice as much and doubled your bill with no increase in service or consumption? Would you be willing to pay that?

Now, before you bring on the "clown car" and any other ad hominems,
I asked you a couple of distinct questions, as I did in a previous post.

Do you think you could give me well thought out, relevant responses to?

While you're at it, you still owe me 3 answers fro a previous post. *Man up!*


----------



## Antares

PMZ said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> A wage that for full time work allows a family of four to stay above the poverty line. IOW,  not requiring external support.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And what should an employer get in return for such a wage.
> 
> Should a kid fresh out of high school cooking fries at Mickey D's get a living wage? Should a single mother of 3 doing the same job receive more?
> What makes her more valuable?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The employer would get higher prices.  The tax payer would get lower taxes.  Conservatives would get less to whine about.  Liberals would get less to worry about.  The individual would get the pride of worthwhile work.
> 
> A win for everyone.
Click to expand...


This is how we know you would be a shitty business person, you are too stupid.


----------



## Ernie S.

PMZ said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> The employer would get higher prices.  The tax payer would get lower taxes.  Conservatives would get less to whine about.  Liberals would get less to worry about.  The individual would get the pride of worthwhile work.
> 
> A win for everyone.
> 
> 
> 
> Inflation is a win????
> The employer would get higher prices and so would every other employer. Every single thing you buy would cost more and in no time at all, your "living wage" wouldn't be a living wage any more.
> 
> The hardest hit would be those living on a fixed income.
> 
> NOW! Will you make another attempt to answer questions 2,3 and 4?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then,  I guess that we are stuck with welfare.
Click to expand...


So then: No. You can't answer a direct question. You are dismissed.


----------



## Ernie S.

PMZ said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> But we have yet to read a conservative solution other than do nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am a Conservative and help out people in realistic ways every day.
> If you need a solution to a problem, the best thing to do is get to fixing it yourself.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm pretty sure that you can't fix them all,  but nothing is stopping you from trying.
> 
> We'll know if you prove me wrong and poverty goes away.
Click to expand...


No. Black sand cannot fix them all, but she can fix 1 or 2. Maybe you could get off your ass and fix a couple. Tell your friends if they're not to busy thinking up ways to shift the tax burden to those that actually produce wealth.

Maybe then, poverty will go away?

Here's a couple more questions for you: When was the last time you supported a family other than your own, that was struggling to get by?
When have you opened your home to someone out on the street?


----------



## PMZ

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's what everyone has been pointing out regarding your ideas for fixing things ... That is what you have to offer ... And what you wanted all a long.
> It is a shame it took you so long to recognize what you have been saying all this time ... But my bet is that you still don't understand it.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But we have yet to read a conservative solution other than do nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you not conceive of solving problems voluntarily?
Click to expand...


Nobody is prevented from doing that,  yet poverty persists.


----------



## PMZ

BlackSand said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> About 7% of hospital costs don't get collected.  They end up getting collected in our hospital costs and payed by our insurance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Some of us actually pay for insurance ... So that means the costs are collected one way or the other.*
> Even you said that ... Right after you said the exact opposite.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


I never said the opposite. 

Another Fox Opinions propaganda example of speaking for the scapegoats.


----------



## dblack

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> But we have yet to read a conservative solution other than do nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you not conceive of solving problems voluntarily?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody is prevented from doing that,  yet poverty persists.
Click to expand...


But you discount it, insisting that it's "doing nothing". Government isn't the solution to every problem.


----------



## PMZ

SecularistMan said:


> I haven't read this entire thread because it's super long and I'm afraid Rottweiler asked some questions that didn't really get addressed. So heres my, poor attempt:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So _why_ exactly does the federal government have to piss away billions to *promote* an existing law?!?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because it's in law, they have to commit to it, they really have no choice now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Has this _ever_ been done with any other law in U.S. _history_?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just about every law that has happened to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So why are they so desperate to reach people through Hollywood and sports?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is part of any large political move, they have to create propaganda and they know that their target demographic watches foosball and movies.
> 
> Everything else that you mention is a bunch of name calling and claiming that you know what someone else is thinking (which by the way for an adult to do to another adult is a form of manipulation and abuse).
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> As the Dumbocrats on USMB love to crow about - Obamacare was passed into law by Congress, signed into law by the president, and upheld by the Supreme Court. So _why_ exactly does the federal government have to piss away billions to *promote* an existing law?!? Has this _ever_ been done with any other law in U.S. _history_?
> 
> They begged the NBA to help promote it and the NBA said yes. They begged the NFL to help promote it, and the NFL told them to go fuck themselves (doh!). So why are they so desperate to reach people through Hollywood and sports? Because even the Dumbocrats know this is a miserable failure, and they _know_ it is going to be repealed eventually unless they can do major damage control and brainwash the masses (especially the young and impressionable - hence the NBA, NFL, etc.) that this is a "good" thing.
> 
> Super Bowl champ Baltimore Ravens getting paid $130,000 to promote Obamacare |
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Rotweiner seems to be more comfortable with the GOP spending millions trying to prevent progress rather than achieving it.


----------



## PMZ

Ernie S. said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see that the conservative clown car arrived.
> 
> All of this talk about solutions has them jittery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you actually proposed a solution that worked. we might actually take you seriously.
> 
> Living wage? What you're saying is minimum wage should be, what $14/hour? or roughly twice what it is now so someone on minimum wage can support a family of 4???
> 
> Minimum wage was historically intended for minimum wage jobs typically held by unskilled high school students.
> Higher wages generally came as a worker learned a job and became more valuable to an employer.
> Sorry guy, but just about anyone should be able to flip a burger or tend a fryolator..
> If you think you are worth $14/hour, you could, like, acquire an education or a skill set?
> 
> What if, say the electric company decided they were worth twice as much and doubled your bill with no increase in service or consumption? Would you be willing to pay that?
> 
> Now, before you bring on the "clown car" and any other ad hominems,
> I asked you a couple of distinct questions, as I did in a previous post.
> 
> Do you think you could give me well thought out, relevant responses to?
> 
> While you're at it, you still owe me 3 answers fro a previous post. *Man up!*
Click to expand...


We're still anxiously awaiting the first conservative solution.  I'm thinking the first ever.


----------



## PMZ

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you not conceive of solving problems voluntarily?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody is prevented from doing that,  yet poverty persists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you discount it, insisting that it's "doing nothing". Government isn't the solution to every problem.
Click to expand...


I agree with the statement about government.  As an example,  the government can't create private industry jobs.  Corporations have to. 

I assume that what ever volunteer work that can be going on,  is.  Brownie mentioned a great one this morning.  Jimmie Carter's Habitat for Humanity. 

Yet poverty persists.  So more is required if we are going to solve the problem with hand ups.


----------



## Ernie S.

I finally read your signature... I now see why Liberals like you like Al Franken.

You like "being a fucking moron."

The "You watch FoxNews, so your argument is dismissed" shit may work for you against one Conservative in a room full of welfare recipients, but it won't play here. You can't shout over us. 
We demand responses and would prefer you put some thought behind your argument, provided you have 2 functioning brain cells.


----------



## Antares

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> But we have yet to read a conservative solution other than do nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you not conceive of solving problems voluntarily?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody is prevented from doing that,  yet poverty persists.
Click to expand...


Never mind you Lefty's have been trying the same shit since the 30's


----------



## PMZ

Ernie S. said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am a Conservative and help out people in realistic ways every day.
> If you need a solution to a problem, the best thing to do is get to fixing it yourself.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm pretty sure that you can't fix them all,  but nothing is stopping you from trying.
> 
> We'll know if you prove me wrong and poverty goes away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. Black sand cannot fix them all, but she can fix 1 or 2. Maybe you could get off your ass and fix a couple. Tell your friends if they're not to busy thinking up ways to shift the tax burden to those that actually produce wealth.
> 
> Maybe then, poverty will go away?
> 
> Here's a couple more questions for you: When was the last time you supported a family other than your own, that was struggling to get by?
> When have you opened your home to someone out on the street?
Click to expand...


I'm all for black sand doing all that she can.  You too.  Me also. And I do.


----------



## Ernie S.

PMZ said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see that the conservative clown car arrived.
> 
> All of this talk about solutions has them jittery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you actually proposed a solution that worked. we might actually take you seriously.
> 
> Living wage? What you're saying is minimum wage should be, what $14/hour? or roughly twice what it is now so someone on minimum wage can support a family of 4???
> 
> Minimum wage was historically intended for minimum wage jobs typically held by unskilled high school students.
> Higher wages generally came as a worker learned a job and became more valuable to an employer.
> Sorry guy, but just about anyone should be able to flip a burger or tend a fryolator..
> If you think you are worth $14/hour, you could, like, acquire an education or a skill set?
> 
> What if, say the electric company decided they were worth twice as much and doubled your bill with no increase in service or consumption? Would you be willing to pay that?
> 
> Now, before you bring on the "clown car" and any other ad hominems,
> I asked you a couple of distinct questions, as I did in a previous post.
> 
> Do you think you could give me well thought out, relevant responses to?
> 
> While you're at it, you still owe me 3 answers fro a previous post. *Man up!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We're still anxiously awaiting the first conservative solution.  I'm thinking the first ever.
Click to expand...

The solution is the same as it has always been. 
Get an education. 
Get a job. 
Earn money. 
Pay your bills
Get the fuck out of my wallet.

Why does that have to be the "Conservative solution"?

It it not just common sense?


----------



## BlackSand

PMZ said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> About 7% of hospital costs don't get collected.  They end up getting collected in our hospital costs and payed by our insurance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Some of us actually pay for insurance ... So that means the costs are collected one way or the other.*
> Even you said that ... Right after you said the exact opposite.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said the opposite.
> 
> Another Fox Opinions propaganda example of speaking for the scapegoats.
Click to expand...


*Oh really, you said ... "About 7% of hospital costs don't get collected" ... And then you explained how they are collected through Insurance and hospital costs.*
Now it is hard enough for you to try to explain how costs are not collected by adding to the cost ... But the increase in insurance costs is something that people who pay for insurance don't need explained to them.

.


----------



## Ernie S.

PMZ said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm pretty sure that you can't fix them all,  but nothing is stopping you from trying.
> 
> We'll know if you prove me wrong and poverty goes away.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. Black sand cannot fix them all, but she can fix 1 or 2. Maybe you could get off your ass and fix a couple. Tell your friends if they're not to busy thinking up ways to shift the tax burden to those that actually produce wealth.
> 
> Maybe then, poverty will go away?
> 
> Here's a couple more questions for you: When was the last time you supported a family other than your own, that was struggling to get by?
> When have you opened your home to someone out on the street?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm all for black sand doing all that she can.  You too.  Me also. And I do.
Click to expand...


*Yeah? What have you done lately?*

*Be specific!*
In the last 2 years, I supported a destitute family of 4 for nine months, until they stole from me. I am on my third formerly "homeless" person living in my guest cottage. The first 2 each stayed about 6 months and are doing quite well now, earning well over your "living wage"
The 3rd is interviewing every day and I believe he has found a position. He will be leaving us soon and I'll hunt down my next stray.


----------



## PMZ

BlackSand said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Some of us actually pay for insurance ... So that means the costs are collected one way or the other.*
> Even you said that ... Right after you said the exact opposite.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never said the opposite.
> 
> Another Fox Opinions propaganda example of speaking for the scapegoats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Oh really, you said ... "About 7% of hospital costs don't get collected" ... And then you explained how they are collected through Insurance and hospital costs.*
> Now it is hard enough for you to try to explain how costs are not collected by adding to the cost ... But the increase in insurance costs is something that people who pay for insurance don't need explained to them.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


I assumed too much about your capabilities.  

I assumed that people would understand that "not being collected" would be taken as implying from those to whom the service was rendered. 

And that resulted in them being paid by those who did pay their bills as happens in every other business. 

I'll try to dumb my posts down hereafter.


----------



## BlackSand

PMZ said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> But we have yet to read a conservative solution other than do nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am a Conservative and help out people in realistic ways every day.
> If you need a solution to a problem, the best thing to do is get to fixing it yourself.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm pretty sure that you can't fix them all,  but nothing is stopping you from trying.
> 
> We'll know if you prove me wrong and poverty goes away.
Click to expand...


I can fix what is in front of me ... And what is my obligation, responsibility and duty to assist with in helping my fellow citizens. 
You are absolutely correct that nothing stops me ... And the only thing that pisses me off is sending the government money to waste doing nothing ... When I could accomplish more with it here.
As long as you keep enforcing poverty ... It doesn't matter what I do ... But then again, responsibility hasn't ever been all that high on your list anyway.

.


----------



## PMZ

Ernie S. said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you actually proposed a solution that worked. we might actually take you seriously.
> 
> Living wage? What you're saying is minimum wage should be, what $14/hour? or roughly twice what it is now so someone on minimum wage can support a family of 4???
> 
> Minimum wage was historically intended for minimum wage jobs typically held by unskilled high school students.
> Higher wages generally came as a worker learned a job and became more valuable to an employer.
> Sorry guy, but just about anyone should be able to flip a burger or tend a fryolator..
> If you think you are worth $14/hour, you could, like, acquire an education or a skill set?
> 
> What if, say the electric company decided they were worth twice as much and doubled your bill with no increase in service or consumption? Would you be willing to pay that?
> 
> Now, before you bring on the "clown car" and any other ad hominems,
> I asked you a couple of distinct questions, as I did in a previous post.
> 
> Do you think you could give me well thought out, relevant responses to?
> 
> While you're at it, you still owe me 3 answers fro a previous post. *Man up!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We're still anxiously awaiting the first conservative solution.  I'm thinking the first ever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The solution is the same as it has always been.
> Get an education.
> Get a job.
> Earn money.
> Pay your bills
> Get the fuck out of my wallet.
> 
> Why does that have to be the "Conservative solution"?
> 
> It it not just common sense?
Click to expand...


We're talking about the poor not the wealthy. 

Apparently,  there are those who don't or can't follow your plan.  It's illegal,  as I understand it to shoot them,  so we're looking for an alternative.


----------



## PMZ

Antares said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you not conceive of solving problems voluntarily?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody is prevented from doing that,  yet poverty persists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Never mind you Lefty's have been trying the same shit since the 30's
Click to expand...


That's why we need a conservative solution.


----------



## BlackSand

PMZ said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never said the opposite.
> 
> Another Fox Opinions propaganda example of speaking for the scapegoats.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Oh really, you said ... "About 7% of hospital costs don't get collected" ... And then you explained how they are collected through Insurance and hospital costs.*
> Now it is hard enough for you to try to explain how costs are not collected by adding to the cost ... But the increase in insurance costs is something that people who pay for insurance don't need explained to them.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I assumed too much about your capabilities.
> 
> I assumed that people would understand that "not being collected" would be taken as implying from those to whom the service was rendered.
> 
> And that resulted in them being paid by those who did pay their bills as happens in every other business.
> 
> I'll try to dumb my posts down hereafter.
Click to expand...


*I assumed you would understand what I meant by "people who pay for it" ... Somebody does, and it just doesn't disappear because you pass it off on someone else.*
That is the problem Progressive Liberals always run into ... the idea that you can pass responsibility off on someone else and that is the end of it.

.


----------



## PMZ

BlackSand said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Oh really, you said ... "About 7% of hospital costs don't get collected" ... And then you explained how they are collected through Insurance and hospital costs.*
> Now it is hard enough for you to try to explain how costs are not collected by adding to the cost ... But the increase in insurance costs is something that people who pay for insurance don't need explained to them.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I assumed too much about your capabilities.
> 
> I assumed that people would understand that "not being collected" would be taken as implying from those to whom the service was rendered.
> 
> And that resulted in them being paid by those who did pay their bills as happens in every other business.
> 
> I'll try to dumb my posts down hereafter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *I assumed you would understand what I meant by "people who pay for it" ... Somebody does, and it just doesn't disappear because you pass it off on someone else.*
> That is the problem Progressive Liberals always run into ... the idea that you can pass responsibility off on someone else and that is the end of it.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Now you're getting just plain desperate.


----------



## Antares

PMZ said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody is prevented from doing that,  yet poverty persists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Never mind you Lefty's have been trying the same shit since the 30's
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's why we need a conservative solution.
Click to expand...


Conservatives create Jobs.

Libs like you just bitch that no matter what you are paid it's never enough.


----------



## Ernie S.

PMZ said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're still anxiously awaiting the first conservative solution.  I'm thinking the first ever.
> 
> 
> 
> The solution is the same as it has always been.
> Get an education.
> Get a job.
> Earn money.
> Pay your bills
> Get the fuck out of my wallet.
> 
> Why does that have to be the "Conservative solution"?
> 
> It it not just common sense?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We're talking about the poor not the wealthy.
> 
> Apparently,  there are those who don't or can't follow your plan.  It's illegal,  as I understand it to shoot them,  so we're looking for an alternative.
Click to expand...


Yes we are talking about the poor. The wealthy already have an education, a job, earn money, pay their own bills (and the bills of others who refuse to get off their ass) *and* they keep their hands out of my wallet until I volunteer to pay them for goods or services. Why does the government force me to buy a product I don't want or need? Why do certain protected classes get a pass? Why should I be forced to pay their way through their drug addled haze of a life? 
*
Why can't you answer a direct fucking question?*


----------



## PMZ

Antares said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> Never mind you Lefty's have been trying the same shit since the 30's
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's why we need a conservative solution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Conservatives create Jobs.
> 
> Libs like you just bitch that no matter what you are paid it's never enough.
Click to expand...


Conservatives lay off people.  They end whole careers.  Liberals that know that workers serving customers the best, and innovative products cause growth and require investment.


----------



## Ernie S.

PMZ said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I assumed too much about your capabilities.
> 
> I assumed that people would understand that "not being collected" would be taken as implying from those to whom the service was rendered.
> 
> And that resulted in them being paid by those who did pay their bills as happens in every other business.
> 
> I'll try to dumb my posts down hereafter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I assumed you would understand what I meant by "people who pay for it" ... Somebody does, and it just doesn't disappear because you pass it off on someone else.*
> That is the problem Progressive Liberals always run into ... the idea that you can pass responsibility off on someone else and that is the end of it.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you're getting just plain desperate.
Click to expand...


L   O   fucking   L
You really don't see how stupid you look, do you?


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody is prevented from doing that,  yet poverty persists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But you discount it, insisting that it's "doing nothing". Government isn't the solution to every problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree with the statement about government.  As an example,  the government can't create private industry jobs.  Corporations have to.
> 
> I assume that what ever volunteer work that can be going on,  is.  Brownie mentioned a great one this morning.  Jimmie Carter's Habitat for Humanity.
> 
> Yet poverty persists.  So more is required if we are going to solve the problem with hand ups.
Click to expand...

We are PAYING PEOPLE TO NOT WORK. WHY THE HELL WOULD THEY START WORKING WHEN PEOPLE LIKE YOU ARE WILLING TO PAY THEM TO NOT WORK?  

Seriously, are you mentally handicapped, on some sort of drugs, or just a vile democrat trying to destroy this country?


----------



## PMZ

Ernie S. said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I assumed you would understand what I meant by "people who pay for it" ... Somebody does, and it just doesn't disappear because you pass it off on someone else.*
> That is the problem Progressive Liberals always run into ... the idea that you can pass responsibility off on someone else and that is the end of it.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now you're getting just plain desperate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> L   O   fucking   L
> You really don't see how stupid you look, do you?
Click to expand...


No,  I'm too busy staring at how stupid you look right now.  Wow!


----------



## Ernie S.

PMZ said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's why we need a conservative solution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives create Jobs.
> 
> Libs like you just bitch that no matter what you are paid it's never enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Conservatives lay off people.  They end whole careers.  Liberals that know that workers serving customers the best, and innovative products cause growth and require investment.
Click to expand...


All business owners lay people off when democrats fuck up the economy.


----------



## Ernie S.

PMZ said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now you're getting just plain desperate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> L   O   fucking   L
> You really don't see how stupid you look, do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No,  I'm too busy staring at how stupid you look right now.  Wow!
Click to expand...


You are truly in a world of your own here, dude. How many people are supporting your position? How many mine? How much reputation have you received in this thread? How many of your posts have been thanked? How does it feel to be so all alone?

You can't answer a direct question even when shamed into it .

And I/we look stupid? It's likely that you are staring into a mirror instead of your monitor.... but that would be just ... stupid.


----------



## PMZ

Ernie S. said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> L   O   fucking   L
> You really don't see how stupid you look, do you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No,  I'm too busy staring at how stupid you look right now.  Wow!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are truly in a world of your own here, dude. How many people are supporting your position? How many mine? How much reputation have you received in this thread? How many of your posts have been thanked? How does it feel to be so all alone?
> 
> You can't answer a direct question even when shamed into it .
> 
> And I/we look stupid? It's likely that you are staring into a mirror instead of your monitor.... but that would be just ... stupid.
Click to expand...


You and your friends have ducked questions all day.  And yesterday.  And the days before. 

You've succeeded in driving other people who live in the real world off this forum with insults and pig headed intractability in the face of truth. 

But,  you know what?  Thugs don't scare me.  I can be one when it's called for. 

I'm very used to dealing with people like you.


----------



## beagle9

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly, and now apply your concepts to the government in the same ways of thinking that you have, and we should be getting the same results that you are, but the government couldn't manage thinking like that if it tried to anymore, because it is in a constant struggle always against being led around by the nose by the wrong people.  It appears that the wrong people are winning the prize these days (control of our government and the nation also through this control). The problem today is that the wrong people are leading it around by it's nose, and telling it what to do and who to do it to.  We are all being abused by this now, so how do the right people take back the government is what this nation needs to wonder about and soon plan to do. People know what is right, but I think monopolizing corporations big part in all of this has made our government vulnerable also, because it has affectively separated it from we the people in that way, and so when you see the government being over generous in certain ways over a feel good issue (or) on programs that it picks to be sensitive upon, it usually does this to show the nation that look we are still the government in which you expect us to be, even though it is not that government we think that it is any longer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When conservatives, like me, look at these programs our response is, well duh you can't solve poverty by having a guy in DC send out checks.  Hand-ups are best done by people who care about and/or at least have an incentive to monitor and mange the person's progress. Hand-ups require "local" management, not remote management.
> 
> Take FHA loans, the DC approach to housing is to hand-out loans to everyone.  The Habitat approach is to carefully select and manage help to turn deserving families around.
> 
> The liberal approach is to just "solve" problems by throwing other people's money at it. Every weather event.. throw a large sum at it to "solve" the problem.  Never do we think, maybe they should have to pay for their poor choice to live in a flood plain.  Instead, we bail them out rebuild and they get flooded out again, and again, and again, and ... Refuse to fork over what seems to be an undue amount of money, and you get accused of tossing grandma off the cliff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you agree that the only way to get from here to what you want is a living wage paying job for everyone who wants one?
Click to expand...

Yes, it helps if companies would pay their employee's in the ways in which they should be paid as according to the market place in which it's all being operated in, but the employer has to be the kind of employer to freely do this in an ethical and righteous manor. They should try and do this as a people who are good & fair in this way, and without being forced to.  The best way to deal with bad apples, is to boycott their products or their businesses, and that shouldn't be hard to do. Why don't people do this ? Are these people so insulated that they can't be touched or is it that people are to lazy to change things in this way ? I guess again what they do is just leave it to the government to attempt their bidding in this way, even though the government is in bed with these companies more so than people think that they are. The best thing is for the people to boycott businesses that are bad, and change the landscape in this way than to expect the government to do it for them.


----------



## PMZ

beagle9 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> When conservatives, like me, look at these programs our response is, well duh you can't solve poverty by having a guy in DC send out checks.  Hand-ups are best done by people who care about and/or at least have an incentive to monitor and mange the person's progress. Hand-ups require "local" management, not remote management.
> 
> Take FHA loans, the DC approach to housing is to hand-out loans to everyone.  The Habitat approach is to carefully select and manage help to turn deserving families around.
> 
> The liberal approach is to just "solve" problems by throwing other people's money at it. Every weather event.. throw a large sum at it to "solve" the problem.  Never do we think, maybe they should have to pay for their poor choice to live in a flood plain.  Instead, we bail them out rebuild and they get flooded out again, and again, and again, and ... Refuse to fork over what seems to be an undue amount of money, and you get accused of tossing grandma off the cliff.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you agree that the only way to get from here to what you want is a living wage paying job for everyone who wants one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it helps if companies would pay their employee's in the ways in which they should be paid as according to the market place in which it's all being operated in, but the employer has to be the kind of employer to freely do this in an ethical and righteous manor. They should try and do this as a people who are good & fair in this way, and without being forced to.  The best way to deal with bad apples, is to boycott their products or their businesses, and that shouldn't be hard to do. Why don't people do this ? Are these people so insulated that they can't be touched or is it that people are to lazy to change things in this way ? I guess again what they do is just leave it to the government to attempt their bidding in this way, even though the government is in bed with these companies more so than people think that they are. The best thing is for the people to boycott businesses that are bad, and change the landscape in this way than to expect the government to do it for them.
Click to expand...


There only a few forces that corporations respond to. 

Customers,  but typically only when they are organized. Tough to accomplish. 

Workers,  but only when they're organized into unions. 

The government that is precisely organized to regulate. 

Shareholders but typically only the handful that hold a majority of stock. 

Competition is the force that they are most responsive to. 

So corporate America is pretty much the least accountable organization type in the country.


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Employers who choose to pay minimum wage are choosing to push the rest of the cost of living off to taxpayers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the question remains  [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] - why have you _refused_ to do your civic duty and create good paying jobs for your fellow citizens?
> 
> Nobody is asking you to create a global conglomerate. How about just 5 people that you provide six-figure salaries for? Just 5 people in your community that you take from minimum wage to a six-figure salary?
> 
> How can you cry about other people not doing what you yourself also refuses to do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clearly wealth redistribution up is addictive.  An insatiable appetite. Never enough if your worldview is me,  me,  me.
> 
> These fat cats love biting the hand that feeds them.  They stay here because they know that it's the country that allowed them their wealth but they whine piteously and continuously because enough is never enough.  They covet the 15% of the total wealth that is divided up among 80% of the country.
> 
> They want it all. ALL.
Click to expand...


I _agree_ with you. So the question remains [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] - why have you refused to do your civic duty and create good paying jobs for your fellow citizens?

Nobody is asking you to create a global conglomerate. How about just 5 people that you provide six-figure salaries for? Just 5 people in your community that you take from minimum wage to a six-figure salary?

How can you cry about other people not doing what you yourself also refuses to do?


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the question remains  [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] - why have you _refused_ to do your civic duty and create good paying jobs for your fellow citizens?
> 
> Nobody is asking you to create a global conglomerate. How about just 5 people that you provide six-figure salaries for? Just 5 people in your community that you take from minimum wage to a six-figure salary?
> 
> How can you cry about other people not doing what you yourself also refuses to do?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly wealth redistribution up is addictive.  An insatiable appetite. Never enough if your worldview is me,  me,  me.
> 
> These fat cats love biting the hand that feeds them.  They stay here because they know that it's the country that allowed them their wealth but they whine piteously and continuously because enough is never enough.  They covet the 15% of the total wealth that is divided up among 80% of the country.
> 
> They want it all. ALL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I _agree_ with you. So the question remains [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] - why have you refused to do your civic duty and create good paying jobs for your fellow citizens?
> 
> Nobody is asking you to create a global conglomerate. How about just 5 people that you provide six-figure salaries for? Just 5 people in your community that you take from minimum wage to a six-figure salary?
> 
> How can you cry about other people not doing what you yourself also refuses to do?
Click to expand...


I have created good paying jobs the only way they can be.  Innovative products from good employees satisfying customers.


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's why we need a conservative solution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives create Jobs.
> 
> Libs like you just bitch that no matter what you are paid it's never enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Conservatives lay off people.  They end whole careers.  Liberals that know that workers serving customers the best, and innovative products cause growth and require investment.
Click to expand...


If liberals "know that" how come they *refuse* to invest their money? They are only willing to invest someone else's money.


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives create Jobs.
> 
> Libs like you just bitch that no matter what you are paid it's never enough.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives lay off people.  They end whole careers.  Liberals that know that workers serving customers the best, and innovative products cause growth and require investment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If liberals "know that" how come they *refuse* to invest their money? They are only willing to invest someone else's money.
Click to expand...


What a bizarre thought.  Liberals don't invest????? 

Warren Buffet and Bill Gates come to mind.


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly wealth redistribution up is addictive.  An insatiable appetite. Never enough if your worldview is me,  me,  me.
> 
> These fat cats love biting the hand that feeds them.  They stay here because they know that it's the country that allowed them their wealth but they whine piteously and continuously because enough is never enough.  They covet the 15% of the total wealth that is divided up among 80% of the country.
> 
> They want it all. ALL.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I _agree_ with you. So the question remains  [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] - why have you refused to do your civic duty and create good paying jobs for your fellow citizens?
> 
> Nobody is asking you to create a global conglomerate. How about just 5 people that you provide six-figure salaries for? Just 5 people in your community that you take from minimum wage to a six-figure salary?
> 
> How can you cry about other people not doing what you yourself also refuses to do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have created good paying jobs the only way they can be.  Innovative products from good employees satisfying customers.
Click to expand...


Why are you so completely disingenuous with everything [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION]? Is it because you know liberalism is a cancer destroying America and simply does not hold up under scrutiny?

You have never provided a single job - even minimum wage - for someone. So why do you refuse to do this basic civic duty? I don't understand why you refuse to provide 5 six-figure jobs for people in your area. That is not asking a lot. You can't/won't even do that?


----------



## P@triot

Ernie S. said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> L   O   fucking   L
> You really don't see how stupid you look, do you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No,  I'm too busy staring at how stupid you look right now.  Wow!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are truly in a world of your own here, dude. How many people are supporting your position? How many mine? How much reputation have you received in this thread? How many of your posts have been thanked? How does it feel to be so all alone?
> 
> You can't answer a direct question even when shamed into it .
> 
> And I/we look stupid? It's likely that you are staring into a mirror instead of your monitor.... but that would be just ... stupid.
Click to expand...


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> I _agree_ with you. So the question remains  [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] - why have you refused to do your civic duty and create good paying jobs for your fellow citizens?
> 
> Nobody is asking you to create a global conglomerate. How about just 5 people that you provide six-figure salaries for? Just 5 people in your community that you take from minimum wage to a six-figure salary?
> 
> How can you cry about other people not doing what you yourself also refuses to do?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have created good paying jobs the only way they can be.  Innovative products from good employees satisfying customers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are you so completely disingenuous with everything [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION]? Is it because you know liberalism is a cancer destroying America and simply does not hold up under scrutiny?
> 
> You have never provided a single job - even minimum wage - for someone. So why do you refuse to do this basic civic duty? I don't understand why you refuse to provide 5 six-figure jobs for people in your area. That is not asking a lot. You can't/won't even do that?
Click to expand...


Can't you read???


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives lay off people.  They end whole careers.  Liberals that know that workers serving customers the best, and innovative products cause growth and require investment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If liberals "know that" how come they *refuse* to invest their money? They are only willing to invest someone else's money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What a bizarre thought.  Liberals don't invest?????
> 
> Warren Buffet and Bill Gates come to mind.
Click to expand...


What a bizarre comment by you. Warren Buffet is demanding that taxes be raised. Which means he is not interested in investing his _own_ money, he is demanding that he get to invest *other* people's money. Warren Buffet is wealthy enough to cut a massive check to Uncle Sam. He chooses not to - but he wants to force you and I to...

As always - your uninformed opinions simply do not hold up under scrutiny.


----------



## Antares

PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly wealth redistribution up is addictive.  An insatiable appetite. Never enough if your worldview is me,  me,  me.
> 
> These fat cats love biting the hand that feeds them.  They stay here because they know that it's the country that allowed them their wealth but they whine piteously and continuously because enough is never enough.  They covet the 15% of the total wealth that is divided up among 80% of the country.
> 
> They want it all. ALL.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I _agree_ with you. So the question remains [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] - why have you refused to do your civic duty and create good paying jobs for your fellow citizens?
> 
> Nobody is asking you to create a global conglomerate. How about just 5 people that you provide six-figure salaries for? Just 5 people in your community that you take from minimum wage to a six-figure salary?
> 
> How can you cry about other people not doing what you yourself also refuses to do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have created good paying jobs the only way they can be.  Innovative products from good employees satisfying customers.
Click to expand...


You've never created anything...you, like all Lefty's are a taker.


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have created good paying jobs the only way they can be.  Innovative products from good employees satisfying customers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you so completely disingenuous with everything [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION]? Is it because you know liberalism is a cancer destroying America and simply does not hold up under scrutiny?
> 
> You have never provided a single job - even minimum wage - for someone. So why do you refuse to do this basic civic duty? I don't understand why you refuse to provide 5 six-figure jobs for people in your area. That is not asking a lot. You can't/won't even do that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can't you read???
Click to expand...


Yes - I am reading you demand that other people do on a massive level what you refuse to do on a small level.

So the question (which you refuse to answer) remains: *why* won't you do your basic civic duty? Why do you refuse to give a simple answer to this simple question?


----------



## Ernie S.

PMZ said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> No,  I'm too busy staring at how stupid you look right now.  Wow!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are truly in a world of your own here, dude. How many people are supporting your position? How many mine? How much reputation have you received in this thread? How many of your posts have been thanked? How does it feel to be so all alone?
> 
> You can't answer a direct question even when shamed into it .
> 
> And I/we look stupid? It's likely that you are staring into a mirror instead of your monitor.... but that would be just ... stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You and your friends have ducked questions all day.  And yesterday.  And the days before.
> 
> You've succeeded in driving other people who live in the real world off this forum with insults and pig headed intractability in the face of truth.
> 
> But,  you know what?  Thugs don't scare me.  I can be one when it's called for.
> 
> I'm very used to dealing with people like you.
Click to expand...


If I have glossed over any question you've asked me, please point it out. In the mean time, get your ass to work on the 10 or so you have ignored, especially post #1726.

Who have I driven off the board?

Show me a lie!

Did you call me a thug?

Based on what?

Did I hurt your pwessious feewings?

How do you deal with thugs? If it is with your debate skills, you should give up and leave the serious stuff to the adults, you little pissant.

By the way, thugs scare me not one bit. I've dealt with my share over the years. The very idea that a little worm like you could intimidate me is laughable.


----------



## Ernie S.

PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly wealth redistribution up is addictive.  An insatiable appetite. Never enough if your worldview is me,  me,  me.
> 
> These fat cats love biting the hand that feeds them.  They stay here because they know that it's the country that allowed them their wealth but they whine piteously and continuously because enough is never enough.  They covet the 15% of the total wealth that is divided up among 80% of the country.
> 
> They want it all. ALL.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I _agree_ with you. So the question remains [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] - why have you refused to do your civic duty and create good paying jobs for your fellow citizens?
> 
> Nobody is asking you to create a global conglomerate. How about just 5 people that you provide six-figure salaries for? Just 5 people in your community that you take from minimum wage to a six-figure salary?
> 
> How can you cry about other people not doing what you yourself also refuses to do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have created good paying jobs the only way they can be.  Innovative products from good employees satisfying customers.
Click to expand...

Give us a couple of examples.


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> If liberals "know that" how come they *refuse* to invest their money? They are only willing to invest someone else's money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a bizarre thought.  Liberals don't invest?????
> 
> Warren Buffet and Bill Gates come to mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What a bizarre comment by you. Warren Buffet is demanding that taxes be raised. Which means he is not interested in investing his _own_ money, he is demanding that he get to invest *other* people's money. Warren Buffet is wealthy enough to cut a massive check to Uncle Sam. He chooses not to - but he wants to force you and I to...
> 
> As always - your uninformed opinions simply do not hold up under scrutiny.
Click to expand...


You must not realize who Warren Buffet is.  He's the biggest single investor in the country.  He's also investing a billion dollars in the betterment of the world through Gates.  Saying that he's not an investor because he's not trying to screw the country that allowed him to make the wealth that he has,  is a huge insult to him.  

His thought is that it's bizarre that his tax rate is lower than his secretary's. You don't agree?


----------



## BlackSand

PMZ said:


> You and your friends have ducked questions all day.  And yesterday.  And the days before.
> 
> You've succeeded in driving other people who live in the real world off this forum with insults and pig headed intractability in the face of truth.
> 
> But,  you know what?  Thugs don't scare me.  I can be one when it's called for.
> 
> I'm very used to dealing with people like you.



Listen Peanut ... When we give you real life examples ... You bitch and whine about how  we think we are superior.
When we don't drag you through dirt ... Giving you a multitude of examples ... You accuse us of avoiding the question.

I have no desire to look like I want any admiration from anyone else ... And if I listed everything I do it would be too long to read.
To satisfy your demand for examples (although I am sure you will find something wrong with it) ... Pick a category and I will tell you what I personally do to help my community in that regard ... And keep the description as short as possible.

1. Education
2. Poverty 
3. Community Development
4. Business

*Pick one ... Your choice  ... And I will answer the best I can.*

.


----------



## PMZ

Antares said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> I _agree_ with you. So the question remains [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] - why have you refused to do your civic duty and create good paying jobs for your fellow citizens?
> 
> Nobody is asking you to create a global conglomerate. How about just 5 people that you provide six-figure salaries for? Just 5 people in your community that you take from minimum wage to a six-figure salary?
> 
> How can you cry about other people not doing what you yourself also refuses to do?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have created good paying jobs the only way they can be.  Innovative products from good employees satisfying customers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've never created anything...you, like all Lefty's are a taker.
Click to expand...


Another one trying the Fox Opinions trick of speaking for the scapegoat. 

Do you guys really fall for that?


----------



## Antares

PMZ said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have created good paying jobs the only way they can be.  Innovative products from good employees satisfying customers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've never created anything...you, like all Lefty's are a taker.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another one trying the Fox Opinions trick of speaking for the scapegoat.
> 
> Do you guys really fall for that?
Click to expand...


Run Fooooooorest.


----------



## PMZ

BlackSand said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You and your friends have ducked questions all day.  And yesterday.  And the days before.
> 
> You've succeeded in driving other people who live in the real world off this forum with insults and pig headed intractability in the face of truth.
> 
> But,  you know what?  Thugs don't scare me.  I can be one when it's called for.
> 
> I'm very used to dealing with people like you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listen Peanut ... When we give you real life examples ... You bitch and whine about how  we think we are superior.
> When we don't drag you through dirt ... Giving you a multitude of examples ... You accuse us of avoiding the question.
> 
> I have no desire to look like I want any admiration from anyone else ... And if I listed everything I do it would be too long to read.
> To satisfy your demand for examples (although I am sure you will find something wrong with it) ... Pick a category and I will tell you what I personally do to help my community in that regard ... And keep the description as short as possible.
> 
> 1. Education
> 2. Poverty
> 3. Community Development
> 4. Business
> 
> *Pick one ... Your choice  ... And I will answer the best I can.*
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Why do you think that you deserve extra credit for doing what many people of all walks of life do? 

I've never said a word of discouragement for or about volunteering.  I do lots myself. 

But you keep insisting it's all that's required when the simple evidence of everyone's senses is that it is not.  

Admirable?  Yes. THE solution,  very apparently,  no.


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> What a bizarre thought.  Liberals don't invest?????
> 
> Warren Buffet and Bill Gates come to mind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a bizarre comment by you. Warren Buffet is demanding that taxes be raised. Which means he is not interested in investing his _own_ money, he is demanding that he get to invest *other* people's money. Warren Buffet is wealthy enough to cut a massive check to Uncle Sam. He chooses not to - but he wants to force you and I to...
> 
> As always - your uninformed opinions simply do not hold up under scrutiny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You must not realize who Warren Buffet is.  He's the biggest single investor in the country.  He's also investing a billion dollars in the betterment of the world through Gates.  Saying that he's not an investor because he's not trying to screw the country that allowed him to make the wealth that he has,  is a huge insult to him.
> 
> His thought is that it's bizarre that his tax rate is lower than his secretary's. You don't agree?
Click to expand...


His tax rate is *not* lower than his secretary. It is higher. He then receives well earned tax exemptions which he qualifies for that eventually brings the absurd rate down. And here's the thing - he still pays many millions more than his secretary.

How ironic that you denounce a flat rate tax (10%) which would eliminate tax exemptions and ensure that a Warren Buffet never pays less than his secretary in one post and then in the next post you complain about one person having a smaller rate than another. Like all liberals, there is no pleasing you. You will complain until the government controls all the money and decides who gets what. Communism.


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly wealth redistribution up is addictive.  An insatiable appetite. Never enough if your worldview is me,  me,  me.
> 
> These fat cats love biting the hand that feeds them.  They stay here because they know that it's the country that allowed them their wealth but they whine piteously and continuously because enough is never enough.  They covet the 15% of the total wealth that is divided up among 80% of the country.
> 
> They want it all. ALL.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I _agree_ with you. So the question remains [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] - why have you refused to do your civic duty and create good paying jobs for your fellow citizens?
> 
> Nobody is asking you to create a global conglomerate. How about just 5 people that you provide six-figure salaries for? Just 5 people in your community that you take from minimum wage to a six-figure salary?
> 
> How can you cry about other people not doing what you yourself also refuses to do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have created good paying jobs the only way they can be.  Innovative products from good employees satisfying customers.
Click to expand...


You're not answering *why* you refuse to do your civic duty and provide six-figure jobs for people. Well?


----------



## PMZ

Conservatives sometimes strike me as on par with teenage girls.  Both claim to be ubber independent. Both then choose to be exactly like all of their friends. To the word. Tonight I was advised what to do to  ensure more popular. Really?


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you agree that the only way to get from here to what you want is a living wage paying job for everyone who wants one?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it helps if companies would pay their employee's in the ways in which they should be paid as according to the market place in which it's all being operated in, but the employer has to be the kind of employer to freely do this in an ethical and righteous manor. They should try and do this as a people who are good & fair in this way, and without being forced to.  The best way to deal with bad apples, is to boycott their products or their businesses, and that shouldn't be hard to do. Why don't people do this ? Are these people so insulated that they can't be touched or is it that people are to lazy to change things in this way ? I guess again what they do is just leave it to the government to attempt their bidding in this way, even though the government is in bed with these companies more so than people think that they are. The best thing is for the people to boycott businesses that are bad, and change the landscape in this way than to expect the government to do it for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There only a few forces that corporations respond to.
> 
> Customers,  but typically only when they are organized. Tough to accomplish.
> 
> Workers,  but only when they're organized into unions.
> 
> The government that is precisely organized to regulate.
> 
> Shareholders but typically only the handful that hold a majority of stock.
> 
> Competition is the force that they are most responsive to.
> 
> So corporate America is pretty much the least accountable organization type in the country.
Click to expand...


You mean other than the government.


----------



## BlackSand

PMZ said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You and your friends have ducked questions all day.  And yesterday.  And the days before.
> 
> You've succeeded in driving other people who live in the real world off this forum with insults and pig headed intractability in the face of truth.
> 
> But,  you know what?  Thugs don't scare me.  I can be one when it's called for.
> 
> I'm very used to dealing with people like you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listen Peanut ... When we give you real life examples ... You bitch and whine about how  we think we are superior.
> When we don't drag you through dirt ... Giving you a multitude of examples ... You accuse us of avoiding the question.
> 
> I have no desire to look like I want any admiration from anyone else ... And if I listed everything I do it would be too long to read.
> To satisfy your demand for examples (although I am sure you will find something wrong with it) ... Pick a category and I will tell you what I personally do to help my community in that regard ... And keep the description as short as possible.
> 
> 1. Education
> 2. Poverty
> 3. Community Development
> 4. Business
> 
> *Pick one ... Your choice  ... And I will answer the best I can.*
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you think that you deserve extra credit for doing what many people of all walks of life do?
> 
> I've never said a word of discouragement for or about volunteering.  I do lots myself.
> 
> But you keep insisting it's all that's required when the simple evidence of everyone's senses is that it is not.
> 
> Admirable?  Yes. THE solution,  very apparently,  no.
Click to expand...


*See ... I don't even have to answer the question and you start bitching about thinking I deserve extra credit.*

I know your plan doesn't work and hasn't fixed the problems ... While I know my plan does and fixes them in my community every day.
You are just a typical Progressive Liberal coward when it comes time to put up or shut up.

.


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> Conservatives sometimes strike me as on par with teenage girls.  Both claim to be ubber independent. Both then choose to be exactly like all of their friends. To the word. Tonight I was advised what to do to  ensure more popular. Really?



Liberals remind me of small children. Ignorant. Idealistic. Naive. And completely dependent on someone for their survival.


----------



## RKMBrown

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives sometimes strike me as on par with teenage girls.  Both claim to be ubber independent. Both then choose to be exactly like all of their friends. To the word. Tonight I was advised what to do to  ensure more popular. Really?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals remind me of small children. Ignorant. Idealistic. Naive. And completely dependent on someone for their survival.
Click to expand...


Conservatives were bragging how successful hand-up programs were.  In response democrats decided to steal all the money for hand-ups and use them for hand-outs.  Nothing like a liberal to shit on everyone at the same time in massive spurts of crap all funded by the very people they blame... Of course the evil rich democrats doing hand-up programs, those are good things.  Republicans can't be left with any money to fund hand-outs because profits are evil.  Well that and we can't let anyone escape poverty, then who would be left to vote for democrat hand outs?


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> I _agree_ with you. So the question remains [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] - why have you refused to do your civic duty and create good paying jobs for your fellow citizens?
> 
> Nobody is asking you to create a global conglomerate. How about just 5 people that you provide six-figure salaries for? Just 5 people in your community that you take from minimum wage to a six-figure salary?
> 
> How can you cry about other people not doing what you yourself also refuses to do?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have created good paying jobs the only way they can be.  Innovative products from good employees satisfying customers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're not answering *why* you refuse to do your civic duty and provide six-figure jobs for people. Well?
Click to expand...


I did when I worked.  I'm now retired. 

Like I said,  I created good paying jobs the only way they can be.  Innovative products from good employees satisfying customers.

That's the business of business.


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives sometimes strike me as on par with teenage girls.  Both claim to be ubber independent. Both then choose to be exactly like all of their friends. To the word. Tonight I was advised what to do to  ensure more popular. Really?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals remind me of small children. Ignorant. Idealistic. Naive. And completely dependent on someone for their survival.
Click to expand...


Sorry,  never did that.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have created good paying jobs the only way they can be.  Innovative products from good employees satisfying customers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're not answering *why* you refuse to do your civic duty and provide six-figure jobs for people. Well?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did when I worked.  I'm now retired.
> 
> Like I said,  I created good paying jobs the only way they can be.  Innovative products from good employees satisfying customers.
> 
> That's the business of business.
Click to expand...


ROFL washing cars does not take a whole lot of innovation.


----------



## Ernie S.

PMZ said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You and your friends have ducked questions all day.  And yesterday.  And the days before.
> 
> You've succeeded in driving other people who live in the real world off this forum with insults and pig headed intractability in the face of truth.
> 
> But,  you know what?  Thugs don't scare me.  I can be one when it's called for.
> 
> I'm very used to dealing with people like you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listen Peanut ... When we give you real life examples ... You bitch and whine about how  we think we are superior.
> When we don't drag you through dirt ... Giving you a multitude of examples ... You accuse us of avoiding the question.
> 
> I have no desire to look like I want any admiration from anyone else ... And if I listed everything I do it would be too long to read.
> To satisfy your demand for examples (although I am sure you will find something wrong with it) ... Pick a category and I will tell you what I personally do to help my community in that regard ... And keep the description as short as possible.
> 
> 1. Education
> 2. Poverty
> 3. Community Development
> 4. Business
> 
> *Pick one ... Your choice  ... And I will answer the best I can.*
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you think that you deserve extra credit for doing what many people of all walks of life do?
> 
> I've never said a word of discouragement for or about volunteering.  I do lots myself.
> 
> But you keep insisting it's all that's required when the simple evidence of everyone's senses is that it is not.
> 
> Admirable?  Yes. THE solution,  very apparently,  no.
Click to expand...


Again What, *specifically* do you do for those less fortunate?


----------



## Ernie S.

PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have created good paying jobs the only way they can be.  Innovative products from good employees satisfying customers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're not answering *why* you refuse to do your civic duty and provide six-figure jobs for people. Well?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did when I worked.  I'm now retired.
> 
> Like I said,  I created good paying jobs the only way they can be.  Innovative products from good employees satisfying customers.
> 
> That's the business of business.
Click to expand...


What innovative products? Post after post we see your claims od helping people, creating jobs, etc., but we see no specifics AND we see you avoiding specific questions. I call "Bullshit".


----------



## RKMBrown

Ernie S. said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> Listen Peanut ... When we give you real life examples ... You bitch and whine about how  we think we are superior.
> When we don't drag you through dirt ... Giving you a multitude of examples ... You accuse us of avoiding the question.
> 
> I have no desire to look like I want any admiration from anyone else ... And if I listed everything I do it would be too long to read.
> To satisfy your demand for examples (although I am sure you will find something wrong with it) ... Pick a category and I will tell you what I personally do to help my community in that regard ... And keep the description as short as possible.
> 
> 1. Education
> 2. Poverty
> 3. Community Development
> 4. Business
> 
> *Pick one ... Your choice  ... And I will answer the best I can.*
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you think that you deserve extra credit for doing what many people of all walks of life do?
> 
> I've never said a word of discouragement for or about volunteering.  I do lots myself.
> 
> But you keep insisting it's all that's required when the simple evidence of everyone's senses is that it is not.
> 
> Admirable?  Yes. THE solution,  very apparently,  no.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again What, *specifically* do you do for those less fortunate?
Click to expand...


He votes for politicians that promise hand-outs stolen from the income of workers.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it helps if companies would pay their employee's in the ways in which they should be paid as according to the market place in which it's all being operated in, but the employer has to be the kind of employer to freely do this in an ethical and righteous manor. They should try and do this as a people who are good & fair in this way, and without being forced to.  The best way to deal with bad apples, is to boycott their products or their businesses, and that shouldn't be hard to do. Why don't people do this ? Are these people so insulated that they can't be touched or is it that people are to lazy to change things in this way ? I guess again what they do is just leave it to the government to attempt their bidding in this way, even though the government is in bed with these companies more so than people think that they are. The best thing is for the people to boycott businesses that are bad, and change the landscape in this way than to expect the government to do it for them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There only a few forces that corporations respond to.
> 
> Customers,  but typically only when they are organized. Tough to accomplish.
> 
> Workers,  but only when they're organized into unions.
> 
> The government that is precisely organized to regulate.
> 
> Shareholders but typically only the handful that hold a majority of stock.
> 
> Competition is the force that they are most responsive to.
> 
> So corporate America is pretty much the least accountable organization type in the country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean other than the government.
Click to expand...


The government is on the list.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're not answering *why* you refuse to do your civic duty and provide six-figure jobs for people. Well?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did when I worked.  I'm now retired.
> 
> Like I said,  I created good paying jobs the only way they can be.  Innovative products from good employees satisfying customers.
> 
> That's the business of business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROFL washing cars does not take a whole lot of innovation.
Click to expand...


You guys all know the same trick.  Speak for the scapegoats.  Perfected by Hitler and resurrected by Fox Opinions.  I told you,  just like teenage girls.


----------



## PMZ

Ernie S. said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> Listen Peanut ... When we give you real life examples ... You bitch and whine about how  we think we are superior.
> When we don't drag you through dirt ... Giving you a multitude of examples ... You accuse us of avoiding the question.
> 
> I have no desire to look like I want any admiration from anyone else ... And if I listed everything I do it would be too long to read.
> To satisfy your demand for examples (although I am sure you will find something wrong with it) ... Pick a category and I will tell you what I personally do to help my community in that regard ... And keep the description as short as possible.
> 
> 1. Education
> 2. Poverty
> 3. Community Development
> 4. Business
> 
> *Pick one ... Your choice  ... And I will answer the best I can.*
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you think that you deserve extra credit for doing what many people of all walks of life do?
> 
> I've never said a word of discouragement for or about volunteering.  I do lots myself.
> 
> But you keep insisting it's all that's required when the simple evidence of everyone's senses is that it is not.
> 
> Admirable?  Yes. THE solution,  very apparently,  no.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again What, *specifically* do you do for those less fortunate?
Click to expand...


Feed them and house them.  

What do you do? Where do you live and work? What's your name? How much wealth do you have?


----------



## PMZ

Ernie S. said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're not answering *why* you refuse to do your civic duty and provide six-figure jobs for people. Well?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did when I worked.  I'm now retired.
> 
> Like I said,  I created good paying jobs the only way they can be.  Innovative products from good employees satisfying customers.
> 
> That's the business of business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What innovative products? Post after post we see your claims od helping people, creating jobs, etc., but we see no specifics AND we see you avoiding specific questions. I call "Bullshit".
Click to expand...


Where do you live and work? What's your name?  Lie and I'll  call "Bullshit".


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you think that you deserve extra credit for doing what many people of all walks of life do?
> 
> I've never said a word of discouragement for or about volunteering.  I do lots myself.
> 
> But you keep insisting it's all that's required when the simple evidence of everyone's senses is that it is not.
> 
> Admirable?  Yes. THE solution,  very apparently,  no.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again What, *specifically* do you do for those less fortunate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He votes for politicians that promise hand-outs stolen from the income of workers.
Click to expand...


I understand that you eat shit.


----------



## BlackSand

PMZ said:


> You guys all know the same trick.  Speak for the scapegoats.  Perfected by Hitler and resurrected by Fox Opinions.  I told you,  just like teenage girls.



*Teenaged girls walk around thinking every responsible grown-up is wrong ... And that they themselves are simply misunderstood ... Sounds a lot like you.*

.


----------



## PMZ

BlackSand said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You guys all know the same trick.  Speak for the scapegoats.  Perfected by Hitler and resurrected by Fox Opinions.  I told you,  just like teenage girls.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Teenaged girls walk around thinking every responsible grown-up is wrong ... And that they themselves are simply misunderstood ... Sounds a lot like you.*
> 
> .
Click to expand...


The difference is that I know that some grownups are irresponsible and wrong.  That's the advantage of hanging around long enough.  You get to see it all.  I'm sure that you have lots to learn.


----------



## BlackSand

PMZ said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You guys all know the same trick.  Speak for the scapegoats.  Perfected by Hitler and resurrected by Fox Opinions.  I told you,  just like teenage girls.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Teenaged girls walk around thinking every responsible grown-up is wrong ... And that they themselves are simply misunderstood ... Sounds a lot like you.*
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The difference is that I know that some grownups are irresponsible and wrong.  That's the advantage of hanging around long enough.  You get to see it all.  I'm sure that you have lots to learn.
Click to expand...


See what I am talking about ... You agree you think the grown-ups are wrong.

.


----------



## PMZ

BlackSand said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Teenaged girls walk around thinking every responsible grown-up is wrong ... And that they themselves are simply misunderstood ... Sounds a lot like you.*
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The difference is that I know that some grownups are irresponsible and wrong.  That's the advantage of hanging around long enough.  You get to see it all.  I'm sure that you have lots to learn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See what I am talking about ... You agree you think the grown-ups are wrong.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


You think that all grownups are always right? Now that's bizarre.


----------



## Ernie S.

PMZ said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you think that you deserve extra credit for doing what many people of all walks of life do?
> 
> I've never said a word of discouragement for or about volunteering.  I do lots myself.
> 
> But you keep insisting it's all that's required when the simple evidence of everyone's senses is that it is not.
> 
> Admirable?  Yes. THE solution,  very apparently,  no.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again What, *specifically* do you do for those less fortunate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Feed them and house them.
> 
> What do you do? Where do you live and work? What's your name? How much wealth do you have?
Click to expand...


I outlined SPECIFICALLY what I did earlier. I feed and house people. I outlined 4 specific (there's that word, again) examples in the last couple years. You AGAIN, lay these broad platitudes on us and expect us to bow down to you.

Fuck you! You are perhaps the most dishonest person I've run into on this board and that even includes the two members referenced in my signature. 
Give us an honest clear answer to the dozens of questions you have been asked or log the fuck off.


----------



## BlackSand

PMZ said:


> You think that all grownups are always right? Now that's bizarre.



No I don't think grown ups are all right ... but I know teenaged girls like to argue with whatever they say ... and talk about how weird grown-ups are.

.


----------



## Ernie S.

PMZ said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I did when I worked.  I'm now retired.
> 
> Like I said,  I created good paying jobs the only way they can be.  Innovative products from good employees satisfying customers.
> 
> That's the business of business.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What innovative products? Post after post we see your claims od helping people, creating jobs, etc., but we see no specifics AND we see you avoiding specific questions. I call "Bullshit".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where do you live and work? What's your name?  Lie and I'll  call "Bullshit".
Click to expand...


I live in Foley Alabama I am a retired opto-mechanical engineer My name is Ernie. My last initial is, in fact S.

If you want to come for a visit, PM me and I'll send you my street address.

So, there you go. That's as specific as I will get on a public forum. 
Can you be as specific in answering my questions? 
What the fuck have you done for the less fortunate? 
What products, or at least what type of products have you created?
Go back 3 hours for most of the other 3 dozen questions you have less than skillfully avoided.


----------



## Ernie S.

PMZ said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You guys all know the same trick.  Speak for the scapegoats.  Perfected by Hitler and resurrected by Fox Opinions.  I told you,  just like teenage girls.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Teenaged girls walk around thinking every responsible grown-up is wrong ... And that they themselves are simply misunderstood ... Sounds a lot like you.*
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The difference is that I know that some grownups are irresponsible and wrong.  That's the advantage of hanging around long enough.  You get to see it all.  I'm sure that you have lots to learn.
Click to expand...

I'm sure she endeavors as most of us do, to learn something new every day. Take today, for instance. 6 or 7 people learned that you're an asshole.

Now! Answer my questions.


----------



## PMZ

Ernie S. said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again What, *specifically* do you do for those less fortunate?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Feed them and house them.
> 
> What do you do? Where do you live and work? What's your name? How much wealth do you have?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I outlined SPECIFICALLY what I did earlier. I feed and house people. I outlined 4 specific (there's that word, again) examples in the last couple years. You AGAIN, lay these broad platitudes on us and expect us to bow down to you.
> 
> Fuck you! You are perhaps the most dishonest person I've run into on this board and that even includes the two members referenced in my signature.
> Give us an honest clear answer to the dozens of questions you have been asked or log the fuck off.
Click to expand...


I'm completely honest.  A fact that you can't stand.  Fox Opinions told you that all liberals are liars and all conservatives are Saints.  I hate to be the one to tell you, but they lied to you.  And you fell for it like a ton of bricks.  And that's just one of the lies that they told you.


----------



## BlackSand

Ernie S. said:


> I'm sure she endeavors as most of us do, to learn something new every day. Take today, for instance. 6 or 7 people learned that you're an asshole.
> 
> Now! Answer my questions.



Screw it ... For me, the whole day has been an intensive exercise on how to handle a complete idiot without cussing them out.
I still have to give you two points for the asshole comment ... That one made me laugh.

.


----------



## PMZ

Ernie S. said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> What innovative products? Post after post we see your claims od helping people, creating jobs, etc., but we see no specifics AND we see you avoiding specific questions. I call "Bullshit".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where do you live and work? What's your name?  Lie and I'll  call "Bullshit".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I live in Foley Alabama I am a retired opto-mechanical engineer My name is Ernie. My last initial is, in fact S.
> 
> If you want to come for a visit, PM me and I'll send you my street address.
> 
> So, there you go. That's as specific as I will get on a public forum.
> Can you be as specific in answering my questions?
> What the fuck have you done for the less fortunate?
> What products, or at least what type of products have you created?
> Go back 3 hours for most of the other 3 dozen questions you have less than skillfully avoided.
Click to expand...


I told you what I do for the less fortunate.  That's as specific as I will get on a public forum. 

Now,  follow your Fox Opinions goose stepping orders and call me names or,  better yet,  speak for me.  

And you wonder why conservatives have no political influence.


----------



## BlackSand

PMZ said:


> I told you what I do for the less fortunate.  That's as specific as I will get on a public forum.
> 
> Now,  follow your Fox Opinions goose stepping orders and call me names or,  better yet,  speak for me.
> 
> And you wonder why conservatives have no political influence.


----------



## PMZ

BlackSand said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure she endeavors as most of us do, to learn something new every day. Take today, for instance. 6 or 7 people learned that you're an asshole.
> 
> Now! Answer my questions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Screw it ... For me, the whole day has been an intensive exercise on how to handle a complete idiot without cussing them out.
> I still have to give you two points for the asshole comment ... That one made me laugh.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


I had the same experience in handling a complete idiot. There are so many of them and yet they sound like one. And what makes it worse is that they think that reasonable people will buy that as a mere coincidence! 

What can one do? 

Sometimes even liberals get tired of having to save government,  business,  and religion too from the same limited thinking. 

You are our cross to bear. But we are strong and committed to save America,  no matter the cost.


----------



## BlackSand

PMZ said:


> I had the same experience in handling a complete idiot. There are so many of them and yet they sound like one. And what makes it worse is that they think that reasonable people will buy that as a mere coincidence!
> 
> What can one do?
> 
> Sometimes even liberals get tired of having to save government,  business,  and religion too from the same limited thinking.
> 
> You are our cross to bear. But we are strong and committed to save America,  no matter the cost.


----------



## PMZ

BlackSand said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You think that all grownups are always right? Now that's bizarre.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No I don't think grown ups are all right ... but I know teenaged girls like to argue with whatever they say ... and talk about how weird grown-ups are.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


So now you agree with me.  Some grownups are irresponsible and just plain wrong. 

Admission that there is a problem is the first step in solving it,  peanut.


----------



## BlackSand

PMZ said:


> So now you agree with me.  Some grownups are irresponsible and just plain wrong.
> 
> Admission that there is a problem is the first step in solving it,  peanut.


----------



## PMZ

The big lie is that the party that supported Bush is fiscally responsible. His policies took us from the probability of being debt free to the reality of $17T in debt. 

The worst performance ever of a US President. 

Now they say,  listen.  We will save you.  Save us,  I guess,  from conservatism. 

Why didn't they save us in 2000?


----------



## BlackSand

PMZ said:


> The big lie is that the party that supported Bush is fiscally responsible. His policies took us from the probability of being debt free to the reality of $17T in debt.
> 
> The worst performance ever of a US President.
> 
> Now they say,  listen.  We will save you.  Save us,  I guess,  from conservatism.
> 
> Why didn't they save us in 2000?


----------



## percysunshine

PMZ said:


> The big lie is that the party that supported Bush is fiscally responsible. His policies took us from the probability of being debt free to the reality of $17T in debt.
> 
> The worst performance ever of a US President.
> 
> Now they say,  listen.  We will save you.  Save us,  I guess,  from conservatism.
> 
> Why didn't they save us in 2000?



What makes you think Bush was a conservative?


----------



## Ernie S.

BlackSand said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I told you what I do for the less fortunate.  That's as specific as I will get on a public forum.
> 
> Now,  follow your Fox Opinions goose stepping orders and call me names or,  better yet,  speak for me.
> 
> And you wonder why conservatives have no political influence.
Click to expand...


Are you calling PMZ "slow"

How cruel!


----------



## dblack

PMZ said:


> The big lie is that the party that supported Bush is fiscally responsible. His policies took us from the probability of being debt free to the reality of $17T in debt.
> 
> The worst performance ever of a US President.
> 
> Now they say,  listen.  We will save you.  Save us,  I guess,  from conservatism.
> 
> Why didn't they save us in 2000?



Yep. That's a pretty big lie. 

Also. Hope and Change.

Guantanomo. Patriot Act. NSA. NDAA. 

I keep hoping something will change.

Fuck you.


----------



## BlackSand

Ernie S. said:


> Are you calling PMZ "slow"
> 
> How cruel!



That is definitely a Progressive Liberal plan demonstrated on the sign.


----------



## PMZ

percysunshine said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> The big lie is that the party that supported Bush is fiscally responsible. His policies took us from the probability of being debt free to the reality of $17T in debt.
> 
> The worst performance ever of a US President.
> 
> Now they say,  listen.  We will save you.  Save us,  I guess,  from conservatism.
> 
> Why didn't they save us in 2000?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What makes you think Bush was a conservative?
Click to expand...


He was supported by conservatives. He said that he was. He instituted conservative policies.


----------



## Ernie S.

PMZ said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where do you live and work? What's your name?  Lie and I'll  call "Bullshit".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I live in Foley Alabama I am a retired opto-mechanical engineer My name is Ernie. My last initial is, in fact S.
> 
> If you want to come for a visit, PM me and I'll send you my street address.
> 
> So, there you go. That's as specific as I will get on a public forum.
> Can you be as specific in answering my questions?
> What the fuck have you done for the less fortunate?
> What products, or at least what type of products have you created?
> Go back 3 hours for most of the other 3 dozen questions you have less than skillfully avoided.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I told you what I do for the less fortunate.  That's as specific as I will get on a public forum.
> 
> Now,  follow your Fox Opinions goose stepping orders and call me names or,  better yet,  speak for me.
> 
> And you wonder why conservatives have no political influence.
Click to expand...


You certainly can be a bit more specific about products you have created and your beneficence.

Here! I'll show you how. I designed and developed scientific instruments, for chemical analysis, forensics and medical research. I don't believe you're capable of creating a spitball.
The specifics of what I've done for people less fortunate are way back in the thread. I know you don't remember since you are only able to hold one thought in your head at a time.


----------



## PMZ

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> The big lie is that the party that supported Bush is fiscally responsible. His policies took us from the probability of being debt free to the reality of $17T in debt.
> 
> The worst performance ever of a US President.
> 
> Now they say,  listen.  We will save you.  Save us,  I guess,  from conservatism.
> 
> Why didn't they save us in 2000?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. That's a pretty big lie.
> 
> Also. Hope and Change.
> 
> Guantanomo. Patriot Act. NSA. NDAA.
> 
> I keep hoping something will change.
> 
> Fuck you.
Click to expand...


Fuck you too.  Anarchy is the world view that gorillas and chimpanzees are smarter than we. I think that's only true of some of us. Those who think it.


----------



## percysunshine

PMZ said:


> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> The big lie is that the party that supported Bush is fiscally responsible. His policies took us from the probability of being debt free to the reality of $17T in debt.
> 
> The worst performance ever of a US President.
> 
> Now they say,  listen.  We will save you.  Save us,  I guess,  from conservatism.
> 
> Why didn't they save us in 2000?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What makes you think Bush was a conservative?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He was supported by conservatives. He said that he was. He instituted conservative policies.
Click to expand...


Only a moron would have wanted Al Gore as president. He expanded Medicare and liked to change things by bombing foreign countries and spying on people without a warrant. Those are liberal traits.


----------



## Ernie S.

BlackSand said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I had the same experience in handling a complete idiot. There are so many of them and yet they sound like one. And what makes it worse is that they think that reasonable people will buy that as a mere coincidence!
> 
> What can one do?
> 
> Sometimes even liberals get tired of having to save government,  business,  and religion too from the same limited thinking.
> 
> You are our cross to bear. But we are strong and committed to save America,  no matter the cost.
Click to expand...


You're new here. It is against the rules here to post pictures of other members, no matter how cute and cuddly, without their permission.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> The big lie is that the party that supported Bush is fiscally responsible. His policies took us from the probability of being debt free to the reality of $17T in debt.
> 
> The worst performance ever of a US President.
> 
> Now they say,  listen.  We will save you.  Save us,  I guess,  from conservatism.
> 
> Why didn't they save us in 2000?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What makes you think Bush was a conservative?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He was supported by conservatives. He said that he was. He instituted conservative policies.
Click to expand...


That's a lie.  Wars of convenience are not conservative.  Monopolies are not conservative.  Zero tax for half the country and the other half gets all the taxes is not conservative.  No child left behind, not conservative. Name one thing Bush did that was "conservative."


----------



## BlackSand

PMZ said:


> Fuck you too ...



*Ditto ...*


----------



## PMZ

Ernie S. said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I live in Foley Alabama I am a retired opto-mechanical engineer My name is Ernie. My last initial is, in fact S.
> 
> If you want to come for a visit, PM me and I'll send you my street address.
> 
> So, there you go. That's as specific as I will get on a public forum.
> Can you be as specific in answering my questions?
> What the fuck have you done for the less fortunate?
> What products, or at least what type of products have you created?
> Go back 3 hours for most of the other 3 dozen questions you have less than skillfully avoided.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I told you what I do for the less fortunate.  That's as specific as I will get on a public forum.
> 
> Now,  follow your Fox Opinions goose stepping orders and call me names or,  better yet,  speak for me.
> 
> And you wonder why conservatives have no political influence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You certainly can be a bit more specific about products you have created and your beneficence.
> 
> Here! I'll show you how. I designed and developed scientific instruments, for chemical analysis, forensics and medical research. I don't believe you're capable of creating a spitball.
> The specifics of what I've done for people less fortunate are way back in the thread. I know you don't remember since you are only able to hold one thought in your head at a time.
Click to expand...


I was a design Engineer and project manager for accomplishing productivity improvements for a large high tech company.  I hired many,  and fired a few,  contributors.  My job was to keep American workers competitive despite high salaries through productivity improvements.  I was always successful at doing that. 

Also I was always successful at finding ways to manufacture the most difficult innovative products that customers enjoyed. 

Now I hear from conservatives that what I did is not possible.  We should send all of our manufacturing overseas and reward those who gave up on achieving what I did every day. 

The rape of the American worker.  

And you all are proud of it because you can't even imagine what I accomplished every day.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I told you what I do for the less fortunate.  That's as specific as I will get on a public forum.
> 
> Now,  follow your Fox Opinions goose stepping orders and call me names or,  better yet,  speak for me.
> 
> And you wonder why conservatives have no political influence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You certainly can be a bit more specific about products you have created and your beneficence.
> 
> Here! I'll show you how. I designed and developed scientific instruments, for chemical analysis, forensics and medical research. I don't believe you're capable of creating a spitball.
> The specifics of what I've done for people less fortunate are way back in the thread. I know you don't remember since you are only able to hold one thought in your head at a time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was a design Engineer managing productivity improvements for a large high tech company.  I hired many,  and fired a few,  contributors.  My job was to keep American workers competitive despite high salaries through productivity improvements.  I was always successful at doing that.
> 
> Also I was always successful at finding ways to manufacture the most difficult innovative products that customers enjoyed.
> 
> Now I hear from conservatives that what I did is not possible.  We should send all of our manufacturing overseas and reward those who gave up achieving what I did.
> 
> The rape of the American worker.
> 
> And you all are proud of it because you can't even imagine what zip accomplished every day.
Click to expand...


ROFL first said he was smart because he did these improvements, now he managed them.  Next we'll find out he was in personnel and sorted resumes.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> What makes you think Bush was a conservative?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He was supported by conservatives. He said that he was. He instituted conservative policies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a lie.  Wars of convenience are not conservative.  Monopolies are not conservative.  Zero tax for half the country and the other half gets all the taxes is not conservative.  No child left behind, not conservative. Name one thing Bush did that was "conservative."
Click to expand...


You supported him over Gore/Lieberman. Why?  He was more conservative.  You got what you wanted.  For $17T in debt.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> He was supported by conservatives. He said that he was. He instituted conservative policies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a lie.  Wars of convenience are not conservative.  Monopolies are not conservative.  Zero tax for half the country and the other half gets all the taxes is not conservative.  No child left behind, not conservative. Name one thing Bush did that was "conservative."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You supported him over Gore/Lieberman. Why?  He was more conservative.  You got what you wanted.  For $17T in debt.
Click to expand...


Name one thing I got that I wanted with Bush.  Name one thing he did that was conservative.

Time for you to come out.  Are you male or female?


----------



## PMZ

percysunshine said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> What makes you think Bush was a conservative?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He was supported by conservatives. He said that he was. He instituted conservative policies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only a moron would have wanted Al Gore as president. He expanded Medicare and liked to change things by bombing foreign countries and spying on people without a warrant. Those are liberal traits.
Click to expand...


This is pure delusion.  I don't blame you.  The truth of Bush is definitely worth running from.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> You certainly can be a bit more specific about products you have created and your beneficence.
> 
> Here! I'll show you how. I designed and developed scientific instruments, for chemical analysis, forensics and medical research. I don't believe you're capable of creating a spitball.
> The specifics of what I've done for people less fortunate are way back in the thread. I know you don't remember since you are only able to hold one thought in your head at a time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was a design Engineer managing productivity improvements for a large high tech company.  I hired many,  and fired a few,  contributors.  My job was to keep American workers competitive despite high salaries through productivity improvements.  I was always successful at doing that.
> 
> Also I was always successful at finding ways to manufacture the most difficult innovative products that customers enjoyed.
> 
> Now I hear from conservatives that what I did is not possible.  We should send all of our manufacturing overseas and reward those who gave up achieving what I did.
> 
> The rape of the American worker.
> 
> And you all are proud of it because you can't even imagine what zip accomplished every day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROFL first said he was smart because he did these improvements, now he managed them.  Next we'll find out he was in personnel and sorted resumes.
Click to expand...


Speak for the scapegoats.  Good enough for Hitler,  good enough for Fox Opinions.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's a lie.  Wars of convenience are not conservative.  Monopolies are not conservative.  Zero tax for half the country and the other half gets all the taxes is not conservative.  No child left behind, not conservative. Name one thing Bush did that was "conservative."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You supported him over Gore/Lieberman. Why?  He was more conservative.  You got what you wanted.  For $17T in debt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Name one thing I got that I wanted with Bush.  Name one thing he did that was conservative.
> 
> Time for you to come out.  Are you male or female?
Click to expand...


You got profitable wars.  You got the housing boom.  You got wealth redistribution tax cuts. You got ultra low interest rates. 

The record shows.  You got much of the wealth of the middle class.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was a design Engineer managing productivity improvements for a large high tech company.  I hired many,  and fired a few,  contributors.  My job was to keep American workers competitive despite high salaries through productivity improvements.  I was always successful at doing that.
> 
> Also I was always successful at finding ways to manufacture the most difficult innovative products that customers enjoyed.
> 
> Now I hear from conservatives that what I did is not possible.  We should send all of our manufacturing overseas and reward those who gave up achieving what I did.
> 
> The rape of the American worker.
> 
> And you all are proud of it because you can't even imagine what zip accomplished every day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL first said he was smart because he did these improvements, now he managed them.  Next we'll find out he was in personnel and sorted resumes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Speak for the scapegoats.  Good enough for Hitler,  good enough for Fox Opinions.
Click to expand...


Way to go, hitler and fox in one sentence.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL first said he was smart because he did these improvements, now he managed them.  Next we'll find out he was in personnel and sorted resumes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Speak for the scapegoats.  Good enough for Hitler,  good enough for Fox Opinions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Way to go, hitler and fox in one sentence.
Click to expand...


They're your heroes,  not mine.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You supported him over Gore/Lieberman. Why?  He was more conservative.  You got what you wanted.  For $17T in debt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Name one thing I got that I wanted with Bush.  Name one thing he did that was conservative.
> 
> Time for you to come out.  Are you male or female?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You got profitable wars.  You got the housing boom.  You got wealth redistribution tax cuts. You got ultra low interest rates.
> 
> The record shows.  You got much of the wealth of the middle class.
Click to expand...


>> You got profitable wars.  
Not conservative.

>> You got the housing boom.  
Liar, we got a housing bust.

>> You got wealth redistribution tax cuts. 
Not conservative, but surprise you got it correct, zero tax for the bottom half + stimulous checks and all other manner of welfare = wealth redistribution to the bottom half.

>> You got ultra low interest rates. 
Not conservative.

>> The record shows.  
Not a sentence.

>> You got much of the wealth of the middle class.
Not conservative, but surprise you got it right, middle class income moved to the poor as the middle class jumped on the welfare and unemployment lines when the democrat congress took over both houses halfway through bush's 2nd term.  This to stop the "wars." Which the democrats still refuse to do.

Male, female, or one of those cross gender types?


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Name one thing I got that I wanted with Bush.  Name one thing he did that was conservative.
> 
> Time for you to come out.  Are you male or female?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You got profitable wars.  You got the housing boom.  You got wealth redistribution tax cuts. You got ultra low interest rates.
> 
> The record shows.  You got much of the wealth of the middle class.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> >> You got profitable wars.
> Not conservative.
> 
> >> You got the housing boom.
> Liar, we got a housing bust.
> 
> >> You got wealth redistribution tax cuts.
> Not conservative, but surprise you got it correct, zero tax for the bottom half + stimulous checks and all other manner of welfare = wealth redistribution to the bottom half.
> 
> >> You got ultra low interest rates.
> Not conservative.
> 
> >> The record shows.
> Not a sentence.
> 
> >> You got much of the wealth of the middle class.
> Not conservative, but surprise you got it right, middle class income moved to the poor as the middle class jumped on the welfare and unemployment lines when the democrat congress took over both houses halfway through bush's 2nd term.  This to stop the "wars." Which the democrats still refuse to do.
> 
> Male, female, or one of those cross gender types?
Click to expand...


What you want to be true in order to obfuscate your participation in the Republican rape of the middle class.  I don't blame you.  Being held accountable for what you did is to be avoided at all costs.


----------



## Ernie S.

PMZ said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I told you what I do for the less fortunate.  That's as specific as I will get on a public forum.
> 
> Now,  follow your Fox Opinions goose stepping orders and call me names or,  better yet,  speak for me.
> 
> And you wonder why conservatives have no political influence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You certainly can be a bit more specific about products you have created and your beneficence.
> 
> Here! I'll show you how. I designed and developed scientific instruments, for chemical analysis, forensics and medical research. I don't believe you're capable of creating a spitball.
> The specifics of what I've done for people less fortunate are way back in the thread. I know you don't remember since you are only able to hold one thought in your head at a time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was a design Engineer and project manager for accomplishing productivity improvements for a large high tech company.  I hired many,  and fired a few,  contributors.  My job was to keep American workers competitive despite high salaries through productivity improvements.  I was always successful at doing that.
> 
> Also I was always successful at finding ways to manufacture the most difficult innovative products that customers enjoyed.
> 
> Now I hear from conservatives that what I did is not possible.  We should send all of our manufacturing overseas and reward those who gave up on achieving what I did every day.
> 
> The rape of the American worker.
> 
> And you all are proud of it because you can't even imagine what I accomplished every day.
Click to expand...


My work put away a murderer, has been used to develop drugs, to fight cancer... My products were built here, by well paid, skilled, educated workers who actually earned their wages.

I have bought components from overseas, but I sure as hell never shipped jobs there nor was I especially happy with buying foreign product.
Conservatives have no lock on outsourcing. Apple Nike and Microsoft do it all the time and Gates, Balmer Jobs Parker are/were more Lib than you.
What hurt US manufacturing jobs was labor unions. Consumers demand competitive prices, and want to buy "Made in America", but when the chips are down, they will buy a Chinese TV every time.
There is no way that a worker twisting lug nuts in a Ford Factory is worth the 70 bucks/hour that he costs the Company when you factor in all the bennies.
Most people will buy a Kia. It's assembled right here in Montgomery AL with American labor. People can delude themselves into thinking they are buying American, but get more value for there money because the labor costs are $30/hour or so.


----------



## Ernie S.

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> You certainly can be a bit more specific about products you have created and your beneficence.
> 
> Here! I'll show you how. I designed and developed scientific instruments, for chemical analysis, forensics and medical research. I don't believe you're capable of creating a spitball.
> The specifics of what I've done for people less fortunate are way back in the thread. I know you don't remember since you are only able to hold one thought in your head at a time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was a design Engineer managing productivity improvements for a large high tech company.  I hired many,  and fired a few,  contributors.  My job was to keep American workers competitive despite high salaries through productivity improvements.  I was always successful at doing that.
> 
> Also I was always successful at finding ways to manufacture the most difficult innovative products that customers enjoyed.
> 
> Now I hear from conservatives that what I did is not possible.  We should send all of our manufacturing overseas and reward those who gave up achieving what I did.
> 
> The rape of the American worker.
> 
> And you all are proud of it because you can't even imagine what zip accomplished every day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROFL first said he was smart because he did these improvements, now he managed them.  Next we'll find out he was in personnel and sorted resumes.
Click to expand...


Changed the paper in the ladies room.


----------



## Ernie S.

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You supported him over Gore/Lieberman. Why?  He was more conservative.  You got what you wanted.  For $17T in debt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Name one thing I got that I wanted with Bush.  Name one thing he did that was conservative.
> 
> Time for you to come out.  Are you male or female?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You got profitable wars.  You got the housing boom.  You got wealth redistribution tax cuts. You got ultra low interest rates.
> 
> The record shows.  You got much of the wealth of the middle class.
Click to expand...


Again refused to answer a specific question.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> Being held accountable for what you did is to be avoided at all costs.


Good for you PMZ.  Bout time you came out.  Is it just the theft you are avoiding, or some other more serious offenses?

Are you a hamster, or a woman, or man. Or is that a secret.


----------



## PMZ

Ernie S. said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> You certainly can be a bit more specific about products you have created and your beneficence.
> 
> Here! I'll show you how. I designed and developed scientific instruments, for chemical analysis, forensics and medical research. I don't believe you're capable of creating a spitball.
> The specifics of what I've done for people less fortunate are way back in the thread. I know you don't remember since you are only able to hold one thought in your head at a time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was a design Engineer and project manager for accomplishing productivity improvements for a large high tech company.  I hired many,  and fired a few,  contributors.  My job was to keep American workers competitive despite high salaries through productivity improvements.  I was always successful at doing that.
> 
> Also I was always successful at finding ways to manufacture the most difficult innovative products that customers enjoyed.
> 
> Now I hear from conservatives that what I did is not possible.  We should send all of our manufacturing overseas and reward those who gave up on achieving what I did every day.
> 
> The rape of the American worker.
> 
> And you all are proud of it because you can't even imagine what I accomplished every day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My work put away a murderer, has been used to develop drugs, to fight cancer... My products were built here, by well paid, skilled, educated workers who actually earned their wages.
> 
> I have bought components from overseas, but I sure as hell never shipped jobs there nor was I especially happy with buying foreign product.
> Conservatives have no lock on outsourcing. Apple Nike and Microsoft do it all the time and Gates, Balmer Jobs Parker are/were more Lib than you.
> What hurt US manufacturing jobs was labor unions. Consumers demand competitive prices, and want to buy "Made in America", but when the chips are down, they will buy a Chinese TV every time.
> There is no way that a worker twisting lug nuts in a Ford Factory is worth the 70 bucks/hour that he costs the Company when you factor in all the bennies.
> Most people will buy a Kia. It's assembled right here in Montgomery AL with American labor. People can delude themselves into thinking they are buying American, but get more value for there money because the labor costs are $30/hour or so.
Click to expand...


Congratulations. You are a constitutional in name only


----------



## Ernie S.

Good night Ladies and Gentlemen

Any you too PMS


----------



## PMZ

Ernie S. said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was a design Engineer managing productivity improvements for a large high tech company.  I hired many,  and fired a few,  contributors.  My job was to keep American workers competitive despite high salaries through productivity improvements.  I was always successful at doing that.
> 
> Also I was always successful at finding ways to manufacture the most difficult innovative products that customers enjoyed.
> 
> Now I hear from conservatives that what I did is not possible.  We should send all of our manufacturing overseas and reward those who gave up achieving what I did.
> 
> The rape of the American worker.
> 
> And you all are proud of it because you can't even imagine what zip accomplished every day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL first said he was smart because he did these improvements, now he managed them.  Next we'll find out he was in personnel and sorted resumes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Changed the paper in the ladies room.
Click to expand...


Liar.  Fuck you.


----------



## Ernie S.

PMZ said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was a design Engineer and project manager for accomplishing productivity improvements for a large high tech company.  I hired many,  and fired a few,  contributors.  My job was to keep American workers competitive despite high salaries through productivity improvements.  I was always successful at doing that.
> 
> Also I was always successful at finding ways to manufacture the most difficult innovative products that customers enjoyed.
> 
> Now I hear from conservatives that what I did is not possible.  We should send all of our manufacturing overseas and reward those who gave up on achieving what I did every day.
> 
> The rape of the American worker.
> 
> And you all are proud of it because you can't even imagine what I accomplished every day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My work put away a murderer, has been used to develop drugs, to fight cancer... My products were built here, by well paid, skilled, educated workers who actually earned their wages.
> 
> I have bought components from overseas, but I sure as hell never shipped jobs there nor was I especially happy with buying foreign product.
> Conservatives have no lock on outsourcing. Apple Nike and Microsoft do it all the time and Gates, Balmer Jobs Parker are/were more Lib than you.
> What hurt US manufacturing jobs was labor unions. Consumers demand competitive prices, and want to buy "Made in America", but when the chips are down, they will buy a Chinese TV every time.
> There is no way that a worker twisting lug nuts in a Ford Factory is worth the 70 bucks/hour that he costs the Company when you factor in all the bennies.
> Most people will buy a Kia. It's assembled right here in Montgomery AL with American labor. People can delude themselves into thinking they are buying American, but get more value for there money because the labor costs are $30/hour or so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Congratulations. You are a constitutional in name only
Click to expand...


What the fuck does that mean? Put away the hookah.


----------



## Ernie S.

PMZ said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL first said he was smart because he did these improvements, now he managed them.  Next we'll find out he was in personnel and sorted resumes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Changed the paper in the ladies room.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Liar.  Fuck you.
Click to expand...


Executive men's room?


----------



## Ernie S.

I didn't forget about all doze shoes you dun shined. Figured I let you brag about that.


----------



## BlackSand

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> You certainly can be a bit more specific about products you have created and your beneficence.
> 
> Here! I'll show you how. I designed and developed scientific instruments, for chemical analysis, forensics and medical research. I don't believe you're capable of creating a spitball.
> The specifics of what I've done for people less fortunate are way back in the thread. I know you don't remember since you are only able to hold one thought in your head at a time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was a design Engineer managing productivity improvements for a large high tech company.  I hired many,  and fired a few,  contributors.  My job was to keep American workers competitive despite high salaries through productivity improvements.  I was always successful at doing that.
> 
> Also I was always successful at finding ways to manufacture the most difficult innovative products that customers enjoyed.
> 
> Now I hear from conservatives that what I did is not possible.  We should send all of our manufacturing overseas and reward those who gave up achieving what I did.
> 
> The rape of the American worker.
> 
> And you all are proud of it because you can't even imagine what zip accomplished every day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROFL first said he was smart because he did these improvements, now he managed them.  Next we'll find out he was in personnel and sorted resumes.
Click to expand...


*PMZ was probably an effective manager ... "A certain combination of skill and ignorance is very effective, you do not suspect it, and you accede to it." ~ Les Misérables *
I mean it isn't a secret that if you tell a Design Engineer they are Brilliant and Productive ... Whether it be the case or not ... You can pretty much get them to do anything you want them to do.

.


----------



## PMZ

I hope that I never fall in the trap whereby the only way that I can feel good about myself is to put others down.  Speaking for the scapegoats.


----------



## BlackSand

PMZ said:


> I hope that I never fall in the trap whereby the only way that I can feel good about myself is to put others down.  Speaking for the scapegoats.



You are at the bottom of the trap you dug yourself ... Have chewed your legs and arms off trying not to starve ... And will never climb your way out now.

.


----------



## PMZ

BlackSand said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hope that I never fall in the trap whereby the only way that I can feel good about myself is to put others down.  Speaking for the scapegoats.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are at the bottom of the trap you dug yourself ... Have chewed your legs and arms off trying not to starve ... And will never climb your way out now.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


I hate to be the bearer of bad news for you but I'm free as a bird and enjoying your squirming.   

As you get prepared for another day of whining about the travails of wealth,  having to pay taxes and all,  and having to work,  I'm looking forward to another day of good fortune living in the best governed country the world has ever seen. 

Your whining material is endless having been refreshed daily by Fox Opinions. Have at it.  

I'm still free to think my own thoughts and have my own ideas and enjoy what I have. 

I wouldn't give that up for anything.


----------



## BlackSand

PMZ said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hope that I never fall in the trap whereby the only way that I can feel good about myself is to put others down.  Speaking for the scapegoats.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are at the bottom of the trap you dug yourself ... Have chewed your legs and arms off trying not to starve ... And will never climb your way out now.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I hate to be the bearer of bad news for you but I'm free as a bird and enjoying your squirming.
> 
> As you get prepared for another day of whining about the travails of wealth,  having to pay taxes and all,  and having to work,  I'm looking forward to another day of good fortune living in the best governed country the world has ever seen.
> 
> Your whining material is endless having been refreshed daily by Fox Opinions. Have at it.
> 
> I'm still free to think my own thoughts and have my own ideas and enjoy what I have.
> 
> I wouldn't give that up for anything.
Click to expand...


It still amazes me that you talk about freedom and the ability to enjoy your own thoughts.
You talk about _"living in the best governed country in the world"._
I mean face it ... If it is so great ... Then why the hell do you want to screw it up by changing it with your stupid thoughts and ideas?

Somehow you think blaming Fox News for your stupidity actually means something. 
You obviously put more faith in what the people at Fox News can accomplish than most of us do.
Please don't do what Ernie suggested and _"put the hookah away"._
I really don't want to get stuck financing years of psychiatric care and rehabilitation for someone who really wants to be clueless ... And is happy with it.

Peace ... Enjoy yourself ... Take another hit or whatever.

.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hope that I never fall in the trap whereby the only way that I can feel good about myself is to put others down.  Speaking for the scapegoats.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are at the bottom of the trap you dug yourself ... Have chewed your legs and arms off trying not to starve ... And will never climb your way out now.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I hate to be the bearer of bad news for you but I'm free as a bird and enjoying your squirming.
> 
> As you get prepared for another day of whining about the travails of wealth,  having to pay taxes and all,  and having to work,  I'm looking forward to another day of good fortune living in the best governed country the world has ever seen.
> 
> Your whining material is endless having been refreshed daily by Fox Opinions. Have at it.
> 
> I'm still free to think my own thoughts and have my own ideas and enjoy what I have.
> 
> I wouldn't give that up for anything.
Click to expand...


Yeah folks like you need to be keel hulled.


----------



## PMZ

BlackSand said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are at the bottom of the trap you dug yourself ... Have chewed your legs and arms off trying not to starve ... And will never climb your way out now.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hate to be the bearer of bad news for you but I'm free as a bird and enjoying your squirming.
> 
> As you get prepared for another day of whining about the travails of wealth,  having to pay taxes and all,  and having to work,  I'm looking forward to another day of good fortune living in the best governed country the world has ever seen.
> 
> Your whining material is endless having been refreshed daily by Fox Opinions. Have at it.
> 
> I'm still free to think my own thoughts and have my own ideas and enjoy what I have.
> 
> I wouldn't give that up for anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It still amazes me that you talk about freedom and the ability to enjoy your own thoughts.
> You talk about _"living in the best governed country in the world"._
> I mean face it ... If it is so great ... Then why the hell do you want to screw it up by changing it with your stupid thoughts and ideas?
> 
> Somehow you think blaming Fox News for your stupidity actually means something.
> You obviously put more faith in what the people at Fox News can accomplish than most of us do.
> Please don't do what Ernie suggested and _"put the hookah away"._
> I really don't want to get stuck financing years of psychiatric care and rehabilitation for someone who really wants to be clueless ... And is happy with it.
> 
> Peace ... Enjoy yourself ... Take another hit or whatever.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


More Fox Opinions speak for the scapegoats propaganda.  

I'll speak for me and you speak for you. 

We tried governance your way.  We'll be paying for it for generations.  Many,  many generations. 

So,  we're going back to what worked.  Focusing on middle class workers rather than Bush's rewards for friends and family. 

You are free to come along or continue whining.  

Frankly Scarlet,  I don't give a damn.


----------



## Ernie S.

PMZ said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL first said he was smart because he did these improvements, now he managed them.  Next we'll find out he was in personnel and sorted resumes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Changed the paper in the ladies room.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Liar.  Fuck you.
Click to expand...




Ernie S. said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> My work put away a murderer, has been used to develop drugs, to fight cancer... My products were built here, by well paid, skilled, educated workers who actually earned their wages.
> 
> I have bought components from overseas, but I sure as hell never shipped jobs there nor was I especially happy with buying foreign product.
> Conservatives have no lock on outsourcing. Apple Nike and Microsoft do it all the time and Gates, Balmer Jobs Parker are/were more Lib than you.
> What hurt US manufacturing jobs was labor unions. Consumers demand competitive prices, and want to buy "Made in America", but when the chips are down, they will buy a Chinese TV every time.
> There is no way that a worker twisting lug nuts in a Ford Factory is worth the 70 bucks/hour that he costs the Company when you factor in all the bennies.
> Most people will buy a Kia. It's assembled right here in Montgomery AL with American labor. People can delude themselves into thinking they are buying American, but get more value for there money because the labor costs are $30/hour or so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Congratulations. You are a constitutional in name only
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What the fuck does that mean? Put away the hookah.
Click to expand...




PMZ said:


> I hope that I never fall in the trap whereby the only way that I can feel good about myself is to put others down.  Speaking for the scapegoats.



Yeah, right. Hypocrite!


----------



## PMZ

Ernie S. said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Changed the paper in the ladies room.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liar.  Fuck you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> What the fuck does that mean? Put away the hookah.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hope that I never fall in the trap whereby the only way that I can feel good about myself is to put others down.  Speaking for the scapegoats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, right. Hypocrite!
Click to expand...


I think that being called a hypocrite,  by a hypocrite,  is a good thing in a double negative kind of way.


----------



## BlackSand

PMZ said:


> More Fox Opinions speak for the scapegoats propaganda.
> 
> I'll speak for me and you speak for you.
> 
> We tried governance your way.  We'll be paying for it for generations.  Many,  many generations.
> 
> So,  we're going back to what worked.  Focusing on middle class workers rather than Bush's rewards for friends and family.
> 
> You are free to come along or continue whining.
> 
> Frankly Scarlet,  I don't give a damn.



I know you don't give a damn ... That is obvious.
You speak for yourself every time you post ... And just lack the wherewithal to understand what you are saying doesn't make any sense.
I mean if you don't like the way we repeat it back to you ... Then look up the definition of "incorrigible" ... Fits you perfectly.

But hey ... I am just trying to be supportive ... In recognizing your obfuscating stupidity (yeah ... there is actually a real phrase that describes what I mentioned earlier... told you it wasn't a secret).
I am also not too sure about RKM's suggestion to keel haul you either ... Because if that hard head happens to hit the boat ... It is liable to leave one heck of a hole and we will all be sinking.

.


----------



## Ernie S.

PMZ said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hope that I never fall in the trap whereby the only way that I can feel good about myself is to put others down.  Speaking for the scapegoats.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are at the bottom of the trap you dug yourself ... Have chewed your legs and arms off trying not to starve ... And will never climb your way out now.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I hate to be the bearer of bad news for you but I'm free as a bird and enjoying your squirming.
> 
> As you get prepared for another day of whining about the travails of wealth,  having to pay taxes and all,  and having to work,  I'm looking forward to another day of good fortune living in the best governed country the world has ever seen.
> 
> Your whining material is endless having been refreshed daily by Fox Opinions. Have at it.
> 
> I'm still free to think my own thoughts and have my own ideas and enjoy what I have.
> 
> I wouldn't give that up for anything.
Click to expand...


Free as a bird to believe as you are told by Dear leader... Well, OK then.

I share your good fortune of living in the best governed country the world has ever seen, BUT, in my opinion, the current governance sucks and I fear that without drastic changes, our great nation is doomed.

I too am free to think my own thoughts, PMS, though my thought process isn't addled by crack and pills.


----------



## PMZ

BlackSand said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> More Fox Opinions speak for the scapegoats propaganda.
> 
> I'll speak for me and you speak for you.
> 
> We tried governance your way.  We'll be paying for it for generations.  Many,  many generations.
> 
> So,  we're going back to what worked.  Focusing on middle class workers rather than Bush's rewards for friends and family.
> 
> You are free to come along or continue whining.
> 
> Frankly Scarlet,  I don't give a damn.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know you don't give a damn ... That is obvious.
> You speak for yourself every time you post ... And just lack the wherewithal to understand what you are saying doesn't make any sense.
> I mean if you don't like the way we repeat it back to you ... Then look up the definition of "incorrigible" ... Fits you perfectly.
> 
> But hey ... I am just trying to be supportive ... In recognizing your obfuscating stupidity (yeah ... there is actually a real phrase that describes what I mentioned earlier... told you it wasn't a secret).
> I am also not too sure about RKM's suggestion to keel haul you either ... Because if that hard head happens to hit the boat ... It is liable to leave one heck of a hole and we will all be sinking.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


If what I say doesn't make sense,  why are you unable ever to provide evidence of that? 

What I get instead is,  that's not what Fox Opinions says.  

Right.  That's the point. That's why what they say is propaganda. 

They bombard you everyday with half truths.  The evidence is that you all think and speak identically. And you are all missing exactly the same other half of the truth. 

But I meant that the only thing that I give a damn about us keeping you out of government.  And you all seem to have that same objective.  So all that I have to do us keep you posting.


----------



## BlackSand

PMZ said:


> If what I say doesn't make sense,  why are you unable ever to provide evidence of that?
> 
> What I get instead is,  that's not what Fox Opinions says.
> 
> Right.  That's the point. That's why what they say is propaganda.
> 
> They bombard you everyday with half truths.  The evidence is that you all think and speak identically. And you are all missing exactly the same other half of the truth.
> 
> But I meant that the only thing that I give a damn about us keeping you out of government.  And you all seem to have that same objective.  So all that I have to do us keep you posting.



You have probably watched more Fox News than I have ... I listen to NPR more than conservative talk radio.
Your point is pointless ... Has been ... And will continue to be.
You have no evidence ... Zero ... And don't even get half the truth right.

Keep posting ... Keep pushing the empty nonsense that you base your existence and beliefs on.
It will only go further in encouraging others not to be such a buffoon. 

.


----------



## Ernie S.

PMZ said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hate to be the bearer of bad news for you but I'm free as a bird and enjoying your squirming.
> 
> As you get prepared for another day of whining about the travails of wealth,  having to pay taxes and all,  and having to work,  I'm looking forward to another day of good fortune living in the best governed country the world has ever seen.
> 
> Your whining material is endless having been refreshed daily by Fox Opinions. Have at it.
> 
> I'm still free to think my own thoughts and have my own ideas and enjoy what I have.
> 
> I wouldn't give that up for anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It still amazes me that you talk about freedom and the ability to enjoy your own thoughts.
> You talk about _"living in the best governed country in the world"._
> I mean face it ... If it is so great ... Then why the hell do you want to screw it up by changing it with your stupid thoughts and ideas?
> 
> Somehow you think blaming Fox News for your stupidity actually means something.
> You obviously put more faith in what the people at Fox News can accomplish than most of us do.
> Please don't do what Ernie suggested and _"put the hookah away"._
> I really don't want to get stuck financing years of psychiatric care and rehabilitation for someone who really wants to be clueless ... And is happy with it.
> 
> Peace ... Enjoy yourself ... Take another hit or whatever.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *More Fox Opinions speak for the scapegoats propaganda.*
> 
> 
> 
> snip
> 
> Frankly Scarlet,  I don't give a damn.
Click to expand...


Your fixation with FoxNews is almost as strong as your devotion to MSNBC.

We all know you detest any argument counter to your socialist agenda, but you are a hypocritical asshole if all you can do is put people down for where they may get their news.
I rarely watch FoxNews, except when there is a big story that I want more in depth information than I get on my local news programs. My nightly news program in on CBS out of Mobile, AL.
I also get tons of news on line. Some, from links an Drudge, some from FoxNews, some from BBC, MSM websites as well as Huffington Post, CNN The Blaze.... I even peruse articles linked here from Democratic underground and a few other ultra left wing sites that people like you believe as gospel.

So, asshole, if you want to go on with "Fox Opinions", by all means, tell us where you get your news other than the DNC's Daily Talking Points ®.


----------



## Ernie S.

PMZ said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liar.  Fuck you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hope that I never fall in the trap whereby the only way that I can feel good about myself is to put others down.  Speaking for the scapegoats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, right. Hypocrite!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think that being called a hypocrite,  by a hypocrite,  is a good thing in a double negative kind of way.
Click to expand...


An example of my hypocrisy, please? Or, STFU.


----------



## PMZ

Ernie S. said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> It still amazes me that you talk about freedom and the ability to enjoy your own thoughts.
> You talk about _"living in the best governed country in the world"._
> I mean face it ... If it is so great ... Then why the hell do you want to screw it up by changing it with your stupid thoughts and ideas?
> 
> Somehow you think blaming Fox News for your stupidity actually means something.
> You obviously put more faith in what the people at Fox News can accomplish than most of us do.
> Please don't do what Ernie suggested and _"put the hookah away"._
> I really don't want to get stuck financing years of psychiatric care and rehabilitation for someone who really wants to be clueless ... And is happy with it.
> 
> Peace ... Enjoy yourself ... Take another hit or whatever.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *More Fox Opinions speak for the scapegoats propaganda.*
> 
> 
> 
> snip
> 
> Frankly Scarlet,  I don't give a damn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your fixation with FoxNews is almost as strong as your devotion to MSNBC.
> 
> We all know you detest any argument counter to your socialist agenda, but you are a hypocritical asshole if all you can do is put people down for where they may get their news.
> I rarely watch FoxNews, except when there is a big story that I want more in depth information than I get on my local news programs. My nightly news program in on CBS out of Mobile, AL.
> I also get tons of news on line. Some, from links an Drudge, some from FoxNews, some from BBC, MSM websites as well as Huffington Post, CNN The Blaze.... I even peruse articles linked here from Democratic underground and a few other ultra left wing sites that people like you believe as gospel.
> 
> So, asshole, if you want to go on with "Fox Opinions", by all means, tell us where you get your news other than the DNC's Daily Talking Points ®.
Click to expand...


Mainstream media. News.  I don't need other people's opinions.


----------



## PMZ

BlackSand said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> If what I say doesn't make sense,  why are you unable ever to provide evidence of that?
> 
> What I get instead is,  that's not what Fox Opinions says.
> 
> Right.  That's the point. That's why what they say is propaganda.
> 
> They bombard you everyday with half truths.  The evidence is that you all think and speak identically. And you are all missing exactly the same other half of the truth.
> 
> But I meant that the only thing that I give a damn about us keeping you out of government.  And you all seem to have that same objective.  So all that I have to do us keep you posting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have probably watched more Fox News than I have ... I listen to NPR more than conservative talk radio.
> Your point is pointless ... Has been ... And will continue to be.
> You have no evidence ... Zero ... And don't even get half the truth right.
> 
> Keep posting ... Keep pushing the empty nonsense that you base your existence and beliefs on.
> It will only go further in encouraging others not to be such a buffoon.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Nobody admits to Fox,  but you all get identical opinions and words from somewhere.  It's not a coincidence.


----------



## PMZ

Ernie S. said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, right. Hypocrite!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that being called a hypocrite,  by a hypocrite,  is a good thing in a double negative kind of way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An example of my hypocrisy, please? Or, STFU.
Click to expand...


" It still amazes me that you talk about freedom and the ability to enjoy your own thoughts.
You talk about _"living in the best governed country in the world"._
I mean face it ... If it is so great ... Then why the hell do you want to screw it up by changing it with your stupid thoughts and ideas?"

You're the one that wants to change it back to what was a demonstrable failure.


----------



## BlackSand

PMZ said:


> "It still amazes me that you talk about freedom and the ability to enjoy your own thoughts.
> You talk about _"living in the best governed country in the world"._
> I mean face it ... If it is so great ... Then why the hell do you want to screw it up by changing it with your stupid thoughts and ideas?"
> 
> You're the one that wants to change it back to what was a demonstrable failure.



*That is me you idiot ... I posted that, not Ernie ... At least try to keep up.*
Saying that you live in the best governed country ... And constantly trying to screw it up ... Is also how you are a hypocrite ... But since you cannot even read the name of the poster you quote, then I don't suspect you will understand your hypocrisy. 
I am amused that you try so hard to be wrong ... And don't have the common sense necessary to notice.

.


----------



## Ernie S.

PMZ said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> *More Fox Opinions speak for the scapegoats propaganda.*
> 
> 
> 
> snip
> 
> Frankly Scarlet,  I don't give a damn.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your fixation with FoxNews is almost as strong as your devotion to MSNBC.
> 
> We all know you detest any argument counter to your socialist agenda, but you are a hypocritical asshole if all you can do is put people down for where they may get their news.
> I rarely watch FoxNews, except when there is a big story that I want more in depth information than I get on my local news programs. My nightly news program in on CBS out of Mobile, AL.
> I also get tons of news on line. Some, from links an Drudge, some from FoxNews, some from BBC, MSM websites as well as Huffington Post, CNN The Blaze.... I even peruse articles linked here from Democratic underground and a few other ultra left wing sites that people like you believe as gospel.
> 
> So, asshole, if you want to go on with "Fox Opinions", by all means, tell us where you get your news other than the DNC's Daily Talking Points ®.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mainstream media. News.  I don't need other people's opinions.
Click to expand...


Yet you allow the MSM's Liberal anchors to subtly influence you and tell you what issues to be upset about.
You watch Katie Couric defend the indefensible, but O'Reilly's opinion is sinister? You really are a biased, hypocritical tool, aren't you?

NOW I am still waiting for you to show me which people have changed their hats.


----------



## Ernie S.

PMZ said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that being called a hypocrite,  by a hypocrite,  is a good thing in a double negative kind of way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An example of my hypocrisy, please? Or, STFU.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> " It still amazes me that you talk about freedom and the ability to enjoy your own thoughts.
> You talk about _"living in the best governed country in the world"._
> I mean face it ... If it is so great ... Then why the hell do you want to screw it up by changing it with your stupid thoughts and ideas?"
> 
> You're the one that wants to change it back to what was a demonstrable failure.
Click to expand...


You refuse to acknowledge that many believe that the changed made recently are for the worse and changing it back is for the better.


----------



## Ernie S.

I have to run to the store. I anticipate a clear description of who has changed hats OR an admission you fucked up, when I return.


----------



## BlackSand

Ernie S. said:


> Yet you allow the MSM's Liberal anchors to subtly influence you and tell you what issues to be upset about.
> You watch Katie Couric defend the indefensible, but O'Reilly's opinion is sinister? You really are a biased, hypocritical tool, aren't you?
> 
> NOW I am still waiting for you to show me which people have changed their hats.



Hey Ernie ... If you haven't seen this, it is worth the watch.
Watching Nancy Pelosi try to defend the ACA is funnier than PMZ ... It is worth the 6 plus minutes ... She completely falls apart and cannot answer the questions.
David Gregory nails her down over and over ... And she is clueless.


.


----------



## PMZ

Ernie S. said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your fixation with FoxNews is almost as strong as your devotion to MSNBC.
> 
> We all know you detest any argument counter to your socialist agenda, but you are a hypocritical asshole if all you can do is put people down for where they may get their news.
> I rarely watch FoxNews, except when there is a big story that I want more in depth information than I get on my local news programs. My nightly news program in on CBS out of Mobile, AL.
> I also get tons of news on line. Some, from links an Drudge, some from FoxNews, some from BBC, MSM websites as well as Huffington Post, CNN The Blaze.... I even peruse articles linked here from Democratic underground and a few other ultra left wing sites that people like you believe as gospel.
> 
> So, asshole, if you want to go on with "Fox Opinions", by all means, tell us where you get your news other than the DNC's Daily Talking Points ®.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mainstream media. News.  I don't need other people's opinions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet you allow the MSM's Liberal anchors to subtly influence you and tell you what issues to be upset about.
> You watch Katie Couric defend the indefensible, but O'Reilly's opinion is sinister? You really are a biased, hypocritical tool, aren't you?
> 
> NOW I am still waiting for you to show me which people have changed their hats.
Click to expand...


Mainstream media is news.  Factual reporting devoid of opinion.  

Fox Opinions is just what Republicans wish was true with only the facts supportive of that thrown in.


----------



## PMZ

Ernie S. said:


> I have to run to the store. I anticipate a clear description of who has changed hats OR an admission you fucked up, when I return.



I'm not sure why you're talking about hats all of a sudden.


----------



## PMZ

Ernie S. said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> An example of my hypocrisy, please? Or, STFU.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> " It still amazes me that you talk about freedom and the ability to enjoy your own thoughts.
> You talk about _"living in the best governed country in the world"._
> I mean face it ... If it is so great ... Then why the hell do you want to screw it up by changing it with your stupid thoughts and ideas?"
> 
> You're the one that wants to change it back to what was a demonstrable failure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You refuse to acknowledge that many believe that the changed made recently are for the worse and changing it back is for the better.
Click to expand...


Only people with zero memory would want to return to 2007-2009.


----------



## PMZ

BlackSand said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> "It still amazes me that you talk about freedom and the ability to enjoy your own thoughts.
> You talk about _"living in the best governed country in the world"._
> I mean face it ... If it is so great ... Then why the hell do you want to screw it up by changing it with your stupid thoughts and ideas?"
> 
> You're the one that wants to change it back to what was a demonstrable failure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *That is me you idiot ... I posted that, not Ernie ... At least try to keep up.*
> Saying that you live in the best governed country ... And constantly trying to screw it up ... Is also how you are a hypocrite ... But since you cannot even read the name of the poster you quote, then I don't suspect you will understand your hypocrisy.
> I am amused that you try so hard to be wrong ... And don't have the common sense necessary to notice.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


So you're saying that you are the hypocrite. 

Sorry Ernie.


----------



## BlackSand

PMZ said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> "It still amazes me that you talk about freedom and the ability to enjoy your own thoughts.
> You talk about _"living in the best governed country in the world"._
> I mean face it ... If it is so great ... Then why the hell do you want to screw it up by changing it with your stupid thoughts and ideas?"
> 
> You're the one that wants to change it back to what was a demonstrable failure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *That is me you idiot ... I posted that, not Ernie ... At least try to keep up.*
> Saying that you live in the best governed country ... And constantly trying to screw it up ... Is also how you are a hypocrite ... But since you cannot even read the name of the poster you quote, then I don't suspect you will understand your hypocrisy.
> I am amused that you try so hard to be wrong ... And don't have the common sense necessary to notice.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you're saying that you are the hypocrite.
> 
> Sorry Ernie.
Click to expand...


I didn't say I was I hypocrite at all ... In fact everything I said was an observation of what you said.
Now if you can point out where I said something hypocritical ... Then get to it.
I need to warn you though ... You haven't gotten anything right in the last few days as far as what I think ... And I don't expect you ever will.

.


----------



## PMZ

BlackSand said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> *That is me you idiot ... I posted that, not Ernie ... At least try to keep up.*
> Saying that you live in the best governed country ... And constantly trying to screw it up ... Is also how you are a hypocrite ... But since you cannot even read the name of the poster you quote, then I don't suspect you will understand your hypocrisy.
> I am amused that you try so hard to be wrong ... And don't have the common sense necessary to notice.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying that you are the hypocrite.
> 
> Sorry Ernie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say I was I hypocrite at all ... In fact everything I said was an observation of what you said.
> Now if you can point out where I said something hypocritical ... Then get to it.
> I need to warn you though ... You haven't gotten anything right in the last few days as far as what I think ... And I don't expect you ever will.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


I pointed out a post that was hypocritical, thinking that Ernie posted it.  You said no,  you posted it.  As you and Ernie are in goose step as conservatives,  if you said it, then you are the hypocritical one.


----------



## BlackSand

PMZ said:


> I pointed out a post that was hypocritical, thinking that Ernie posted it.  You said no,  you posted it.  As you and Ernie are in goose step as conservatives,  if you said it, then you are the hypocritical one.



That doesn't answer the question ... What did I say that was hypocritical ... Try again, because you haven't pointed out anything hypocritical.

.


----------



## PMZ

Creek said:


> 911 is such a strange case pertaining to the media...I think.O.J is brought up by them more,than the attack......I'll have a banner out front this year myself.....It seems as if 911 is a taboo subject for them...maybe cause the muslims fear retaliation...I also shit hearing those Muslims worry about that the day after the attack....1000's killed,yet they were worried for themselves....Those asshole should of been left to clean up the mess.........



Don't you have a husband to nag?


----------



## PMZ

That was my reply to peanut.  Somehow the system is confused so when I reply to her post it gets attached to this other guy.


----------



## BlackSand

PMZ said:


> Don't you have a husband to nag?



Don't you have a rock you can crawl back under?
.


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have created good paying jobs the only way they can be.  Innovative products from good employees satisfying customers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're not answering *why* you refuse to do your civic duty and provide six-figure jobs for people. Well?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did when I worked.  I'm now retired.
> 
> Like I said,  I created good paying jobs the only way they can be.  Innovative products from good employees satisfying customers.
> 
> That's the business of business.
Click to expand...


PMZ - why do you continue to flat out lie? You and I both know you never hired one person out of your own pocket. Not once. So the question is, why didn't you?


----------



## PMZ

BlackSand said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't you have a husband to nag?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't you have a rock you can crawl back under?
> .
Click to expand...


Don't you have a slave to beat?


----------



## P@triot

Just curious how many mountains of overwhelming evidence you can ignore in favor of toeing the party line?

Obama supporter miffed at botched healthcare rollout - latimes.com


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't you have a husband to nag?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't you have a rock you can crawl back under?
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't you have a slave to beat?
Click to expand...


It speaks volumes that you consider _gainful_, voluntary employment to be "slavery".

You have zero credibility my friend. These kind of outrageous statements that any rational person would be appalled at is doing more for the conservative cause than anything I could ever dream of doing...


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're not answering *why* you refuse to do your civic duty and provide six-figure jobs for people. Well?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did when I worked.  I'm now retired.
> 
> Like I said,  I created good paying jobs the only way they can be.  Innovative products from good employees satisfying customers.
> 
> That's the business of business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> PMZ - why do you continue to flat out lie? You and I both know you never hired one person out of your own pocket. Not once. So the question is, why didn't you?
Click to expand...


That wasn't the question now was it. 

You have this rock stuck in your head that in business only the owner of the means determines success. That's ludicrous. Workers satisfying customers with innovative goods and services is what causes growth and growth causes hiring.  I hired and fired.  Mostly hired because of growth.  Who wrote the paycheck was a mere detail.


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> I'm now retired.



You refused to do your civic duty while you worked and now you're using retirement as an excuse? Why don't you come out of retirement? Your country needs you now more than it ever did back when you worked.

Why won't you come out of retirement and create just a few six-figure jobs for people in your community? The nation is hurting. The Dumbocrats have collapsed the economy. I don't understand why you're not willing to step up to the plate for your nation?


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I did when I worked.  I'm now retired.
> 
> Like I said,  I created good paying jobs the only way they can be.  Innovative products from good employees satisfying customers.
> 
> That's the business of business.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ - why do you continue to flat out lie? You and I both know you never hired one person out of your own pocket. Not once. So the question is, why didn't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That wasn't the question now was it.
> 
> You have this rock stuck in your head that in business only the owner of the means determines success. That's ludicrous. Workers satisfying customers with innovative goods and services is what causes growth and growth causes hiring.  I hired and fired.  Mostly hired because of growth.  Who wrote the paycheck was a mere detail.
Click to expand...


You're being completely and thoroughly disingenuous again.

I never said that business is the only "means to determine success". Your claim is that business owners don't provide good paying jobs. I asked if you felt that way, why didn't you come to the rescue of your fellow citizen and provide those good paying jobs instead of demanding someone else do it (like a typical lazy Dumbocrat)? You _still_ haven't answered that question.

So one more time - why didn't you provide some well paying jobs to your fellow citizen?


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm now retired.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You refused to do your civic duty while you worked and now you're using retirement as an excuse? Why don't you come out of retirement? Your country needs you now more than it ever did back when you worked.
> 
> Why won't you come out of retirement and create just a few six-figure jobs for people in your community? The nation is hurting. The Dumbocrats have collapsed the economy. I don't understand why you're not willing to step up to the plate for your nation?
Click to expand...


Nor do I understand why you are trying to destroy the nation.


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ - why do you continue to flat out lie? You and I both know you never hired one person out of your own pocket. Not once. So the question is, why didn't you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That wasn't the question now was it.
> 
> You have this rock stuck in your head that in business only the owner of the means determines success. That's ludicrous. Workers satisfying customers with innovative goods and services is what causes growth and growth causes hiring.  I hired and fired.  Mostly hired because of growth.  Who wrote the paycheck was a mere detail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're being completely and thoroughly disingenuous again.
> 
> I never said that business is the only "means to determine success". Your claim is that business owners don't provide good paying jobs. I asked if you felt that way, why didn't you come to the rescue of your fellow citizen and provide those good paying jobs instead of demanding someone else do it (like a typical lazy Dumbocrat)? You _still_ haven't answered that question.
> 
> So one more time - why didn't you provide some well paying jobs to your fellow citizen?
Click to expand...


And I told you that I did "provide those good paying jobs". 

What we don't know is if you did.


----------



## BlackSand

PMZ said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't you have a husband to nag?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't you have a rock you can crawl back under?
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't you have a slave to beat?
Click to expand...


Well now that is a touchy subject ... Because I live on what was an old plantation in the South.
If I just take it at face value ... Well I know a few people that wouldn't mind correcting you behind the barn.

.


----------



## PMZ

BlackSand said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't you have a rock you can crawl back under?
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't you have a slave to beat?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well now that is a touchy subject ... Because I live on what was an old plantation in the South.
> If I just take it at face value ... Well I know a few people that wouldn't mind correcting you behind the barn.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


How did I guess that you were a dixiecrat.


----------



## BlackSand

PMZ said:


> How did I guess that you were a dixiecrat.



*I can tell you how you guessed that ... Because I am not Dixiecrat ... And none of your guesses are ever correct.*
I have already told you I am a Conservative with Strict Constructionist leanings ... You need to get your decoder ring fixed ... Because it doesn't understand English.

.


----------



## PMZ

BlackSand said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> How did I guess that you were a dixiecrat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I can tell you how you guessed that ... Because I am not Dixiecrat ... And none of your guesses are ever correct.*
> I have already told you I am a Conservative with Strict Constructionist leanings ... You need to get your decoder ring fixed ... Because it doesn't understand English.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


How come you act and think like a dixiecrat?

What's a Strict Constitutionist?


----------



## BlackSand

PMZ said:


> How come you act and think like a dixiecrat?



State where I act like a Dixiecrat ... Just point it out ... And try to actually answer the question.
I don't want any of your normal make believe garbage either ... Point to what I have said the indicates I am Dixiecrat.

.


----------



## PMZ

BlackSand said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> How come you act and think like a dixiecrat?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> State where I act like a Dixiecrat ... Just point it out ... And try to actually answer the question.
> I don't want any of your normal make believe garbage either ... Point to what I have said the indicates I am Dixiecrat.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


When are you going to answer my question? 

The issue that confounded our founders more than any was the relative power of state vs federal. 

The federalists won. 

The question came up again when the Confederacy challenged the Union.  The Union won.  

It came up again in the 60s when the federal government required equal rights for everyone and many southern States said that you aren't the boss of me.  Dixiecrats lost again. 

Whenever I hear people raising the same argument again,  for a weekened federal government, I just assume that it's another dixiecrat uprising.


----------



## BlackSand

PMZ said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> How come you act and think like a dixiecrat?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> State where I act like a Dixiecrat ... Just point it out ... And try to actually answer the question.
> I don't want any of your normal make believe garbage either ... Point to what I have said the indicates I am Dixiecrat.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When are you going to answer my question?
> 
> The issue that confounded our founders more than any was the relative power of state vs federal.
> 
> The federalists won.
> 
> The question came up again when the Confederacy challenged the Union.  The Union won.
> 
> It came up again in the 60s when the federal government required equal rights for everyone and many southern States said that you aren't the boss of me.  Dixiecrats lost again.
> 
> Whenever I hear people raising the same argument again,  for a weekened federal government, I just assume that it's another dixiecrat uprising.
Click to expand...


In the first place ... Dixiecrats were Democrats that switched to the Republican Party after the civil rights act was passed.
I wasn't alive when the Civil Rights Act was passed ... Much less the Civil War.

Now answer the question ... What have I posted that would even indicate I am a Dixiecrat.
Quit dodging or admit defeat.

.


----------



## Ernie S.

BlackSand said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet you allow the MSM's Liberal anchors to subtly influence you and tell you what issues to be upset about.
> You watch Katie Couric defend the indefensible, but O'Reilly's opinion is sinister? You really are a biased, hypocritical tool, aren't you?
> 
> NOW I am still waiting for you to show me which people have changed their hats.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Ernie ... If you haven't seen this, it is worth the watch.
> Watching Nancy Pelosi try to defend the ACA is funnier than PMZ ... It is worth the 6 plus minutes ... She completely falls apart and cannot answer the questions.
> David Gregory nails her down over and over ... And she is clueless.
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


I've seen it. It did make me smile.


----------



## BlackSand

Ernie S. said:


> I've seen it. It did make me smile.



Some of the Democrats are really not as dumb as they look ... But they stumble all over themselves trying to support something just to toe the line.
I often wonder what they say when they get home and away from the cameras ... I wonder how fond and appreciative they really are of the President when they get put through the grinder on his account.

.


----------



## Ernie S.

PMZ said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mainstream media. News.  I don't need other people's opinions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet you allow the MSM's Liberal anchors to subtly influence you and tell you what issues to be upset about.
> You watch Katie Couric defend the indefensible, but O'Reilly's opinion is sinister? You really are a biased, hypocritical tool, aren't you?
> 
> NOW I am still waiting for you to show me which people have changed their hats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mainstream media is news.  Factual reporting devoid of opinion.
> 
> Fox Opinions is just what Republicans wish was true with only the facts supportive of that thrown in.
Click to expand...


You go on believing that.
Fox opinion is opinion same as MSNBC opinion is opinion. Fox news is news with a somewhat right wing slant to it. Your MSM is biased left and several polls have shown that fox news casts are less biased to the right than MSM is to the left. THEN there are the stories critical of the Troika of obama/reid/pelosi that somehow are overlooked of MSM.


----------



## Ernie S.

PMZ said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have to run to the store. I anticipate a clear description of who has changed hats OR an admission you fucked up, when I return.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure why you're talking about hats all of a sudden.
Click to expand...


Different thread asshole, but I had your attention here.


----------



## PMZ

BlackSand said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> State where I act like a Dixiecrat ... Just point it out ... And try to actually answer the question.
> I don't want any of your normal make believe garbage either ... Point to what I have said the indicates I am Dixiecrat.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When are you going to answer my question?
> 
> The issue that confounded our founders more than any was the relative power of state vs federal.
> 
> The federalists won.
> 
> The question came up again when the Confederacy challenged the Union.  The Union won.
> 
> It came up again in the 60s when the federal government required equal rights for everyone and many southern States said that you aren't the boss of me.  Dixiecrats lost again.
> 
> Whenever I hear people raising the same argument again,  for a weekened federal government, I just assume that it's another dixiecrat uprising.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In the first place ... Dixiecrats were Democrats that switched to the Republican Party after the civil rights act was passed.
> I wasn't alive when the Civil Rights Act was passed ... Much less the Civil War.
> 
> Now answer the question ... What have I posted that would even indicate I am a Dixiecrat.
> Quit dodging or admit defeat.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


I'll admit it when it happens. 

When are you going to answer my question.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## PMZ

BlackSand said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> State where I act like a Dixiecrat ... Just point it out ... And try to actually answer the question.
> I don't want any of your normal make believe garbage either ... Point to what I have said the indicates I am Dixiecrat.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When are you going to answer my question?
> 
> The issue that confounded our founders more than any was the relative power of state vs federal.
> 
> The federalists won.
> 
> The question came up again when the Confederacy challenged the Union.  The Union won.
> 
> It came up again in the 60s when the federal government required equal rights for everyone and many southern States said that you aren't the boss of me.  Dixiecrats lost again.
> 
> Whenever I hear people raising the same argument again,  for a weekened federal government, I just assume that it's another dixiecrat uprising.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In the first place ... Dixiecrats were Democrats that switched to the Republican Party after the civil rights act was passed.
> I wasn't alive when the Civil Rights Act was passed ... Much less the Civil War.
> 
> Now answer the question ... What have I posted that would even indicate I am a Dixiecrat.
> Quit dodging or admit defeat.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


You're pretty thick tonight. 

Dixiecrats are states righters. Want a weak federal government. Sounds like you to me.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## BlackSand

PMZ said:


> I'll admit it when it happens.
> 
> When are you going to answer my question.



*A Strict Constructionist is someone that believes in the letter of the law as written.*

I gave you the short version seeing as you have difficulties with anything too complex.
If you want to discuss any aspect of that ... Then pose a question that makes some sense ... And I will do my best to answer it. 

Now if you don't want to admit that you cannot find anything that indicates I am a Dixiecrat ... Then that is fine with me. 
I am well aware of what that means dealing with you ... And you don't really strike me a s someone who would admit to their failures anyway.

.


----------



## PMZ

BlackSand said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll admit it when it happens.
> 
> When are you going to answer my question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *A Strict Constructionist is someone that believes in the letter of the law as written.*
> 
> I gave you the short version seeing as you have difficulties with anything too complex.
> If you want to discuss any aspect of that ... Then pose a question that makes some sense ... And I will do my best to answer it.
> 
> Now if you don't want to admit that you cannot find anything that indicates I am a Dixiecrat ... Then that is fine with me.
> I am well aware of what that means dealing with you ... And you don't really strike me a s someone who would admit to their failures anyway.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


You and I have something in common. I'm apparently a Strict Constructionist, but I thought that you were one of those who wants a different interpretation of the Constitution than the one that SCOTUS arrived at.


----------



## PMZ

BlackSand said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll admit it when it happens.
> 
> When are you going to answer my question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *A Strict Constructionist is someone that believes in the letter of the law as written.*
> 
> I gave you the short version seeing as you have difficulties with anything too complex.
> If you want to discuss any aspect of that ... Then pose a question that makes some sense ... And I will do my best to answer it.
> 
> Now if you don't want to admit that you cannot find anything that indicates I am a Dixiecrat ... Then that is fine with me.
> I am well aware of what that means dealing with you ... And you don't really strike me a s someone who would admit to their failures anyway.
> 
> .
Click to expand...



You're not an advocate of a weakened federal government?


----------



## BlackSand

PMZ said:


> You're pretty thick tonight.
> Dixiecrats are states righters. Want a weak federal government. Sounds like you to me.



So now you want to say I am a Democrat ... Not to mention I wasn't alive in 1948 either?
Dixiecrats were Democrats and desired to protect State's Rights ... But they also supported Jim Crow laws and segregation ... Neither of which I have even hinted at supporting.
The Dixiecrats shifted to the republican party after the Civil Rights Act was passed as I have already stated.
Now of that could possibly apply to me ... because I wasn't born yet.

Between the two of us ... You are the person that thinks some people cannot perform better and improve their lives ... Not me.
You and your ideas treat Americans as second class citizens ... When you try to suggest they are incapable of survival without welfare.

Of course that doesn't make you a Dixiecrat ... It puts you more in line with Progressive Liberals ... Because with you (like me) race is not a determining factor.

.


----------



## Geaux4it

Obama is more than a failure, that is being to kind. Obama is simply inept and incompetent on many levels. 

Makes America look weak

-Geaux


----------



## BlackSand

PMZ said:


> You're not an advocate of a weakened federal government?



Do you know what a Conservative is?

.


----------



## BlackSand

PMZ said:


> You and I have something in common. I'm apparently a Strict Constructionist, but I thought that you were one of those who wants a different interpretation of the Constitution than the one that SCOTUS arrived at.



If that is what you think ... Then you still don't understand what a Strict Constructionist is.
Don't worry though ... Progressive Liberals hate them ... And mainly because Strict Constructionists don't view the Constitution as a "living breathing document".

.


----------



## Antares

BlackSand said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're not an advocate of a weakened federal government?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know what a Conservative is?
> 
> .
Click to expand...


No, it doesn't.
It has this contruct in its head and it just keeps repeating the mantra time after time.
It contructs its own truth and the parameters by which it decides what truth is.


----------



## PMZ

BlackSand said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're pretty thick tonight.
> Dixiecrats are states righters. Want a weak federal government. Sounds like you to me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So now you want to say I am a Democrat ... Not to mention I wasn't alive in 1948 either?
> Dixiecrats were Democrats and desired to protect State's Rights ... But they also supported Jim Crow laws and segregation ... Neither of which I have even hinted at supporting.
> The Dixiecrats shifted to the republican party after the Civil Rights Act was passed as I have already stated.
> Now of that could possibly apply to me ... because I wasn't born yet.
> 
> Between the two of us ... You are the person that thinks some people cannot perform better and improve their lives ... Not me.
> You and your ideas treat Americans as second class citizens ... When you try to suggest they are incapable of survival without welfare.
> 
> Of course that doesn't make you a Dixiecrat ... It puts you more in line with Progressive Liberals ... Because with you (like me) race is not a determining factor.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


I asked if you were an advocate of weakened federal government. What I got was a bunch of BS but no answer. 

While you are avoiding that answer here's another to avoid. 

You took the propaganda road and spoke for me by saying "You and your ideas treat Americans as second class citizens ... When you try to suggest they are incapable of survival without welfare."

Yesterday I said the solution to poverty was a good paying job for all of America's residents who want one. 

You said no, not possible. What they need is a hand up. Since then I've been looking all over for this magic hand up. It seems as elusive as all conservative solutions. It sounds different than do nothing but nobody seems to know how it differs.


----------



## PMZ

Antares said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're not an advocate of a weakened federal government?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know what a Conservative is?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it doesn't.
> It has this contruct in its head and it just keeps repeating the mantra time after time.
> It contructs its own truth and the parameters by which it decides what truth is.
Click to expand...


Your post is reminiscent of Jabberwocky. Did you really mean to put these words together?


----------



## BlackSand

Antares said:


> No, it doesn't.
> It has this contruct in its head and it just keeps repeating the mantra time after time.
> It contructs its own truth and the parameters by which it decides what truth is.



Actually ... I figured as long as I can keep PMZ busy here ... And bripat keeps knocking PMZ around in the "fair share" thread ... We are both doing the rest of the USMB community a favor keeping the poor thing far away from any decent discussion.

*But I cannot argue with your entire assessment of PMZ.*

.


----------



## PMZ

BlackSand said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it doesn't.
> It has this contruct in its head and it just keeps repeating the mantra time after time.
> It contructs its own truth and the parameters by which it decides what truth is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually ... I figured as long as I can keep PMZ busy here ... And bripat keeps knocking PMZ around in the "fair share" thread ... We are both dong the rest of the USMB community a favor keeping the poor thing far away from any decent discussion.
> 
> *But I cannot argue with your entire assessment of PMZ.*
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Dance, Bo, dance.


----------



## percysunshine

Antares said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're not an advocate of a weakened federal government?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know what a Conservative is?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it doesn't.
> It has this contruct in its head and it just keeps repeating the mantra time after time.
> It contructs its own truth and the parameters by which it decides what truth is.
Click to expand...


Sort of like Nancy Pelosi?

.


----------



## BlackSand

PMZ said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're pretty thick tonight.
> Dixiecrats are states righters. Want a weak federal government. Sounds like you to me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So now you want to say I am a Democrat ... Not to mention I wasn't alive in 1948 either?
> Dixiecrats were Democrats and desired to protect State's Rights ... But they also supported Jim Crow laws and segregation ... Neither of which I have even hinted at supporting.
> The Dixiecrats shifted to the republican party after the Civil Rights Act was passed as I have already stated.
> Now of that could possibly apply to me ... because I wasn't born yet.
> 
> Between the two of us ... You are the person that thinks some people cannot perform better and improve their lives ... Not me.
> You and your ideas treat Americans as second class citizens ... When you try to suggest they are incapable of survival without welfare.
> 
> Of course that doesn't make you a Dixiecrat ... It puts you more in line with Progressive Liberals ... Because with you (like me) race is not a determining factor.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I asked if you were an advocate of weakened federal government. What I got was a bunch of BS but no answer.
> 
> While you are avoiding that answer here's another to avoid.
> 
> You took the propaganda road and spoke for me by saying "You and your ideas treat Americans as second class citizens ... When you try to suggest they are incapable of survival without welfare."
> 
> Yesterday I said the solution to poverty was a good paying job for all of America's residents who want one.
> 
> You said no, not possible. What they need is a hand up. Since then I've been looking all over for this magic hand up. It seems as elusive as all conservative solutions. It sounds different than do nothing but nobody seems to know how it differs.
Click to expand...


You suggested that the only way Americans could get a better paying job was to pay them more for doing the same thing ... Including minimum wage ... And I most certainly disagreed with that.
At the same time ... That means you don't think they are capable of getting a better job that pays more.
Your desire to keep Americans in a minimum wage job ... And simply pay them more ... Is treating them like second class citizens ... And not worth the effort to assist in finding something better.

The problem with your ... _"I have been looking all over for the magic hand up" _... Is that you don't have clue where to look.
The simplest place to look is within yourself ... And get to the job of actually helping people.
Beyond that ... The Workforce Investment Act was passed into law in 1998 ... And is already funded by the government as well as supported by private institutions and community members.
Provisions in the WIA make it extremely favorable for low income earners to achieve higher skill sets ... And to the extent that they are completely free for low income earners and people on unemployment.

As far as _"weakening the Federal Government"_ ... Well that is a pipedream outside of a great overhaul that I don't see happening anytime soon.
As a Conservative now ... I am faced with the obligation to see that we don't keep surrendering more power to the government ... Giving them more control over things to screw up.

.


----------



## BlackSand

PMZ said:


> Dance, Bo, dance.



Just keep playing the music Peanut ... I am enjoying myself.

.


----------



## PMZ

BlackSand said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> So now you want to say I am a Democrat ... Not to mention I wasn't alive in 1948 either?
> Dixiecrats were Democrats and desired to protect State's Rights ... But they also supported Jim Crow laws and segregation ... Neither of which I have even hinted at supporting.
> The Dixiecrats shifted to the republican party after the Civil Rights Act was passed as I have already stated.
> Now of that could possibly apply to me ... because I wasn't born yet.
> 
> Between the two of us ... You are the person that thinks some people cannot perform better and improve their lives ... Not me.
> You and your ideas treat Americans as second class citizens ... When you try to suggest they are incapable of survival without welfare.
> 
> Of course that doesn't make you a Dixiecrat ... It puts you more in line with Progressive Liberals ... Because with you (like me) race is not a determining factor.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I asked if you were an advocate of weakened federal government. What I got was a bunch of BS but no answer.
> 
> While you are avoiding that answer here's another to avoid.
> 
> You took the propaganda road and spoke for me by saying "You and your ideas treat Americans as second class citizens ... When you try to suggest they are incapable of survival without welfare."
> 
> Yesterday I said the solution to poverty was a good paying job for all of America's residents who want one.
> 
> You said no, not possible. What they need is a hand up. Since then I've been looking all over for this magic hand up. It seems as elusive as all conservative solutions. It sounds different than do nothing but nobody seems to know how it differs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You suggested that the only way Americans could get a better paying job was to pay them more for doing the same thing ... Including minimum wage ... And I most certainly disagreed with that.
> At the same time ... That means you don't think they are capable of getting a better job that pays more.
> Your desire to keep Americans in a minimum wage job ... And simply pay them more ... Is treating them like second class citizens ... And not worth the effort to assist in finding something better.
> 
> The problem with your ... _"I have been looking all over for the magic hand up" _... is that you don't have clue where to look.
> The simplest place to look is within yourself ... And get to the job of actually helping people.
> Beyond that ... The Workforce Investment Act was passed into law in 1998 ... And is already funded by the government as well as supported by private institutions and community members.
> provisions in the WIA make it extremely favorable for low income earners to achieve higher skill sets ... And to the extent that they are completely free for low income earners and people on unemployment.
> 
> As far as _"weakening the Federal Government"_ ... Well that is a pipedream outside of a great overhaul that I don't see happening anytime soon.
> As a Conservative now ... I am faced with the obligation to see that we don't keep surrendering more power to the government ... Giving them more control over things to screw up.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


So a hand up out of poverty is to keep wages low and make up for it with government welfare.

If I "look within myself" there's no poverty. I got educated and worked hard and saved and retired. Part of being retired is helping feed the homeless and build HFH homes. 

I assume that there's not a single person in America that doesn't know about volunteering to help people. Not one. It is what it is.

So we're back to do nothing. Hope the problem goes away.

Add to that "I am faced with the obligation to see that we don't keep surrendering more power to the government ... Giving them more control over things to screw up."

That adds up to doing nothing privately or publicly. Run away from all problems. 

The conservative recipe for a successful country.

Does that formula work well in business and religion too?


----------



## BlackSand

PMZ said:


> So a hand up out of poverty is to keep wages low and make up for it with government welfare.
> 
> If I "look within myself" there's no poverty. I got educated and worked hard and saved and retired. Part of being retired is helping feed the homeless and build HFH homes.
> 
> I assume that there's not a single person in America that doesn't know about volunteering to help people. Not one. It is what it is.
> 
> So we're back to do nothing. Hope the problem goes away.
> 
> Add to that "I am faced with the obligation to see that we don't keep surrendering more power to the government ... Giving them more control over things to screw up."
> 
> That adds up to doing nothing privately or publicly. Run away from all problems.
> 
> The conservative recipe for a successful country.
> 
> Does that formula work well in business and religion too?



The WIA doesn't pay you to do nothing ... It affords you the opportunity to improve your life forever ... Didn't figure you would understand that.
The way you change things is to change them ... And keeping wages low is not necessarily good ... But as a conservative it is none of the government's business ... Didn't figure you would understand that either.
The fact that you look to the government to fix problems when most people (certainly not you) could do a better job assisting others more effectively and efficiently by doing it themselves ... Is why Progressive Liberal plans are a failure and never fix anything.

The only people doing nothing are people like you ... Who pass your responsibilities off to the government ... Blame others for your failures ... And then think you sound smart doing it.

Of course proactive investment works in business ... As well as community involvement.
The more a business does for the community, its employees and the environment ... The more comes back to it.
Hell ... Investing in the community is the best thing a private business can do on its own ... And the money will flow back in without any help from the government.
But really ... You already know that ... You were some big-wig Design Engineer and Manager for such an awesome business.
You have to know what you were saying is a crock of crap ... Or maybe you were just a schmuck they could puppet around. 

.


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm now retired.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You refused to do your civic duty while you worked and now you're using retirement as an excuse? Why don't you come out of retirement? Your country needs you now more than it ever did back when you worked.
> 
> Why won't you come out of retirement and create just a few six-figure jobs for people in your community? The nation is hurting. The Dumbocrats have collapsed the economy. I don't understand why you're not willing to step up to the plate for your nation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nor do I understand why you are trying to destroy the nation.
Click to expand...


Do you realize that when it occurs to you that your blind ideology is wrong, you throw a tantrum like a small child? Once you are up against a point that you have no intelligent response for (which is about 95%), you just throw out nonsense that doesn't even apply.

The only thing I've ever advocated is Constitutional government. If that's your idea of "destroy" the nation, well, you're even more unhinged than I realized.


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> That wasn't the question now was it.
> 
> You have this rock stuck in your head that in business only the owner of the means determines success. That's ludicrous. Workers satisfying customers with innovative goods and services is what causes growth and growth causes hiring.  I hired and fired.  Mostly hired because of growth.  Who wrote the paycheck was a mere detail.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're being completely and thoroughly disingenuous again.
> 
> I never said that business is the only "means to determine success". Your claim is that business owners don't provide good paying jobs. I asked if you felt that way, why didn't you come to the rescue of your fellow citizen and provide those good paying jobs instead of demanding someone else do it (like a typical lazy Dumbocrat)? You _still_ haven't answered that question.
> 
> So one more time - why didn't you provide some well paying jobs to your fellow citizen?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I told you that I did "provide those good paying jobs".
> 
> What we don't know is if you did.
Click to expand...


No, you didn't PMZ. You've never hired one single person out of your own pocket and you know it. Working on an assembly line and deluding yourself into thinking that your somehow providing a job is asinine beyond words.

You've never hired any full time employee out of your own pocket and you know it. So why not? Because you're a typical Dumbocrat who only takes but never gives back? If I'm wrong, then please tell us why (the fact that you can't after 30 pages now speaks volumes).


----------



## P@triot

BlackSand said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet you allow the MSM's Liberal anchors to subtly influence you and tell you what issues to be upset about.
> You watch Katie Couric defend the indefensible, but O'Reilly's opinion is sinister? You really are a biased, hypocritical tool, aren't you?
> 
> NOW I am still waiting for you to show me which people have changed their hats.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Ernie ... If you haven't seen this, it is worth the watch.
> Watching Nancy Pelosi try to defend the ACA is funnier than PMZ ... It is worth the 6 plus minutes ... She completely falls apart and cannot answer the questions.
> David Gregory nails her down over and over ... And she is clueless.
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Listening to this _ultra_ stupid bitch parrot her talking points over and over is simply mind-numbing.

Nancy...sweetie...how can you crow about "accessible" healthcare when 5 million people have had their existing health insurance cancelled? :bang:

Nancy...baby...how can you crow about "affordable" when everyone's health insurance has skyrocketed to cover the cost of this nightmare?!? :bang:


----------



## RKMBrown

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're being completely and thoroughly disingenuous again.
> 
> I never said that business is the only "means to determine success". Your claim is that business owners don't provide good paying jobs. I asked if you felt that way, why didn't you come to the rescue of your fellow citizen and provide those good paying jobs instead of demanding someone else do it (like a typical lazy Dumbocrat)? You _still_ haven't answered that question.
> 
> So one more time - why didn't you provide some well paying jobs to your fellow citizen?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I told you that I did "provide those good paying jobs".
> 
> What we don't know is if you did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you didn't PMZ. You've never hired one single person out of your own pocket and you know it. Working on an assembly line and deluding yourself into thinking that your somehow providing a job is asinine beyond words.
> 
> You've never hired any full time employee out of your own pocket and you know it. So why not? Because you're a typical Dumbocrat who only takes but never gives back? If I'm wrong, then please tell us why (the fact that you can't after 30 pages now speaks volumes).
Click to expand...


Yeah but don't you just love how he minimized the people that paid the paychecks.  Yeah those people are shit, it was all about him cause he was paid by these shits to hire and fire a few shits. Still waiting to find out if it's Princess MZ or Prince MZ.


----------



## P@triot

RKMBrown said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I told you that I did "provide those good paying jobs".
> 
> What we don't know is if you did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you didn't PMZ. You've never hired one single person out of your own pocket and you know it. Working on an assembly line and deluding yourself into thinking that your somehow providing a job is asinine beyond words.
> 
> You've never hired any full time employee out of your own pocket and you know it. So why not? Because you're a typical Dumbocrat who only takes but never gives back? If I'm wrong, then please tell us why (the fact that you can't after 30 pages now speaks volumes).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah but don't you just love how he minimized the people that paid the paychecks.  Yeah those people are shit, it was all about him cause he was paid by these shits to hire and fire a few shits. Still waiting to find out if it's Princess MZ or Prince MZ.
Click to expand...


Well, that's exactly my point RKM. This asshole has bashed people who provide jobs, yet he has NEVER provided a single job to anyone in his entire life.

How do someone sit on their fat lazy ass bashing hard working people for not providing "living wage" jobs when that someone has NEVER provided even ONE "living wage" job?!? 

It's the most absurd thing I can imagine and it illustrates the idiocy _and_ the entitlement mentality of the worthless Dumbocrat.


----------



## P@triot

Ok PMZ - tell us again that despite the thousands of new stories chronicling the millions of people who have lost their health insurance, Obamacare is still a "great" bill... 

Ex-Secret Service agent loses insurance under Obamacare: 'This is a betrayal' - Washington Times


----------



## PMZ

BlackSand said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> So a hand up out of poverty is to keep wages low and make up for it with government welfare.
> 
> If I "look within myself" there's no poverty. I got educated and worked hard and saved and retired. Part of being retired is helping feed the homeless and build HFH homes.
> 
> I assume that there's not a single person in America that doesn't know about volunteering to help people. Not one. It is what it is.
> 
> So we're back to do nothing. Hope the problem goes away.
> 
> Add to that "I am faced with the obligation to see that we don't keep surrendering more power to the government ... Giving them more control over things to screw up."
> 
> That adds up to doing nothing privately or publicly. Run away from all problems.
> 
> The conservative recipe for a successful country.
> 
> Does that formula work well in business and religion too?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The WIA doesn't pay you to do nothing ... It affords you the opportunity to improve your life forever ... Didn't figure you would understand that.
> The way you change things is to change them ... And keeping wages low is not necessarily good ... But as a conservative it is none of the government's business ... Didn't figure you would understand that either.
> The fact that you look to the government to fix problems when most people (certainly not you) could do a better job assisting others more effectively and efficiently by doing it themselves ... Is why Progressive Liberal plans are a failure and never fix anything.
> 
> The only people doing nothing are people like you ... Who pass your responsibilities off to the government ... Blame others for your failures ... And then think you sound smart doing it.
> 
> Of course proactive investment works in business ... As well as community involvement.
> The more a business does for the community, its employees and the environment ... The more comes back to it.
> Hell ... Investing in the community is the best thing a private business can do on its own ... And the money will flow back in without any help from the government.
> But really ... You already know that ... You were some big-wig Design Engineer and Manager for such an awesome business.
> You have to know what you were saying is a crock of crap ... Or maybe you were just a schmuck they could puppet around.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


There absolutely nothing limiting any private effort to relieve poverty.  So,  whatever is going on now,  is what we have.  It's not working. 

Now you can say that a miracle will occur and private efforts will redouble,  but there is no reason to even hope for that. 

So,  you say eliminate welfare,  and that will inspire the poverty stricken. Inspire them to what? A minimum wage job that won't pay the bills? Where is that going? 

The fact that we all pay taxes for welfare and the country is in debt has one solution.  Economic growth. Business is the only solution and so far,  they've failed us.


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> You refused to do your civic duty while you worked and now you're using retirement as an excuse? Why don't you come out of retirement? Your country needs you now more than it ever did back when you worked.
> 
> Why won't you come out of retirement and create just a few six-figure jobs for people in your community? The nation is hurting. The Dumbocrats have collapsed the economy. I don't understand why you're not willing to step up to the plate for your nation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nor do I understand why you are trying to destroy the nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you realize that when it occurs to you that your blind ideology is wrong, you throw a tantrum like a small child? Once you are up against a point that you have no intelligent response for (which is about 95%), you just throw out nonsense that doesn't even apply.
> 
> The only thing I've ever advocated is Constitutional government. If that's your idea of "destroy" the nation, well, you're even more unhinged than I realized.
Click to expand...


Conservative government brought us as close to national bankruptcy as we have ever been.  Yet you advocate for a return 

ARE YOU NUTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> Ok PMZ - tell us again that despite the thousands of new stories chronicling the millions of people who have lost their health insurance, Obamacare is still a "great" bill...
> 
> Ex-Secret Service agent loses insurance under Obamacare: 'This is a betrayal' - Washington Times



Lots of conservative crocodile tears about people losing policies that didn't protect them from medical bankruptcy.


----------



## BlackSand

PMZ said:


> There absolutely nothing limiting any private effort to relieve poverty.  So,  whatever is going on now,  is what we have.  It's not working.
> 
> Now you can say that a miracle will occur and private efforts will redouble,  but there is no reason to even hope for that.
> 
> So,  you say eliminate welfare,  and that will inspire the poverty stricken. Inspire them to what? A minimum wage job that won't pay the bills? Where is that going?
> 
> The fact that we all pay taxes for welfare and the country is in debt has one solution.  Economic growth. Business is the only solution and so far,  they've failed us.



You cannot say it isn't working when it works every day ... And the only place nothing is working is where Progressive Liberals are involved ... And trying to make something that doesn't work fix a problem they can never solve with the government.
I didn't say a damn thing about miracles ... I said private Businesses see a benefit in growth, resources and revenues when they invest in the community ... And they do, but it comes from actually doing something not the government.
I didn't say anything about eliminating welfare ... I said you are a sorry person for thinking it is an acceptable recourse ... And that it is what you use as an excuse to shirk your responsibilities.
We don't all pay income taxes ... Punishing economic growth certainly doesn't encourage it ... Businesses and the actual people who run them are a great benefit and don't need approval or agreement from you to accomplish anything.

.


----------



## PMZ

BlackSand said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> There absolutely nothing limiting any private effort to relieve poverty.  So,  whatever is going on now,  is what we have.  It's not working.
> 
> Now you can say that a miracle will occur and private efforts will redouble,  but there is no reason to even hope for that.
> 
> So,  you say eliminate welfare,  and that will inspire the poverty stricken. Inspire them to what? A minimum wage job that won't pay the bills? Where is that going?
> 
> The fact that we all pay taxes for welfare and the country is in debt has one solution.  Economic growth. Business is the only solution and so far,  they've failed us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot say it isn't working when it works every day ... And the only place nothing is working is where Progressive Liberals are involved ... And trying to make something that doesn't work fix a problem they can never solve with the government.
> I didn't say a damn thing about miracles ... I said private Businesses see a benefit in growth, resources and revenues when they invest in the community ... And they do, but it comes from actually doing something not the government.
> I didn't say anything about eliminating welfare ... I said you are a sorry person for thinking it is an acceptable recourse ... And that it is what you use as an excuse to shirk your responsibilities.
> We don't all pay income taxes ... Punishing economic growth certainly doesn't encourage it ... Businesses and the actual people who run them are a great benefit and don't need approval or agreement from you to accomplish anything.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Hear that people?  The problem.  Business wants to use you to make executives lavishly wealthy.  The ratio between your wages and theirs make slavery look egalitarian.  You create the wealth,  they get it.  You get a wage that you can't live on unless everyone in the family works two jobs. They get the choice between the mansion in the mountains,  the mansion at the shore,  or the city mansion.  The chauffeur needs to know by noon. 

Work hard. They sit on their fat asses in corinthian leather office chairs with a view,  in air conditioned splendor while you have to get permission to go to the bathroom.  

If you say a word about anything you are out in the street.  And your name will be passed around the country club bar and you'll never work again.


----------



## Ernie S.

PMZ said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> " It still amazes me that you talk about freedom and the ability to enjoy your own thoughts.
> You talk about _"living in the best governed country in the world"._
> I mean face it ... If it is so great ... Then why the hell do you want to screw it up by changing it with your stupid thoughts and ideas?"
> 
> You're the one that wants to change it back to what was a demonstrable failure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You refuse to acknowledge that many believe that the changed made recently are for the worse and changing it back is for the better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only people with zero memory would want to return to 2007-2009.
Click to expand...

You mean when Reid and Pelosi took over Congress? Heaven forbid!


----------



## Ernie S.

PMZ said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> How did I guess that you were a dixiecrat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I can tell you how you guessed that ... Because I am not Dixiecrat ... And none of your guesses are ever correct.*
> I have already told you I am a Conservative with Strict Constructionist leanings ... You need to get your decoder ring fixed ... Because it doesn't understand English.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How come you act and think like a dixiecrat?
> 
> What's a Strict Constitutionist?
Click to expand...


Who the fuck knows? It's your word, asshole. She said she was a Strict *Constructionist.*


----------



## Ernie S.

PMZ said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> How come you act and think like a dixiecrat?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> State where I act like a Dixiecrat ... Just point it out ... And try to actually answer the question.
> I don't want any of your normal make believe garbage either ... Point to what I have said the indicates I am Dixiecrat.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *When are you going to answer my question?
> *
> The issue that confounded our founders more than any was the relative power of state vs federal.
> 
> The federalists won.
> 
> The question came up again when the Confederacy challenged the Union.  The Union won.
> 
> It came up again in the 60s when the federal government required equal rights for everyone and many southern States said that you aren't the boss of me.  Dixiecrats lost again.
> 
> Whenever I hear people raising the same argument again,  for a weekened federal government, I just assume that it's another dixiecrat uprising.
Click to expand...

No one is going to answer your bullshit questions until you start answering some posed to you. You accuse someone of being a "Dixiecrat" and when they tell you what they are, chide them for not answering. "I am a strict Constructionist." is an answer. Whether or not is supports your warped agenda is irrelevant.

Once again you have responded to a demand for evidence like you always respond to demands or questions; by puffing out your chest and going off on a friggin tangent. 
You're either afraid to answer, or you are ignorant, possible both. If you ever gave a direct answer, perhaps we would know for sure.


----------



## Ernie S.

BlackSand said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've seen it. It did make me smile.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some of the Democrats are really not as dumb as they look ... But they stumble all over themselves trying to support something just to toe the line.
> I often wonder what they say when they get home and away from the cameras ... I wonder how fond and appreciative they really are of the President when they get put through the grinder on his account.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


I'm sure some are angered by the ass kicking they get, but there are some, likely PMS included, that have no idea they're being played. My greatest fear is that they are sure they are right.
I really can't blame people who are living off Liberal largess for voting for Democrats, but I have no respect for people who demand I pay to support freeloaders and ever increasing numbers of public sector employees, but show no charity at home.

Getting this guy to answer a question id like trying to nail Jello to the wall. He is beginning to bore me.


----------



## Ernie S.

PMZ said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know what a Conservative is?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it doesn't.
> It has this contruct in its head and it just keeps repeating the mantra time after time.
> It contructs its own truth and the parameters by which it decides what truth is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your post is reminiscent of Jabberwocky. Did you really mean to put these words together?
Click to expand...


When will you realize that we will not allow you to avoid what you cannot answer to with hyperbole?


----------



## BlackSand

PMZ said:


> Hear that people?  The problem.  Business wants to use you to make executives lavishly wealthy.  The ratio between your wages and theirs make slavery look egalitarian.  You create the wealth,  they get it.  You get a wage that you can't live on unless everyone in the family works two jobs. They get the choice between the mansion in the mountains,  the mansion at the shore,  or the city mansion.  The chauffeur needs to know by noon.
> 
> Work hard. They sit on their fat asses in corinthian leather office chairs with a view,  in air conditioned splendor while you have to get permission to go to the bathroom.
> 
> If you say a word about anything you are out in the street.  And your name will be passed around the country club bar and you'll never work again.



*Yeah People ... Even in PMZ's convoluted description ... The choice remains the same.*

Do you want to be paid a little more money to remain the slave ... Or do you want to advance your career to a point where you can earn enough money to escape the slavery?
Once you advance to a place that you own your abilities ... Then you have the opportunity to use what you know and what you earn to do what you know is right I ... Instead of the crap PMZ supports that creates the scenario that is so hated.

*The choice is yours People ... Be a pawn, a slave or a political puppet for people who want to keep you where you are ... And are willing to bribe you to do so. 
Or set yourself free and do what you know is right ... With whatever the government leaves you and isn't wasting the other way.*

.


----------



## PMZ

Ernie is a wonderful poster boy for the right.  He portrays their dark soul as well as anyone. 

I hope that people at the polls,  exercising the right that makes us free, remember Ernie,  and,  think,  do I want the Ernie's of the world determining our future?  Do we want to sentence our kids and grandchildren to Ernieworld?


----------



## Meister

PMZ said:


> Ernie is a wonderful poster boy for the right.  He portrays their dark soul as well as anyone.
> 
> I hope that people at the polls,  exercising the right that makes us free, remember Ernie,  and,  think,  do I want the Ernie's of the world determining our future?  Do we want to sentence our kids and grandchildren to Ernieworld?



You're a poster child for socialism, PMZ.
 People at the polls do what's best for them and their families for the most part, and most of the time see through the trees to see the forest.

I have no idea what all your drivel is about Ernie, seems that he butthurt you.....man up and take some Tylenol.


----------



## PMZ

Meister said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie is a wonderful poster boy for the right.  He portrays their dark soul as well as anyone.
> 
> I hope that people at the polls,  exercising the right that makes us free, remember Ernie,  and,  think,  do I want the Ernie's of the world determining our future?  Do we want to sentence our kids and grandchildren to Ernieworld?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're a poster child for socialism, PMZ.
> People at the polls do what's best for them and their families for the most part, and most of the time see through the trees to see the forest.
> 
> I have no idea what all your drivel is about Ernie, seems that he butthurt you.....man up and take some Tylenol.
Click to expand...


Apparently,  you don't read Ernie's posts. 

"You're a poster child for socialism, PMZ."

Apparently,  you don't read mine either. 

Let me say it again. 

Capitalism is the most effective economic system when regulated and in a competitive market. 

It is the most ineffective economic system otherwise. 

That is just plain common sense.


----------



## Meister

PMZ said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie is a wonderful poster boy for the right.  He portrays their dark soul as well as anyone.
> 
> I hope that people at the polls,  exercising the right that makes us free, remember Ernie,  and,  think,  do I want the Ernie's of the world determining our future?  Do we want to sentence our kids and grandchildren to Ernieworld?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're a poster child for socialism, PMZ.
> People at the polls do what's best for them and their families for the most part, and most of the time see through the trees to see the forest.
> 
> I have no idea what all your drivel is about Ernie, seems that he butthurt you.....man up and take some Tylenol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently,  you don't read Ernie's posts.
> 
> "You're a poster child for socialism, PMZ."
> 
> Apparently,  you don't read mine either.
> 
> Let me say it again.
> 
> Capitalism is the most effective economic system when regulated and in a competitive market.
> 
> It is the most ineffective economic system otherwise.
> 
> That is just plain common sense.
Click to expand...


You must not read your own posts then.


----------



## PMZ

Meister said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're a poster child for socialism, PMZ.
> People at the polls do what's best for them and their families for the most part, and most of the time see through the trees to see the forest.
> 
> I have no idea what all your drivel is about Ernie, seems that he butthurt you.....man up and take some Tylenol.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently,  you don't read Ernie's posts.
> 
> "You're a poster child for socialism, PMZ."
> 
> Apparently,  you don't read mine either.
> 
> Let me say it again.
> 
> Capitalism is the most effective economic system when regulated and in a competitive market.
> 
> It is the most ineffective economic system otherwise.
> 
> That is just plain common sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You must not read your own posts then.
Click to expand...


We need to make some rules here.  The ones that most people follow is that I a speak for me,  and you for you.  

If you want to reverse that,  we can,  but we both need to be playing the same game.


----------



## BlackSand

PMZ said:


> We need to make some rules here.  The ones that most people follow is that I a speak for me,  and you for you.
> 
> If you want to reverse that,  we can,  but we both need to be playing the same game.



Holy Crap ... You speak in Hyperbole for people who aren't here ... And convolute whatever someone here says to suit your own nefarious intentions.
When the people that are here strip your ideas naked ... And leave you bruised and battered in the gutter ... You pretend they cannot understand what you write ... When you don't understand the implications of what you write yourself.

*If you want to change the world ... Or even start setting ground rules ... Start with the person you see in the mirror.*

.


----------



## dblack

BlackSand said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> We need to make some rules here.  The ones that most people follow is that I a speak for me,  and you for you.
> 
> If you want to reverse that,  we can,  but we both need to be playing the same game.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Holy Crap ... You speak in Hyperbole for people who aren't here ... And convolute whatever someone here says to suit your own nefarious intentions.
> When the people that are here strip your ideas naked ... And leave you bruised and battered in the gutter ... You pretend they cannot understand what you write ... When you don't understand what you write yourself.
> 
> *If you want to change the world ... Or even start setting ground rules ... Start with the person you see in the mirror.*
> 
> .
Click to expand...


You mean that creepy looking guy I always see over my shoulder, but then when I turn around he's not there? Shit freaks me out....


----------



## PMZ

BlackSand said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> We need to make some rules here.  The ones that most people follow is that I a speak for me,  and you for you.
> 
> If you want to reverse that,  we can,  but we both need to be playing the same game.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Holy Crap ... You speak in Hyperbole for people who aren't here ... And convolute whatever someone here says to suit your own nefarious intentions.
> When the people that are here strip your ideas naked ... And leave you bruised and battered in the gutter ... You pretend they cannot understand what you write ... When you don't understand what you write yourself.
> 
> *If you want to change the world ... Or even start setting ground rules ... Start with the person you see in the mirror.*
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Wake up peanut,  you're dreaming again.


----------



## PMZ

dblack said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> We need to make some rules here.  The ones that most people follow is that I a speak for me,  and you for you.
> 
> If you want to reverse that,  we can,  but we both need to be playing the same game.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Holy Crap ... You speak in Hyperbole for people who aren't here ... And convolute whatever someone here says to suit your own nefarious intentions.
> When the people that are here strip your ideas naked ... And leave you bruised and battered in the gutter ... You pretend they cannot understand what you write ... When you don't understand what you write yourself.
> 
> *If you want to change the world ... Or even start setting ground rules ... Start with the person you see in the mirror.*
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean that creepy looking guy I always see over my shoulder, but then when I turn around he's not there? Shit freaks me out....
Click to expand...


That guy's your conscience. Listen to him.


----------



## BlackSand

PMZ said:


> Wake up peanut,  you're dreaming again.



About what ... What am I dreaming?
If you are going to say it ... Know what the hell you are saying.

.


----------



## PMZ

BlackSand said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wake up peanut,  you're dreaming again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> About what ... What am I dreaming?
> If you are going to say it ... Know what the hell you are saying.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


You're dreaming of winning here.


----------



## BlackSand

PMZ said:


> You're dreaming of winning here.



Winning what ... And how does one go about winning it?

.


----------



## PMZ

BlackSand said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're dreaming of winning here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Winning what ... And how does one go about winning it?
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Now you're just being obtuse.


----------



## BlackSand

PMZ said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're dreaming of winning here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Winning what ... And how does one go about winning it?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you're just being obtuse.
Click to expand...


How am I being obtuse ... And why can't you answer the question?
Do you understand the question I posed ... Do I need to explain it to you ... Or did you not understand what you said?

.


----------



## PMZ

BlackSand said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> Winning what ... And how does one go about winning it?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now you're just being obtuse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How am I being obtuse ... And why can't you answer the question?
> Do you understand the question I posed ... Do I need to explain it to you ... Or did you not understand what you said?
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Now you're just being obtuse.


----------



## Antares

PMZ said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now you're just being obtuse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How am I being obtuse ... And why can't you answer the question?
> Do you understand the question I posed ... Do I need to explain it to you ... Or did you not understand what you said?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you're just being obtuse.
Click to expand...


What is a qualified plan PMS?


----------



## BlackSand

PMZ said:


> Now you're just being obtuse.



*Why do you think I am being obtuse?* 
*What is your supporting evidence?*
*Can you even state a reason?* 
*Are you having difficulties?*

I don't think you can answer the question ... I don't think you have a clue what you are posting in stating that you think I am being obtuse ... And my supporting evidence is that you will not answer the question ... Or at least you haven't so far.
You haven't answered the other questions I asked either.

*What is it I am dreaming to win?*
*How does one go about winning it?*
*Why can't you answer the question?*
*Do you understand the question I posed?*
*Do you need me to explain it to you?*
*Did you not understand what you said?*

The list is growing ... And I want you to share and support your ideas.
Here is another question to add to the list ... 

*Do you need longer to try and find the answer using your favorite search engine?*

Note that I am also offering to assist you if you don't understand the question and will be willing to revise the question in a manner that you may be able to understand it better.
I mean it is the least I can do to help you out ... I want to see you succeed ... And I am truly interested in what your answers may be if you actually answer the questions.

.


----------



## Listening

RDD_1210 said:


> It is sad that this has to happen.
> 
> It's also sad that the GOP has convinced people of "death panels", "losing freedom" and all the other hysterical nonsense that you sheep believe, that have actually made you think you hate a law that is a Republican idea.
> 
> So yeah, it's sad that a campaign needs to be waged to combat such blatant misinformation.



It's really sad that people like you need to index to this kind of crap to keep from the having the cramps that come when you body resists the minds acceptance of the fact that you've been lied to by an Affirmative Action President who clearly is not qualified for the position.


----------



## PMZ

Listening said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is sad that this has to happen.
> 
> It's also sad that the GOP has convinced people of "death panels", "losing freedom" and all the other hysterical nonsense that you sheep believe, that have actually made you think you hate a law that is a Republican idea.
> 
> So yeah, it's sad that a campaign needs to be waged to combat such blatant misinformation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's really sad that people like you need to index to this kind of crap to keep from the having the cramps that come when you body resists the minds acceptance of the fact that you've been lied to by an Affirmative Action President who clearly is not qualified for the position.
Click to expand...


The difference is following the elected leader of your country vs following the enemies of your country.


----------



## Listening

PMZ said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is sad that this has to happen.
> 
> It's also sad that the GOP has convinced people of "death panels", "losing freedom" and all the other hysterical nonsense that you sheep believe, that have actually made you think you hate a law that is a Republican idea.
> 
> So yeah, it's sad that a campaign needs to be waged to combat such blatant misinformation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's really sad that people like you need to index to this kind of crap to keep from the having the cramps that come when you body resists the minds acceptance of the fact that you've been lied to by an Affirmative Action President who clearly is not qualified for the position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The difference is following the elected leader of your country vs following the enemies of your country.
Click to expand...


That is no argument at all.

I have many elected leaders and they are supposed to do my bidding.  Not the other way around.  Or were you not born here.

Enemies of your country would have described our founding fathers.....sorry.


----------



## PMZ

Listening said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's really sad that people like you need to index to this kind of crap to keep from the having the cramps that come when you body resists the minds acceptance of the fact that you've been lied to by an Affirmative Action President who clearly is not qualified for the position.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The difference is following the elected leader of your country vs following the enemies of your country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is no argument at all.
> 
> I have many elected leaders and they are supposed to do my bidding.  Not the other way around.  Or were you not born here.
> 
> Enemies of your country would have described our founding fathers.....sorry.
Click to expand...


Nobody is supposed to do your bidding.  The people that we elect to run the country are accountable to us to do exactly that.  

Your problem is that your personal interests are counter to the best interests of the country.  That's why what you want will not win elections. 

Many of the founding father's interests,  like yours,  were also contrary to the best interests of the country.  That's why they lost in the debate over the Constitution just like you will lose elections. 

Welcome to democracy,  the closest mankind can come to freedom.


----------



## BlackSand

PMZ said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is sad that this has to happen.
> 
> It's also sad that the GOP has convinced people of "death panels", "losing freedom" and all the other hysterical nonsense that you sheep believe, that have actually made you think you hate a law that is a Republican idea.
> 
> So yeah, it's sad that a campaign needs to be waged to combat such blatant misinformation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's really sad that people like you need to index to this kind of crap to keep from the having the cramps that come when you body resists the minds acceptance of the fact that you've been lied to by an Affirmative Action President who clearly is not qualified for the position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The difference is following the elected leader of your country vs following the enemies of your country.
Click to expand...


What if there isn't a difference between the two?

.


----------



## Antares




----------



## PMZ

BlackSand said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's really sad that people like you need to index to this kind of crap to keep from the having the cramps that come when you body resists the minds acceptance of the fact that you've been lied to by an Affirmative Action President who clearly is not qualified for the position.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The difference is following the elected leader of your country vs following the enemies of your country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What if there isn't a difference between the two?
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Than democracy has failed.


----------



## BlackSand

PMZ said:


> Than democracy has failed.



How has "Democracy" failed if an enemy of the country has been elected?
Am I correct in assuming you mean "Then" instead of "Than"?

.


----------



## PMZ

BlackSand said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Than democracy has failed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How has "Democracy" failed if an enemy of the country has been elected?
> Am I correct in assuming you mean "Then" instead of "Than"?
> 
> .
Click to expand...


"How has "Democracy" failed if an enemy of the country has been elected?"

Your question strikes me as nonsensical.


----------



## Antares

PMZ said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Than democracy has failed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How has "Democracy" failed if an enemy of the country has been elected?
> Am I correct in assuming you mean "Then" instead of "Than"?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "How has "Democracy" failed if an enemy of the country has been elected?"
> 
> Your question strikes me as nonsensical.
Click to expand...


Your lack of understanding is your one consistent quality.


----------



## PMZ

Antares said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> How has "Democracy" failed if an enemy of the country has been elected?
> Am I correct in assuming you mean "Then" instead of "Than"?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "How has "Democracy" failed if an enemy of the country has been elected?"
> 
> Your question strikes me as nonsensical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your lack of understanding is your one consistent quality.
Click to expand...


While being an asshole is your consistent quality.


----------



## Antares

PMZ said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> "How has "Democracy" failed if an enemy of the country has been elected?"
> 
> Your question strikes me as nonsensical.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your lack of understanding is your one consistent quality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While being an asshole is your consistent quality.
Click to expand...


Too funny.....why....we cross?

You are just a transparent troll pop.


----------



## Listening

PMZ said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> The difference is following the elected leader of your country vs following the enemies of your country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is no argument at all.
> 
> I have many elected leaders and they are supposed to do my bidding.  Not the other way around.  Or were you not born here.
> 
> Enemies of your country would have described our founding fathers.....sorry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody is supposed to do your bidding.  The people that we elect to run the country are accountable to us to do exactly that.
> 
> Your problem is that your personal interests are counter to the best interests of the country.  That's why what you want will not win elections.
> 
> Many of the founding father's interests,  like yours,  were also contrary to the best interests of the country.  That's why they lost in the debate over the Constitution just like you will lose elections.
> 
> Welcome to democracy,  the closest mankind can come to freedom.
Click to expand...


Spare me the backwater civics lesson.  You just restated my point.

I am the country.  What part of that don't you understand.  And I vote my best interests.  I hate to tell you this, but this last cycle, we just kocked all the remaining RINOS out of office and now squarely control the house and senate in my state.  Already my world is changing positively as a result.

You know nothing about my interests.  As usual, your statements only tell of the ignorance and arrogance the left wreaks of.  The Constitution is about process as much as anything and nobody lost anything.

Democracy is not freedom, moron.  Read the federalist papers and what was said about democracies.

Unbelievable.


----------



## Listening

PMZ said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> "How has "Democracy" failed if an enemy of the country has been elected?"
> 
> Your question strikes me as nonsensical.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your lack of understanding is your one consistent quality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While being an asshole is your consistent quality.
Click to expand...


Sorry, but you lose on that account too.  And your lack of understanding does seem to be pretty consistent.

Spare me the lectures on liberal faith.

When you actually prove something, I might be interested.


----------



## PMZ

Antares said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your lack of understanding is your one consistent quality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While being an asshole is your consistent quality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Too funny.....why....we cross?
> 
> You are just a transparent troll pop.
Click to expand...


People have argued why forever.  Nature or nurture. 

My guess is both.


----------



## PMZ

Listening said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your lack of understanding is your one consistent quality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While being an asshole is your consistent quality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, but you lose on that account too.  And your lack of understanding does seem to be pretty consistent.
> 
> Spare me the lectures on liberal faith.
> 
> When you actually prove something, I might be interested.
Click to expand...


If you want to be spared lectures on liberal faith,  never turn Fox Opinions off.  Certainly stay away from forums like this.  

Or just continue with closed mind.  Voluntary ignorance always works.


----------



## BlackSand

PMZ said:


> "How has "Democracy" failed if an enemy of the country has been elected?"
> 
> Your question strikes me as nonsensical.



What makes it strike you as nonsensical?
How does Democracy avoid the election of someone who wishes to destroy the country?

Can you actually answer the questions?
Do you understand the questions?
Can I assist you in this endeavor?

.


----------



## Antares

PMZ said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> While being an asshole is your consistent quality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but you lose on that account too.  And your lack of understanding does seem to be pretty consistent.
> 
> Spare me the lectures on liberal faith.
> 
> When you actually prove something, I might be interested.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you want to be spared lectures on liberal faith,  never turn Fox Opinions off.  Certainly stay away from forums like this.
> 
> Or just continue with closed mind.  Voluntary ignorance always works.
Click to expand...


Yup, you are the perfect example of this....you choose ignorance over truth....your every post reeks of it.


----------



## Listening

PMZ said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> While being an asshole is your consistent quality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but you lose on that account too.  And your lack of understanding does seem to be pretty consistent.
> 
> Spare me the lectures on liberal faith.
> 
> When you actually prove something, I might be interested.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you want to be spared lectures on liberal faith,  never turn Fox Opinions off.  Certainly stay away from forums like this.
> 
> Or just continue with closed mind.  Voluntary ignorance always works.
Click to expand...


You seem to be the posterchild for voluntary ignorance.

I see a lot of posts from you, but no real content or debate.  Why is that ?

I suppose you are human and really don't enjoy getting your ass kicked.


----------



## Listening

BlackSand said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> "How has "Democracy" failed if an enemy of the country has been elected?"
> 
> Your question strikes me as nonsensical.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What makes it strike you as nonsensical?
> How does Democracy avoid the election of someone who wishes to destroy the country?
> 
> Can you actually answer the questions?
> Do you understand the questions?
> Can I assist you in this endeavor?
> 
> .
Click to expand...


It's tough to spend your time dealing with people who really think they are god.

Democracy allows anyone to be elected.  Not everyone votes their best interests because we all don't all have the same interests...imagine that.

We did elect FDR, after all.  And if ever there was an enemy to the country it was FDR.

But he moved on, and the country still remains.  Obama will move on the and U.S.A. will still be here....I hope


----------



## PMZ

BlackSand said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> "How has "Democracy" failed if an enemy of the country has been elected?"
> 
> Your question strikes me as nonsensical.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What makes it strike you as nonsensical?
> How does Democracy avoid the election of someone who wishes to destroy the country?
> 
> Can you actually answer the questions?
> Do you understand the questions?
> Can I assist you in this endeavor?
> 
> .
Click to expand...


So,  it makes sense to you that people would voluntarily put in power over them their destruction? Sort of mass suicide. 

Or are you thinking of situations like pre WWII Germany where the people were propagandized into believing what was desirable turned out to be their enemy.


----------



## PMZ

Listening said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> "How has "Democracy" failed if an enemy of the country has been elected?"
> 
> Your question strikes me as nonsensical.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What makes it strike you as nonsensical?
> How does Democracy avoid the election of someone who wishes to destroy the country?
> 
> Can you actually answer the questions?
> Do you understand the questions?
> Can I assist you in this endeavor?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's tough to spend your time dealing with people who really think they are god.
> 
> Democracy allows anyone to be elected.  Not everyone votes their best interests because we all don't all have the same interests...imagine that.
> 
> We did elect FDR, after all.  And if ever there was an enemy to the country it was FDR.
> 
> But he moved on, and the country still remains.  Obama will move on the and U.S.A. will still be here....I hope
Click to expand...


Bush is actually a much better example.


----------



## BlackSand

PMZ said:


> So,  it makes sense to you that people would voluntarily put in power over them their destruction? Sort of mass suicide.
> 
> Or are you thinking of situations like pre WWII Germany where the people were propagandized into believing what was desirable turned out to be their enemy.



No, It doesn't make sense to me that people would voluntarily put in power over them their destruction.
Yes, I was thinking about situations that could at least be compared to your statement that situations prior to the Second World War in Germany may have led the German people to elect representatives not it their best interests.

I think that more emphasis should be placed on the provisions set forth in the Treaty of Versailles as far as impacting the move towards the Third Reich. 
In that case I believe propaganda was merely a tool the candidates used to focus aggression against what were already declining conditions as a result of Europe's desire to punish the Germans.
This in no way supports the decision of the German people to go as far as putting the Third Reich into power ... Just identifies where my opinion separates from your statement.

That still doesn't answer the question I asked ... *How does "Democracy" avoid the election of someone who wishes to destroy the country?*

.


----------



## PMZ

BlackSand said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> So,  it makes sense to you that people would voluntarily put in power over them their destruction? Sort of mass suicide.
> 
> Or are you thinking of situations like pre WWII Germany where the people were propagandized into believing what was desirable turned out to be their enemy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, It doesn't make sense to me that people would voluntarily put in power over them their destruction.
> Yes, I was thinking about situations that could at least be compared to your statement that situations prior to the Second World War in Germany may have led the German people to elect representatives not it their best interests.
> 
> I think that more emphasis should be placed on the provisions set forth in the Treaty of Versailles as far as impacting the move towards the Third Reich.
> In that case I believe propaganda was merely a tool the candidates used to focus aggression against what were already declining conditions as a result of Europe's desire to punish the Germans.
> This in no way supports the decision of the German people to go as far as putting the Third Reich into power ... Just identifies where my opinion separates from your statement.
> 
> That still doesn't answer the question I asked ... *How does "Democracy" avoid the election of someone who wishes to destroy the country?*
> 
> .
Click to expand...


I think that there are general interests and special interests. The difference being majority vs minority. Democracy keeps us focused on general interests. Or,  the middle of the road. 

I believe that that's where truth resides.


----------



## oreo

BlackSand said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> So,  it makes sense to you that people would voluntarily put in power over them their destruction? Sort of mass suicide.
> 
> Or are you thinking of situations like pre WWII Germany where the people were propagandized into believing what was desirable turned out to be their enemy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, It doesn't make sense to me that people would voluntarily put in power over them their destruction.
> Yes, I was thinking about situations that could at least be compared to your statement that situations prior to the Second World War in Germany may have led the German people to elect representatives not it their best interests.
> 
> I think that more emphasis should be placed on the provisions set forth in the Treaty of Versailles as far as impacting the move towards the Third Reich.
> In that case I believe propaganda was merely a tool the candidates used to focus aggression against what were already declining conditions as a result of Europe's desire to punish the Germans.
> This in no way supports the decision of the German people to go as far as putting the Third Reich into power ... Just identifies where my opinion separates from your statement.
> 
> That still doesn't answer the question I asked ... *How does "Democracy" avoid the election of someone who wishes to destroy the country?*
> 
> .
Click to expand...


You may have a point there.  Millions upon Millions of Americans voted for Barack Obama.  He had supporters fainting in crowds--screaming his name--and he was often referred to as a Rock Star.  His popularity soared--with extraordinary well spoken speech's--the Hope and Change theme worked.  This country went into irrational--hysteria--over Barack Obama.  *THE PROBLEM: * _These same millions were not listening to what he was actually saying._  They kicked a much more qualified candidate, in Hillary Clinton to the curb--to elect a "community organizer" to be POTUS.  Many voted for him, because they wanted to tell their grandchildren that they voted for the 1st black President.

Bill Clinton had a lot to do with Obama winning re-election--there is no doubt about that. I talked to supporters of Obama, and all they could reflect upon was Bill Clinton's speech at the DNC convention.  Them forgetting that they weren't voting for Bill Clinton, but another 4 years of Barack Obama.

*The irrational hysteria is gone,* those tingly leg feelings are gone, the Hope and Change is gone--and these millions are finally realizing the REAL COST of electing someone who's only real asset--is that he can give a great speech, written by someone else, and delivered off of a teleprompter.


----------



## BlackSand

PMZ said:


> I think that there are general interests and special interests. The difference being majority vs minority. Democracy keeps us focused on general interests. Or,  the middle of the road.
> 
> I believe that that's where truth resides.



*Are you saying that Democracy cannot avoid electing someone who wishes to destroy the country?*
Do you think that an issue is the responsibility of the government as the result of being a popular general interest?
Do you think that truth is determined by the number of people that agree with it?

.


----------



## Bloodrock44

PMZ said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> What makes it strike you as nonsensical?
> How does Democracy avoid the election of someone who wishes to destroy the country?
> 
> Can you actually answer the questions?
> Do you understand the questions?
> Can I assist you in this endeavor?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's tough to spend your time dealing with people who really think they are god.
> 
> Democracy allows anyone to be elected.  Not everyone votes their best interests because we all don't all have the same interests...imagine that.
> 
> We did elect FDR, after all.  And if ever there was an enemy to the country it was FDR.
> 
> But he moved on, and the country still remains.  Obama will move on the and U.S.A. will still be here....I hope
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bush is actually a much better example.
Click to expand...


Jesus H. Christ! Is that all you people have? Divert and blame Bush? The subject is Obamacare. Next you'll be telling us Bush snuck back in and sabotaged that.


----------



## Listening

Bloodrock44 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's tough to spend your time dealing with people who really think they are god.
> 
> Democracy allows anyone to be elected.  Not everyone votes their best interests because we all don't all have the same interests...imagine that.
> 
> We did elect FDR, after all.  And if ever there was an enemy to the country it was FDR.
> 
> But he moved on, and the country still remains.  Obama will move on the and U.S.A. will still be here....I hope
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bush is actually a much better example.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jesus H. Christ! Is that all you people have? Divert and blame Bush? The subject is Obamacare. Next you'll be telling us Bush snuck back in and sabotaged that.
Click to expand...


Well, not Bush...but the whole "gee the GOP just wansn't helpful (and that is the reason this is a mess)" narrative has started.

Bush was a mess.  I agree with that.

Obama is turning out to be eight more years of the same...only worse.


----------



## PMZ

Listening said:


> Bloodrock44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bush is actually a much better example.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus H. Christ! Is that all you people have? Divert and blame Bush? The subject is Obamacare. Next you'll be telling us Bush snuck back in and sabotaged that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, not Bush...but the whole "gee the GOP just wansn't helpful (and that is the reason this is a mess)" narrative has started.
> 
> Bush was a mess.  I agree with that.
> 
> Obama is turning out to be eight more years of the same...only worse.
Click to expand...


A pretty Uninformed opinion.  What the Republicans are really good at is 24/7/365 propaganda through Fox Opinions.  Very effective thought management. The world as Republicans wish it was with only the news good for the GOP thrown in for credibility.


----------



## PMZ

BlackSand said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that there are general interests and special interests. The difference being majority vs minority. Democracy keeps us focused on general interests. Or,  the middle of the road.
> 
> I believe that that's where truth resides.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Are you saying that Democracy cannot avoid electing someone who wishes to destroy the country?*
> Do you think that an issue is the responsibility of the government as the result of being a popular general interest?
> Do you think that truth is determined by the number of people that agree with it?
> 
> .
Click to expand...


There are risks in every means of organization.  With democracy,  the risk is that a massive wave of ignorance could overcome society and a nefarious power could gain control until the next election.  Even worse are cases like pre WWII Germany where Hitler was elected,  made himself permanent,  and it took the world to get him out. 

But,  the only alternative to majority rule is minority rule,  but the risk of tyranny goes up,  not down. 

It's been said that the most effective government is a benevolent dictator a la the Catholic Church. Effective,  but very,  very risky as benevolence is merely a special interest.


----------



## BlackSand

Bloodrock44 said:


> Jesus H. Christ! Is that all you people have? Divert and blame Bush? The subject is Obamacare. Next you'll be telling us Bush snuck back in and sabotaged that.



*Excellent Point Blood ... But I think it is a little optimistic to expect anyone to support the ACA for more than a few posts of hysterical blabbering about poor sick people who cannot sign up anyway.*

If you go back and look ... I think the posters ditched the ACA and switched over to accusation of members following Third Reich somewhere around page 81.
There is only pond scum like myself around here now ... Walking through the battlefield tending to the folks that are already mortally wounded.

Every day the news about the ACA gets worse ... Every day the President and fellow Democrats try to salvage something that remotely attempts looks like they have some integrity ... To no avail.
I am beginning to think that the President's choice not to negotiate with the House over delaying implementation of the Individual Mandate ... Just so he could try and look tough before it all blew up in his face ... Will haunt the Democrats in the near future.
But that is also optimistic seeing as the Progressive Liberals have a substantial amount of Berserker Warriors willing to fight for the idea of fighting  ... And don't much care what the facts are.

*Occasionally a passer by adds some worthwhile contributions to the debate or at least brings coffee ... Homemade Chicken Enchiladas for dinner tonight ... Hope you have a glorious day!*

.


----------



## Bloodrock44

PMZ said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bloodrock44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus H. Christ! Is that all you people have? Divert and blame Bush? The subject is Obamacare. Next you'll be telling us Bush snuck back in and sabotaged that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, not Bush...but the whole "gee the GOP just wansn't helpful (and that is the reason this is a mess)" narrative has started.
> 
> Bush was a mess.  I agree with that.
> 
> Obama is turning out to be eight more years of the same...only worse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A pretty Uninformed opinion.  What the Republicans are really good at is 24/7/365 propaganda through Fox Opinions.  Very effective thought management. The world as Republicans wish it was with only the news good for the GOP thrown in for credibility.
Click to expand...


Uninformed opinion? Try being less partisan and man/woman up and admit that the OP is spot on. If Obamacare were a republican enterprise, I'd be calling for heads to roll. But since it's a democrat failure, I'm being called a racist for criticizing.


----------



## BlackSand

PMZ said:


> There are risks in every means of organization.  With democracy,  the risk is that a massive wave of ignorance could overcome society and a nefarious power could gain control until the next election.  Even worse in cases like pre WWII Germany where Hitler was elected,  made himself permanent,  and it took the world to get him out.
> 
> But,  the only alternative to majority rule is minority rule,  but the risk of tyranny goes up,  not down.
> 
> It's been said that the most effective government is a benevolent dictator a la the Catholic Church. Effective,  but very,  very risky as benevolence is merely a special interest.



*If by that you mean Democracy cannot prevent someone who wishes to destroy the country from getting elected ... Especially as a matter of ignorance and lack of foresight ... Then I would have to agree with you there.*

We have an excellent example of just such a scenario in the White House right now ... Not to suggest that the current President would be the only applicable answer.
That is also why the Founding Fathers established a Representative Republic over a straight Democracy ... And warned of the dangers of Majority Rule even in that case.
You can refer to the way they set forth systems that require a super majority over a simple 51-49 split ... But that is still hard to manage when the population is split along those lines.

*Again ...* 

Do you think that an issue is the responsibility of the government as the result of being a popular general interest?
Do you think that truth is determined by the number of people that agree with it?

*Additional Questions:*

Do you think that this section of the USMB forums is intended to be an exercise in debate?
Do you think that continuing to spout rhetoric with no forthright attempts to engage in debate over topics you have already mentioned ... Or the stalwart desire to answer clarification questions ... Is consistent with a productive debate platform?

.


----------



## BlackSand

Bloodrock44 said:


> Uninformed opinion? Try being less partisan and man/woman up and admit that the OP is spot on. If Obamacare were a republican enterprise, I'd be calling for heads to roll. But since it's a democrat failure, I'm being called a racist for criticizing.



Do you mean it actually bothers you that the Democrat/Progressive Liberal playbook only has 4 or 5 pages ... They have to keep it simple ... I mean look at who they are dealing with in voters?
They will do whatever keeps them in power ... They will promise whatever will get them votes, even if they are not equipped to provide what has been promised.
When you expose them for the louts they are .. Then you can only expect them to blame someone else and throw the race card if possible ... It has been that way for decades.

.


----------



## PMZ

Bloodrock44 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, not Bush...but the whole "gee the GOP just wansn't helpful (and that is the reason this is a mess)" narrative has started.
> 
> Bush was a mess.  I agree with that.
> 
> Obama is turning out to be eight more years of the same...only worse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A pretty Uninformed opinion.  What the Republicans are really good at is 24/7/365 propaganda through Fox Opinions.  Very effective thought management. The world as Republicans wish it was with only the news good for the GOP thrown in for credibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uninformed opinion? Try being less partisan and man/woman up and admit that the OP is spot on. If Obamacare were a republican enterprise, I'd be calling for heads to roll. But since it's a democrat failure, I'm being called a racist for criticizing.
Click to expand...


How am I partisan and you not?


----------



## Meister

BlackSand said:


> Bloodrock44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uninformed opinion? Try being less partisan and man/woman up and admit that the OP is spot on. If Obamacare were a republican enterprise, I'd be calling for heads to roll. But since it's a democrat failure, I'm being called a racist for criticizing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you mean it actually bothers you that the Democrat/Progressive Liberal playbook only has 4 or 5 pages ... They have to keep it simple ... I mean look at who they are dealing with in voters?
> They will do whatever keeps them in power ... They will promise whatever will get them votes, even if they are not equipped to provide what has been promised.
> When you expose them for the louts they are .. Then you can only expect them to blame someone else and throw the race card if possible ... It has been that way for decades.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Without reading all of PMZ's drivel, you mean he's brought out the race card now? 
You know when they have nothing for you is when they do that, right?


----------



## PMZ

BlackSand said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are risks in every means of organization.  With democracy,  the risk is that a massive wave of ignorance could overcome society and a nefarious power could gain control until the next election.  Even worse in cases like pre WWII Germany where Hitler was elected,  made himself permanent,  and it took the world to get him out.
> 
> But,  the only alternative to majority rule is minority rule,  but the risk of tyranny goes up,  not down.
> 
> It's been said that the most effective government is a benevolent dictator a la the Catholic Church. Effective,  but very,  very risky as benevolence is merely a special interest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *If by that you mean Democracy cannot prevent someone who wishes to destroy the country from getting elected ... Especially as a matter of ignorance and lack of foresight ... Then I would have to agree with you there.*
> 
> We have an excellent example of just such a scenario in the White House right now ... Not to suggest that the current President would be the only applicable answer.
> That is also why the Founding Fathers established a Representative Republic over a straight Democracy ... And warned of the dangers of Majority Rule even in that case.
> You can refer to the way they set forth systems that require a super majority over a simple 51-49 split ... But that is still hard to manage when the population is split along those lines.
> 
> *Again ...*
> 
> Do you think that an issue is the responsibility of the government as the result of being a popular general interest?
> Do you think that truth is determined by the number of people that agree with it?
> 
> *Additional Questions:*
> 
> Do you think that this section of the USMB forums is intended to be an exercise in debate?
> Do you think that continuing to spout rhetoric with no forthright attempts to engage in debate over topics you have already mentioned ... Or the stalwart desire to answer clarification questions ... Is consistent with a productive debate platform?
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Your strategy seems to be typical conservative.  Whine about all things not authorized by the GOP,  and try to control the conversation with irrelevant questions.  When those questions get answered,  ask more.  And never,  never,  ever,  propose solutions. 

It gets old real quick.


----------



## PMZ

A quick review of the Republican plan for America. 

AGW.... Do nothing 
Sustainable energy..... Do nothing. 
Poverty....... Do nothing
Health care..... Do nothing
Jobs.... Do nothing. 
Education...... Do nothing 
Middle East peace.... Do nothing. 
Immigration..... Do nothing. 
National debt.... Do nothing 
Regulation... Do nothing

There you have it.  The Republican Dream for America. 

Nothing


----------



## BlackSand

PMZ said:


> Your strategy seems to be typical conservative.  Whine about all things not authorized by the GOP,  and try to control the conversation with irrelevant questions.  When those questions get answered,  ask more.  And never,  never,  ever,  propose solutions.
> 
> It gets old real quick.



How is you repeating your irrelevant rhetoric an example of me trying to control the conversations?

*There is no way I can possibly propose a solution to anything you suggest ... If you don't not make a single statement that is anything other than unsupported rhetoric.*

Do you honestly think you are fooling anyone?
Why can't you answer simple questions?

*Again ...*

Do you think that an issue is the responsibility of the government as the result of being a popular general interest?
Do you think that truth is determined by the number of people that agree with it?
Do you think that this section of the USMB forums is intended to be an exercise in debate?
Do you think that continuing to spout rhetoric with no forthright attempts to engage in debate over topics you have already mentioned ... Or the stalwart desire to answer clarification questions ... Is consistent with a productive debate platform?

.


----------



## Meister

PMZ said:


> A quick review of the Republican plan for America.
> 
> *AGW.... Do nothing
> Sustainable energy..... Do nothing.
> Poverty....... Do nothing
> Health care..... Do nothing
> Jobs.... Do nothing.
> Education...... Do nothing
> Middle East peace.... Do nothing.
> Immigration..... Do nothing.
> National debt.... Do nothing
> Regulation... Do nothing*
> 
> There you have it.  The Republican Dream for America.
> 
> Nothing



Wow....drink some more of that Kool-Aid, son.


----------



## Bloodrock44

PMZ said:


> Bloodrock44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> A pretty Uninformed opinion.  What the Republicans are really good at is 24/7/365 propaganda through Fox Opinions.  Very effective thought management. The world as Republicans wish it was with only the news good for the GOP thrown in for credibility.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uninformed opinion? Try being less partisan and man/woman up and admit that the OP is spot on. If Obamacare were a republican enterprise, I'd be calling for heads to roll. But since it's a democrat failure, I'm being called a racist for criticizing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How am I partisan and you not?
Click to expand...


Because I would be man enough to give the dems credit if they actually did something useful. You? Meh.


----------



## Listening

PMZ said:


> A quick review of the Republican plan for America.
> 
> AGW.... Do nothing
> Sustainable energy..... Do nothing.
> Poverty....... Do nothing
> Health care..... Do nothing
> Jobs.... Do nothing.
> Education...... Do nothing
> Middle East peace.... Do nothing.
> Immigration..... Do nothing.
> National debt.... Do nothing
> Regulation... Do nothing
> 
> There you have it.  The Republican Dream for America.
> 
> Nothing



In my state, our employment is great (and has been even through the Obamaconomy).

All due to GOP policies and action.

Your assertion => Failure.

Oh, and national debt...do nothing ?  Compared to keep running it up like our current Affirmative Action Doofus for a president.


----------



## Listening

Meister said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> A quick review of the Republican plan for America.
> 
> *AGW.... Do nothing
> Sustainable energy..... Do nothing.
> Poverty....... Do nothing
> Health care..... Do nothing
> Jobs.... Do nothing.
> Education...... Do nothing
> Middle East peace.... Do nothing.
> Immigration..... Do nothing.
> National debt.... Do nothing
> Regulation... Do nothing*
> 
> There you have it.  The Republican Dream for America.
> 
> Nothing
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow....drink some more of that Kool-Aid, son.
Click to expand...


He seems to take it in by the gallon....


----------



## PMZ

Bloodrock44 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bloodrock44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uninformed opinion? Try being less partisan and man/woman up and admit that the OP is spot on. If Obamacare were a republican enterprise, I'd be calling for heads to roll. But since it's a democrat failure, I'm being called a racist for criticizing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How am I partisan and you not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because I would be man enough to give the dems credit if they actually did something useful. You? Meh.
Click to expand...


Another memory impaired codger to whom, 2007-2009 never existed.


----------



## PMZ

Listening said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> A quick review of the Republican plan for America.
> 
> AGW.... Do nothing
> Sustainable energy..... Do nothing.
> Poverty....... Do nothing
> Health care..... Do nothing
> Jobs.... Do nothing.
> Education...... Do nothing
> Middle East peace.... Do nothing.
> Immigration..... Do nothing.
> National debt.... Do nothing
> Regulation... Do nothing
> 
> There you have it.  The Republican Dream for America.
> 
> Nothing
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my state, our employment is great (and has been even through the Obamaconomy).
> 
> All due to GOP policies and action.
> 
> Your assertion => Failure.
> 
> Oh, and national debt...do nothing ?  Compared to keep running it up like our current Affirmative Action Doofus for a president.
Click to expand...


Now that he has ended the Bush policies that created 100% of the debt,  the deficit is falling like a rock.  When the current cadre of conservative business followers get fired for,  guess what,  doing nothing,  and get replaced by liberal business leaders,  and business starts growing and hiring,  then we'll be fully recovered from the valley of Bush and be back to Clinton days. 

And the Republican whiners,  led by Fox Opinions,  will howl that they want 2008, back.


----------



## PMZ

BlackSand said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your strategy seems to be typical conservative.  Whine about all things not authorized by the GOP,  and try to control the conversation with irrelevant questions.  When those questions get answered,  ask more.  And never,  never,  ever,  propose solutions.
> 
> It gets old real quick.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is you repeating your irrelevant rhetoric an example of me trying to control the conversations?
> 
> *There is no way I can possibly propose a solution to anything you suggest ... If you don't not make a single statement that is anything other than unsupported rhetoric.*
> 
> Do you honestly think you are fooling anyone?
> Why can't you answer simple questions?
> 
> *Again ...*
> 
> Do you think that an issue is the responsibility of the government as the result of being a popular general interest?
> Do you think that truth is determined by the number of people that agree with it?
> Do you think that this section of the USMB forums is intended to be an exercise in debate?
> Do you think that continuing to spout rhetoric with no forthright attempts to engage in debate over topics you have already mentioned ... Or the stalwart desire to answer clarification questions ... Is consistent with a productive debate platform?
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Why can't you propose any solutions?


----------



## BlackSand

Meister said:


> Without reading all of PMZ's drivel, you mean he's brought out the race card now?
> You know when they have nothing for you is when they do that, right?



I cannot accuse PMZ in particular of bringing out the race card ... Because he/she hasn't used it with me yet.
I have however seen the Progressive Liberals throw the card on just about any issue that could be misconstrued as having any implications remotely associated with race. 

The only wise move that PMZ has made thus far ... Is not resorting to a last ditch effort by flinging the obviously self-defeating race card.
Then again ... Some people may argue that PMZ should have thrown the card about 3 days ago here ... And left this battlefield for another.

Some people desire to wallow in their ignorance I would guess ... It is still a guess since PMZ won't even answer simple questions that actually identify what he/she believes.

.


----------



## BlackSand

Bloodrock44 said:


> Because I would be man enough to give the dems credit if they actually did something useful. You? Meh.



*What have Democrats accomplished that is useful?*


----------



## boedicca

If Schadenfreude were fattening, I'd have gained 50 pounds over the past week.  It just keeps getting better and better in the Land-o-ObamaCare.

*Mr. President, Tear Down This Website!*


_...The data obtained by Healthcare.gov is one of the largest collections of personal information ever assembled. It links information between seven different federal agencies and state agencies and government contractors.

The website requires users to provide personal information like birth dates, social security numbers, and household incomes in order to obtain information about potential health coverage. But security experts have expressed concern about flaws in the site that put this personal data at risk and subject users to the threat of identity theft.

This week, the Science Committee, which I chair, held a hearing to examine security and privacy concerns about the Obamacare website. We heard from witnesses outside the government who are experts in cybersecurity and hacking websites. They provided a convincing evidence of the vulnerabilities that underlie Healthcare.gov.

One of our witnesses, David Kennedy, is a white hat hacker, who is hired by companies around the world to test the security of their online systems by essentially hacking their websites. During the hearing, Mr. Kennedy gave a demonstration of the healthcare.gov websites vulnerabilities showing in real-time that hackers can access personal information on the website. Its clear that not only is the website vulnerable, its under attack.

When asked whether he believed the website had already been compromised by hackers, Mr. Kennedy testified that he believed the website has either already been hacked or soon will be.  

The massive amount of personal information collected by the Healthcare.gov website creates a tempting target for scam artists. Identity theft jeopardizes credit ratings and personal finances. ..._


EXCLUSIVE -- Mr. President, Tear Down This Website


----------



## BlackSand

PMZ said:


> Now that he has ended the Bush policies that created 100% of the debt,  the deficit is falling like a rock.  When the current cadre of conservative business followers get fired for,  guess what,  doing nothing,  and get replaced by liberal business leaders,  and business starts growing and hiring,  then we'll be fully recovered from the valley of Bush and be back to Clinton days.
> 
> And the Republican whiners,  led by Fox Opinions,  will howl that they want 2008, back.



*Unsupported Rhetoric ...*

Do you think that this section of the USMB forums is intended to be an exercise in debate?
Do you think that continuing to spout rhetoric with no forthright attempts to engage in debate over topics you have already mentioned ... Or the stalwart desire to answer clarification questions ... Is consistent with a productive debate platform?

*Do you need any assistance in actually supporting your rhetoric?*


----------



## PMZ

boedicca said:


> If Schadenfreude were fattening, I'd have gained 50 pounds over the past week.  It just keeps getting better and better in the Land-o-ObamaCare.
> 
> *Mr. President, Tear Down This Website!*
> 
> 
> _...The data obtained by Healthcare.gov is one of the largest collections of personal information ever assembled. It links information between seven different federal agencies and state agencies and government contractors.
> 
> The website requires users to provide personal information like birth dates, social security numbers, and household incomes in order to obtain information about potential health coverage. But security experts have expressed concern about flaws in the site that put this personal data at risk and subject users to the threat of identity theft.
> 
> This week, the Science Committee, which I chair, held a hearing to examine security and privacy concerns about the Obamacare website. We heard from witnesses outside the government who are experts in cybersecurity and hacking websites. They provided a convincing evidence of the vulnerabilities that underlie Healthcare.gov.
> 
> One of our witnesses, David Kennedy, is a white hat hacker, who is hired by companies around the world to test the security of their online systems by essentially hacking their websites. During the hearing, Mr. Kennedy gave a demonstration of the healthcare.gov websites vulnerabilities showing in real-time that hackers can access personal information on the website. Its clear that not only is the website vulnerable, its under attack.
> 
> When asked whether he believed the website had already been compromised by hackers, Mr. Kennedy testified that he believed the website has either already been hacked or soon will be.
> 
> The massive amount of personal information collected by the Healthcare.gov website creates a tempting target for scam artists. Identity theft jeopardizes credit ratings and personal finances. ..._
> 
> 
> EXCLUSIVE -- Mr. President, Tear Down This Website



The ongoing war of words from Fox Opinions trying to inspire the country to do nothing about health care continues. 

In the words of John Boehner,  *FOLLOW ME TO NOWHERE "


----------



## PMZ

BlackSand said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now that he has ended the Bush policies that created 100% of the debt,  the deficit is falling like a rock.  When the current cadre of conservative business followers get fired for,  guess what,  doing nothing,  and get replaced by liberal business leaders,  and business starts growing and hiring,  then we'll be fully recovered from the valley of Bush and be back to Clinton days.
> 
> And the Republican whiners,  led by Fox Opinions,  will howl that they want 2008, back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Unsupported Rhetoric ...*
> 
> Do you think that this section of the USMB forums is intended to be an exercise in debate?
> Do you think that continuing to spout rhetoric with no forthright attempts to engage in debate over topics you have already mentioned ... Or the stalwart desire to answer clarification questions ... Is consistent with a productive debate platform?
> 
> *Do you need any assistance in actually supporting your rhetoric?*
Click to expand...


Do you even believe in solutions?


----------



## PMZ

BlackSand said:


> Bloodrock44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because I would be man enough to give the dems credit if they actually did something useful. You? Meh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *What have Democrats accomplished that is useful?*
Click to expand...


'Member 2007? 2008? 2009?

The Great Recession?  The Holy wars?  The bankruptcy of Wall St? Of Detroit Auto?  The housing boom and bust? Mortgage backed derivatives?  "Mission Accomplished"  in the middle of a war.  The Bush rewards to friends and family wealth redistribution tax cuts? 9/11? Katrina?  The 2001 CBO report advising Bush to stay the course and pay off the National debt? 

All of those problems have been solved. Despite every Republican concerted effort to stop solutions in their tracks. 

And we're not done yet. 

ACA will be fully exposed to be necessary health insurance regulation and what Medicare has become to over 65ers, for the rest of the country. 

But the Republican whining will never stop until there are no more.


----------



## Bloodrock44

BlackSand said:


> Bloodrock44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because I would be man enough to give the dems credit if they actually did something useful. You? Meh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *What have Democrats accomplished that is useful?*
Click to expand...


Nothing in my lifetime.


----------



## BlackSand

PMZ said:


> Do you even believe in solutions?



*I have more solutions that you can shake a stick at ... I asked you to pick a category 3 days ago ... And you refused to.*

You have nothing ... You represent the definition of unsupported evidence and empty rhetoric.
If you don't want to answer questions ... And fail to engage me or anyone else in anything other than intellectually vacant and completely revolving bullshit ... Then I suggest you take your head out of your ass.

*I will continue to call you on it ... And I will continue to offer you the ability to try and salvage anything you may have to offer.*

Otherwise ...

Do you think that this section of the USMB forums is intended to be an exercise in debate?
Do you think that continuing to spout rhetoric with no forthright attempts to engage in debate over topics you have already mentioned ... Or the stalwart desire to answer clarification questions ... Is consistent with a productive debate platform?

.


----------



## PMZ

BlackSand said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you even believe in solutions?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I have more solutions that you can shake a stick at ... I asked you to pick a category 3 days ago ... And you refused to.*
> 
> You have nothing ... You represent the definition of unsupported evidence and empty rhetoric.
> If you don't want to answer questions ... And fail to engage me or anyone else in anything other than intellectually vacant and completely revolving bullshit ... Then I suggest you take your head out of your ass.
> 
> *I will continue to call you on it ... And I will continue to offer you the ability to try and salvage anything you may have to offer.*
> 
> Otherwise ...
> 
> Do you think that this section of the USMB forums is intended to be an exercise in debate?
> Do you think that continuing to spout rhetoric with no forthright attempts to engage in debate over topics you have already mentioned ... Or the stalwart desire to answer clarification questions ... Is consistent with a productive debate platform?
> 
> .
Click to expand...


What are your health care solutions beyond ACA?


----------



## PMZ

Bloodrock44 said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bloodrock44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because I would be man enough to give the dems credit if they actually did something useful. You? Meh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *What have Democrats accomplished that is useful?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing in my lifetime.
Click to expand...


Were you born this morning?


----------



## PMZ

BlackSand said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you even believe in solutions?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I have more solutions that you can shake a stick at ... I asked you to pick a category 3 days ago ... And you refused to.*
> 
> You have nothing ... You represent the definition of unsupported evidence and empty rhetoric.
> If you don't want to answer questions ... And fail to engage me or anyone else in anything other than intellectually vacant and completely revolving bullshit ... Then I suggest you take your head out of your ass.
> 
> *I will continue to call you on it ... And I will continue to offer you the ability to try and salvage anything you may have to offer.*
> 
> Otherwise ...
> 
> Do you think that this section of the USMB forums is intended to be an exercise in debate?
> Do you think that continuing to spout rhetoric with no forthright attempts to engage in debate over topics you have already mentioned ... Or the stalwart desire to answer clarification questions ... Is consistent with a productive debate platform?
> 
> .
Click to expand...


"You have nothing"

I believe that this debate style was perfected by Rush Limbaugh in the late 80s.

He used it often in his masterbatory debates against humanity. 

I've never found it useful at all,  but it's certainly minimum effort.


----------



## Bloodrock44

PMZ said:


> Bloodrock44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> *What have Democrats accomplished that is useful?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing in my lifetime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Were you born this morning?
Click to expand...


I was born at night but not last night. Everything the dems touch turns to shit.


----------



## BlackSand

PMZ said:


> 'Member 2007? 2008? 2009?
> 
> The Great Recession?  The Holy wars?  The bankruptcy of Wall St? Of Detroit Auto?  The housing boom and bust? Mortgage backed derivatives?  "Mission Accomplished"  in the middle of a war.  The Bush rewards to friends and family wealth redistribution tax cuts? 9/11? Katrina?  The 2001 CBO report advising Bush to stay the course and pay off the National debt?
> 
> All of those problems have been solved. Despite every Republican concerted effort to stop solutions in their tracks.
> 
> And we're not done yet.
> 
> ACA will be fully exposed to be necessary health insurance regulation and what Medicare has become to over 65ers, for the rest of the country.
> 
> But the Republican whining will never stop until there are no more.



The Recession is not completely cured ... And its effects are still devastating ... Particularly in the classrooms at Public Schools.
We are in Afghanistan today ... Gitmo is still in operation ... The President did more towards damaging the US position on foreign policy when he was forced to submit to Russia in Syria.
Detroit is bankrupt after decades of Progressive Liberal policies and Democrat control.
The housing bust is still in recovery ... And nothing the Democrats have done can point to any assistance in that market.
Mortgage Backed Derivatives became entirely too risky when Democrat Legislation forced banks to offer loans to people who could not afford them ... And under threat of prosecution for "unfair housing" practices.
The Bush tax cuts effected anyone who paid income taxes ... And the reduction was across the board ... It is hard to reduce income taxes for people who don't pay them.
Nothing the democrats did ever accomplished anything in regards to 9/11 or Katrina.
The current administration has done nothing towards paying off the National Debt ... And successfully tagged their key legislation to efforts supporting the idea of increasing both the debt and debt ceiling.

*Failure upon Failure upon Failure ... You would have done better to keep your typing fingers at bay ... Because what you offered was bullshit.*

The ACA will be fully expose for the utter failure it is ... And Americans will continue to suffer under the misguided abuse of our healthcare system.
More empty rhetoric still does not answer any of the questions that have been posed to you already.



PMZ said:


> "You have nothing"
> 
> I believe that this debate style was perfected by Rush Limbaugh in the late 80s.
> 
> He used it often in his masterbatory debates against humanity.
> 
> I've never found it useful at all,  but it's certainly minimum effort.



*More empty rhetoric and unsubstantiated  accusations  It means nothing unless you can support your conclusions.*
I will skip listing all the possible questions that you have wisely decided to disregard in attempts to defend the indefensible ... And return with only these two questions.

Do you think that this section of the USMB forums is intended to be an exercise in debate?
Do you think that continuing to spout rhetoric with no forthright attempts to engage in debate over topics you have already mentioned ... Or the stalwart desire to answer clarification questions ... Is consistent with a productive debate platform?

.


----------



## BlackSand

PMZ said:


> What are your health care solutions beyond ACA?



What gives you the idea that the ACA is a solution to anything?
How does the inability for people to access the provisions set forth in the ACA amount to a solution?
When will you accept that the ACA isn't working and never will meet the obligations identified by the current administration when they supported and passed the Legislation to start with?

.


----------



## Ernie S.

PMZ said:


> Bloodrock44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> How am I partisan and you not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because I would be man enough to give the dems credit if they actually did something useful. You? Meh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another memory impaired codger to whom, 2007-2009 never existed.
Click to expand...


Another asshole who has no idea that Reid/Pelosi took over Congress in 2007 and failed to heed the warnings that the shit was about to hit the fan after years of democrats extorting the financial industry, forcing them to issue mortgages to people who had no hope or ability to pay their obligations.


----------



## Ernie S.

PMZ said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your strategy seems to be typical conservative.  Whine about all things not authorized by the GOP,  and try to control the conversation with irrelevant questions.  When those questions get answered,  ask more.  And never,  never,  ever,  propose solutions.
> 
> It gets old real quick.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is you repeating your irrelevant rhetoric an example of me trying to control the conversations?
> 
> *There is no way I can possibly propose a solution to anything you suggest ... If you don't not make a single statement that is anything other than unsupported rhetoric.*
> 
> Do you honestly think you are fooling anyone?
> Why can't you answer simple questions?
> 
> *Again ...*
> 
> Do you think that an issue is the responsibility of the government as the result of being a popular general interest?
> Do you think that truth is determined by the number of people that agree with it?
> Do you think that this section of the USMB forums is intended to be an exercise in debate?
> Do you think that continuing to spout rhetoric with no forthright attempts to engage in debate over topics you have already mentioned ... Or the stalwart desire to answer clarification questions ... Is consistent with a productive debate platform?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why can't you propose any solutions?
Click to expand...


Solutions that you disagree with, are still solutions. Why won't Reid let any of them come to the Senate floor?


----------



## PMZ

Bloodrock44 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bloodrock44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing in my lifetime.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Were you born this morning?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was born at night but not last night. Everything the dems touch turns to shit.
Click to expand...


How can a supposedly informed person be this blind to the trajectory of the country from 2000 until now? 

People  complain that I blame Fox Opinions for too much but what else could possibly cause this level of blindness?


----------



## PMZ

BlackSand said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 'Member 2007? 2008? 2009?
> 
> The Great Recession?  The Holy wars?  The bankruptcy of Wall St? Of Detroit Auto?  The housing boom and bust? Mortgage backed derivatives?  "Mission Accomplished"  in the middle of a war.  The Bush rewards to friends and family wealth redistribution tax cuts? 9/11? Katrina?  The 2001 CBO report advising Bush to stay the course and pay off the National debt?
> 
> All of those problems have been solved. Despite every Republican concerted effort to stop solutions in their tracks.
> 
> And we're not done yet.
> 
> ACA will be fully exposed to be necessary health insurance regulation and what Medicare has become to over 65ers, for the rest of the country.
> 
> But the Republican whining will never stop until there are no more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Recession is not completely cured ... And its effects are still devastating ... Particularly in the classrooms at Public Schools.
> We are in Afghanistan today ... Gitmo is still in operation ... The President did more towards damaging the US position on foreign policy when he was forced to submit to Russia in Syria.
> Detroit is bankrupt after decades of Progressive Liberal policies and Democrat control.
> The housing bust is still in recovery ... And nothing the Democrats have done can point to any assistance in that market.
> Mortgage Backed Derivatives became entirely too risky when Democrat Legislation forced banks to offer loans to people who could not afford them ... And under threat of prosecution for "unfair housing" practices.
> The Bush tax cuts effected anyone who paid income taxes ... And the reduction was across the board ... It is hard to reduce income taxes for people who don't pay them.
> Nothing the democrats did ever accomplished anything in regards to 9/11 or Katrina.
> The current administration has done nothing towards paying off the National Debt ... And successfully tagged their key legislation to efforts supporting the idea of increasing both the debt and debt ceiling.
> 
> *Failure upon Failure upon Failure ... You would have done better to keep your typing fingers at bay ... Because what you offered was bullshit.*
> 
> The ACA will be fully expose for the utter failure it is ... And Americans will continue to suffer under the misguided abuse of our healthcare system.
> More empty rhetoric still does not answer any of the questions that have been posed to you already.
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> "You have nothing"
> 
> I believe that this debate style was perfected by Rush Limbaugh in the late 80s.
> 
> He used it often in his masterbatory debates against humanity.
> 
> I've never found it useful at all,  but it's certainly minimum effort.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *More empty rhetoric and unsubstantiated  accusations  It means nothing unless you can support your conclusions.*
> I will skip listing all the possible questions that you have wisely decided to disregard in attempts to defend the indefensible ... And return with only these two questions.
> 
> Do you think that this section of the USMB forums is intended to be an exercise in debate?
> Do you think that continuing to spout rhetoric with no forthright attempts to engage in debate over topics you have already mentioned ... Or the stalwart desire to answer clarification questions ... Is consistent with a productive debate platform?
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Clearly you accept Republican failure and reject Democrat success.  Pure,  blind,  unmitigated partisanship.  There is absolutely no other explanation. 

Given that,  you have no reason to engage in debate.  You just want to clone others in the same way that you've become a little Fox minion. 

Waste of time.  Go preach to the bobble head choir.


----------



## PMZ

Ernie S. said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is you repeating your irrelevant rhetoric an example of me trying to control the conversations?
> 
> *There is no way I can possibly propose a solution to anything you suggest ... If you don't not make a single statement that is anything other than unsupported rhetoric.*
> 
> Do you honestly think you are fooling anyone?
> Why can't you answer simple questions?
> 
> *Again ...*
> 
> Do you think that an issue is the responsibility of the government as the result of being a popular general interest?
> Do you think that truth is determined by the number of people that agree with it?
> Do you think that this section of the USMB forums is intended to be an exercise in debate?
> Do you think that continuing to spout rhetoric with no forthright attempts to engage in debate over topics you have already mentioned ... Or the stalwart desire to answer clarification questions ... Is consistent with a productive debate platform?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why can't you propose any solutions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Solutions that you disagree with, are still solutions. Why won't Reid let any of them come to the Senate floor?
Click to expand...


All of the Republican solutions that I've seen are solutions to their problem with progress. 

They've all but shut down government as its all that's in the way of conquering the US. 

I think that it might take a couple of election days to clean up your mess,  but no more.


----------



## PMZ

Ernie S. said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bloodrock44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because I would be man enough to give the dems credit if they actually did something useful. You? Meh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another memory impaired codger to whom, 2007-2009 never existed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another asshole who has no idea that Reid/Pelosi took over Congress in 2007 and failed to heed the warnings that the shit was about to hit the fan after years of democrats extorting the financial industry, forcing them to issue mortgages to people who had no hope or ability to pay their obligations.
Click to expand...


Pure fairy tale.  Must help you sleep at night after what you and Bushman and Cheney did to the country.


----------



## BlackSand

PMZ said:


> Clearly you accept Republican failure and reject Democrat success.  Pure,  blind,  unmitigated partisanship.  There is absolutely no other explanation.
> 
> Given that,  you have no reason to engage in debate.  You just want to clone others in the same way that you've become a little Fox minion.
> 
> Waste of time.  Go preach to the bobble head choir.



*On what do you base the assessment I either excuse Republican Failure or  Reject Democrat success in reference to what I posted ... Not something you make up out of thin air?*

If you cannot answer that question ... Your comments will simply join the ever growing pile of empty rhetoric and unsupported accusations.
Furthermore you haven't engaged in debate yet  ... And have no business telling me anything about debating.

*For Clarification ...*

Do you think that an issue is the responsibility of the government as the result of being a popular general interest?
Do you think that truth is determined by the number of people that agree with it?
Do you think that this section of the USMB forums is intended to be an exercise in debate?
Do you think that continuing to spout rhetoric with no forthright attempts to engage in debate over topics you have already mentioned ... Or the stalwart desire to answer clarification questions ... Is consistent with a productive debate platform?

*I am going to keep asking ... You can continue to prove that you are either ...*

Scared to answer the questions. 
Think that answering the questions is contradictory towards your obligation to be trustworthy. 
Or that you don't know the answer because you don't have a clue what you are talking about.

*I am personally voting for all of the above ... But that would be too hasty, and I honestly don't have a lot evidence that nail you down to anything other than "Full of Shit".*

.


----------



## Listening

PMZ said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bloodrock44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus H. Christ! Is that all you people have? Divert and blame Bush? The subject is Obamacare. Next you'll be telling us Bush snuck back in and sabotaged that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, not Bush...but the whole "gee the GOP just wansn't helpful (and that is the reason this is a mess)" narrative has started.
> 
> Bush was a mess.  I agree with that.
> 
> Obama is turning out to be eight more years of the same...only worse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A pretty Uninformed opinion.  What the Republicans are really good at is 24/7/365 propaganda through Fox Opinions.  Very effective thought management. The world as Republicans wish it was with only the news good for the GOP thrown in for credibility.
Click to expand...


Nobody needs Fox News to see what a disaster Obama has turned out to be.

Enough of the lectures.

Do you have data to support your points of view ?


----------



## BlackSand

PMZ said:


> How can a supposedly informed person be this blind to the trajectory of the country from 2000 until now?



*How is it possible that anyone else in this thread could give a more personal answer to your question above than you?*

Do you think that an issue is the responsibility of the government as the result of being a popular general interest?
Do you think that truth is determined by the number of people that agree with it?
Do you think that this section of the USMB forums is intended to be an exercise in debate?
Do you think that continuing to spout rhetoric with no forthright attempts to engage in debate over topics you have already mentioned ... Or the stalwart desire to answer clarification questions ... Is consistent with a productive debate platform?

*Would you like any assistance or clarification concerning any of the questions I have asked?*

.


----------



## PMZ

Listening said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, not Bush...but the whole "gee the GOP just wansn't helpful (and that is the reason this is a mess)" narrative has started.
> 
> Bush was a mess.  I agree with that.
> 
> Obama is turning out to be eight more years of the same...only worse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A pretty Uninformed opinion.  What the Republicans are really good at is 24/7/365 propaganda through Fox Opinions.  Very effective thought management. The world as Republicans wish it was with only the news good for the GOP thrown in for credibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody needs Fox News to see what a disaster Obama has turned out to be.
> 
> Enough of the lectures.
> 
> Do you have data to support your points of view ?
Click to expand...


You're right,  nobody needs Fox Opinions.  But thinking for oneself is quite difficult for many.  It's so much easier to be issued the official Republican opinion along with only the facts that support it. 

The data that supports that is the uniformity of the information parroted here by conservatives. They all believe so much stuff that is somewhere between just plain wrong and only half of the story that it must come from a common source. What other explanation could there possibly be?


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> A pretty Uninformed opinion.  What the Republicans are really good at is 24/7/365 propaganda through Fox Opinions.  Very effective thought management. The world as Republicans wish it was with only the news good for the GOP thrown in for credibility.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody needs Fox News to see what a disaster Obama has turned out to be.
> 
> Enough of the lectures.
> 
> Do you have data to support your points of view ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're right,  nobody needs Fox Opinions.  But thinking for oneself is quite difficult for many.  It's so much easier to be issued the official Republican opinion along with only the facts that support it.
> 
> The data that supports that is the uniformity of the information parroted here by conservatives. They all believe so much stuff that is somewhere between just plain wrong and only half of the story that it must come from a common source. What other explanation could there possibly be?
Click to expand...


ROFL the Troll believes republicans are all spouting fox lies because they all believe in liberty. ROFL


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody needs Fox News to see what a disaster Obama has turned out to be.
> 
> Enough of the lectures.
> 
> Do you have data to support your points of view ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're right,  nobody needs Fox Opinions.  But thinking for oneself is quite difficult for many.  It's so much easier to be issued the official Republican opinion along with only the facts that support it.
> 
> The data that supports that is the uniformity of the information parroted here by conservatives. They all believe so much stuff that is somewhere between just plain wrong and only half of the story that it must come from a common source. What other explanation could there possibly be?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROFL the Troll believes republicans are all spouting fox lies because they all believe in liberty. ROFL
Click to expand...


Liberty is the conservative code word for imposing what's best for them on others. As I never seem to be limited by the laws that don't allow you to do that,  why should they be changed?  Liberty at the expenses of others is more properly called slavery.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're right,  nobody needs Fox Opinions.  But thinking for oneself is quite difficult for many.  It's so much easier to be issued the official Republican opinion along with only the facts that support it.
> 
> The data that supports that is the uniformity of the information parroted here by conservatives. They all believe so much stuff that is somewhere between just plain wrong and only half of the story that it must come from a common source. What other explanation could there possibly be?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL the Troll believes republicans are all spouting fox lies because they all believe in liberty. ROFL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Liberty is the conservative code word for imposing what's best for them on others. As I never seem to be limited by the laws that don't allow you to do that,  why should they be changed?  Liberty at the expenses of others is more properly called slavery.
Click to expand...


Retard thinks liberty is slavery.  lol  Maybe so in your world retard, but for me and mine liberty does not include the liberty to take liberty away from others.


----------



## BlackSand

PMZ said:


> Liberty is the conservative code word for imposing what's best for them on others. As I never seem to be limited by the laws that don't allow you to do that,  why should they be changed?  Liberty at the expenses of others is more properly called slavery.



Where do Conservatives impose their will to govern others?
What laws don't allow Conservative to impose what governance over others?
How does someone's freedom actually equate to another's slavery ... And give a current example?

*If you cannot answer these questions  ... It is just more empty rhetoric and unsupported accusations.*

Face it ... You don't even have a clue what you are posting means ... And "full of shit" applies to you again.

.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL the Troll believes republicans are all spouting fox lies because they all believe in liberty. ROFL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liberty is the conservative code word for imposing what's best for them on others. As I never seem to be limited by the laws that don't allow you to do that,  why should they be changed?  Liberty at the expenses of others is more properly called slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Retard thinks liberty is slavery.  lol
Click to expand...


Ahhh,  the 'r' word that is behind the conservative inflated egoes.  Everyone but those who agree with them is a retard. Apparently only the daily application of propaganda is what saves them from our fate. 

The symptoms of retardation include independent thinking.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberty is the conservative code word for imposing what's best for them on others. As I never seem to be limited by the laws that don't allow you to do that,  why should they be changed?  Liberty at the expenses of others is more properly called slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Retard thinks liberty is slavery.  lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ahhh,  the 'r' word that is behind the conservative inflated egoes.  Everyone but those who agree with them is a retard. Apparently only the daily application of propaganda is what saves them from our fate.
> 
> The symptoms of retardation include independent thinking.
Click to expand...


Not true, retard.   Not all socialist marxist wannabes are retarded.   You are special.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Retard thinks liberty is slavery.  lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ahhh,  the 'r' word that is behind the conservative inflated egoes.  Everyone but those who agree with them is a retard. Apparently only the daily application of propaganda is what saves them from our fate.
> 
> The symptoms of retardation include independent thinking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not true, retard.   Not all socialist marxist wannabes are retarded.   You are special.
Click to expand...


Back to propaganda  101. Make scapegoats.  Blame them for your failures. 

I think that there might be a career for you among the Fox boobs and boobies.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ahhh,  the 'r' word that is behind the conservative inflated egoes.  Everyone but those who agree with them is a retard. Apparently only the daily application of propaganda is what saves them from our fate.
> 
> The symptoms of retardation include independent thinking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not true, retard.   Not all socialist marxist wannabes are retarded.   You are special.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Back to propaganda  101. Make scapegoats.  Blame them for your failures.
> 
> I think that there might be a career for you among the Fox boobs and boobies.
Click to expand...


You are a typical marxist retard.  You vote for someone to give you something, you get what you want, then when what you asked for turns to shit, you put the blame for the shit on the folks who voted against your retarded plans in the first place.

In short, you are retarded, your ideas are retarded, the people you vote for are retarded, the results of which are ... retarded.  Well that and I'm just to tired of your boring blather to bother using different words.  Or maybe it's because I can tell how much you like it.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not true, retard.   Not all socialist marxist wannabes are retarded.   You are special.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Back to propaganda  101. Make scapegoats.  Blame them for your failures.
> 
> I think that there might be a career for you among the Fox boobs and boobies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a typical marxist retard.  You vote for someone to give you something, you get what you want, then when what you asked for turns to shit, you put the blame for the shit on the folks who voted against your retarded plans in the first place.
> 
> In short, you are retarded, your ideas are retarded, the people you vote for are retarded, the results of which are ... retarded.  Well that and I'm just to tired of your boring blather to bother using different words.  Or maybe it's because I can tell how much you like it.
Click to expand...


You certainly have a very limited vocabulary. Boring. 

I'm not retarded and I'm not a Marxist,  but you know that. But,  the only way that you can feel good about your life is to put others that far down. Obviously,  I don't care at all about how you feel. So your rants are about you,  not me. 

All that I care about is limiting,  if not eradicating, your participation in our government.  That your gang of thieves be relegated to the sidelines until the dixiecrats are purged. 

Your rants make it seem like you are also trying to become as unpopular as possible,  so maybe we are rowing in the same direction.


----------



## mamooth

Now that the conservative/MSM propganda blitz has failed so badly, what's the backup plan? I mean, other than "Conservatives scream and pout even louder".

Come on, conservatives. Lift your faces out of those cow patties, wipe the shit off, and figure out some new lies. Have at least some pride. Don't just lie there sobbing "Waah! Democrats are panicking! Waah!". It's not very convincing, and saying it makes you look like 'tards.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Back to propaganda  101. Make scapegoats.  Blame them for your failures.
> 
> I think that there might be a career for you among the Fox boobs and boobies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are a typical marxist retard.  You vote for someone to give you something, you get what you want, then when what you asked for turns to shit, you put the blame for the shit on the folks who voted against your retarded plans in the first place.
> 
> In short, you are retarded, your ideas are retarded, the people you vote for are retarded, the results of which are ... retarded.  Well that and I'm just to tired of your boring blather to bother using different words.  Or maybe it's because I can tell how much you like it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You certainly have a very limited vocabulary. Boring.
> 
> I'm not retarded and I'm not a Marxist,  but you know that. But,  the only way that you can feel good about your life is to put others that far down. Obviously,  I don't care at all about how you feel. So your rants are about you,  not me.
> 
> All that I care about is limiting,  if not eradicating, your participation in our government.  That your gang of thieves be relegated to the sidelines until the dixiecrats are purged.
> 
> Your rants make it seem like you are also trying to become as unpopular as possible,  so maybe we are rowing in the same direction.
Click to expand...


You said "[a]ll that I care about is limiting... your participation in our government..., [so] [t]hat your gang of thieves [can] be relegated to the sidelines until the dixiecrats are purged."   

I'm an engineer in the work force, my politics are libertarian, I'm not sure what gang of thieves it is that you intend to relegate to the sidelines.  I don't know any segregationists.  So I don't know what you are talking about then you say purge the dixiecrats, who were the splinter group of the democrat party that pushed for segregation.  

As long as you make somewhat cogent and non-rhetorical statements I'll respond in kind.  I'll bury the hatchet without hesitation, just as long as it's reciprocal.


----------



## BlackSand

mamooth said:


> Now that the conservative/MSM propganda blitz has failed so badly, what's the backup plan? I mean, other than "Conservatives scream and pout even louder".
> 
> Come on, conservatives. Lift your faces out of those cow patties, wipe the shit off, and figure out some new lies. Have at least some pride. Don't just lie there sobbing "Waah! Democrats are panicking! Waah!". It's not very convincing, and saying it makes you look like 'tards.



*What are you talking about?*

There hasn't been any screaming or pouting around here ... Crap, we haven't even been able to get a single coherent answer to any of a plethora of questions from the only Liberal leaning poster in this thread.
If you think you have what it takes ... You can go back over the last six pages or so ... And feel free to give any of the questions or comments a whirl.
If that isn't an acceptable proposal ... Say something that makes some sense and actually has some content worth discussing and we will play ball.

*Good Luck In Your Endeavors ... Welcome and Glad To See A New Face!*

.


----------



## Listening

PMZ said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> A quick review of the Republican plan for America.
> 
> AGW.... Do nothing
> Sustainable energy..... Do nothing.
> Poverty....... Do nothing
> Health care..... Do nothing
> Jobs.... Do nothing.
> Education...... Do nothing
> Middle East peace.... Do nothing.
> Immigration..... Do nothing.
> National debt.... Do nothing
> Regulation... Do nothing
> 
> There you have it.  The Republican Dream for America.
> 
> Nothing
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my state, our employment is great (and has been even through the Obamaconomy).
> 
> All due to GOP policies and action.
> 
> Your assertion => Failure.
> 
> Oh, and national debt...do nothing ?  Compared to keep running it up like our current Affirmative Action Doofus for a president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now that he has ended the Bush policies that created 100% of the debt,  the deficit is falling like a rock.  When the current cadre of conservative business followers get fired for,  guess what,  doing nothing,  and get replaced by liberal business leaders,  and business starts growing and hiring,  then we'll be fully recovered from the valley of Bush and be back to Clinton days.
> 
> And the Republican whiners,  led by Fox Opinions,  will howl that they want 2008, back.
Click to expand...


That's some pretty strong pot you've been smoking.

I think the Brothers Grimm would be very impressed with your fairytale prognostications.


----------



## Listening

mamooth said:


> Now that the conservative/MSM propganda blitz has failed so badly, what's the backup plan? I mean, other than "Conservatives scream and pout even louder".
> 
> Come on, conservatives. Lift your faces out of those cow patties, wipe the shit off, and figure out some new lies. Have at least some pride. Don't just lie there sobbing "Waah! Democrats are panicking! Waah!". It's not very convincing, and saying it makes you look like 'tards.



New lies ?

Like you can keep it if you like it.

Or....

It's gonna save you 2,500 a year

??????

I think the head tard is the Affirmative Action Moron we have in the White House.


----------



## Listening

BlackSand said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now that the conservative/MSM propganda blitz has failed so badly, what's the backup plan? I mean, other than "Conservatives scream and pout even louder".
> 
> Come on, conservatives. Lift your faces out of those cow patties, wipe the shit off, and figure out some new lies. Have at least some pride. Don't just lie there sobbing "Waah! Democrats are panicking! Waah!". It's not very convincing, and saying it makes you look like 'tards.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *What are you talking about?*
> 
> There hasn't been any screaming or pouting around here ... Crap, we haven't even been able to get a single coherent answer to any of a plethora of questions from the only Liberal leaning poster in this thread.
> If you think you have what it takes ... You can go back over the last six pages or so ... And feel free to give any of the questions or comments a whirl.
> If that isn't an acceptable proposal ... Say something that makes some sense and actually has some content worth discussing and we will play ball.
> 
> *Good Luck In Your Endeavors ... Welcome and Glad To See A New Face!*
> 
> .
Click to expand...


He is no longer worth the trouble.

Join the Clean Debate Zone where these kind of lectures are not allowed.


----------



## PMZ

mamooth said:


> Now that the conservative/MSM propganda blitz has failed so badly, what's the backup plan? I mean, other than "Conservatives scream and pout even louder".
> 
> Come on, conservatives. Lift your faces out of those cow patties, wipe the shit off, and figure out some new lies. Have at least some pride. Don't just lie there sobbing "Waah! Democrats are panicking! Waah!". It's not very convincing, and saying it makes you look like 'tards.



Ever since Bush crawled back to Crawford,  Republicans have had one agenda item.  Drag the country and the Democrat Party to below the reputation that Republicans  had earned. 

They failed at that too. 

There is some small amount of hope that they've seen where their one agenda item will lead.  Extinction. 

America needs to fan the flames of that slight hope.  

I,  personally think that the way to do that is at the polls in 2014 &  2016. A very strong message that not changing back to a responsible political party will lead to extinction  and that evidence of a sincere effort to return to relevance will be considered. 

Accountability.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now that the conservative/MSM propganda blitz has failed so badly, what's the backup plan? I mean, other than "Conservatives scream and pout even louder".
> 
> Come on, conservatives. Lift your faces out of those cow patties, wipe the shit off, and figure out some new lies. Have at least some pride. Don't just lie there sobbing "Waah! Democrats are panicking! Waah!". It's not very convincing, and saying it makes you look like 'tards.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ever since Bush crawled back to Crawford,  Republicans have had one agenda item.  Drag the country and the Democrat Party to below the reputation that Republicans  had earned.
> 
> They failed at that too.
> 
> There is some small amount of hope that they've seen where their one agenda item will lead.  Extinction.
> 
> America needs to fan the flames of that slight hope.
> 
> I,  personally think that the way to do that is at the polls in 2014 &  2016. A very strong message that not changing back to a responsible political party will lead to extinction  and that evidence of a sincere effort to return to relevance will be considered.
> 
> Accountability.
Click to expand...


Back to your retarded trolling ways again I see.  Bush!! Fox!! Troll.


----------



## itfitzme

Rottweiler said:


> As the Dumbocrats on USMB love to crow about - Obamacare was passed into law by Congress, signed into law by the president, and upheld by the Supreme Court. So _why_ exactly does the federal government have to piss away billions to *promote* an existing law?!? Has this _ever_ been done with any other law in U.S. _history_?
> 
> They begged the NBA to help promote it and the NBA said yes. They begged the NFL to help promote it, and the NFL told them to go fuck themselves (doh!). So why are they so desperate to reach people through Hollywood and sports? Because even the Dumbocrats know this is a miserable failure, and they _know_ it is going to be repealed eventually unless they can do major damage control and brainwash the masses (especially the young and impressionable - hence the NBA, NFL, etc.) that this is a "good" thing.
> 
> Super Bowl champ Baltimore Ravens getting paid $130,000 to promote Obamacare | WashingtonExaminer.com



Yes, governments, both local and federal, promote programs.  That they do isn't some indictment of the program.  The idea that it is is pure folly.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now that the conservative/MSM propganda blitz has failed so badly, what's the backup plan? I mean, other than "Conservatives scream and pout even louder".
> 
> Come on, conservatives. Lift your faces out of those cow patties, wipe the shit off, and figure out some new lies. Have at least some pride. Don't just lie there sobbing "Waah! Democrats are panicking! Waah!". It's not very convincing, and saying it makes you look like 'tards.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ever since Bush crawled back to Crawford,  Republicans have had one agenda item.  Drag the country and the Democrat Party to below the reputation that Republicans  had earned.
> 
> They failed at that too.
> 
> There is some small amount of hope that they've seen where their one agenda item will lead.  Extinction.
> 
> America needs to fan the flames of that slight hope.
> 
> I,  personally think that the way to do that is at the polls in 2014 &  2016. A very strong message that not changing back to a responsible political party will lead to extinction  and that evidence of a sincere effort to return to relevance will be considered.
> 
> Accountability.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Back to your retarded trolling ways again I see.  Bush!! Fox!! Troll.
Click to expand...


Accountability is tough. I will continue to hold those  who I believe are causing our national dysfunction accountable. 

I will treat you, personally with as much or little respect as you show me. But that has nothing to do with my opinions about problems or solutions.

If anyone here can show me facts that I don't know about anything I will be grateful.

I will explain why I believe as I do.

But I will not merely bow to other opinions offered without evidence.


----------



## Listening

PMZ said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now that the conservative/MSM propganda blitz has failed so badly, what's the backup plan? I mean, other than "Conservatives scream and pout even louder".
> 
> Come on, conservatives. Lift your faces out of those cow patties, wipe the shit off, and figure out some new lies. Have at least some pride. Don't just lie there sobbing "Waah! Democrats are panicking! Waah!". It's not very convincing, and saying it makes you look like 'tards.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ever since Bush crawled back to Crawford,  Republicans have had one agenda item.  Drag the country and the Democrat Party to below the reputation that Republicans  had earned.
> 
> They failed at that too.
Click to expand...


Fortunately, Obama has picked up the slack.


----------



## Antares

mamooth said:


> Now that the conservative/MSM propganda blitz has failed so badly, what's the backup plan? I mean, other than "Conservatives scream and pout even louder".
> 
> Come on, conservatives. Lift your faces out of those cow patties, wipe the shit off, and figure out some new lies. Have at least some pride. Don't just lie there sobbing "Waah! Democrats are panicking! Waah!". It's not very convincing, and saying it makes you look like 'tards.



You poor kid, the ACA is going to destroy your side next November, the thins is crumbling.


----------



## PMZ

Antares said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now that the conservative/MSM propganda blitz has failed so badly, what's the backup plan? I mean, other than "Conservatives scream and pout even louder".
> 
> Come on, conservatives. Lift your faces out of those cow patties, wipe the shit off, and figure out some new lies. Have at least some pride. Don't just lie there sobbing "Waah! Democrats are panicking! Waah!". It's not very convincing, and saying it makes you look like 'tards.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You poor kid, the ACA is going to destroy your side next November, the thins is crumbling.
Click to expand...


What you mean is that the GOP is going to try to use ACA to try to regain some relevance that they've given away. Just like all of their other faux crises.

By then ACA will be working fine and the egg will be on the face that it belongs on. Private Insurance companies.


----------



## Antares

PMZ said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now that the conservative/MSM propganda blitz has failed so badly, what's the backup plan? I mean, other than "Conservatives scream and pout even louder".
> 
> Come on, conservatives. Lift your faces out of those cow patties, wipe the shit off, and figure out some new lies. Have at least some pride. Don't just lie there sobbing "Waah! Democrats are panicking! Waah!". It's not very convincing, and saying it makes you look like 'tards.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You poor kid, the ACA is going to destroy your side next November, the thins is crumbling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you mean is that the GOP is going to try to use ACA to try to regain some relevance that they've given away. Just like all of their other faux crises.
> 
> By then ACA will be working fine and the egg will be on the face that it belongs on. Private Insurance companies.
Click to expand...


Do tell?
Please exlain.


----------



## PMZ

Antares said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> You poor kid, the ACA is going to destroy your side next November, the thins is crumbling.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you mean is that the GOP is going to try to use ACA to try to regain some relevance that they've given away. Just like all of their other faux crises.
> 
> By then ACA will be working fine and the egg will be on the face that it belongs on. Private Insurance companies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do tell?
> Please exlain.
Click to expand...


The ACA website apparently has some startup problems. I'm on Medicare and have extensively used Medicare.gov to research alternative plans. One of the best research sites that I've seen. 

Anybody who would expect there not to be confusion when millions of people who have never had health insurance wrestle with the complexities of making the right choice is nuts.

Anybody with a little bit of common sense would let the website problems get worked out, pick up the phone and get 'er done.

Meanwhile the people who get their health insurance from their employer are wondering what the fuss is about.

Republicans tried for months to try to spin something from Bengazi and found that no matter how they spun it, the public saw their propaganda as politics rather than the bogeyman.

ACA is the same.


----------



## Antares

PMZ said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you mean is that the GOP is going to try to use ACA to try to regain some relevance that they've given away. Just like all of their other faux crises.
> 
> By then ACA will be working fine and the egg will be on the face that it belongs on. Private Insurance companies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do tell?
> Please exlain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The ACA website apparently has some startup problems. I'm on Medicare and have extensively used Medicare.gov to research alternative plans. One of the best research sites that I've seen.
> 
> Anybody who would expect there not to be confusion when millions of people who have never had health insurance wrestle with the complexities of making the right choice is nuts.
> 
> Anybody with a little bit of common sense would let the website problems get worked out, pick up the phone and get 'er done.
> 
> Meanwhile the people who get their health insurance from their employer are wondering what the fuss is about.
> 
> Republicans tried for months to try to spin something from Bengazi and found that no matter how they spun it, the public saw their propaganda as politics rather than the bogeyman.
> 
> ACA is the same.
Click to expand...


*The ACA website apparently has some startup problems*

It has been inoperable.

*I'm on Medicare and have extensively used Medicare.gov to research alternative plans. One of the best research sites that I've seen. *

Agreed.

*Anybody who would expect there not to be confusion when millions of people who have never had health insurance wrestle with the complexities of making the right choice is nuts.
*

The confusion is across the board, not just those who have "never" had insurance.
Insurance is complex to everyone who doesn't do it everyday...it isn't that hard to explain.

*Meanwhile the people who get their health insurance from their employer are wondering what the fuss is about.*

Sorry no. But the real shit from this is next October, sorry.

*Republicans tried for months to try to spin something from Bengazi and found that no matter how they spun it, the public saw their propaganda as politics rather than the bogeyman.*

Deflection, dismissed.

*ACA is the same*

Nope, sorry.
The website is secondary to Obama's lie.....MILLIONS are losing their plans and MILLIONS more are coming.

Cracka lied and it will bite him and the DEMS in the ass next November.


----------



## PMZ

Antares said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do tell?
> Please exlain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The ACA website apparently has some startup problems. I'm on Medicare and have extensively used Medicare.gov to research alternative plans. One of the best research sites that I've seen.
> 
> Anybody who would expect there not to be confusion when millions of people who have never had health insurance wrestle with the complexities of making the right choice is nuts.
> 
> Anybody with a little bit of common sense would let the website problems get worked out, pick up the phone and get 'er done.
> 
> Meanwhile the people who get their health insurance from their employer are wondering what the fuss is about.
> 
> Republicans tried for months to try to spin something from Bengazi and found that no matter how they spun it, the public saw their propaganda as politics rather than the bogeyman.
> 
> ACA is the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The ACA website apparently has some startup problems*
> 
> It has been inoperable.
> 
> *I'm on Medicare and have extensively used Medicare.gov to research alternative plans. One of the best research sites that I've seen. *
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> *Anybody who would expect there not to be confusion when millions of people who have never had health insurance wrestle with the complexities of making the right choice is nuts.
> *
> 
> The confusion is across the board, not just those who have "never" had insurance.
> Insurance is complex to everyone who doesn't do it everyday...it isn't that hard to explain.
> 
> *Meanwhile the people who get their health insurance from their employer are wondering what the fuss is about.*
> 
> Sorry no. But the real shit from this is next October, sorry.
> 
> *Republicans tried for months to try to spin something from Bengazi and found that no matter how they spun it, the public saw their propaganda as politics rather than the bogeyman.*
> 
> Deflection, dismissed.
> 
> *ACA is the same*
> 
> Nope, sorry.
> The website is secondary to Obama's lie.....MILLIONS are losing their plans and MILLIONS more are coming.
> 
> Cracka lied and it will bite him and the DEMS in the ass next November.
Click to expand...


What evidence is there that it is inoperable? The only people that need to use it are those who qualify for subsidies.

What confusion exists among those who get their insurance from their employer?

Whatever number that you make up about it, nobody is losing their insurance. Insurance companies are updating their policies. Happens every single year. 

You're using Republican campaign propaganda and nobody with any real sense is falling for it just like all of the other products from the Republican spin of the month club.

The GOP dug themselves a giant hole from day 1 insisting that us paying 2X for health care compared to every other developed country in the world is not a problem and it ought to be treated with a heaping helping of Republican do nothing. They are learning now that when you find yourself in a hole, first, stop digging.


----------



## Antares

PMZ said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> The ACA website apparently has some startup problems. I'm on Medicare and have extensively used Medicare.gov to research alternative plans. One of the best research sites that I've seen.
> 
> Anybody who would expect there not to be confusion when millions of people who have never had health insurance wrestle with the complexities of making the right choice is nuts.
> 
> Anybody with a little bit of common sense would let the website problems get worked out, pick up the phone and get 'er done.
> 
> Meanwhile the people who get their health insurance from their employer are wondering what the fuss is about.
> 
> Republicans tried for months to try to spin something from Bengazi and found that no matter how they spun it, the public saw their propaganda as politics rather than the bogeyman.
> 
> ACA is the same.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The ACA website apparently has some startup problems*
> 
> It has been inoperable.
> 
> *I'm on Medicare and have extensively used Medicare.gov to research alternative plans. One of the best research sites that I've seen. *
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> *Anybody who would expect there not to be confusion when millions of people who have never had health insurance wrestle with the complexities of making the right choice is nuts.
> *
> 
> The confusion is across the board, not just those who have "never" had insurance.
> Insurance is complex to everyone who doesn't do it everyday...it isn't that hard to explain.
> 
> *Meanwhile the people who get their health insurance from their employer are wondering what the fuss is about.*
> 
> Sorry no. But the real shit from this is next October, sorry.
> 
> *Republicans tried for months to try to spin something from Bengazi and found that no matter how they spun it, the public saw their propaganda as politics rather than the bogeyman.*
> 
> Deflection, dismissed.
> 
> *ACA is the same*
> 
> Nope, sorry.
> The website is secondary to Obama's lie.....MILLIONS are losing their plans and MILLIONS more are coming.
> 
> Cracka lied and it will bite him and the DEMS in the ass next November.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What evidence is there that it is inoperable?
> 
> What confusion exists among those who get their insurance from their employer?
> 
> Whatever number that you make up about it, nobody is losing their insurance. Insurance companies are updating their policies. Happens every single year.
> 
> You're using Republican campaign propaganda and nobody with any real sense is falling for it just like all of the other products from the Republican spin of the month club.
> 
> The GOP dug themselves a giant hole from day 1 insisting that us paying 2X for health care compared to every other developed country in the world is not a problem and it ought to be treated with a heaping helping of Republican do nothing. They are learning now that when you find yourself in a sole, first, stop digging.
Click to expand...


*What evidence is there that it is inoperable? *

Ohhhh, read the news.

*What confusion exists among those who get their insurance from their employer?*

You are ill informed....it is the individual mkt that has been decimated so far...but this week the calls concerning Group coverage has picked up...next Oct will suck for the Left.

*Whatever number that you make up about it, nobody is losing their insurance. Insurance companies are updating their policies. Happens every single year. *

Sorry no....MOST insurance companies chose to become ACA compliant on Jan 1...as the law stipulates....thats where the cancellations are coming from...they chose to become compliant therefore existing plans had to go away.
Sorry.

You are guilty of lying....I know you really don't know and so do you....integrity demands you admit what you don't know.

Healthcare is what I do everyday.

I am a Conservative Repub...and until Oct 2nd I have been DEAD SET against the ACA.

October 2nd a lady called me...HIV Positive and Pregnant and until THAT day she had no hope.

No hope at all....and now Jan1 she can breathe....my life changed that day.
The law will not work as written....but it needs to be, and can be fixed....Obama's ego is standing in the way.

The ACA NEEDS to be suspended and reworked.


----------



## PMZ

Here's a link to a website that very few of the whiney Republicans have ever been to. 

https://www.healthcare.gov/

One of the many, many tools there are to shop for and obtain health insurance now. Of course all of the traditional resources are still out there too.


----------



## PMZ

Antares said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The ACA website apparently has some startup problems*
> 
> It has been inoperable.
> 
> *I'm on Medicare and have extensively used Medicare.gov to research alternative plans. One of the best research sites that I've seen. *
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> *Anybody who would expect there not to be confusion when millions of people who have never had health insurance wrestle with the complexities of making the right choice is nuts.
> *
> 
> The confusion is across the board, not just those who have "never" had insurance.
> Insurance is complex to everyone who doesn't do it everyday...it isn't that hard to explain.
> 
> *Meanwhile the people who get their health insurance from their employer are wondering what the fuss is about.*
> 
> Sorry no. But the real shit from this is next October, sorry.
> 
> *Republicans tried for months to try to spin something from Bengazi and found that no matter how they spun it, the public saw their propaganda as politics rather than the bogeyman.*
> 
> Deflection, dismissed.
> 
> *ACA is the same*
> 
> Nope, sorry.
> The website is secondary to Obama's lie.....MILLIONS are losing their plans and MILLIONS more are coming.
> 
> Cracka lied and it will bite him and the DEMS in the ass next November.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What evidence is there that it is inoperable?
> 
> What confusion exists among those who get their insurance from their employer?
> 
> Whatever number that you make up about it, nobody is losing their insurance. Insurance companies are updating their policies. Happens every single year.
> 
> You're using Republican campaign propaganda and nobody with any real sense is falling for it just like all of the other products from the Republican spin of the month club.
> 
> The GOP dug themselves a giant hole from day 1 insisting that us paying 2X for health care compared to every other developed country in the world is not a problem and it ought to be treated with a heaping helping of Republican do nothing. They are learning now that when you find yourself in a sole, first, stop digging.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *What evidence is there that it is inoperable? *
> 
> Ohhhh, read the news.
> 
> *What confusion exists among those who get their insurance from their employer?*
> 
> You are ill informed....it is the individual mkt that has been decimated so far...but this week the calls concerning Group coverage has picked up...next Oct will suck for the Left.
> 
> *Whatever number that you make up about it, nobody is losing their insurance. Insurance companies are updating their policies. Happens every single year. *
> 
> Sorry no....MOST insurance companies chose to become ACA compliant on Jan 1...as the law stipulates....thats where the cancellations are coming from...they chose to become compliant therefore existing plans had to go away.
> Sorry.
> 
> You are guilty of lying....I know you really don't know and so do you....integrity demands you admit what you don't know.
> 
> Healthcare is what I do everyday.
> 
> I am a Conservative Repub...and until Oct 2nd I have been DEAD SET against the ACA.
> 
> October 2nd a lady called me...HIV Positive and Pregnant and until THAT day she had no hope.
> 
> No hope at all....and now Jan1 she can breathe....my life changed that day.
> The law will not work as written....but it needs to be, and can be fixed....Obama's ego is standing in the way.
> 
> The ACA NEEDS to be suspended and reworked.
Click to expand...


"Sorry no....MOST insurance companies chose to become ACA compliant on Jan 1...as the law stipulates....thats where the cancellations are coming from...they chose to become compliant therefore existing plans had to go away.
Sorry."

Don't be sorry. So you are saying that the private insurance companies are offering no way for people to comply with the law??????

Can you give us a list of companies that are merely canceling existing policies and offering no replacement?


----------



## Antares

PMZ said:


> Here's a link to a website that very few of the whiney Republicans have ever been to.
> 
> https://www.healthcare.gov/
> 
> One of the many, many tools there are to shop for and obtain health insurance now. Of course all of the traditional resources are still out there too.



I am there every day, it rarely works...today it worked 1/6 of the time.

Sorry.


----------



## PMZ

Antares said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a link to a website that very few of the whiney Republicans have ever been to.
> 
> https://www.healthcare.gov/
> 
> One of the many, many tools there are to shop for and obtain health insurance now. Of course all of the traditional resources are still out there too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am there every day, it rarely works...today it worked 1/6 of the time.
> 
> Sorry.
Click to expand...


Here, from the site that you say is not working. It turns out that it doesn't need to be

You can apply for health coverage in the Marketplace 4 ways: with a paper application, online, by phone, or in person with an assister.

Get status updates about HealthCare.gov site performance and the actions were taking to improve your experience.

Apply with a paper application
You can fill out a paper application and mail it in. Youll find out whether youre eligible for lower costs on private insurance, Medicaid, or the Childrens Health Insurance Program (CHIP).

Once you get your eligibility notice, you can either go online to compare, choose, and enroll in a plan or contact our call center. A customer service representative will help you.

If you or someone on your application are eligible for Medicaid or CHIP, a representative will contact you to enroll.

To get a paper application, download the application form and instructions.

Apply online in 4 steps
When you apply online, youll follow a 4-step process:

Set up an account. Start by going to the Marketplace page. First you'll provide some basic information. Then choose a user name, password, and security questions for added protection.
Fill out the online application. You'll provide information about you and your family, like income, household members, current health coverage information, and more. This will help the Marketplace find options that meet your needs. Important: If your household files more than one tax return, call the Marketplace Call Center at 1-800-318-2596 (TTY: 1-855-889-4325) before you start an application. This is a very important step. Please dont skip it. Representatives can provide directions to make sure your application is processed correctly.
Compare your options. You'll be able to see all the options you qualify for, including private insurance plans and free and low-cost coverage through Medicaid and the Childrens Health Insurance Program (CHIP). The Marketplace will tell you if you qualify for lower costs on your monthly premiums and out-of-pocket costs on private insurance. Youll see details on costs and benefits to help you choose a plan thats right for you.
Enroll. After you choose a plan, you can enroll online and decide how you pay your premiums to your insurance company. You must pay your premium by the date the insurer provides before your coverage can begin. Coverage can begin as soon as January 1, 2014. If you or a member of your family qualify for Medicaid or CHIP, a representative will contact you to enroll.
Learn what you can do to get ready to enroll. If you run a small business, heres what you can do to get ready to offer coverage for your employees in the SHOP Marketplace.

If you have any questions, theres plenty of live and online help along the way.

Apply by phone or with an in-person assister
To apply by phone, call 1-800-318-2596, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week (TTY: 1-855-889-4325). A customer service representative will work with you to complete the application and enrollment process.

You can also apply with the help of an assister who can sit with you and help you fill out a paper or online application. Read the next section for more details.

Find in-person help
In all states, there are people trained and certified to help you understand your health coverage options and enroll in a Marketplace plan. Theyre known by different names, depending on who provides the service and where theyre located. All can provide the help you need with your application and choices:

Navigators
Application assisters
Certified application counselors
Government agencies, such as State Medicaid and Childrens Health Insurance Program (CHIP) Offices
Insurance agents and brokers can also help you with your application and choices.

Visit LocalHelp.HealthCare.gov to find help in your area. You can search by city and state or zip code to see a list of local organizations with contact information, office hours, and types of help offered, such as non-English language support, Medicaid or CHIP, and Small Business Health Options Program (SHOP).

Before you apply, preview plans and estimated savings
Before you fill out a Marketplace application, you can do 2 things to learn your options:

Use a cost and savings calculator to see if you may qualify for lower costs based on your household size and income.

Preview plans and prices available in your area. Note: Premium amounts in this tool are only examples, based on a limited set of sample ages and scenarios. They may not fully reflect your individual situation. Actual plan pricing can change based on your household size, ages, and tobacco use, and your costs may be lower based on your income. You'll get final quotes for specific plans based on your income and household after you complete a Marketplace application.

By using both the Kaiser calculator and the plans and prices tool together, you'll be able to see the plans and full prices available to you, and find out whether you'll qualify for lower costs.

Small business coverage: If you own a small business and want to apply for SHOP coverage for your employees, youll follow a different process. Begin that process now. Select your state from the drop down menu. Then click the green button to take the next step.


----------



## Antares

PMZ said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> What evidence is there that it is inoperable?
> 
> What confusion exists among those who get their insurance from their employer?
> 
> Whatever number that you make up about it, nobody is losing their insurance. Insurance companies are updating their policies. Happens every single year.
> 
> You're using Republican campaign propaganda and nobody with any real sense is falling for it just like all of the other products from the Republican spin of the month club.
> 
> The GOP dug themselves a giant hole from day 1 insisting that us paying 2X for health care compared to every other developed country in the world is not a problem and it ought to be treated with a heaping helping of Republican do nothing. They are learning now that when you find yourself in a sole, first, stop digging.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *What evidence is there that it is inoperable? *
> 
> Ohhhh, read the news.
> 
> *What confusion exists among those who get their insurance from their employer?*
> 
> You are ill informed....it is the individual mkt that has been decimated so far...but this week the calls concerning Group coverage has picked up...next Oct will suck for the Left.
> 
> *Whatever number that you make up about it, nobody is losing their insurance. Insurance companies are updating their policies. Happens every single year. *
> 
> Sorry no....MOST insurance companies chose to become ACA compliant on Jan 1...as the law stipulates....thats where the cancellations are coming from...they chose to become compliant therefore existing plans had to go away.
> Sorry.
> 
> You are guilty of lying....I know you really don't know and so do you....integrity demands you admit what you don't know.
> 
> Healthcare is what I do everyday.
> 
> I am a Conservative Repub...and until Oct 2nd I have been DEAD SET against the ACA.
> 
> October 2nd a lady called me...HIV Positive and Pregnant and until THAT day she had no hope.
> 
> No hope at all....and now Jan1 she can breathe....my life changed that day.
> The law will not work as written....but it needs to be, and can be fixed....Obama's ego is standing in the way.
> 
> The ACA NEEDS to be suspended and reworked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Sorry no....MOST insurance companies chose to become ACA compliant on Jan 1...as the law stipulates....thats where the cancellations are coming from...they chose to become compliant therefore existing plans had to go away.
> Sorry."
> 
> Don't be sorry. So you are saying that the private insurance companies are offering no way for people to comply with the law??????
> 
> Can you give us a list of companies that are merely canceling existing policies and offering no replacement?
Click to expand...



*Don't be sorry. So you are saying that the private insurance companies are offering no way for people to comply with the law??????*

Nope, I am telling you that the cancellations have come because they COMPLIED with the law.

*Can you give us a list of companies that are merely canceling existing policies and offering no replacement?*

ALL companies that have cancelled policies are now offering ACA compliant policies...the problem is that premiums have sky rocketed....

Here is my problem with it....

The people that NEED the help the most aren't getting.

I have had Doctors that make 80-90 grand get subsidies and folk making 11000 not get them.

The people needing helop the most are still falling through the cracks.

Sometimes it is hard to sleep at night knowing what I know.


----------



## Antares

PMZ said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a link to a website that very few of the whiney Republicans have ever been to.
> 
> https://www.healthcare.gov/
> 
> One of the many, many tools there are to shop for and obtain health insurance now. Of course all of the traditional resources are still out there too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am there every day, it rarely works...today it worked 1/6 of the time.
> 
> Sorry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here, from the site that you say is not working. It turns out that it doesn't need to be
> 
> You can apply for health coverage in the Marketplace 4 ways: with a paper application, online, by phone, or in person with an assister.
> 
> Get status updates about HealthCare.gov site performance and the actions were taking to improve your experience.
> 
> Apply with a paper application
> You can fill out a paper application and mail it in. Youll find out whether youre eligible for lower costs on private insurance, Medicaid, or the Childrens Health Insurance Program (CHIP).
> 
> Once you get your eligibility notice, you can either go online to compare, choose, and enroll in a plan or contact our call center. A customer service representative will help you.
> 
> If you or someone on your application are eligible for Medicaid or CHIP, a representative will contact you to enroll.
> 
> To get a paper application, download the application form and instructions.
> 
> Apply online in 4 steps
> When you apply online, youll follow a 4-step process:
> 
> Set up an account. Start by going to the Marketplace page. First you'll provide some basic information. Then choose a user name, password, and security questions for added protection.
> Fill out the online application. You'll provide information about you and your family, like income, household members, current health coverage information, and more. This will help the Marketplace find options that meet your needs. Important: If your household files more than one tax return, call the Marketplace Call Center at 1-800-318-2596 (TTY: 1-855-889-4325) before you start an application. This is a very important step. Please dont skip it. Representatives can provide directions to make sure your application is processed correctly.
> Compare your options. You'll be able to see all the options you qualify for, including private insurance plans and free and low-cost coverage through Medicaid and the Childrens Health Insurance Program (CHIP). The Marketplace will tell you if you qualify for lower costs on your monthly premiums and out-of-pocket costs on private insurance. Youll see details on costs and benefits to help you choose a plan thats right for you.
> Enroll. After you choose a plan, you can enroll online and decide how you pay your premiums to your insurance company. You must pay your premium by the date the insurer provides before your coverage can begin. Coverage can begin as soon as January 1, 2014. If you or a member of your family qualify for Medicaid or CHIP, a representative will contact you to enroll.
> Learn what you can do to get ready to enroll. If you run a small business, heres what you can do to get ready to offer coverage for your employees in the SHOP Marketplace.
> 
> If you have any questions, theres plenty of live and online help along the way.
> 
> Apply by phone or with an in-person assister
> To apply by phone, call 1-800-318-2596, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week (TTY: 1-855-889-4325). A customer service representative will work with you to complete the application and enrollment process.
> 
> You can also apply with the help of an assister who can sit with you and help you fill out a paper or online application. Read the next section for more details.
> 
> Find in-person help
> In all states, there are people trained and certified to help you understand your health coverage options and enroll in a Marketplace plan. Theyre known by different names, depending on who provides the service and where theyre located. All can provide the help you need with your application and choices:
> 
> Navigators
> Application assisters
> Certified application counselors
> Government agencies, such as State Medicaid and Childrens Health Insurance Program (CHIP) Offices
> Insurance agents and brokers can also help you with your application and choices.
> 
> Visit LocalHelp.HealthCare.gov to find help in your area. You can search by city and state or zip code to see a list of local organizations with contact information, office hours, and types of help offered, such as non-English language support, Medicaid or CHIP, and Small Business Health Options Program (SHOP).
> 
> Before you apply, preview plans and estimated savings
> Before you fill out a Marketplace application, you can do 2 things to learn your options:
> 
> Use a cost and savings calculator to see if you may qualify for lower costs based on your household size and income.
> 
> Preview plans and prices available in your area. Note: Premium amounts in this tool are only examples, based on a limited set of sample ages and scenarios. They may not fully reflect your individual situation. Actual plan pricing can change based on your household size, ages, and tobacco use, and your costs may be lower based on your income. You'll get final quotes for specific plans based on your income and household after you complete a Marketplace application.
> 
> By using both the Kaiser calculator and the plans and prices tool together, you'll be able to see the plans and full prices available to you, and find out whether you'll qualify for lower costs.
> 
> Small business coverage: If you own a small business and want to apply for SHOP coverage for your employees, youll follow a different process. Begin that process now. Select your state from the drop down menu. Then click the green button to take the next step.
Click to expand...


*You can apply for health coverage in the Marketplace 4 ways: with a paper application, online, by phone, or in person with an assister.*

Nope. The paper application is the main way I have used....it is taking them 4-5 weeks to call the insured just to verify the app....online is working 1/6th of the time. on the phone they are at the same mercy of the website...sorry I used them all today.

*Apply with a paper application
You can fill out a paper application and mail it in. Youll find out whether youre eligible for lower costs on private insurance, Medicaid, or the Childrens Health Insurance Program (CHIP).*

They are 4-5 weeks behind on this.
CHIP and PCIP are gone.

*To get a paper application, download the application form and instructions.*

I am filling thse out for folks every day.

*Apply online in 4 steps
When you apply online, youll follow a 4-step process:

Set up an account. Start by going to the Marketplace page. First you'll provide some basic information. Then choose a user name, password, and security questions for added protection.
Fill out the online application. You'll provide information about you and your family, like income, household members, current health coverage information, and more. This will help the Marketplace find options that meet your needs. Important: If your household files more than one tax return, call the Marketplace Call Center at 1-800-318-2596 (TTY: 1-855-889-4325) before you start an application. This is a very important step. Please dont skip it. Representatives can provide directions to make sure your application is processed correctly.
Compare your options. You'll be able to see all the options you qualify for, including private insurance plans and free and low-cost coverage through Medicaid and the Childrens Health Insurance Program (CHIP). The Marketplace will tell you if you qualify for lower costs on your monthly premiums and out-of-pocket costs on private insurance. Youll see details on costs and benefits to help you choose a plan thats right for you.
Enroll. After you choose a plan, you can enroll online and decide how you pay your premiums to your insurance company. You must pay your premium by the date the insurer provides before your coverage can begin. Coverage can begin as soon as January 1, 2014. If you or a member of your family qualify for Medicaid or CHIP, a representative will contact you to enroll.
Learn what you can do to get ready to enroll. If you run a small business, heres what you can do to get ready to offer coverage for your employees in the SHOP Marketplace.

If you have any questions, theres plenty of live and online help along the way.
*

Stop all of this depends on the site working.

You post from the site 
The truth is that it simply isn't working.


----------



## Antares

I do this every day, what you post isn't the way it is working.

I tried the website 6 times today, only one got trhough.

I had to use the paper app for the rest.

Today is Nov 20th.....if they are taking 4-5 weeks to make the follow up phone do the math....

Go day is Jan 1.


----------



## PMZ

Antares said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> *What evidence is there that it is inoperable? *
> 
> Ohhhh, read the news.
> 
> *What confusion exists among those who get their insurance from their employer?*
> 
> You are ill informed....it is the individual mkt that has been decimated so far...but this week the calls concerning Group coverage has picked up...next Oct will suck for the Left.
> 
> *Whatever number that you make up about it, nobody is losing their insurance. Insurance companies are updating their policies. Happens every single year. *
> 
> Sorry no....MOST insurance companies chose to become ACA compliant on Jan 1...as the law stipulates....thats where the cancellations are coming from...they chose to become compliant therefore existing plans had to go away.
> Sorry.
> 
> You are guilty of lying....I know you really don't know and so do you....integrity demands you admit what you don't know.
> 
> Healthcare is what I do everyday.
> 
> I am a Conservative Repub...and until Oct 2nd I have been DEAD SET against the ACA.
> 
> October 2nd a lady called me...HIV Positive and Pregnant and until THAT day she had no hope.
> 
> No hope at all....and now Jan1 she can breathe....my life changed that day.
> The law will not work as written....but it needs to be, and can be fixed....Obama's ego is standing in the way.
> 
> The ACA NEEDS to be suspended and reworked.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Sorry no....MOST insurance companies chose to become ACA compliant on Jan 1...as the law stipulates....thats where the cancellations are coming from...they chose to become compliant therefore existing plans had to go away.
> Sorry."
> 
> Don't be sorry. So you are saying that the private insurance companies are offering no way for people to comply with the law??????
> 
> Can you give us a list of companies that are merely canceling existing policies and offering no replacement?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *Don't be sorry. So you are saying that the private insurance companies are offering no way for people to comply with the law??????*
> 
> Nope, I am telling you that the cancellations have come because they COMPLIED with the law.
> 
> *Can you give us a list of companies that are merely canceling existing policies and offering no replacement?*
> 
> ALL companies that have cancelled policies are now offering ACA compliant policies...the problem is that premiums have sky rocketed....
> 
> Here is my problem with it....
> 
> The people that NEED the help the most aren't getting.
> 
> I have had Doctors that make 80-90 grand get subsidies and folk making 11000 not get them.
> 
> The people needing helop the most are still falling through the cracks.
> 
> Sometimes it is hard to sleep at night knowing what I know.
Click to expand...


I absolutely agree that the subsidy process ought to be fair. 

Here's something to think about. Health care costs are going up. For everyone. There is really only one force holding them down. Medicare. Unfortunately, Drs are pretty good in making up the income they can't make from Medicare from younger patients.

You suppose some of that is going on?


----------



## Antares

PMZ said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Sorry no....MOST insurance companies chose to become ACA compliant on Jan 1...as the law stipulates....thats where the cancellations are coming from...they chose to become compliant therefore existing plans had to go away.
> Sorry."
> 
> Don't be sorry. So you are saying that the private insurance companies are offering no way for people to comply with the law??????
> 
> Can you give us a list of companies that are merely canceling existing policies and offering no replacement?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Don't be sorry. So you are saying that the private insurance companies are offering no way for people to comply with the law??????*
> 
> Nope, I am telling you that the cancellations have come because they COMPLIED with the law.
> 
> *Can you give us a list of companies that are merely canceling existing policies and offering no replacement?*
> 
> ALL companies that have cancelled policies are now offering ACA compliant policies...the problem is that premiums have sky rocketed....
> 
> Here is my problem with it....
> 
> The people that NEED the help the most aren't getting.
> 
> I have had Doctors that make 80-90 grand get subsidies and folk making 11000 not get them.
> 
> The people needing helop the most are still falling through the cracks.
> 
> Sometimes it is hard to sleep at night knowing what I know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I absolutely agree that the subsidy process ought to be fair.
> 
> Here's something to think about. Health care costs are going up. For everyone. There is really only one force holding them down. Medicare. Unfortunately, Drs are pretty good in making up the income they can't make from Medicare from younger patients.
> 
> You suppose some of that is going on?
Click to expand...


I do.

PMZ, I live this.
Everyday there are happy people and everyday there are sad, upset, hurt people.
I live their emotions good and bad.....

The Law can be good...but EVERYBODY needs to take their ego's out it.


----------



## PMZ

Antares said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Don't be sorry. So you are saying that the private insurance companies are offering no way for people to comply with the law??????*
> 
> Nope, I am telling you that the cancellations have come because they COMPLIED with the law.
> 
> *Can you give us a list of companies that are merely canceling existing policies and offering no replacement?*
> 
> ALL companies that have cancelled policies are now offering ACA compliant policies...the problem is that premiums have sky rocketed....
> 
> Here is my problem with it....
> 
> The people that NEED the help the most aren't getting.
> 
> I have had Doctors that make 80-90 grand get subsidies and folk making 11000 not get them.
> 
> The people needing helop the most are still falling through the cracks.
> 
> Sometimes it is hard to sleep at night knowing what I know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I absolutely agree that the subsidy process ought to be fair.
> 
> Here's something to think about. Health care costs are going up. For everyone. There is really only one force holding them down. Medicare. Unfortunately, Drs are pretty good in making up the income they can't make from Medicare from younger patients.
> 
> You suppose some of that is going on?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do.
> 
> PMZ, I live this.
> Everyday there are happy people and everyday there are sad, upset, hurt people.
> I live their emotions good and bad.....
> 
> The Law can be good...but EVERYBODY needs to take their ego's out it.
Click to expand...


It's not easy to help people. There are obstacles at every turn. That's one of the reasons that they need help.

ACA is help.


----------



## Antares

I am the first to admit I am an ideologue....but this can be a very good thing.


----------



## PMZ

As I wrestle with Medicare coverage,  there is one clear distinction.  Medicare Advantage HMOs are cheaper,  or have better benefits,  than Medicare Advantage PPOs.  Why? The HMOs limit you to "in network" Drs and facilities.  Sensible,  no? 

Today I read in the paper that the next skirmish in the propaganda war that the GOP is waging on health care insurance progress will be claiming that Obamacare is limiting choice in medical providers. 

WTF?


----------



## Listening

PMZ said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I absolutely agree that the subsidy process ought to be fair.
> 
> Here's something to think about. Health care costs are going up. For everyone. There is really only one force holding them down. Medicare. Unfortunately, Drs are pretty good in making up the income they can't make from Medicare from younger patients.
> 
> You suppose some of that is going on?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do.
> 
> PMZ, I live this.
> Everyday there are happy people and everyday there are sad, upset, hurt people.
> I live their emotions good and bad.....
> 
> The Law can be good...but EVERYBODY needs to take their ego's out it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not easy to help people. There are obstacles at every turn. That's one of the reasons that they need help.
> 
> *ACA is help*.
Click to expand...


Yeah...right over a cliff.


----------



## Listening

PMZ said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Sorry no....MOST insurance companies chose to become ACA compliant on Jan 1...as the law stipulates....thats where the cancellations are coming from...they chose to become compliant therefore existing plans had to go away.
> Sorry."
> 
> Don't be sorry. So you are saying that the private insurance companies are offering no way for people to comply with the law??????
> 
> Can you give us a list of companies that are merely canceling existing policies and offering no replacement?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Don't be sorry. So you are saying that the private insurance companies are offering no way for people to comply with the law??????*
> 
> Nope, I am telling you that the cancellations have come because they COMPLIED with the law.
> 
> *Can you give us a list of companies that are merely canceling existing policies and offering no replacement?*
> 
> ALL companies that have cancelled policies are now offering ACA compliant policies...the problem is that premiums have sky rocketed....
> 
> Here is my problem with it....
> 
> The people that NEED the help the most aren't getting.
> 
> I have had Doctors that make 80-90 grand get subsidies and folk making 11000 not get them.
> 
> The people needing helop the most are still falling through the cracks.
> 
> Sometimes it is hard to sleep at night knowing what I know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I absolutely agree that the subsidy process ought to be fair.
> 
> Here's something to think about. Health care costs are going up. For everyone. There is really only one force holding them down. Medicare. Unfortunately, Drs are pretty good in making up the income they can't make from Medicare from younger patients.
> 
> You suppose some of that is going on?
Click to expand...


What about this....

Mayo Clinic in Arizona to Stop Treating Some Medicare Patients - Bloomberg

Mayo Clinic in Arizona to Stop Treating Some Medicare Patients
By David Olmos - December 31, 2009 00:01 EST

Dec. 31 (Bloomberg) -- The Mayo Clinic, praised by President Barack Obama as a national model for efficient health care, will stop accepting Medicare patients as of tomorrow at one of its primary-care clinics in Arizona, saying the U.S. government pays too little.

More than 3,000 patients eligible for Medicare, the governments largest health-insurance program, will be forced to pay cash if they want to continue seeing their doctors at a Mayo family clinic in Glendale, northwest of Phoenix, said Michael Yardley, a Mayo spokesman. The decision, which Yardley called a two-year pilot project, wont affect other Mayo facilities in Arizona, Florida and Minnesota.

Obama in June cited the nonprofit Rochester, Minnesota-based Mayo Clinic and the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio for offering the highest quality care at costs well below the national norm. Mayos move to drop Medicare patients may be copied by family doctors, some of whom have stopped accepting new patients from the program, said Lori Heim, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians, in a telephone interview yesterday.

*******************

And that was before the last round of cuts.

I know plenty of medical students who are considering getting out.

Not because they can't get rich, but because they see a world where they really won't be able to adequately treat people.


----------



## Listening

BlackSand said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now that the conservative/MSM propganda blitz has failed so badly, what's the backup plan? I mean, other than "Conservatives scream and pout even louder".
> 
> Come on, conservatives. Lift your faces out of those cow patties, wipe the shit off, and figure out some new lies. Have at least some pride. Don't just lie there sobbing "Waah! Democrats are panicking! Waah!". It's not very convincing, and saying it makes you look like 'tards.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *What are you talking about?*
> 
> There hasn't been any screaming or pouting around here ... Crap, we haven't even been able to get a single coherent answer to any of a plethora of questions from the only Liberal leaning poster in this thread.
> If you think you have what it takes ... You can go back over the last six pages or so ... And feel free to give any of the questions or comments a whirl.
> If that isn't an acceptable proposal ... Say something that makes some sense and actually has some content worth discussing and we will play ball.
> 
> *Good Luck In Your Endeavors ... Welcome and Glad To See A New Face!*
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Out of rep.


----------



## Dot Com

Listening said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now that the conservative/MSM propganda blitz has failed so badly, what's the backup plan? I mean, other than "Conservatives scream and pout even louder".
> 
> Come on, conservatives. Lift your faces out of those cow patties, wipe the shit off, and figure out some new lies. Have at least some pride. Don't just lie there sobbing "Waah! Democrats are panicking! Waah!". It's not very convincing, and saying it makes you look like 'tards.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *What are you talking about?*
> 
> There hasn't been any screaming or pouting around here ... Crap, we haven't even been able to get a single coherent answer to any of a plethora of questions from the only Liberal leaning poster in this thread.
> If you think you have what it takes ... You can go back over the last six pages or so ... And feel free to give any of the questions or comments a whirl.
> If that isn't an acceptable proposal ... Say something that makes some sense and actually has some content worth discussing and we will play ball.
> 
> *Good Luck In Your Endeavors ... Welcome and Glad To See A New Face!*
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Out of rep.
Click to expand...


yanno? You made a wager to leave the board if Obama won? Whacha' doin here?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/elect...ing-conservative-and-ghook93.html#post6295689


----------



## itfitzme

Listening said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Don't be sorry. So you are saying that the private insurance companies are offering no way for people to comply with the law??????*
> 
> Nope, I am telling you that the cancellations have come because they COMPLIED with the law.
> 
> *Can you give us a list of companies that are merely canceling existing policies and offering no replacement?*
> 
> ALL companies that have cancelled policies are now offering ACA compliant policies...the problem is that premiums have sky rocketed....
> 
> Here is my problem with it....
> 
> The people that NEED the help the most aren't getting.
> 
> I have had Doctors that make 80-90 grand get subsidies and folk making 11000 not get them.
> 
> The people needing helop the most are still falling through the cracks.
> 
> Sometimes it is hard to sleep at night knowing what I know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I absolutely agree that the subsidy process ought to be fair.
> 
> Here's something to think about. Health care costs are going up. For everyone. There is really only one force holding them down. Medicare. Unfortunately, Drs are pretty good in making up the income they can't make from Medicare from younger patients.
> 
> You suppose some of that is going on?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What about this....
> 
> Mayo Clinic in Arizona to Stop Treating Some Medicare Patients - Bloomberg
> 
> Mayo Clinic in Arizona to Stop Treating Some Medicare Patients
> By David Olmos - December 31, 2009 00:01 EST
> 
> Dec. 31 (Bloomberg) -- The Mayo Clinic, praised by President Barack Obama as a national model for efficient health care, will stop accepting Medicare patients as of tomorrow at one of its primary-care clinics in Arizona, saying the U.S. government pays too little.
> 
> More than 3,000 patients eligible for Medicare, the government&#8217;s largest health-insurance program, will be forced to pay cash if they want to continue seeing their doctors at a Mayo family clinic in Glendale, northwest of Phoenix, said Michael Yardley, a Mayo spokesman. The decision, which Yardley called a two-year pilot project, won&#8217;t affect other Mayo facilities in Arizona, Florida and Minnesota.
> 
> Obama in June cited the nonprofit Rochester, Minnesota-based Mayo Clinic and the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio for offering &#8220;the highest quality care at costs well below the national norm.&#8221; Mayo&#8217;s move to drop Medicare patients may be copied by family doctors, some of whom have stopped accepting new patients from the program, said Lori Heim, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians, in a telephone interview yesterday.
> 
> *******************
> 
> And that was before the last round of cuts.
> 
> I know plenty of medical students who are considering getting out.
> 
> Not because they can't get rich, but because they see a world where they really won't be able to adequately treat people.
Click to expand...


That is a 2009 article.

According to the http://www.mayoclinic.com/ website, this November 2013



> Although Mayo Clinic provides medical services to Medicare patients, Mayo Clinic doesn't accept assignment from Medicare for professional and physician services. In other words, *Mayo Clinic doesn't accept the Medicare-approved payment amount as full payment.* Mayo Clinic follows an established fee schedule based on the federal guidelines for Medicare patients, which allows health care organizations to charge up to 15 percent above the Medicare allowable fee. You're financially responsible for the portion above the Medicare allowable amount.



That is, they accept Medicare patients.

http://www.mayoclinic.org/billing-sct/medicare.html


----------



## Listening

itfitzme said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I absolutely agree that the subsidy process ought to be fair.
> 
> Here's something to think about. Health care costs are going up. For everyone. There is really only one force holding them down. Medicare. Unfortunately, Drs are pretty good in making up the income they can't make from Medicare from younger patients.
> 
> You suppose some of that is going on?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about this....
> 
> Mayo Clinic in Arizona to Stop Treating Some Medicare Patients - Bloomberg
> 
> Mayo Clinic in Arizona to Stop Treating Some Medicare Patients
> By David Olmos - December 31, 2009 00:01 EST
> 
> Dec. 31 (Bloomberg) -- The Mayo Clinic, praised by President Barack Obama as a national model for efficient health care, will stop accepting Medicare patients as of tomorrow at one of its primary-care clinics in Arizona, saying the U.S. government pays too little.
> 
> More than 3,000 patients eligible for Medicare, the governments largest health-insurance program, will be forced to pay cash if they want to continue seeing their doctors at a Mayo family clinic in Glendale, northwest of Phoenix, said Michael Yardley, a Mayo spokesman. The decision, which Yardley called a two-year pilot project, wont affect other Mayo facilities in Arizona, Florida and Minnesota.
> 
> Obama in June cited the nonprofit Rochester, Minnesota-based Mayo Clinic and the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio for offering the highest quality care at costs well below the national norm. Mayos move to drop Medicare patients may be copied by family doctors, some of whom have stopped accepting new patients from the program, said Lori Heim, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians, in a telephone interview yesterday.
> 
> *******************
> 
> And that was before the last round of cuts.
> 
> I know plenty of medical students who are considering getting out.
> 
> Not because they can't get rich, but because they see a world where they really won't be able to adequately treat people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is a 2009 article.
> 
> According to the Mayo Clinic website, this November 2013
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Although Mayo Clinic provides medical services to Medicare patients, Mayo Clinic doesn't accept assignment from Medicare for professional and physician services. In other words, *Mayo Clinic doesn't accept the Medicare-approved payment amount as full payment.* Mayo Clinic follows an established fee schedule based on the federal guidelines for Medicare patients, which allows health care organizations to charge up to 15 percent above the Medicare allowable fee. You're financially responsible for the portion above the Medicare allowable amount.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is, they accept Medicare patients.
> 
> Medicare information for Mayo Clinic in Arizona
Click to expand...


They will take people who will pay the difference.  They will take anyone who has cash in hand.......Medicare payments can apparently be part of that.

Does not change this part of the article:

The Mayo organization had 3,700 staff physicians and scientists and treated 526,000 patients in 2008. It lost $840 million last year on Medicare, the governments health program for the disabled and those 65 and older, Mayo spokeswoman Lynn Closway said.

Mayos hospital and four clinics in Arizona, including the Glendale facility, lost $120 million on Medicare patients last year, Yardley said. The programs payments cover about 50 percent of the cost of treating elderly primary-care patients at the Glendale clinic, he said.

We firmly believe that Medicare needs to be reformed, Yardley said in a Dec. 23 e-mail. It has been true for many years that Medicare payments no longer reflect the increasing cost of providing services for patients.


----------



## itfitzme

Listening said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> What about this....
> 
> Mayo Clinic in Arizona to Stop Treating Some Medicare Patients - Bloomberg
> 
> Mayo Clinic in Arizona to Stop Treating Some Medicare Patients
> By David Olmos - December 31, 2009 00:01 EST
> 
> Dec. 31 (Bloomberg) -- The Mayo Clinic, praised by President Barack Obama as a national model for efficient health care, will stop accepting Medicare patients as of tomorrow at one of its primary-care clinics in Arizona, saying the U.S. government pays too little.
> 
> More than 3,000 patients eligible for Medicare, the government&#8217;s largest health-insurance program, will be forced to pay cash if they want to continue seeing their doctors at a Mayo family clinic in Glendale, northwest of Phoenix, said Michael Yardley, a Mayo spokesman. The decision, which Yardley called a two-year pilot project, won&#8217;t affect other Mayo facilities in Arizona, Florida and Minnesota.
> 
> Obama in June cited the nonprofit Rochester, Minnesota-based Mayo Clinic and the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio for offering &#8220;the highest quality care at costs well below the national norm.&#8221; Mayo&#8217;s move to drop Medicare patients may be copied by family doctors, some of whom have stopped accepting new patients from the program, said Lori Heim, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians, in a telephone interview yesterday.
> 
> *******************
> 
> And that was before the last round of cuts.
> 
> I know plenty of medical students who are considering getting out.
> 
> Not because they can't get rich, but because they see a world where they really won't be able to adequately treat people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is a 2009 article.
> 
> According to the Mayo Clinic website, this November 2013
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Although Mayo Clinic provides medical services to Medicare patients, Mayo Clinic doesn't accept assignment from Medicare for professional and physician services. In other words, *Mayo Clinic doesn't accept the Medicare-approved payment amount as full payment.* Mayo Clinic follows an established fee schedule based on the federal guidelines for Medicare patients, which allows health care organizations to charge up to 15 percent above the Medicare allowable fee. You're financially responsible for the portion above the Medicare allowable amount.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is, they accept Medicare patients.
> 
> Medicare information for Mayo Clinic in Arizona
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They will take people who will pay the difference.  They will take anyone who has cash in hand.......Medicare payments can apparently be part of that.
> 
> Does not change this part of the article:
> 
> The Mayo organization had 3,700 staff physicians and scientists and treated 526,000 patients in 2008. It lost $840 million last year on Medicare, the government&#8217;s health program for the disabled and those 65 and older, Mayo spokeswoman Lynn Closway said.
> 
> Mayo&#8217;s hospital and four clinics in Arizona, including the Glendale facility, lost $120 million on Medicare patients last year, Yardley said. The program&#8217;s payments cover about 50 percent of the cost of treating elderly primary-care patients at the Glendale clinic, he said.
> 
> &#8220;We firmly believe that Medicare needs to be reformed,&#8221; Yardley said in a Dec. 23 e-mail. &#8220;It has been true for many years that Medicare payments no longer reflect the increasing cost of providing services for patients.&#8221;
Click to expand...


It changes your claim and the articles main claim, "will stop accepting Medicare patients"


----------



## Listening

itfitzme said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is a 2009 article.
> 
> According to the Mayo Clinic website, this November 2013
> 
> 
> 
> That is, they accept Medicare patients.
> 
> Medicare information for Mayo Clinic in Arizona
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They will take people who will pay the difference.  They will take anyone who has cash in hand.......Medicare payments can apparently be part of that.
> 
> Does not change this part of the article:
> 
> The Mayo organization had 3,700 staff physicians and scientists and treated 526,000 patients in 2008. It lost $840 million last year on Medicare, the government&#8217;s health program for the disabled and those 65 and older, Mayo spokeswoman Lynn Closway said.
> 
> Mayo&#8217;s hospital and four clinics in Arizona, including the Glendale facility, lost $120 million on Medicare patients last year, Yardley said. The program&#8217;s payments cover about 50 percent of the cost of treating elderly primary-care patients at the Glendale clinic, he said.
> 
> &#8220;We firmly believe that Medicare needs to be reformed,&#8221; Yardley said in a Dec. 23 e-mail. &#8220;It has been true for many years that Medicare payments no longer reflect the increasing cost of providing services for patients.&#8221;
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It changes your claim and the articles main claim, "will stop accepting Medicare patients"
Click to expand...


I would agree that the article's title is misleading.  When I went back and looked at it, I wondered how they could tell people to show up with cash and then not accept them (of course, then they would not have been medicare patients....as I understand it).

Never-the-less...the article shows that Mayo was losing money out the ass on medicare patients.

Apparently, they are keeping some form of this....the article said it was a two year program (and I know when it first started people went nuts)....but this is now four years later.

Seems reasonable to me.  Medicare pays some....you pay some.

Bottom line is Mayo was getting hosed by medicare.

What isn't talked about is how they absorbed all those losses.  You would think it was made up in some way......like charging the hell out of others.  Wonder what the rest of the books look like ?


----------



## itfitzme

Listening said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> They will take people who will pay the difference.  They will take anyone who has cash in hand.......Medicare payments can apparently be part of that.
> 
> Does not change this part of the article:
> 
> The Mayo organization had 3,700 staff physicians and scientists and treated 526,000 patients in 2008. It lost $840 million last year on Medicare, the governments health program for the disabled and those 65 and older, Mayo spokeswoman Lynn Closway said.
> 
> Mayos hospital and four clinics in Arizona, including the Glendale facility, lost $120 million on Medicare patients last year, Yardley said. The programs payments cover about 50 percent of the cost of treating elderly primary-care patients at the Glendale clinic, he said.
> 
> We firmly believe that Medicare needs to be reformed, Yardley said in a Dec. 23 e-mail. It has been true for many years that Medicare payments no longer reflect the increasing cost of providing services for patients.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It changes your claim and the articles main claim, "will stop accepting Medicare patients"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would agree that the article's title is misleading.  When I went back and looked at it, I wondered how they could tell people to show up with cash and then not accept them (of course, then they would not have been medicare patients....as I understand it).
> 
> Never-the-less...the article shows that Mayo was losing money out the ass on medicare patients.
> 
> Apparently, they are keeping some form of this....the article said it was a two year program (and I know when it first started people went nuts)....but this is now four years later.
> 
> Seems reasonable to me.  Medicare pays some....you pay some.
> 
> Bottom line is Mayo was getting hosed by medicare.
> 
> What isn't talked about is how they absorbed all those losses.  You would think it was made up in some way......like charging the hell out of others.  Wonder what the rest of the books look like ?
Click to expand...


It doesn't show that they were losing money.  It isn't a balance sheet.  Price doesn't equal cost.  It just shows that they can hold prices higher than the general equilibrium price for Medicare.  We'd have to see the balance sheet to demonstrate they were getting "hosed".  Often, they aren't, it just bites into their profits.  Often, far fewer people actually pay there portion than owe it. Once health care is provided, it can't be taken back.  Hospitals write off a lot.  I'm always cautious when businesses claim they are "losing money" as they are basing it on what they believe they would get if they got what they want.

Medicare pays 80%, it always has.  The 20% is up to the patient, so there is nothing unusual about patients paying "cash".  

It's a tug of war between Medicare, hospitals, doctor salaries, and patients pocket books.  

Check this out.

0131376D: Stock Quote - Mayo Clinic/Rochester MN - Bloomberg

Mayo Clinic/Rochester MN has stock holders.  Stock holders need to see sufficient profit. Non-profits don't have stock holders. I don't find a Glendale stock though a search returned an alternative to your article on the exact subject.

Mayo Clinic to Turn Away Some Medicaid Patients - Yahoo Voices - voices.yahoo.com

and it says, "Mayo executives may feel that the population that they really serve are stockholders and highly paid executives at their hospitals".  That may or may not be true.

And I am sure this is true, "practice of charging high rates to wealthier patients. Often one hears of the king of small country flying out to the Mayo Clinic to have a medical procedure or test performed."

I've always wondered about the differential between Medicare and the healthcare market.  What should happen is care should be provided as long as the average collected on Medicare patients is above or at cost.

When Kaiser stops seeing Medicare patient, now there is a problem.


----------



## PMZ

Listening said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do.
> 
> PMZ, I live this.
> Everyday there are happy people and everyday there are sad, upset, hurt people.
> I live their emotions good and bad.....
> 
> The Law can be good...but EVERYBODY needs to take their ego's out it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not easy to help people. There are obstacles at every turn. That's one of the reasons that they need help.
> 
> *ACA is help*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah...right over a cliff.
Click to expand...


Easy to say.  Impossible to prove.


----------



## PMZ

Listening said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Don't be sorry. So you are saying that the private insurance companies are offering no way for people to comply with the law??????*
> 
> Nope, I am telling you that the cancellations have come because they COMPLIED with the law.
> 
> *Can you give us a list of companies that are merely canceling existing policies and offering no replacement?*
> 
> ALL companies that have cancelled policies are now offering ACA compliant policies...the problem is that premiums have sky rocketed....
> 
> Here is my problem with it....
> 
> The people that NEED the help the most aren't getting.
> 
> I have had Doctors that make 80-90 grand get subsidies and folk making 11000 not get them.
> 
> The people needing helop the most are still falling through the cracks.
> 
> Sometimes it is hard to sleep at night knowing what I know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I absolutely agree that the subsidy process ought to be fair.
> 
> Here's something to think about. Health care costs are going up. For everyone. There is really only one force holding them down. Medicare. Unfortunately, Drs are pretty good in making up the income they can't make from Medicare from younger patients.
> 
> You suppose some of that is going on?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What about this....
> 
> Mayo Clinic in Arizona to Stop Treating Some Medicare Patients - Bloomberg
> 
> Mayo Clinic in Arizona to Stop Treating Some Medicare Patients
> By David Olmos - December 31, 2009 00:01 EST
> 
> Dec. 31 (Bloomberg) -- The Mayo Clinic, praised by President Barack Obama as a national model for efficient health care, will stop accepting Medicare patients as of tomorrow at one of its primary-care clinics in Arizona, saying the U.S. government pays too little.
> 
> More than 3,000 patients eligible for Medicare, the governments largest health-insurance program, will be forced to pay cash if they want to continue seeing their doctors at a Mayo family clinic in Glendale, northwest of Phoenix, said Michael Yardley, a Mayo spokesman. The decision, which Yardley called a two-year pilot project, wont affect other Mayo facilities in Arizona, Florida and Minnesota.
> 
> Obama in June cited the nonprofit Rochester, Minnesota-based Mayo Clinic and the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio for offering the highest quality care at costs well below the national norm. Mayos move to drop Medicare patients may be copied by family doctors, some of whom have stopped accepting new patients from the program, said Lori Heim, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians, in a telephone interview yesterday.
> 
> *******************
> 
> And that was before the last round of cuts.
> 
> I know plenty of medical students who are considering getting out.
> 
> Not because they can't get rich, but because they see a world where they really won't be able to adequately treat people.
Click to expand...


Republican propaganda.  No evidence.


----------



## koshergrl

Apparently you don't know what evidence is.


----------



## PMZ

Listening said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> What about this....
> 
> Mayo Clinic in Arizona to Stop Treating Some Medicare Patients - Bloomberg
> 
> Mayo Clinic in Arizona to Stop Treating Some Medicare Patients
> By David Olmos - December 31, 2009 00:01 EST
> 
> Dec. 31 (Bloomberg) -- The Mayo Clinic, praised by President Barack Obama as a national model for efficient health care, will stop accepting Medicare patients as of tomorrow at one of its primary-care clinics in Arizona, saying the U.S. government pays too little.
> 
> More than 3,000 patients eligible for Medicare, the governments largest health-insurance program, will be forced to pay cash if they want to continue seeing their doctors at a Mayo family clinic in Glendale, northwest of Phoenix, said Michael Yardley, a Mayo spokesman. The decision, which Yardley called a two-year pilot project, wont affect other Mayo facilities in Arizona, Florida and Minnesota.
> 
> Obama in June cited the nonprofit Rochester, Minnesota-based Mayo Clinic and the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio for offering the highest quality care at costs well below the national norm. Mayos move to drop Medicare patients may be copied by family doctors, some of whom have stopped accepting new patients from the program, said Lori Heim, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians, in a telephone interview yesterday.
> 
> *******************
> 
> And that was before the last round of cuts.
> 
> I know plenty of medical students who are considering getting out.
> 
> Not because they can't get rich, but because they see a world where they really won't be able to adequately treat people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is a 2009 article.
> 
> According to the Mayo Clinic website, this November 2013
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Although Mayo Clinic provides medical services to Medicare patients, Mayo Clinic doesn't accept assignment from Medicare for professional and physician services. In other words, *Mayo Clinic doesn't accept the Medicare-approved payment amount as full payment.* Mayo Clinic follows an established fee schedule based on the federal guidelines for Medicare patients, which allows health care organizations to charge up to 15 percent above the Medicare allowable fee. You're financially responsible for the portion above the Medicare allowable amount.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is, they accept Medicare patients.
> 
> Medicare information for Mayo Clinic in Arizona
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They will take people who will pay the difference.  They will take anyone who has cash in hand.......Medicare payments can apparently be part of that.
> 
> Does not change this part of the article:
> 
> The Mayo organization had 3,700 staff physicians and scientists and treated 526,000 patients in 2008. It lost $840 million last year on Medicare, the governments health program for the disabled and those 65 and older, Mayo spokeswoman Lynn Closway said.
> 
> Mayos hospital and four clinics in Arizona, including the Glendale facility, lost $120 million on Medicare patients last year, Yardley said. The programs payments cover about 50 percent of the cost of treating elderly primary-care patients at the Glendale clinic, he said.
> 
> We firmly believe that Medicare needs to be reformed, Yardley said in a Dec. 23 e-mail. It has been true for many years that Medicare payments no longer reflect the increasing cost of providing services for patients.
Click to expand...


Sounds like they ought to invest in some quality improvements.  Other health care providers are doing fine.


----------



## PMZ

koshergrl said:


> Apparently you don't know what evidence is.



Actually,  I do.  What evidence in that post did I miss?


----------



## Listening

PMZ said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is a 2009 article.
> 
> According to the Mayo Clinic website, this November 2013
> 
> 
> 
> That is, they accept Medicare patients.
> 
> Medicare information for Mayo Clinic in Arizona
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They will take people who will pay the difference.  They will take anyone who has cash in hand.......Medicare payments can apparently be part of that.
> 
> Does not change this part of the article:
> 
> The Mayo organization had 3,700 staff physicians and scientists and treated 526,000 patients in 2008. It lost $840 million last year on Medicare, the governments health program for the disabled and those 65 and older, Mayo spokeswoman Lynn Closway said.
> 
> Mayos hospital and four clinics in Arizona, including the Glendale facility, lost $120 million on Medicare patients last year, Yardley said. The programs payments cover about 50 percent of the cost of treating elderly primary-care patients at the Glendale clinic, he said.
> 
> We firmly believe that Medicare needs to be reformed, Yardley said in a Dec. 23 e-mail. It has been true for many years that Medicare payments no longer reflect the increasing cost of providing services for patients.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds like they ought to invest in some quality improvements.  Other health care providers are doing fine.
Click to expand...


Quality improvements ?

Did you miss the opening line of the article ?

"The Mayo Clinic, praised by President Barack Obama as a national model for efficient health care,....."

What they are doing is charging more.  Imagine that !


----------



## koshergrl

PMZ maintains that the Mayo clinic is lying; that they are Republican propagandists?

PMZ is obviously insane.


----------



## PMZ

koshergrl said:


> PMZ maintains that the Mayo clinic is lying; that they are Republican propagandists?
> 
> PMZ is obviously insane.



I would say that whining is closer to the truth than lying.  It's a common affliction with business now that they own their own political party and a 24/7/365 propaganda outlet. 

The fact that the US spends 2X every other developed country is the result of people paying attention to health care delivery whining. 

It has to change if we are ever to return to global competitiveness.


----------



## Listening

itfitzme said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> It changes your claim and the articles main claim, "will stop accepting Medicare patients"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would agree that the article's title is misleading.  When I went back and looked at it, I wondered how they could tell people to show up with cash and then not accept them (of course, then they would not have been medicare patients....as I understand it).
> 
> Never-the-less...the article shows that Mayo was losing money out the ass on medicare patients.
> 
> Apparently, they are keeping some form of this....the article said it was a two year program (and I know when it first started people went nuts)....but this is now four years later.
> 
> Seems reasonable to me.  Medicare pays some....you pay some.
> 
> Bottom line is Mayo was getting hosed by medicare.
> 
> What isn't talked about is how they absorbed all those losses.  You would think it was made up in some way......like charging the hell out of others.  Wonder what the rest of the books look like ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't show that they were losing money.  It isn't a balance sheet.  Price doesn't equal cost.  It just shows that they can hold prices higher than the general equilibrium price for Medicare.  We'd have to see the balance sheet to demonstrate they were getting "hosed".  Often, they aren't, it just bites into their profits.  Often, far fewer people actually pay there portion than owe it. Once health care is provided, it can't be taken back.  Hospitals write off a lot.  I'm always cautious when businesses claim they are "losing money" as they are basing it on what they believe they would get if they got what they want.
> 
> Medicare pays 80%, it always has.  The 20% is up to the patient, so there is nothing unusual about patients paying "cash".
> 
> It's a tug of war between Medicare, hospitals, doctor salaries, and patients pocket books.
> 
> Check this out.
> 
> 0131376D: Stock Quote - Mayo Clinic/Rochester MN - Bloomberg
> 
> Mayo Clinic/Rochester MN has stock holders.  Stock holders need to see sufficient profit. Non-profits don't have stock holders. I don't find a Glendale stock though a search returned an alternative to your article on the exact subject.
> 
> Mayo Clinic to Turn Away Some Medicaid Patients - Yahoo Voices - voices.yahoo.com
> 
> and it says, "Mayo executives may feel that the population that they really serve are stockholders and highly paid executives at their hospitals".  That may or may not be true.
> 
> And I am sure this is true, "practice of charging high rates to wealthier patients. Often one hears of the king of small country flying out to the Mayo Clinic to have a medical procedure or test performed."
> 
> I've always wondered about the differential between Medicare and the healthcare market.  What should happen is care should be provided as long as the average collected on Medicare patients is above or at cost.
> 
> When Kaiser stops seeing Medicare patient, now there is a problem.
Click to expand...


While I appreciate a lot of your points, I am not sure how they are supposed to stick together. 

Maybe we should go a few steps at a time so I can understand your point.

It clearly says they are losing money......on medicare patients.

It didn't say they were taking an overall net loss.

That was my question....which was somewhat rhetorical.  How are they making it up ?

I am not sure about the balance sheet (I reread your comments....you didn't say it was a balance sheet thing...my mistake).  It seems like this would be more related to an income statement.

The only way they could say this and not be losing money on medicare patients is is they somehow are talking about an opportunity cost.

Equilibrium price for medicare confused me.  There isn't one, is there ?  The government sets it (or it would be artificial).  And what they are saying (I am asking as much as saying) is that it isn't enough because it does not cover costs.


----------



## Listening

PMZ said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ maintains that the Mayo clinic is lying; that they are Republican propagandists?
> 
> PMZ is obviously insane.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would say that whining is closer to the truth than lying.  It's a common affliction with business now that they own their own political party and a 24/7/365 propaganda outlet.
> 
> The fact that the US spends 2X every other developed country is the result of people paying attention to health care delivery whining.
> 
> It has to change if we are ever to return to global competitiveness.
Click to expand...


Please show me where the propaganda machine said medicare patients are going to have to pony up if they want to see doctors at the Mayo Clinic in Glendale AZ.

Please...back up your bulls**t once in a while.


----------



## itfitzme

Listening said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would agree that the article's title is misleading.  When I went back and looked at it, I wondered how they could tell people to show up with cash and then not accept them (of course, then they would not have been medicare patients....as I understand it).
> 
> Never-the-less...the article shows that Mayo was losing money out the ass on medicare patients.
> 
> Apparently, they are keeping some form of this....the article said it was a two year program (and I know when it first started people went nuts)....but this is now four years later.
> 
> Seems reasonable to me.  Medicare pays some....you pay some.
> 
> Bottom line is Mayo was getting hosed by medicare.
> 
> What isn't talked about is how they absorbed all those losses.  You would think it was made up in some way......like charging the hell out of others.  Wonder what the rest of the books look like ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't show that they were losing money.  It isn't a balance sheet.  Price doesn't equal cost.  It just shows that they can hold prices higher than the general equilibrium price for Medicare.  We'd have to see the balance sheet to demonstrate they were getting "hosed".  Often, they aren't, it just bites into their profits.  Often, far fewer people actually pay there portion than owe it. Once health care is provided, it can't be taken back.  Hospitals write off a lot.  I'm always cautious when businesses claim they are "losing money" as they are basing it on what they believe they would get if they got what they want.
> 
> Medicare pays 80%, it always has.  The 20% is up to the patient, so there is nothing unusual about patients paying "cash".
> 
> It's a tug of war between Medicare, hospitals, doctor salaries, and patients pocket books.
> 
> Check this out.
> 
> 0131376D: Stock Quote - Mayo Clinic/Rochester MN - Bloomberg
> 
> Mayo Clinic/Rochester MN has stock holders.  Stock holders need to see sufficient profit. Non-profits don't have stock holders. I don't find a Glendale stock though a search returned an alternative to your article on the exact subject.
> 
> Mayo Clinic to Turn Away Some Medicaid Patients - Yahoo Voices - voices.yahoo.com
> 
> and it says, "Mayo executives may feel that the population that they really serve are stockholders and highly paid executives at their hospitals".  That may or may not be true.
> 
> And I am sure this is true, "practice of charging high rates to wealthier patients. Often one hears of the king of small country flying out to the Mayo Clinic to have a medical procedure or test performed."
> 
> I've always wondered about the differential between Medicare and the healthcare market.  What should happen is care should be provided as long as the average collected on Medicare patients is above or at cost.
> 
> When Kaiser stops seeing Medicare patient, now there is a problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While I appreciate a lot of your points, I am not sure how they are supposed to stick together.
> 
> Maybe we should go a few steps at a time so I can understand your point.
> 
> It clearly says they are losing money......on medicare patients.
> 
> It didn't say they were taking an overall net loss.
> 
> That was my question....which was somewhat rhetorical.  How are they making it up ?
> 
> I am not sure about the balance sheet.  It seems like this would be more related to an income statement.
> 
> The only way they could say this and not be losing money on medicare patients is is they somehow are talking about an opportunity cost.
Click to expand...


You are right, income statement.

Yes, that would be opportunity cost, exactly.  We've seen that numerous times, claims of losing money where it was opportunity costs.  

Even then, "For-profit hospitals get a tax write-off on uncollected debts"  

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/faqs-on-hospital-bills/

Why I'm cautious to buy into "losing money" reports.  They are often not in the red while still claiming "losing money".

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

Here is something interesting;

http://www.ncmedicaljournal.com/wp-content/uploads/NCMJ/mar-apr-05/Yarbrough.pdf

CEO, with MBA, of a hospital conflagrates earnings before taxes with profits then claims that profit is required in order to invest in capital equipment.  

"From a financial perspective, accounting for healthcare is much like accounting for any other type of service. We must have enough revenue to cover our costs. If we cannot make a profit, we cannot replace worn out plant and equipment or invest in the latest technologies. However, there is one difference unique to the healthcare field. That is the enormous amount of free care and under-paid care we deliver. We must charge each patient more to recover the unreimbursed cost of care provided to the uninsured and government payers. As a result, hospitals write off 40-50% of what they charge. "

"Free care" is certainly not Medicare and Medicaid.  Yeah, free care is an issue. Still, at best it would be "under-paid" and there in is the question, "under-paid" compared to what?  Cost or price?

In terms of the profit requirement for investment, it is simply not correct.  The entire economy runs on investment loans from banks.  Without loans from banks there is no money supply. Sure, as a CEO of a company, I like having profits instead of paying interest on loans but it isn't required.

And, of course, "Profits" are after taxes have been paid from earnings. If earnings are zero, after deductions, write offs and interest, then there are no taxes.  This means that profits aren't a requirement in any manner, except paying stock holders.

If, in fact, a hospital was truly operating in the red, after a couple of years, they would be gone.

MBA's aren't economists and typically present things differently.  If Medicare is really paying below actual cost, that is one thing.  If they are just not paying at the price point, it's another.  I was hoping this article by a CEO MBA running a hospital would present enough to show it.  Unfortunately, it's an opinion piece that I'd claim only as a stock holder, not as an economist.


----------



## itfitzme

This may be better

Hospital working toward erasing operating losses

And he says, 

"reversing a trend of operating losses".  That I will buy as actual losses.

He goes on to say;

"Since 2008, the hospital has been operating at a loss in every year except 2009. Grant money received by the hospital was the only thing that pushed the hospital into the black that year.  For the period of fiscal years 2008-2013, operating losses total $1.832 million. 
This year&#8217;s operating loss;
For the fiscal year 2012-13 that ended June 30, Fink said the hospital&#8217;s unaudited loss appears to be $956,000. Auditors are in the process of completing the  audit. "

There are a bunch of details that qualify the losses though not to any point that is significant.

The article continues with;

"In terms of operating margin, the best peer hospitals operated at a 7.6 percent profit margin with the median at 4.2 percent in 2012."

That means that, excluding the hospital in examination, the market runs at profit level.  This makes this hospital losses an point anecdote, not a trend.

It's a better piece, believable in actual numbers.

And it brought a point to mind, in the free market, a company operating at a loss is suppose to go under and leave the market to the efficient competition.  Reporting by a single hospital kinda doesn't really differentiate between burdened and inefficient.


----------



## PMZ

Listening said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ maintains that the Mayo clinic is lying; that they are Republican propagandists?
> 
> PMZ is obviously insane.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would say that whining is closer to the truth than lying.  It's a common affliction with business now that they own their own political party and a 24/7/365 propaganda outlet.
> 
> The fact that the US spends 2X every other developed country is the result of people paying attention to health care delivery whining.
> 
> It has to change if we are ever to return to global competitiveness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please show me where the propaganda machine said medicare patients are going to have to pony up if they want to see doctors at the Mayo Clinic in Glendale AZ.
> 
> Please...back up your bulls**t once in a while.
Click to expand...


It's part of the Republican propaganda assault on health care progress.


----------



## Listening

PMZ said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not easy to help people. There are obstacles at every turn. That's one of the reasons that they need help.
> 
> *ACA is help*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...right over a cliff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Easy to say.  Impossible to prove.
Click to expand...


No less difficult to prove than the statement ACA is help.

Which is stupid anyway.

It might help some...but hurt a whole lot of others.....

Right now the net looks pretty bad for you and your boy.


----------



## Listening

PMZ said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would say that whining is closer to the truth than lying.  It's a common affliction with business now that they own their own political party and a 24/7/365 propaganda outlet.
> 
> The fact that the US spends 2X every other developed country is the result of people paying attention to health care delivery whining.
> 
> It has to change if we are ever to return to global competitiveness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please show me where the propaganda machine said medicare patients are going to have to pony up if they want to see doctors at the Mayo Clinic in Glendale AZ.
> 
> Please...back up your bulls**t once in a while.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's part of the Republican propaganda assault on health care progress.
Click to expand...


No, show it.  Provide a link.

You are beyond lazy.


----------



## PMZ

Listening said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...right over a cliff.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Easy to say.  Impossible to prove.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No less difficult to prove than the statement ACA is help.
> 
> Which is stupid anyway.
> 
> It might help some...but hurt a whole lot of others.....
> 
> Right now the net looks pretty bad for you and your boy.
Click to expand...


Actually,  the only ones hurt are those who hoped to duck the responsibility of providing for their own health care costs.  Everyone else benefits.


----------



## PMZ

Listening said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please show me where the propaganda machine said medicare patients are going to have to pony up if they want to see doctors at the Mayo Clinic in Glendale AZ.
> 
> Please...back up your bulls**t once in a while.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's part of the Republican propaganda assault on health care progress.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, show it.  Provide a link.
> 
> You are beyond lazy.
Click to expand...


You are beyond uninformed.


----------



## Listening

itfitzme said:


> This may be better
> 
> Hospital working toward erasing operating losses
> 
> And he says,
> 
> "Since 2008, the hospital has been operating at a loss in every year except 2009. Grant money received by the hospital was the only thing that pushed the hospital into the black that year.  For the period of fiscal years 2008-2013, operating losses total $1.832 million.
> This years operating loss;
> For the fiscal year 2012-13 that ended June 30, Fink said the hospitals unaudited loss appears to be $956,000. Auditors are in the process of completing the  audit. "
> 
> "In terms of operating margin, the best peer hospitals operated at a 7.6 percent profit margin with the median at 4.2 percent in 2012."
> 
> That means that, excluding the hospital in examination, the market runs at profit level.  This makes this hospital losses an point anecdote, not a trend.
> 
> It's a better piece, believable in actual numbers.
> 
> And it brought a point to mind, in the free market, a company operating at a loss is suppose to go under and leave the market to the efficient competition.  Reporting by a single hospital kinda doesn't really differentiate between burdened and inefficient.



Nobody claimed it was a trend.  But it did occur.

As we already discussed, it would be good to see how the numbers work in this instance.  

But the man point was that Mayo pulled the trigger on something that was not very popular in the Valley.  However, they held their guns and cited these numbers repeatedly.

Your final statement is true, but not something that refutes their action.  That is what I was saying to PMS before...they are making it up (somehow).  No company can operate in the red for long....and Mayo was not touching it's other clinics.  AZ has lots of seniors and Glendale is not as nice as Scottsdale.  Maybe that is where they were taking the hit.

The primary point being that medicare wasn't keeping up.  I have a radiologist friend who has indicated their revenues are already a lot lower the last six months than ever before.  They are not quite sure what to do.....

And he also states that there is a lot of concern about the ability to renew the industry.  Despite PMS's claim....there is continual talk of a doctor shortage.

Trends Toward Greater Doctor Shortage Worry State Legislators - NJ Spotlight


----------



## Listening

PMZ said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's part of the Republican propaganda assault on health care progress.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, show it.  Provide a link.
> 
> You are beyond lazy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are beyond uninformed.
Click to expand...


Still no link....didn't think so.

Your idea of debate is to look at your fat ass in the mirror and tell yourself you are smart.


----------



## koshergrl

PMZ said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's part of the Republican propaganda assault on health care progress.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, show it. Provide a link.
> 
> You are beyond lazy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are beyond uninformed.
Click to expand...

 
Lol.. the fact that you can't back up your statement with a source other than.."I said so"....that proves that someone ELSE is uninformed?

Yeah, cuz only the uninformed ask extremist freaks to verify their wacky rhetoric.

Even more laughable...that you claim supporting evidence is *not* evidence, and that people who have provided verification to support their statements, while you have not, are "uninformed".

It's like being in opposite land.


----------



## Listening

koshergrl said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, show it. Provide a link.
> 
> You are beyond lazy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are beyond uninformed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol.. the fact that you can't back up your statement with a source other than.."I said so"....that proves that someone ELSE is uninformed?
> 
> Yeah, cuz only the uninformed ask extremist freaks to verify their wacky rhetoric.
> 
> Even more laughable...that you claim supporting evidence is *not* evidence, and that people who have provided verification to support their statements, while you have not, are "uninformed".
> 
> It's like being in opposite land.
Click to expand...


Oh now....we all know Fox News tells the Mayo what to do......


----------



## PMZ

Listening said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, show it.  Provide a link.
> 
> You are beyond lazy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are beyond uninformed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still no link....didn't think so.
> 
> Your idea of debate is to look at your fat ass in the mirror and tell yourself you are smart.
Click to expand...


If I was as stupid as I get called here by people like you,  I'd get ignored. 

The reason that I don't is not that I'm wrong but closer to right than  the gospel according to Fox. 

Your anger is the reaction to understanding what you fell for.  

Don't worry,  you'll get over it.


----------



## koshergrl

PMZ said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are beyond uninformed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still no link....didn't think so.
> 
> Your idea of debate is to look at your fat ass in the mirror and tell yourself you are smart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I was as stupid as I get called here by people like you, I'd get ignored.
> 
> The reason that I don't is not that I'm wrong but closer to right than the gospel according to Fox.
> 
> Your anger is the reaction to understanding what you fell for.
> 
> Don't worry, you'll get over it.
Click to expand...

 


Wow you just said a whole lot of nothing.


Again, why can't you link to evidence of your assertion? We linked ours....

Do you know the definition of "evidence"? How about "verify"?


----------



## PMZ

Listening said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are beyond uninformed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lol.. the fact that you can't back up your statement with a source other than.."I said so"....that proves that someone ELSE is uninformed?
> 
> Yeah, cuz only the uninformed ask extremist freaks to verify their wacky rhetoric.
> 
> Even more laughable...that you claim supporting evidence is *not* evidence, and that people who have provided verification to support their statements, while you have not, are "uninformed".
> 
> It's like being in opposite land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh now....we all know Fox News tells the Mayo what to do......
Click to expand...


Fox is not that stupid.  They're actually very good at what they do which is selling the Republican Party to the lightly informed.  

So what they tell you is that all government is incompetent,  and all business is your loving and caring friend.  

Then you read what that article said and think,  there's proof.


----------



## Listening

koshergrl said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still no link....didn't think so.
> 
> Your idea of debate is to look at your fat ass in the mirror and tell yourself you are smart.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I was as stupid as I get called here by people like you, I'd get ignored.
> 
> The reason that I don't is not that I'm wrong but closer to right than the gospel according to Fox.
> 
> Your anger is the reaction to understanding what you fell for.
> 
> Don't worry, you'll get over it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow you just said a whole lot of nothing.
> 
> 
> Again, why can't you link to evidence of your assertion? We linked ours....
> 
> Do you know the definition of "evidence"? How about "verify"?
Click to expand...


Don't hold your breath......


----------



## Listening

PMZ said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol.. the fact that you can't back up your statement with a source other than.."I said so"....that proves that someone ELSE is uninformed?
> 
> Yeah, cuz only the uninformed ask extremist freaks to verify their wacky rhetoric.
> 
> Even more laughable...that you claim supporting evidence is *not* evidence, and that people who have provided verification to support their statements, while you have not, are "uninformed".
> 
> It's like being in opposite land.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh now....we all know Fox News tells the Mayo what to do......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fox is not that stupid.  They're actually very good at what they do which is selling the Republican Party to the lightly informed.
> 
> So what they tell you is that all government is incompetent,  and all business is your loving and caring friend.
> 
> Then you read what that article said and think,  there's proof.
Click to expand...


There's nothing...except a hole where your brain belongs.

You are right....you should be ignored.


----------



## Sunshine

Obama can do what he wants.  He can kill Americans without due process of law.  He can take away your insurance coverage.  He cannot be dealt with.  He is black.  To deal with him appropriately through the impeachment process would simply create one more black martyr.  Most are not willing to do that.

What he has done with the insurance scandal will likely give Republicans control of the government for at least the next 20 years.  We are just waiting patiently for it to come back to us.  And it will.


----------



## BlackSand

PMZ said:


> Fox is not that stupid.  They're actually very good at what they do which is selling the Republican Party to the lightly informed.
> 
> So what they tell you is that all government is incompetent,  and all business is your loving and caring friend.
> 
> Then you read what that article said and think,  there's proof.



*Speaking of Fox News, double talk, lightly informed or anything else you want to call  the bullshit coming from the media ...*

Blue Cross-Blue Shield in North Carolina says that they can work with the President's request to reinstate health plans for one year (after 2014 mid-terms) in attempts to comply with the lie President Obama told before.
They also say that if you want to have the plan you had before ... It won't actually be the same plan it was ... And will cost you more for additional requirements to become compliant with the law.

*In others words ... It won't be the plan you had and will cost you more ... You don't even have to listen to Fox News, because NPR will tell you that much.*

.


----------



## PMZ

Sunshine said:


> Obama can do what he wants.  He can kill Americans without due process of law.  He can take away your insurance coverage.  He cannot be dealt with.  He is black.  To deal with him appropriately through the impeachment process would simply create one more black martyr.  Most are not willing to do that.
> 
> What he has done with the insurance scandal will likely give Republicans control of the government for at least the next 20 years.  We are just waiting patiently for it to come back to us.  And it will.



Keep waiting.  I like that.


----------



## PMZ

BlackSand said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fox is not that stupid.  They're actually very good at what they do which is selling the Republican Party to the lightly informed.
> 
> So what they tell you is that all government is incompetent,  and all business is your loving and caring friend.
> 
> Then you read what that article said and think,  there's proof.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Speaking of Fox News, double talk, lightly informed or anything else you want to call  the bullshit coming from the media ...*
> 
> Blue Cross-Blue Shield in North Carolina says that they can work with the President's request to reinstate health plans for one year (after 2014 mid-terms) in attempts to comply with the lie President Obama told before.
> They also say that if you want to have the plan you had before ... It won't actually be the same plan it was ... And will cost you more for additional requirements to become compliant with the law.
> 
> *In others words ... It won't be the plan you had and will cost you more ... You don't even have to listen to Fox News, because NPR will tell you that much.*
> 
> .
Click to expand...


At least they didn't blame their decisions on the government.


----------



## emilynghiem

PMZ said:


> I don't want control.  I want cooperation and collaboration,  responsibility and accountability,  as they have clearly demonstrated more progress for everyone.
> 
> I want the country to run like a very successful and large and ethical non-profit corporation.



Dear PMZ: I and others AGREE with the end goal of accountability, collaboration as well as ethical and sustainable solutions.

Where we disagree is abusing govt to IMPOSE this using mandates that DEFEAT this very purpose.

The ACA is NOT the most economical and efficient way. If anything good comes of it, it is being used to force people to fight for Constitutional solutions. Sort of like holding a gun to someone's head to make them go fix a problem. This is not the best way, but it is speeding up the process by forcing that person to work fast. That is the only good I see in it.

The ACA itself is not constitutional, either in itself, or at the very least by the right of people to defend their own beliefs without discrimination, penalty or exclusion/imposition by govt.

The best way to establish collaborative sustainable and ETHICAL solutions is to COLLABORATE in an ETHICAL way, ie not abuse political or govt power to impose or coerce.

I hope you will join me in asking all Constitutionalists, and believers in free choice, sustainable health care, and cooperative business by free enterprise to work together to set up LEGAL alternatives so that ACA can be uphold and enforced by VOLUNTARY compliance and not abuse govt or taxation powers to force this on people who do not believe govt has authority to force people to buy insurance to cover their health care and "penalize them if they choose other options of paying these costs."

Denying or obstructing the beliefs of other people, penalizing them for the free exercise to choose other means of health care, is neither "sustainable" or "ethical" but PREVENTS collaboration because it forces them to go into defense mode and waste resources FIGHTING FOR INALIENABLE RIGHTS THAT THIS BILL TAKES AWAY.

So again, this whole approach defeats the very purpose and goal that we could otherwise work on in common. Totally destroys the relationships and credibility of the arguments.


----------



## koshergrl

And the end result is crap healthcare.


----------



## PMZ

emilynghiem said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't want control.  I want cooperation and collaboration,  responsibility and accountability,  as they have clearly demonstrated more progress for everyone.
> 
> I want the country to run like a very successful and large and ethical non-profit corporation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear PMZ: I and others AGREE with the end goal of accountability, collaboration as well as ethical and sustainable solutions.
> 
> Where we disagree is abusing govt to IMPOSE this using mandates that DEFEAT this very purpose.
> 
> The ACA is NOT the most economical and efficient way. If anything good comes of it, it is being used to force people to fight for Constitutional solutions. Sort of like holding a gun to someone's head to make them go fix a problem. This is not the best way, but it is speeding up the process by forcing that person to work fast. That is the only good I see in it.
> 
> The ACA itself is not constitutional, either in itself, or at the very least by the right of people to defend their own beliefs without discrimination, penalty or exclusion/imposition by govt.
> 
> The best way to establish collaborative sustainable and ETHICAL solutions is to COLLABORATE in an ETHICAL way, ie not abuse political or govt power to impose or coerce.
> 
> I hope you will join me in asking all Constitutionalists, and believers in free choice, sustainable health care, and cooperative business by free enterprise to work together to set up LEGAL alternatives so that ACA can be uphold and enforced by VOLUNTARY compliance and not abuse govt or taxation powers to force this on people who do not believe govt has authority to force people to buy insurance to cover their health care and "penalize them if they choose other options of paying these costs."
> 
> Denying or obstructing the beliefs of other people, penalizing them for the free exercise to choose other means of health care, is neither "sustainable" or "ethical" but PREVENTS collaboration because it forces them to go into defense mode and waste resources FIGHTING FOR INALIENABLE RIGHTS THAT THIS BILL TAKES AWAY.
> 
> So again, this whole approach defeats the very purpose and goal that we could otherwise work on in common. Totally destroys the relationships and credibility of the arguments.
Click to expand...


Obamacare does nothing to change the private enterprise nature of health care delivery or insurance.  It only insists on personal responsibility from each of us for our own health care costs. 

If it had been a Republican initiative it would be now touted as the free enterprise solution to our abysmally performing health care and insurance non-system. 

But,  because of how the Republicans CHOSE to oppose it,  they have made a self inflicted  black eye from it. 

The only question now is how long it will be an effective enough stop gap on the way to single payer.  If the private enterprise health care delivery and insurance business feels the pressure,  and responds effectively,  perhaps Obamacare will be enough.  

I personally don't think that the businesses get it yet though.  We can't afford what they'd like to sell.


----------



## RKMBrown

emilynghiem said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't want control.  I want cooperation and collaboration,  responsibility and accountability,  as they have clearly demonstrated more progress for everyone.
> 
> I want the country to run like a very successful and large and ethical non-profit corporation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear PMZ: I and others AGREE with the end goal of accountability, collaboration as well as ethical and sustainable solutions.
> 
> Where we disagree is abusing govt to IMPOSE this using mandates that DEFEAT this very purpose.
> 
> The ACA is NOT the most economical and efficient way. If anything good comes of it, it is being used to force people to fight for Constitutional solutions. Sort of like holding a gun to someone's head to make them go fix a problem. This is not the best way, but it is speeding up the process by forcing that person to work fast. That is the only good I see in it.
> 
> The ACA itself is not constitutional, either in itself, or at the very least by the right of people to defend their own beliefs without discrimination, penalty or exclusion/imposition by govt.
> 
> The best way to establish collaborative sustainable and ETHICAL solutions is to COLLABORATE in an ETHICAL way, ie not abuse political or govt power to impose or coerce.
> 
> I hope you will join me in asking all Constitutionalists, and believers in free choice, sustainable health care, and cooperative business by free enterprise to work together to set up LEGAL alternatives so that ACA can be uphold and enforced by VOLUNTARY compliance and not abuse govt or taxation powers to force this on people who do not believe govt has authority to force people to buy insurance to cover their health care and "penalize them if they choose other options of paying these costs."
> 
> Denying or obstructing the beliefs of other people, penalizing them for the free exercise to choose other means of health care, is neither "sustainable" or "ethical" but PREVENTS collaboration because it forces them to go into defense mode and waste resources FIGHTING FOR INALIENABLE RIGHTS THAT THIS BILL TAKES AWAY.
> 
> So again, this whole approach defeats the very purpose and goal that we could otherwise work on in common. Totally destroys the relationships and credibility of the arguments.
Click to expand...


What problem did we have again?  Oh yeah some folks choose to not buy insurance.  Yeah that sounds like a problem we needed to solve alright, removing everyone's liberty to buy or not buy insurance that they may or may not need.


----------



## beagle9

emilynghiem said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't want control.  I want cooperation and collaboration,  responsibility and accountability,  as they have clearly demonstrated more progress for everyone.
> 
> I want the country to run like a very successful and large and ethical non-profit corporation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear PMZ: I and others AGREE with the end goal of accountability, collaboration as well as ethical and sustainable solutions.
> 
> Where we disagree is abusing govt to IMPOSE this using mandates that DEFEAT this very purpose.
> 
> The ACA is NOT the most economical and efficient way. If anything good comes of it, it is being used to force people to fight for Constitutional solutions. Sort of like holding a gun to someone's head to make them go fix a problem. This is not the best way, but it is speeding up the process by forcing that person to work fast. That is the only good I see in it.
> 
> The ACA itself is not constitutional, either in itself, or at the very least by the right of people to defend their own beliefs without discrimination, penalty or exclusion/imposition by govt.
> 
> The best way to establish collaborative sustainable and ETHICAL solutions is to COLLABORATE in an ETHICAL way, ie not abuse political or govt power to impose or coerce.
> 
> I hope you will join me in asking all Constitutionalists, and believers in free choice, sustainable health care, and cooperative business by free enterprise to work together to set up LEGAL alternatives so that the ACA can be upheld and enforced by VOLUNTARY compliance and not abuse of govt or taxation powers that force this on people who do not believe govt has authority to force people to buy insurance to cover their health care and then "penalize them if they choose other options of paying these costs."
> 
> *Denying or obstructing the beliefs of other people, penalizing them for the free exercise to choose other means of health care, is neither "sustainable" or "ethical" but PREVENTS collaboration because it forces them to go into defense mode and waste resources FIGHTING FOR INALIENABLE RIGHTS THAT THIS BILL TAKES AWAY.*
> 
> So again, this whole approach defeats the very purpose and goal that we could otherwise work on in common. Totally destroys the relationships and credibility of the arguments.
Click to expand...


Ok, but what about the right of the government to also not be abused by the citizens who do not want to be responsible in acquiring a health care plan, and this regardless of their age once they become adults in their lives ?  Then when they get hurt falling off a skate board or any other hobby or sport they might be into, thus (cracking a vertebrae) or worse, why do they think their treatment is *free *or *someone else's responsibility *?  They then expect the government to pick up the tab in which they cannot afford, nor can their parents afford to help them either, so is this right to expect that the government will just take care of these people regardless of their refusal to be responsible citizens who should do the right thing by getting some kind of coverage as they should be expected to ?  How does the nation stop this expected entitlement that is just given to these free loaders in life or how do we change the mindset of freeloading in life ? It appears that the ACA is trying to address this problem wouldn't you agree, and if it isn't the right solution or reaction, then what is ? I do think that the ACA is packed slam full of stuff that didn't need to be a part of it (even abuse is involved in it), and that is a problem also, so what's wrong with reforming it, and still getting the right solution done about the freeloader mindset in this nation ?

Looking back now, I remember I would always be willing to allow my employer to take out money for my health care plan, and I would always participate no matter how young I was, because I felt that it was something that I needed, but I had seen friends and young people balk at the idea of participation, because they always figured two things. 1. They would not get hurt or sick at their young ages. 2. If they did, it wouldn't be so bad, and they could either afford the bill or if it was bad someone else would afford it for them. 

They knew they weren't going to be left for dead at any stage in America, so they gambled to not participate, and that all would be OK for them. Problem is, is that it left the system without their help, and therefore their expenses piled onto the system (making every thing more expensive for all). Imagine the money that could go to helping the elderly and the sickly, and the money for new research and technology, otherwise if these free loaders wouldn't have had the mindset to just throw their bills and responsibilities onto everyone else, just imagine.


----------



## beagle9

koshergrl said:


> And the end result is crap healthcare.


So the fear is by many in this huge national debate, is that if the extreme profits are lessoned a bit, and the corruption and freedom to experiment at any cost are somehow removed (or) the lavish lifestyles are threatened to be rolled back a bit, then the incentive for people to want to enter the field of taking care of another human being will be all but lost maybe ? 

Specialist or surgeons shouldn't have to worry in life, as they should be insulated in their fields, but bad managements or corrupt people may be worrying about their candy being taken away, and this could be what the big fuss is all about coming from them now.


----------



## JakeStarkey

*The glaring evidence that Obamacare is a catastrophic FAILURE continues to mount *

A month later Rott has fail.

Let's move on.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't want control.  I want cooperation and collaboration,  responsibility and accountability,  as they have clearly demonstrated more progress for everyone.
> 
> I want the country to run like a very successful and large and ethical non-profit corporation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear PMZ: I and others AGREE with the end goal of accountability, collaboration as well as ethical and sustainable solutions.
> 
> Where we disagree is abusing govt to IMPOSE this using mandates that DEFEAT this very purpose.
> 
> The ACA is NOT the most economical and efficient way. If anything good comes of it, it is being used to force people to fight for Constitutional solutions. Sort of like holding a gun to someone's head to make them go fix a problem. This is not the best way, but it is speeding up the process by forcing that person to work fast. That is the only good I see in it.
> 
> The ACA itself is not constitutional, either in itself, or at the very least by the right of people to defend their own beliefs without discrimination, penalty or exclusion/imposition by govt.
> 
> The best way to establish collaborative sustainable and ETHICAL solutions is to COLLABORATE in an ETHICAL way, ie not abuse political or govt power to impose or coerce.
> 
> I hope you will join me in asking all Constitutionalists, and believers in free choice, sustainable health care, and cooperative business by free enterprise to work together to set up LEGAL alternatives so that ACA can be uphold and enforced by VOLUNTARY compliance and not abuse govt or taxation powers to force this on people who do not believe govt has authority to force people to buy insurance to cover their health care and "penalize them if they choose other options of paying these costs."
> 
> Denying or obstructing the beliefs of other people, penalizing them for the free exercise to choose other means of health care, is neither "sustainable" or "ethical" but PREVENTS collaboration because it forces them to go into defense mode and waste resources FIGHTING FOR INALIENABLE RIGHTS THAT THIS BILL TAKES AWAY.
> 
> So again, this whole approach defeats the very purpose and goal that we could otherwise work on in common. Totally destroys the relationships and credibility of the arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What problem did we have again?  Oh yeah some folks choose to not buy insurance.  Yeah that sounds like a problem we needed to solve alright, removing everyone's liberty to buy or not buy insurance that they may or may not need.
Click to expand...


We were paying twice as much as our global competition for mediocre,  at best,  results.  If you are really a businessman,  would you accept that performance in business? 

So far you and your anarchists friends have not even been able to define this "liberty" that you are obsessed about losing. 

What things that are illegal today are you compelled to do?


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> What things that are illegal today are you compelled to do?



For starters, the right to decide whether or not to purchase a good or service. Any other obvious answers you have questions for, stupid?


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> So far you and your anarchists friends have not even been able to define this "liberty" that you are obsessed about losing.



So now following the U.S. Constitution is "anarchy" in your mind? My God the left in this world has become so unhinged.


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> Obamacare does nothing to change the private enterprise nature of health care delivery or insurance.  It only insists on personal responsibility from each of us for our own health care costs.



This is a blatant and outrageous *lie* and you fucking _know_ it. Stop being a disingenuous asshole and have an honest discussion or go the fuck away. We don't the liberal propaganda here.

The fact that millions and millions and millions have people have lost their health insurance is *not* because Obamacare "does nothing to change" the private sector insurance. Quite the contrary, it created a fuck load of ignorant regulations which smugly and arrogantly (in typical Dumbocrat fashion) states "I don't care if you are happy with your insurance, I know what is best for you".

Would you like to try again _bitch_? Maybe this time, try being honest?


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> We were paying twice as much as our global competition for mediocre,  at best,  results.  If you are really a businessman,  would you accept that performance in business?



So for the 4,000x - why don't you start a health insurance company and sell policies for a $1 each will providing a cadillac plan? You would instantly corner the market. This solves every problem for both sides:


100% of Americans would have coverage


It would be affordable


It would be Constitutional


It would provide the coverage Obama wants


You would end up filthy "rich" and American hero
So please tell me why you refuse to do this basic, civic duty which is a win-win-win-win any way you look at it? Too lazy?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Has the ACA collapsed yet?


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> What things that are illegal today are you compelled to do?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For starters, the right to decide whether or not to purchase a good or service. Any other obvious answers you have questions for, stupid?
Click to expand...


You have nearly infinite choice in this country.  One thing you do not have choice in is imposing what's best for you on others.  For instance,  you are required,  both by personal responsibility,  and now by law,  to pay your own medical bills.


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> So far you and your anarchists friends have not even been able to define this "liberty" that you are obsessed about losing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So now following the U.S. Constitution is "anarchy" in your mind? My God the left in this world has become so unhinged.
Click to expand...


You're the one that uses words that neither you nor anyone else in your band of piranhas can define.

If you disagree,  define liberty.


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obamacare does nothing to change the private enterprise nature of health care delivery or insurance.  It only insists on personal responsibility from each of us for our own health care costs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a blatant and outrageous *lie* and you fucking _know_ it. Stop being a disingenuous asshole and have an honest discussion or go the fuck away. We don't the liberal propaganda here.
> 
> The fact that millions and millions and millions have people have lost their health insurance is *not* because Obamacare "does nothing to change" the private sector insurance. Quite the contrary, it created a fuck load of ignorant regulations which smugly and arrogantly (in typical Dumbocrat fashion) states "I don't care if you are happy with your insurance, I know what is best for you".
> 
> Would you like to try again _bitch_? Maybe this time, try being honest?
Click to expand...


Your ignorance angers you.  It angers me too,  but you insist on it anyway. 

What's that about?


----------



## PMZ

JakeStarkey said:


> Has the ACA collapsed yet?



Republicans have spent billions and 4 years trying to achieve that.  They've given up all pretense of governance as a result. They've failed all around. 

It will go down in history as their death rattle.


----------



## Meister

PMZ said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has the ACA collapsed yet?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans have spent billions and 4 years trying to achieve that.  They've given up all pretense of governance as a result. They've failed all around.
> 
> It will go down in history as their death rattle.
Click to expand...


Ya'll are acting like that it's only the repubs that want this to fail. 
The only ones that want this are the ones that would follow their messiah over a cliff.

One just has to look at the anemic economy, the unemployment, the underemployed, and the talk of the new full time worker being 30 hours employed a week.
Yeah, things are really honky dory in your lala land.


----------



## PMZ

Meister said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has the ACA collapsed yet?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans have spent billions and 4 years trying to achieve that.  They've given up all pretense of governance as a result. They've failed all around.
> 
> It will go down in history as their death rattle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ya'll are acting like that it's only the repubs that want this to fail.
> The only ones that want this are the ones that would follow their messiah over a cliff.
> 
> One just has to look at the anemic economy, the unemployment, the underemployed, and the talk of the new full time worker being 30 hours employed a week.
> Yeah, things are really honky dory in your lala land.
Click to expand...


I'm as upset at the failure of business to grow as you are.  They've thrown the country under the bus because it's so personally rewarding for executives.  They choose to not reinvest earnings in new products and customer service and reward themselves with majestic bonuses and obscene profits. 

The only force left standing to get them off their dead asses are us consumers.


----------



## koshergrl

PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obamacare does nothing to change the private enterprise nature of health care delivery or insurance. It only insists on personal responsibility from each of us for our own health care costs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a blatant and outrageous *lie* and you fucking _know_ it. Stop being a disingenuous asshole and have an honest discussion or go the fuck away. We don't the liberal propaganda here.
> 
> The fact that millions and millions and millions have people have lost their health insurance is *not* because Obamacare "does nothing to change" the private sector insurance. Quite the contrary, it created a fuck load of ignorant regulations which smugly and arrogantly (in typical Dumbocrat fashion) states "I don't care if you are happy with your insurance, I know what is best for you".
> 
> Would you like to try again _bitch_? Maybe this time, try being honest?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your ignorance angers you. It angers me too, but you insist on it anyway.
> 
> What's that about?
Click to expand...

 
Actually, obamacare does change the nature of private enterprise, because it mandates that people purchase, and insurers provide, particular benefits. If they do not, they are fined. Charity providers associated with churches and hospitals have already been shut down....the sick people of our nation who were previously receiving care from those organizations are now without coverage...and they haven't received obamacare yet. So their ongoing treatment is halted, and they don't know when or from whom it will be taken up again.

Many of them will not be allowed to use their old care providers...and while in the cities this is not viewed as a huge problem, trust me, outside of city walls, it is. In communities that are 60+ miles from the next available health care provider, for the sick, elderly, disabled, and poor this is an obstacle that is unsurmountable.


----------



## beagle9

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> What things that are illegal today are you compelled to do?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For starters, the right to decide whether or not to purchase a good or service. Any other obvious answers you have questions for, stupid?
Click to expand...


Rott, in this health care debate, where so many are involved upon this ladder in which we are all standing upon now, I ask shouldn't people be figuring out how to accomplish what has been set out to do (*together*), and this in order to solve the crisis as a team instead of from within this infighting that is going on so bad in this nation now ? 

Have you addressed the free loader mentality I talked about in this nation within this debate, and how that has run our health care into free loader oblivion over time ? I mean we are a nation that has changed so much from the past, especially in the birth rates and the types of populations we have now over time, where as people are becoming older and older without as much relief coming in from the bottom rungs as there once used to be, so I use this for just one example in the debate, where as there are many afflictions in this problem we have now in the scheme of things. A lot of this is all because the economy has faltered in these bubbles created through out the years, and the greed that has gone on within these bubbles, so now businesses have cut back therefore throwing hundreds of thousands onto the federal government roles for the feds to figure out how to take care of them, so what are the feds supposed to do in order to get relief from those numbers in which are steady coming in ? 

What I guess they are attempting to do in this health care thing, is they are trying to force people to be responsible or get fined for not being responsible, and isn't that a good thing ? I'm not sure how it is all going over on a population who is more unemployed these days, than they were say 40 years ago, but somewhere in time we all have to pay the piper, and it appears that the time has come for that. Now it could be done best with bi-partisanship for sure, but the war goes on within, and because of this war, we are getting what we are getting as a result of such an inward war that has taken place over time now. We have all been put in this stressed out position because of others known actions over time, and they are superior at throwing that blame off of themselves, and causing mayhem and confusion as a result of what has transpired over time now. We must open our eyes and see what is going on, and we must protect ourselves from those who see it all as a weakness that could usher in a period in which certain ones profit now, meanwhile millions suffer still in the scheme of things.


----------



## koshergrl

This is the reality of obamacare...sick, sick people who are losing their coverage and don't know when they will get it again:

With Three Weeks Left, Consumers Fear They May End Up Without Health Coverage On New Year?s Day - Kaiser Health News


----------



## koshergrl

And in turn, the sick people are all waiting for benefits...but the healthy people who are supposed to pay premiums are opting to pay the fines instead, because the fines are cheaper.

Which means the insurance coverage will get worse and worse...and the fines larger and larger....

Good going, liberals.


----------



## PMZ

koshergrl said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a blatant and outrageous *lie* and you fucking _know_ it. Stop being a disingenuous asshole and have an honest discussion or go the fuck away. We don't the liberal propaganda here.
> 
> The fact that millions and millions and millions have people have lost their health insurance is *not* because Obamacare "does nothing to change" the private sector insurance. Quite the contrary, it created a fuck load of ignorant regulations which smugly and arrogantly (in typical Dumbocrat fashion) states "I don't care if you are happy with your insurance, I know what is best for you".
> 
> Would you like to try again _bitch_? Maybe this time, try being honest?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your ignorance angers you. It angers me too, but you insist on it anyway.
> 
> What's that about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, obamacare does change the nature of private enterprise, because it mandates that people purchase, and insurers provide, particular benefits. If they do not, they are fined. Charity providers associated with churches and hospitals have already been shut down....the sick people of our nation who were previously receiving care from those organizations are now without coverage...and they haven't received obamacare yet. So their ongoing treatment is halted, and they don't know when or from whom it will be taken up again.
> 
> Many of them will not be allowed to use their old care providers...and while in the cities this is not viewed as a huge problem, trust me, outside of city walls, it is. In communities that are 60+ miles from the next available health care provider, for the sick, elderly, disabled, and poor this is an obstacle that is unsurmountable.
Click to expand...


Thank God for Medicare and Medicaid that take  care of the vast majority of the sick, elderly, disabled, and poor. 

The rest will have vastly improved health care under ObamaCare as the launch issues go away.  Most of them have already.


----------



## koshergrl

JakeStarkey said:


> *The glaring evidence that Obamacare is a catastrophic FAILURE continues to mount *
> 
> A month later Rott has fail.
> 
> Let's move on.


 
Liar.

"
But neither Mr. Zients nor the Department of Health and Human Services indicated how many people were completing all the steps required to enroll in a health plan through the federal site, which serves residents of 36 states. 
And unless enrollments are completed correctly, coverage may be in doubt. 
For insurers the process is maddeningly inconsistent. Some people clearly are being enrolled. But insurers say they are still getting duplicate files and, more worrisome, sometimes not receiving information on every enrollment taking place. 
Health plans cant process enrollments they dont receive, said Robert Zirkelbach, a spokesman for Americas Health Insurance Plans. 
Despite talk from time to time of finding some sort of workaround, experts say insurers have little choice but to wait for the government to fix these problems. The insurers are in an unenviable position, said Brett Graham, a managing director at Leavitt Partners, which has been advising states and others on the exchanges. Although they dont have the responsibility or the capability to fix the system, theyre reliant on it. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/02/b...h-site.html?smid=tw-share&pagewanted=all&_r=0


----------



## koshergrl

PMZ said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your ignorance angers you. It angers me too, but you insist on it anyway.
> 
> What's that about?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, obamacare does change the nature of private enterprise, because it mandates that people purchase, and insurers provide, particular benefits. If they do not, they are fined. Charity providers associated with churches and hospitals have already been shut down....the sick people of our nation who were previously receiving care from those organizations are now without coverage...and they haven't received obamacare yet. So their ongoing treatment is halted, and they don't know when or from whom it will be taken up again.
> 
> Many of them will not be allowed to use their old care providers...and while in the cities this is not viewed as a huge problem, trust me, outside of city walls, it is. In communities that are 60+ miles from the next available health care provider, for the sick, elderly, disabled, and poor this is an obstacle that is unsurmountable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank God for Medicare and Medicaid that take care of the vast majority of the sick, elderly, disabled, and poor.
> 
> The rest will have vastly improved health care under ObamaCare as the launch issues go away. Most of them have already.
Click to expand...

 

You fucking idiot. Medicaid clients are in the middle of this. Medicaid clients have been turned over to the obamacare system, which means though MOST of them have been given an automatic 6-month "bypass end date" (i.e. eligibility extension) the ones who are applying for medicaid NOW must go through the same nightmare system.

So our NEW maa (tanf medical) families and children are facing the same nightmare. I have dealt with sick and pregnant women calling me to ask "where's my medical? I am supposed to see the doctor on Monday". I give them an 800 number, and they're on their own.


----------



## koshergrl

Medicare patients have a 2-year waiting time between the time they are determined eligible for disability and when they actually start receiving medical. 

What should they do?


----------



## beagle9

koshergrl said:


> And in turn, the sick people are all waiting for benefits...but the healthy people who are supposed to pay premiums are opting to pay the fines instead, because the fines are cheaper.
> 
> Which means the insurance coverage will get worse and worse...and the fines larger and larger....
> 
> Good going, liberals.


The only answer then, is a single payer system where all are covered and taxed for it, but why are the people so afraid of this single payer system idea I wonder ?


----------



## Meister

beagle9 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> And in turn, the sick people are all waiting for benefits...but the healthy people who are supposed to pay premiums are opting to pay the fines instead, because the fines are cheaper.
> 
> Which means the insurance coverage will get worse and worse...and the fines larger and larger....
> 
> Good going, liberals.
> 
> 
> 
> The only answer then, is a single payer system where all are covered and taxed for it, but why are the people so afraid of this single payer system idea I wonder ?
Click to expand...


Really?  Maybe that the government takes over an industry, they are able to dictate premium prices and coverage without any competition, and you have to wonder why people are afraid of it?  Sheesh, the government isn't capable of running a business, it's been proven.
Socialists just can't help themselves, can they beagle? 

PS....the only answer is NOT a single payer system if you wanted to do some critical thinking on your own.


----------



## koshergrl

No, that isn't the answer, lunatic.

You retards aren't capable of recognizing what works well, and what doesn't. The system worked fine..until entitlement freaks started insisting the government needed to be more involved, and more and more people needed to be provided with free health care.

And since that occurred, we have started the descent down from what used to be the nation with the best medical care in the world...to what will eventually be our status as a country with crap medical care that much more closely resembles a third world country's medical care.

And their medical care will improve, as they continue to strive to achieve the hallmarks that we used to strive for.....


----------



## koshergrl

And the loons still think things are going to get better.

It won't. It's going to get worse...and worse...and worse. And eventually they are going to feel it, personally.

And then there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth. Too bad.


----------



## JakeStarkey

*The glaring evidence that Obamacare is a catastrophic FAILURE continues to mount*

Nope, but koshergrl continues to defend the indefensible lies being told about ACA.

What she and her colleagues cannot grasp is that we can't now go back to what we had.

Either this is made into an excellent program, or the health care of America will be nationalized.

It is now either or, not either or but.  I can hear their gnashing of teeth.


----------



## Meister

koshergrl said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a blatant and outrageous *lie* and you fucking _know_ it. Stop being a disingenuous asshole and have an honest discussion or go the fuck away. We don't the liberal propaganda here.
> 
> The fact that millions and millions and millions have people have lost their health insurance is *not* because Obamacare "does nothing to change" the private sector insurance. Quite the contrary, it created a fuck load of ignorant regulations which smugly and arrogantly (in typical Dumbocrat fashion) states "I don't care if you are happy with your insurance, I know what is best for you".
> 
> Would you like to try again _bitch_? Maybe this time, try being honest?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your ignorance angers you. It angers me too, but you insist on it anyway.
> 
> What's that about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, obamacare does change the nature of private enterprise, because it mandates that people purchase, and insurers provide, particular benefits. If they do not, they are fined. Charity providers associated with churches and hospitals have already been shut down....the sick people of our nation who were previously receiving care from those organizations are now without coverage...and they haven't received obamacare yet. So their ongoing treatment is halted, and they don't know when or from whom it will be taken up again.
> 
> Many of them will not be allowed to use their old care providers...and while in the cities this is not viewed as a huge problem, trust me, outside of city walls, it is. In communities that are 60+ miles from the next available health care provider, for the sick, elderly, disabled, and poor this is an obstacle that is unsurmountable.
Click to expand...

It was packaged as a means for those who didn't have insurance could get it, NOT if you had it and liked it, tough titty, your going to lose it anyways.


----------



## Meister

JakeStarkey said:


> *The glaring evidence that Obamacare is a catastrophic FAILURE continues to mount*
> 
> Nope, but koshergrl continues to defend the indefensible lies being told about ACA.
> 
> What she and her colleagues cannot grasp is that we can't now go back to what we had.
> 
> Either this is made into an excellent program, or the health care of America will be nationalized.
> 
> It is now either or, not either or but.  I can hear their gnashing of teeth.



You seem to be defending Obama's lies regarding the ACA, Jake. 
It doesn't have to be nationalized, but your messiah wants it that way.  Government owned and operated industry.


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> What things that are illegal today are you compelled to do?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For starters, the right to decide whether or not to purchase a good or service. Any other obvious answers you have questions for, stupid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have nearly infinite choice in this country.  *One thing you do not have choice in is imposing what's best for you on others*.  For instance,  you are required,  both by personal responsibility,  and now by law,  to pay your own medical bills.
Click to expand...


Oh the irony of this ignorant statement. This is *EXACTLY* what Obamacare does - impose what's best for Obama and his party on others.

There is a *much* better solution which is Constitutional and still implements *FREEDOM* and *CHOICE* for the American people - the right of any physician, healthcare provider, or hospital to deny service to someone who can't or won't pay (just like it used to be).

See, this whole problem started in the early 1980's when Tip O'Neill and the Dumbocrat-controlled Congress passed a bill which effectively repealed the 13th Amendment and brought back slavery (something Dumbocrats have been fighting for since they had their asses handed to them in the Civil War). Once people and organizations were FORCED (a Dumbocrats favorite thing) to provide their labor at no charge, the entire thing started to go to shit.

We're literally living Atlas Shrugged. Dumbocrats stick their nose where they have no Constitutional authority and they fuck it up. From the nightmare they created, they stick their nose in again and fuck it up further with Obamacare. Once doctors refuse to take Medicare/Medicaid because it's not worth it to them, the Dumbocrats will fuck it up further and FORCE doctors to accept it. Of course, the result of that will be doctors quitting and future doctors choosing another profession.

Dumbocrats create the problem, then interfere further to "correct" the problem they created in the first place, which just fucks up everything further, which causes them to believe more intervention is required. Lather. Rinse. Repeat.

As I said, we are _literally_ living Atlas Shrugged.


----------



## Meister

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> For starters, the right to decide whether or not to purchase a good or service. Any other obvious answers you have questions for, stupid?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have nearly infinite choice in this country.  *One thing you do not have choice in is imposing what's best for you on others*.  For instance,  you are required,  both by personal responsibility,  and now by law,  to pay your own medical bills.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh the irony of this ignorant statement. This is *EXACTLY* what Obamacare does - impose what's best for Obama and his party on others.
> 
> There is a *much* better solution which is Constitutional and still implements *FREEDOM* and *CHOICE* for the American people - the right of any physician, healthcare provider, or hospital to deny service to someone who can't or won't pay (just like it used to be).
> 
> See, this whole problem started in the early 1980's when Tip O'Neill and the Dumbocrat-controlled Congress passed a bill which effectively repealed the 13th Amendment and brought back slavery (something Dumbocrats have been fighting for since they had their asses handed to them in the Civil War). Once people and organizations were FORCED (a Dumbocrats favorite thing) to provide their labor at no charge, the entire thing started to go to shit.
> 
> We're literally living Atlas Shrugged. Dumbocrats stick their nose where they have no Constitutional authority and they fuck it up. From the nightmare they created, they stick their nose in again and fuck it up further with Obamacare. Once doctors refuse to take Medicare/Medicaid because it's not worth it to them, the Dumbocrats will fuck it up further and FORCE doctors to accept it. Of course, the result of that will be doctors quitting and future doctors choosing another profession.
> 
> Dumbocrats create the problem, then interfere further to "correct" the problem they created in the first place, which just fucks up everything further, which causes them to believe more intervention is required. Lather. Rinse. Repeat.
> 
> As I said, we are _literally_ living Atlas Shrugged.
Click to expand...


I don't even respond to that twit any longer.  He won't admit to anything but to his socialist agenda and ignore the facts along the way that disproves his premise.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Meister said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The glaring evidence that Obamacare is a catastrophic FAILURE continues to mount*
> 
> Nope, but koshergrl continues to defend the indefensible lies being told about ACA.
> 
> What she and her colleagues cannot grasp is that we can't now go back to what we had.
> 
> Either this is made into an excellent program, or the health care of America will be nationalized.
> 
> It is now either or, not either or but.  I can hear their gnashing of teeth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to be defending Obama's lies regarding the ACA, Jake.
> It doesn't have to be nationalized, but your messiah wants it that way.  Government owned and operated industry.
Click to expand...


You seem to not understand what I am saying: we aren't going back.

If the far right and responsible conservatives work to improve the program, the program does not have to be nationalized.


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has the ACA collapsed yet?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans have spent billions and 4 years trying to achieve that.  They've given up all pretense of governance as a result. They've failed all around.
> 
> It will go down in history as their death rattle.
Click to expand...


And yet for every delcaration by you ignorant Dumbocrats that the Republicans are "dead" and "can't win an election", how odd that this nation has become a shit hole which you keep blaming _them_ for... 

For the millionth time now PMZ, can you please create a consistent narrative that doesn't contradict itself. Either the Republicans are the power in this nation which are destroying this country, or they are dead and it's the Dumbocrats who have destroyed this nation (just like the Dumbocrats did to Detroit).


----------



## Meister

JakeStarkey said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The glaring evidence that Obamacare is a catastrophic FAILURE continues to mount*
> 
> Nope, but koshergrl continues to defend the indefensible lies being told about ACA.
> 
> What she and her colleagues cannot grasp is that we can't now go back to what we had.
> 
> Either this is made into an excellent program, or the health care of America will be nationalized.
> 
> It is now either or, not either or but.  I can hear their gnashing of teeth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to be defending Obama's lies regarding the ACA, Jake.
> It doesn't have to be nationalized, but your messiah wants it that way.  Government owned and operated industry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You seem to not understand what I am saying: we aren't going back.
> 
> If the far right and responsible conservatives work to improve the program, the program does not have to be nationalized.
Click to expand...

The actual solutions to the "fix", obama would never sign on with.  His only "fix" is going towards a single payer system....true story.


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obamacare does nothing to change the private enterprise nature of health care delivery or insurance.  It only insists on personal responsibility from each of us for our own health care costs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a blatant and outrageous *lie* and you fucking _know_ it. Stop being a disingenuous asshole and have an honest discussion or go the fuck away. We don't the liberal propaganda here.
> 
> The fact that millions and millions and millions have people have lost their health insurance is *not* because Obamacare "does nothing to change" the private sector insurance. Quite the contrary, it created a fuck load of ignorant regulations which smugly and arrogantly (in typical Dumbocrat fashion) states "I don't care if you are happy with your insurance, I know what is best for you".
> 
> Would you like to try again _bitch_? Maybe this time, try being honest?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your ignorance angers you.  It angers me too,  but you insist on it anyway.
> 
> What's that about?
Click to expand...


In other words, I just exposed your ignorance and made you my bitch with facts? Got it! Yeah, I already knew that chief. You're inability to respond just verifies what the rest of us (with actual brains) already knew.

The fact that you would even attempt to say "Obamacare does NOTHING to the free market" is fuck'n fall down hilarious. Even Obama, Pelosi, and Reid are smart enough not to attempt that narrative. They openly admit that it drastically imposes regulations on the free market.

You're either a LIAR or a FUCK'N MORON. Which is it chief?


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans have spent billions and 4 years trying to achieve that.  They've given up all pretense of governance as a result. They've failed all around.
> 
> It will go down in history as their death rattle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ya'll are acting like that it's only the repubs that want this to fail.
> The only ones that want this are the ones that would follow their messiah over a cliff.
> 
> One just has to look at the anemic economy, the unemployment, the underemployed, and the talk of the new full time worker being 30 hours employed a week.
> Yeah, things are really honky dory in your lala land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm as upset at the failure of business to grow as you are.  They've thrown the country under the bus because it's so personally rewarding for executives.  They choose to not reinvest earnings in new products and customer service and reward themselves with majestic bonuses and obscene profits.
> 
> The only force left standing to get them off their dead asses are us consumers.
Click to expand...


In other words - *communism*. Everyone should do what's best for Obama and the Dumbocrats, not what's best for themselves and their family - right?

Let me ask you something asshat - who gets to decide what constitutes "obscene profits"? _You_?


----------



## RKMBrown

JakeStarkey said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The glaring evidence that Obamacare is a catastrophic FAILURE continues to mount*
> 
> Nope, but koshergrl continues to defend the indefensible lies being told about ACA.
> 
> What she and her colleagues cannot grasp is that we can't now go back to what we had.
> 
> Either this is made into an excellent program, or the health care of America will be nationalized.
> 
> It is now either or, not either or but.  I can hear their gnashing of teeth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to be defending Obama's lies regarding the ACA, Jake.
> It doesn't have to be nationalized, but your messiah wants it that way.  Government owned and operated industry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You seem to not understand what I am saying: we aren't going back.
> 
> If the far right and responsible conservatives work to improve the program, the program does not have to be nationalized.
Click to expand...


ROFL.. no we are not going back in time.  However, going forward it is my sincere desire the democrats be run out of town on a rail, or shot, and Obama Care de-funded or burned to ashes or everyone is given a permanent exemption just like Obama's already handed out to his worshipers.


----------



## Mac1958

.

The guy who's sitting in for Limbaugh today is nailing it, discussing one (1) of the several upcoming disasters we can expect.  It goes like this:

Medicaid providers receive a small percentage of their standard fees for Medicaid patients (Medicare patients too, for that matter).

Medicaid rolls are exploding, which will bury the providers who accept Medicaid in new patients, crippling them financially and creating massive waits.

And again, that's just one (1) of the problems on the way.

Is there a flaw in this?

.


----------



## Vox

Mac1958 said:


> .
> 
> The guy who's sitting in for Limbaugh today is nailing it, discussing one (1) of the several upcoming disasters we can expect.  It goes like this:
> 
> Medicaid providers receive a small percentage of their standard fees for Medicaid patients (Medicare patients too, for that matter).
> *
> Medicaid rolls are exploding, which will bury the providers who accept Medicaid in new patients,* crippling them financially and creating massive waits.
> 
> And again, that's just one (1) of the problems on the way.
> 
> Is there a flaw in this?
> 
> .



Not necessarily. Many are simply not accepting new medicaid patients.

It looks like the only places left for the ballooned Medicaid rolls and the obamacare patients are teaching hospitals ( if they are covered by obamacare exchanges, which in the majority of cases are not)


----------



## P@triot

No matter how you spin it, this fuck'n thing is a catastrophic disaster. Millions upon millions have lost their health insurance because of Obamacare and it's only going to get worse from here. And the icing on the cake is that the idiot Dumbocrats can't even build a simply fuck'n website to keep people with some sort of coverage.

Only the die-hard partisan moron's like PMZ are attempting to deny that this is an unmitigated disaster. And what's funny, when pinned into a corner where he can no longer deny how catastrophic this is, he tries to blame the Republicans for making it fail. You can't make this stuff up folks...


----------



## koshergrl

And people who do have primary care doctors and insurance are being funneled to the clinics if they have anything that needs immediate attention. I called my dr's office to have a lump on my daughter's head looked at..my doctor, who has my daughter's medical history and mine, and who knows her, was not able to see her for 2 months, and so I was advised to go to the clinic.

Where we would be seen by a PA who is clueless and has no history with my daughter or immediate access to her records.

We opted to wait the 2 months and go with our doctor, and in the end it was fine BUT if it had been a tumor or cancerous growth, it could very easily have been a death sentence.

Meanwhile, people who are eligible for medicaid are also unable to get on...and dhs workers are being kept in the dark about new eligibility requirements for those people, so they can't even help them out in the offices.


----------



## Vox

Rottweiler said:


> No matter how you spin it, this fuck'n thing is a catastrophic disaster. Millions upon millions have lost their health insurance because of Obamacare and it's only going to get worse from here. And the icing on the cake is that the idiot Dumbocrats can't even build a simply fuck'n website to keep people with some sort of coverage.
> 
> Only the die-hard partisan moron's like PMZ are attempting to deny that this is an unmitigated disaster. And what's funny, when pinned into a corner where he can no longer deny how catastrophic this is, he tries to blame the Republicans for making it fail. You can't make this stuff up folks...



Oh, I agree absolutely.

Just added some interior insight


----------



## Vox

koshergrl said:


> And people who do have primary care doctors and insurance are being funneled to the clinics if they have anything that needs immediate attention. I called my dr's office to have a lump on my daughter's head looked at..my doctor, who has my daughter's medical history and mine, and who knows her, was not able to see her for 2 months, and so I was advised to go to the clinic.
> 
> Where we would be seen by a PA who is clueless and has no history with my daughter or immediate access to her records.
> 
> We opted to wait the 2 months and go with our doctor, and in the end it was fine BUT if it had been a tumor or cancerous growth, it could very easily have been a death sentence.
> 
> Meanwhile, people who are eligible for medicaid are also unable to get on...and dhs workers are being kept in the dark about new eligibility requirements for those people, so they can't even help them out in the offices.



Next time if that is THAT long - it's better to go to the doctor and get the copies of medical records ( which is your right and you do not need an appointment for that) and then go to any good teaching hospital in the vicinity - to the ER if no appointment can be made for the pediatric specialist.


----------



## koshergrl

There are no teaching hospitals here. 

See, everybody DOESN'T live within a stone's throw of the big facilities.

The ER refers non-emergent cases to the walk in clinic.


----------



## koshergrl

In fact, the nearest teaching facility that I can think of is 3-1/2 hours away.


----------



## P@triot

beagle9 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> What things that are illegal today are you compelled to do?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For starters, the right to decide whether or not to purchase a good or service. Any other obvious answers you have questions for, stupid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rott, in this health care debate, where so many are involved upon this ladder in which we are all standing upon now, I ask shouldn't people be figuring out how to accomplish what has been set out to do (*together*), and this in order to solve the crisis as a team instead of from within this infighting that is going on so bad in this nation now?
Click to expand...


Yes. The problem is, we all vehemently disagree what constitutes "figuring this out". Most people who are wiling to set aside ideology, affiliation, etc. and just look at the facts have come to the conclusion that "figuring this out" means immediately repealing Obamacare.



beagle9 said:


> Have you addressed the free loader mentality I talked about in this nation within this debate, and how that has run our health care into free loader oblivion over time?



Absolutely. I've addressed it many times (and the left always hates my answer). This free loader mentality is facilitated by the unconstitutional actions of the Dumbocrats in Washington. The GOP vehemently opposed Social Security in 1931. They warned what would happen. History has proven them right. And please spare me the "I pay into Social Security". You probably do. As do I. But there are TONS of free loaders who never (or hardly ever) paid into Social Security but reap plenty from it. This same song & dance (GOP warns, Dumbocrats forge ahead for votes and power anyway) has replayed itself through history (again in 1967 with Medicare & Medicaid, and again with Obamacare).

There solution is simple - return to Constitutional government. The Dumbocrats can have every precious piece of communism they desire. But legally, they have to do it at the state level. The beauty of this model created by our brilliant founders by the hand of God, is that Dumbocrat failure does not collapse the entire nation. If they want to drag California down with their stupidity (as they have done already), that doesn't hurt people in Texas. When they unconstitutionally do what they have done at the federal level, everybody suffers (which, lets be honest, is exactly what the Dumbocrats want - communist "equality" where everybody suffers but they all suffer equally).



beagle9 said:


> I mean we are a nation that has changed so much from the past, especially in the birth rates and the types of populations we have now over time, where as people are becoming older and older without as much relief coming in from the bottom rungs as there once used to be, so I use this for just one example in the debate, where as there are many afflictions in this problem we have now in the scheme of things. A lot of this is all because the economy has faltered in these bubbles created through out the years, and the greed that has gone on within these bubbles, so now businesses have cut back therefore throwing hundreds of thousands onto the federal government roles for the feds to figure out how to take care of them, so what are the feds supposed to do in order to get relief from those numbers in which are steady coming in?



The economy has faltered because of the Dumbocrats belief that we need to punish the wealthy, reward the free loaders, and spread the wealth. That doesn't work. That has _never_ worked. It's been tried over and over and it always ends the same. Step 1 - drastically reduce corporate taxes. Make it cheaper to do business in the U.S. and jobs will come back to the U.S. Make it more expensive to do business in the U.S., and business will take their jobs somewhere else. It's just common sense and a simple reality.



beagle9 said:


> What I guess they are attempting to do in this health care thing, is they are trying to force people to be responsible or get fined for not being responsible, and isn't that a good thing?



Far too simplistic my friend. They created the free loader, now they want to take away my freedoms (when I have NEVER been a free loader) to "solve" the problem they created themselves. There is a very easy solution to this problem. Get government and their regulations allowing people to be free loaders out of the private sector. Repeal the law from Dumbocrat Tip O'Neill's Congress which forces hospitals, physicians, etc. to provide their service to someone who can't pay and guess what - you damn well better believe that people will start getting responsible. People free load now because they know they can (thanks to the Dumbocrats).



beagle9 said:


> I'm not sure how it is all going over on a population who is more unemployed these days, than they were say 40 years ago, but somewhere in time we all have to pay the piper, and it appears that the time has come for that. Now it could be done best with bi-partisanship for sure, but the war goes on within, and because of this war, we are getting what we are getting as a result of such an inward war that has taken place over time now. We have all been put in this stressed out position because of others known actions over time, and they are superior at throwing that blame off of themselves, and causing mayhem and confusion as a result of what has transpired over time now. We must open our eyes and see what is going on, and we must protect ourselves from those who see it all as a weakness that could usher in a period in which certain ones profit now, meanwhile millions suffer still in the scheme of things.



It amazes me that even uneducated, sanding-eating buffoons like Al Qaeda gets it and yet the left in this nation does not.

Let me ask you something - why does Al Qaeda have "cells"? Why do they have cells operating independently of each other and unaware of the others existence?

Answer: it is so the failure of one does *not* cause the failure of the whole. And that is the exact model the U.S. had and needs to return to.

*Independence*. Your failure to take proper responsibility should _not_ drag me down or affect me in any way. My failure to take proper responsibility should _not_ drag you down or affect you in any way. It is the only model that works. Period. Any other form of the "collective" is simply communism idiocy which always ends the same - in failure.

The Dumborats subversion of the U.S. Constitution over the past 100+ years has done away with independence and that is why we ALL suffer right now.


----------



## Vox

koshergrl said:


> There are no teaching hospitals here.
> 
> See, everybody DOESN'T live within a stone's throw of the big facilities.
> 
> The ER refers non-emergent cases to the walk in clinic.



Oh, that's bad. But if you have to wait 2 months it is still possible to get to the teaching hospital in the nearest big city ( there are at least 2 in every state as every state had residency programs in my specialty more than one per state, and I am not IM or pediatrician.

Honestly, it is a very long period. you should not wait that long. it is not going to be better ( with waiting times) and unless you want to be a hysterical mom who just shows up ( which is a possibility - but it is a single option, as after that you won't have good relations with the office and the doctor), you should somehow think about the options when you need to come quick.

If you add complaint of "pain" to anything under the sun - it usually expedites everything and justifies the ER visit as well. you might want to remember


----------



## PMZ

koshergrl said:


> No, that isn't the answer, lunatic.
> 
> You retards aren't capable of recognizing what works well, and what doesn't. The system worked fine..until entitlement freaks started insisting the government needed to be more involved, and more and more people needed to be provided with free health care.
> 
> And since that occurred, we have started the descent down from what used to be the nation with the best medical care in the world...to what will eventually be our status as a country with crap medical care that much more closely resembles a third world country's medical care.
> 
> And their medical care will improve, as they continue to strive to achieve the hallmarks that we used to strive for.....



We were paying twice as much as our global competition for decidedly mediocre results and you are unable to think of a single improvement. Typical do nothing Republican.


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> For starters, the right to decide whether or not to purchase a good or service. Any other obvious answers you have questions for, stupid?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have nearly infinite choice in this country.  *One thing you do not have choice in is imposing what's best for you on others*.  For instance,  you are required,  both by personal responsibility,  and now by law,  to pay your own medical bills.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh the irony of this ignorant statement. This is *EXACTLY* what Obamacare does - impose what's best for Obama and his party on others.
> 
> There is a *much* better solution which is Constitutional and still implements *FREEDOM* and *CHOICE* for the American people - the right of any physician, healthcare provider, or hospital to deny service to someone who can't or won't pay (just like it used to be).
> 
> See, this whole problem started in the early 1980's when Tip O'Neill and the Dumbocrat-controlled Congress passed a bill which effectively repealed the 13th Amendment and brought back slavery (something Dumbocrats have been fighting for since they had their asses handed to them in the Civil War). Once people and organizations were FORCED (a Dumbocrats favorite thing) to provide their labor at no charge, the entire thing started to go to shit.
> 
> We're literally living Atlas Shrugged. Dumbocrats stick their nose where they have no Constitutional authority and they fuck it up. From the nightmare they created, they stick their nose in again and fuck it up further with Obamacare. Once doctors refuse to take Medicare/Medicaid because it's not worth it to them, the Dumbocrats will fuck it up further and FORCE doctors to accept it. Of course, the result of that will be doctors quitting and future doctors choosing another profession.
> 
> Dumbocrats create the problem, then interfere further to "correct" the problem they created in the first place, which just fucks up everything further, which causes them to believe more intervention is required. Lather. Rinse. Repeat.
> 
> As I said, we are _literally_ living Atlas Shrugged.
Click to expand...


You realize that Atlas Shrugged is fiction,  right? 

Who is John Galt?


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> No matter how you spin it, this fuck'n thing is a catastrophic disaster. Millions upon millions have lost their health insurance because of Obamacare and it's only going to get worse from here. And the icing on the cake is that the idiot Dumbocrats can't even build a simply fuck'n website to keep people with some sort of coverage.
> 
> Only the die-hard partisan moron's like PMZ are attempting to deny that this is an unmitigated disaster. And what's funny, when pinned into a corner where he can no longer deny how catastrophic this is, he tries to blame the Republicans for making it fail. You can't make this stuff up folks...



Every year everyone loses their health care when their annual policy expires.  Been going on for 100 years.  The solution?  Sign up for the updated policy. 

Republicans seem unable to do that without a great deal of help.


----------



## Listening

PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> No matter how you spin it, this fuck'n thing is a catastrophic disaster. Millions upon millions have lost their health insurance because of Obamacare and it's only going to get worse from here. And the icing on the cake is that the idiot Dumbocrats can't even build a simply fuck'n website to keep people with some sort of coverage.
> 
> Only the die-hard partisan moron's like PMZ are attempting to deny that this is an unmitigated disaster. And what's funny, when pinned into a corner where he can no longer deny how catastrophic this is, he tries to blame the Republicans for making it fail. You can't make this stuff up folks...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every year everyone loses their health care when their annual policy expires.  Been going on for 100 years.  The solution?  Sign up for the updated policy.
> 
> Republicans seem unable to do that without a great deal of help.
Click to expand...


I never lost my policy on December 31.  That never happened.  It was always there.  What part of that do you not understand ?


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, that isn't the answer, lunatic.
> 
> You retards aren't capable of recognizing what works well, and what doesn't. The system worked fine..until entitlement freaks started insisting the government needed to be more involved, and more and more people needed to be provided with free health care.
> 
> And since that occurred, we have started the descent down from what used to be the nation with the best medical care in the world...to what will eventually be our status as a country with crap medical care that much more closely resembles a third world country's medical care.
> 
> And their medical care will improve, as they continue to strive to achieve the hallmarks that we used to strive for.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We were paying twice as much as our global competition for decidedly mediocre results and you are unable to think of a single improvement. *Typical do nothing Republican*.
Click to expand...


*Says the parasite who refused to get up off of his ass and start an insurance company which would offer affordable health insurance policies... 

For somebody who wants so much done, you sure do sit around on your ass bitching for other people to do it for you!*


----------



## P@triot

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> We were paying twice as much as our global competition for mediocre,  at best,  results.  If you are really a businessman,  would you accept that performance in business?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So for the 4,000x - why don't you start a health insurance company and sell policies for a $1 each will providing a cadillac plan? You would instantly corner the market. This solves every problem for both sides:
> 
> 
> 100% of Americans would have coverage
> 
> 
> It would be affordable
> 
> 
> It would be Constitutional
> 
> 
> It would provide the coverage Obama wants
> 
> 
> You would end up filthy "rich" and American hero
> So please tell me why you refuse to do this basic, civic duty which is a win-win-win-win any way you look at it? Too lazy?
Click to expand...


The silence by [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] is absolutely deafening here [MENTION=31640]koshergrl[/MENTION]! He keeps saying "do nothing Republican" yet what has he done to solve the problem? Nothing but sit on his big, fat, lazy ass and demand that government force you and I to provide him with free health insurance.


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> No matter how you spin it, this fuck'n thing is a catastrophic disaster. Millions upon millions have lost their health insurance because of Obamacare and it's only going to get worse from here. And the icing on the cake is that the idiot Dumbocrats can't even build a simply fuck'n website to keep people with some sort of coverage.
> 
> Only the die-hard partisan moron's like PMZ are attempting to deny that this is an unmitigated disaster. And what's funny, when pinned into a corner where he can no longer deny how catastrophic this is, he tries to blame the Republicans for making it fail. You can't make this stuff up folks...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every year everyone loses their health care when their annual policy expires.  Been going on for 100 years.  The solution?  Sign up for the updated policy.
> 
> Republicans seem unable to do that without a great deal of help.
Click to expand...


 [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] continues to be the biggest *liar* on USMB. What he is saying is blatantly and egregiously FALSE (and the sick fuck knows it too). Every policy is absolutely perpetual. As long as you continue to pay on the policy, it continues. It does NOT - nor has it EVER - "expired" yearly.

Certainly the price can change, the benefits can change, etc. - but it has *NEVER* cancelled yearly and required anyone to sign up all over again. Doesn't matter if it's car insurance we are talking about or health care insurance. PMZ has to lie because he's had his ass handed to him with facts.


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> No matter how you spin it, this fuck'n thing is a catastrophic disaster. Millions upon millions have lost their health insurance because of Obamacare and it's only going to get worse from here. And the icing on the cake is that the idiot Dumbocrats can't even build a simply fuck'n website to keep people with some sort of coverage.
> 
> Only the die-hard partisan moron's like PMZ are attempting to deny that this is an unmitigated disaster. And what's funny, when pinned into a corner where he can no longer deny how catastrophic this is, he tries to blame the Republicans for making it fail. You can't make this stuff up folks...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every year everyone loses their health care when their annual policy expires.  Been going on for 100 years.  The solution?  Sign up for the updated policy.
> 
> Republicans seem unable to do that without a great deal of help.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] continues to be the biggest *liar* on USMB. What he is saying is blatantly and egregiously FALSE (and the sick fuck knows it too). Every policy is absolutely perpetual. As long as you continue to pay on the policy, it continues. It does NOT - nor has it EVER - "expired" yearly.
> 
> Certainly the price can change, the benefits can change, etc. - but it has *NEVER* cancelled yearly and required anyone to sign up all over again. Doesn't matter if it's car insurance we are talking about or health care insurance. PMZ has to lie because he's had his ass handed to him with facts.
Click to expand...


This is delusional even for you.


----------



## koshergrl

Gosh my provider has been lying to me then because every year for the past 7 I have had to enroll by the 31st of october to PREVENT my benefits from expiring.


----------



## PMZ

koshergrl said:


> Gosh my provider has been lying to me then because every year for the past 7 I have had to enroll by the 31st of october to PREVENT my benefits from expiring.



That's the way that it works.  Every policy is an annual one.  Every year you have to sign up for,  typically,  more money and some coverage changes.


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> No matter how you spin it, this fuck'n thing is a catastrophic disaster. Millions upon millions have lost their health insurance because of Obamacare and it's only going to get worse from here. And the icing on the cake is that the idiot Dumbocrats can't even build a simply fuck'n website to keep people with some sort of coverage.
> 
> Only the die-hard partisan moron's like PMZ are attempting to deny that this is an unmitigated disaster. And what's funny, when pinned into a corner where he can no longer deny how catastrophic this is, he tries to blame the Republicans for making it fail. You can't make this stuff up folks...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every year everyone loses their health care when their annual policy expires.  Been going on for 100 years.  The solution?  Sign up for the updated policy.
> 
> Republicans seem unable to do that without a great deal of help.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] continues to be the biggest *liar* on USMB. What he is saying is blatantly and egregiously FALSE (and the sick fuck knows it too). Every policy is absolutely perpetual. As long as you continue to pay on the policy, it continues. It does NOT - nor has it EVER - "expired" yearly.
> 
> Certainly the price can change, the benefits can change, etc. - but it has *NEVER* cancelled yearly and required anyone to sign up all over again. Doesn't matter if it's car insurance we are talking about or health care insurance. PMZ has to lie because he's had his ass handed to him with facts.
Click to expand...


"Certainly the price can change, the benefits can change, etc."

Exactly what's going on with Obamacare now.


----------



## Jackson

PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> No matter how you spin it, this fuck'n thing is a catastrophic disaster. Millions upon millions have lost their health insurance because of Obamacare and it's only going to get worse from here. And the icing on the cake is that the idiot Dumbocrats can't even build a simply fuck'n website to keep people with some sort of coverage.
> 
> Only the die-hard partisan moron's like PMZ are attempting to deny that this is an unmitigated disaster. And what's funny, when pinned into a corner where he can no longer deny how catastrophic this is, he tries to blame the Republicans for making it fail. You can't make this stuff up folks...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every year everyone loses their health care when their annual policy expires.  Been going on for 100 years.  The solution?  Sign up for the updated policy.
> 
> Republicans seem unable to do that without a great deal of help.
Click to expand...


I'm older than dirt and it never happened to me.  Not health, car or home.


----------



## PMZ

Jackson said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> No matter how you spin it, this fuck'n thing is a catastrophic disaster. Millions upon millions have lost their health insurance because of Obamacare and it's only going to get worse from here. And the icing on the cake is that the idiot Dumbocrats can't even build a simply fuck'n website to keep people with some sort of coverage.
> 
> Only the die-hard partisan moron's like PMZ are attempting to deny that this is an unmitigated disaster. And what's funny, when pinned into a corner where he can no longer deny how catastrophic this is, he tries to blame the Republicans for making it fail. You can't make this stuff up folks...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every year everyone loses their health care when their annual policy expires.  Been going on for 100 years.  The solution?  Sign up for the updated policy.
> 
> Republicans seem unable to do that without a great deal of help.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm older than dirt and it never happened to me.  Not health, car or home.
Click to expand...


I'm even older than dirt and it happened ever year.  Even when I got health care insurance from my employer.


----------



## koshergrl

I think it's fairly obvious that PMZ has never purchased insurace in his life. And that he missed the recert deadlines resulting in coverage lapses of his medicaid. What a moron.


----------



## koshergrl

He's one of the losers who calls dhs every year and whines "I didn't get my recert papers! You guys didn't tell me I needed to recertify! "


----------



## PMZ

You are a pro at the oldest propaganda trick in the world.  Speak for the scapegoats.  Believe for them what you want them to believe and how you want them to behave. 

That a full time job for conservatives who have identified at one time or another all of the following scapegoats. 

Democrats,  all workers,  especially union and government workers,  the poor,  liberals,  foreigners,  all non Christian religions,  all non English speakers,  the poor,  women,  gays,  the unarmed,  scientists and other intellectuals,  other races,  people who use Wikipedia and non Fox approved websites,  consumers of mainstream media,  mainstream media practitioners,  environmentalists, the middle class  and probably a few groups that I've missed. 

That leaves you with very few friends and votes.


----------



## koshergrl

Who are you talking to, loser? Your last posts prove that not only are you a liar, but you are also a loser.

Henceforth, I shall only refer to you by your earned nom de plume.


----------



## PMZ

Not a lie in my last post,  just inconvenient for you,  truth.  

If there is anything there that you don't believe you just haven't had as much experience as I dealing with conservatives.


----------



## koshergrl

No, it's a lie. People with insurance do not let their insurance lapse as a matter of course. There are enrollment periods that are carefully scheduled to prevent that unfortunate event. If you MISS the enrollment deadline, then your insurance lapses, and you generally have to wait until the next enrollment period.

Does any of this sound familiar? Yes? No?

This is not something that people who have only had medicaid all their lives are familiar with. They generally don't even understand the MULTIPLE statements they receive in the mail that say "In 45 days your insurance will end, RE-CERTIFY NOW!" "If your insurance ends, you may not be eligible as a NEW medicaid client. Don't let it lapse! RECERTIFY NOW!"

And those of us who pay for or have insurance provided as part of our salary get notices (multiple ones) that say the exact same thing, only instead of "certify" they use the term "enrollment". 

The objective is always to prevent a lapse in coverage. And for the most part, if your coverage always lapses, it's because you are an idiot.


----------



## Vox

PMZ said:


> You are a pro at the oldest propaganda trick in the world.  Speak for the scapegoats.  Believe for them what you want them to believe and how you want them to behave.
> 
> That a full time job for conservatives who have identified at one time or another all of the following scapegoats.
> 
> Democrats,  all workers,  especially union and government workers,  the poor,  liberals,  *foreigners*,  all non Christian religions, * all non English speakers,  t*he poor,  *women*,  gays,  the unarmed, * scientists and other intellectuals,*  other races,  *people who use Wikipedia* and non Fox approved websites,  consumers of mainstream media,  mainstream media practitioners,  environmentalists, *the middle class*  and probably a few groups that I've missed.
> 
> That leaves you with very few friends and votes.



You idiot, I am a woman, a scientist/ intellectual, not native English speaker, and a foreigner, a solid middle class  and I am as far from the dimocraps as one can possibly get 
Oh, and I have been poor. I came to this country with 600$ in a pocket and a 6 month long tourist visa  and my first job was serving coffee and pastries in an Italian pasticerria for 5$ per hour. 

But I do not use Wikipedia as my primary source of information, contrary to the leftards


----------



## Ernie S.

PMZ said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your ignorance angers you. It angers me too, but you insist on it anyway.
> 
> What's that about?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, obamacare does change the nature of private enterprise, because it mandates that people purchase, and insurers provide, particular benefits. If they do not, they are fined. Charity providers associated with churches and hospitals have already been shut down....the sick people of our nation who were previously receiving care from those organizations are now without coverage...and they haven't received obamacare yet. So their ongoing treatment is halted, and they don't know when or from whom it will be taken up again.
> 
> Many of them will not be allowed to use their old care providers...and while in the cities this is not viewed as a huge problem, trust me, outside of city walls, it is. In communities that are 60+ miles from the next available health care provider, for the sick, elderly, disabled, and poor this is an obstacle that is unsurmountable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank God for Medicare and Medicaid that take  care of the vast majority of the sick, elderly, disabled, and poor.
> 
> The rest will have vastly improved health care under ObamaCare as the launch issues go away.  Most of them have already.
Click to expand...


Which issues are those? Have we, as promised been able to keep the policies we liked? Has obamacare been deficit neutral? Are the previously uncovered now insured? Last I heard, there are 6 to 10 million more people that were happy with their policies, about to become uninsured as a direct result of this lie.

The exchange site IS running better, but the security concerns alone should discourage people from logging on and sharing personal information.
obamacare is the biggest lie foisted on the US since "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky." and it's infinitely more dangerous to our country.


----------



## percysunshine

Kirsanow on The Corner | National Review Online


The Beauty of Obamacare. . . is not so much that tens of millions will have their substandard health-care plans from bad-apple insurers canceled but that they will go to Obamacare exchanges to buy much more expensive substandard plans from bad-apple insurers, in order to subsidize people who dont have substandard health insurance from bad-apple insurers but can now get substandard health insurance from bad-apple insures even if its with a deductible so high that they effectively dont have health insurance, substandard or otherwise. But their plans will at least cover contraceptives and abortifacients for the millions of fecund 60-year-olds who had nothing else to do and got pregnant when Ted Cruz shut down the government so they couldnt get contraceptives from their doctors who arent in their substandard plans provider network, mainly because they unnecessarily perform amputations and tonsillectomies for extra cash which theyll now need because theyll be getting low reimbursement rates from the tremendous increase in Medicaid patients. Who had no trouble enrolling on HealthCare.gov because the other 42 Obamacare applicants were busy reporting to the FBI that all their medical and financial information has been hacked by Republicans determined to make Obamacare look as bad as theyve made the IRS look when it tried to protect our federal government from tea partiers who want to keep their substandard plans primarily because theyre racists who blame the president for the failed stimulus, the stagnant economy, high unemployment, doubling the national debt, the 47 million on food stamps, the 48 million in poverty, declining household incomes, Kathleen Sebelius, Fast and Furious, Benghazi, and Irans getting a nuclear weapon next year, none of which the president knew about until he heard about them from news reports like everybody else. And all of which are George W. Bushs fault.


----------



## beagle9

Meister said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> And in turn, the sick people are all waiting for benefits...but the healthy people who are supposed to pay premiums are opting to pay the fines instead, because the fines are cheaper.
> 
> Which means the insurance coverage will get worse and worse...and the fines larger and larger....
> 
> Good going, liberals.
> 
> 
> 
> The only answer then, is a single payer system where all are covered and taxed for it, but why are the people so afraid of this single payer system idea I wonder ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  Maybe that the government takes over an industry, they are able to dictate premium prices and coverage without any competition, and you have to wonder why people are afraid of it?  Sheesh, the government isn't capable of running a business, it's been proven.
> Socialists just can't help themselves, can they beagle?
> 
> PS....the only answer is NOT a single payer system if you wanted to do some critical thinking on your own.
Click to expand...

That's just it, so we fear the government as a monopoly, and then we fear the private sector who had become a monopoly in many ways also, therefore doing what they wanted to do to us after they bought out the offices that they needed to buy out.  Then they defeated all the competition they needed to defeat quickly there afterwards (or) they are allowed to operate in a monopolized environment.  So we get nothing but high rates no matter what we do in the end right ? Who wins this in the end ? I don't see the working stiffs winning anything, because we haven't mattered for quite sometime now, other than the raping of our wallets continuously in order to hold it all up.


----------



## Ernie S.

PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> No matter how you spin it, this fuck'n thing is a catastrophic disaster. Millions upon millions have lost their health insurance because of Obamacare and it's only going to get worse from here. And the icing on the cake is that the idiot Dumbocrats can't even build a simply fuck'n website to keep people with some sort of coverage.
> 
> Only the die-hard partisan moron's like PMZ are attempting to deny that this is an unmitigated disaster. And what's funny, when pinned into a corner where he can no longer deny how catastrophic this is, he tries to blame the Republicans for making it fail. You can't make this stuff up folks...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every year everyone loses their health care when their annual policy expires.  Been going on for 100 years.  The solution?  Sign up for the updated policy.
> 
> Republicans seem unable to do that without a great deal of help.
Click to expand...

I am a 64 year old male who had a vasectomy 30 years ago. I do not need or want maternity coverage, but if I do get a private policy, I will have it.


----------



## PMZ

koshergrl said:


> No, it's a lie. People with insurance do not let their insurance lapse as a matter of course. There are enrollment periods that are carefully scheduled to prevent that unfortunate event. If you MISS the enrollment deadline, then your insurance lapses, and you generally have to wait until the next enrollment period.
> 
> Does any of this sound familiar? Yes? No?
> 
> This is not something that people who have only had medicaid all their lives are familiar with. They generally don't even understand the MULTIPLE statements they receive in the mail that say "In 45 days your insurance will end, RE-CERTIFY NOW!" "If your insurance ends, you may not be eligible as a NEW medicaid client. Don't let it lapse! RECERTIFY NOW!"
> 
> And those of us who pay for or have insurance provided as part of our salary get notices (multiple ones) that say the exact same thing, only instead of "certify" they use the term "enrollment".
> 
> The objective is always to prevent a lapse in coverage. And for the most part, if your coverage always lapses, it's because you are an idiot.



Never had a lapse so I'll let you speak to that. 

Never been on Medicaid, so you can cover that too. Or unemployed up until I retired. Or without health insurance because I believe, as Obamacare does, that we each should be personally responsible for the cost of our own healthcare.

I like the terminology where conservatives "re-certify" their insurance but Obamacare "victims" have their insurance "canceled" but merely have to re-enroll to continue. I've always excused conservative gobbledygook as merely repetition of the propaganda that you fell for but more and more it's obvious that it's purposeful disingenuous from people who respect partisan politics more than truth.


----------



## PMZ

Vox said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are a pro at the oldest propaganda trick in the world.  Speak for the scapegoats.  Believe for them what you want them to believe and how you want them to behave.
> 
> That a full time job for conservatives who have identified at one time or another all of the following scapegoats.
> 
> Democrats,  all workers,  especially union and government workers,  the poor,  liberals,  *foreigners*,  all non Christian religions, * all non English speakers,  t*he poor,  *women*,  gays,  the unarmed, * scientists and other intellectuals,*  other races,  *people who use Wikipedia* and non Fox approved websites,  consumers of mainstream media,  mainstream media practitioners,  environmentalists, *the middle class*  and probably a few groups that I've missed.
> 
> That leaves you with very few friends and votes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You idiot, I am a woman, a scientist/ intellectual, not native English speaker, and a foreigner, a solid middle class  and I am as far from the dimocraps as one can possibly get
> Oh, and I have been poor. I came to this country with 600$ in a pocket and a 6 month long tourist visa  and my first job was serving coffee and pastries in an Italian pasticerria for 5$ per hour.
> 
> But I do not use Wikipedia as my primary source of information, contrary to the leftards
Click to expand...


Then you must be very angry about many of the insulting posts for what you are from conservatives here.


----------



## Ernie S.

percysunshine said:


> Kirsanow on The Corner | National Review Online
> 
> 
> The Beauty of Obamacare. . . is not so much that tens of millions will have their substandard health-care plans from bad-apple insurers canceled but that they will go to Obamacare exchanges to buy much more expensive substandard plans from bad-apple insurers, in order to subsidize people who dont have substandard health insurance from bad-apple insurers but can now get substandard health insurance from bad-apple insures even if its with a deductible so high that they effectively dont have health insurance, substandard or otherwise. But their plans will at least cover contraceptives and abortifacients for the millions of fecund 60-year-olds who had nothing else to do and got pregnant when Ted Cruz shut down the government so they couldnt get contraceptives from their doctors who arent in their substandard plans provider network, mainly because they unnecessarily perform amputations and tonsillectomies for extra cash which theyll now need because theyll be getting low reimbursement rates from the tremendous increase in Medicaid patients. Who had no trouble enrolling on HealthCare.gov because the other 42 Obamacare applicants were busy reporting to the FBI that all their medical and financial information has been hacked by Republicans determined to make Obamacare look as bad as theyve made the IRS look when it tried to protect our federal government from tea partiers who want to keep their substandard plans primarily because theyre racists who blame the president for the failed stimulus, the stagnant economy, high unemployment, doubling the national debt, the 47 million on food stamps, the 48 million in poverty, declining household incomes, Kathleen Sebelius, Fast and Furious, Benghazi, and Irans getting a nuclear weapon next year, none of which the president knew about until he heard about them from news reports like everybody else. And all of which are George W. Bushs fault.


THAT is brilliant!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJlc28YIWE4]Guinness Irish Dance - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Ernie S.

PMZ said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are a pro at the oldest propaganda trick in the world.  Speak for the scapegoats.  Believe for them what you want them to believe and how you want them to behave.
> 
> That a full time job for conservatives who have identified at one time or another all of the following scapegoats.
> 
> Democrats,  all workers,  especially union and government workers,  the poor,  liberals,  *foreigners*,  all non Christian religions, * all non English speakers,  t*he poor,  *women*,  gays,  the unarmed, * scientists and other intellectuals,*  other races,  *people who use Wikipedia* and non Fox approved websites,  consumers of mainstream media,  mainstream media practitioners,  environmentalists, *the middle class*  and probably a few groups that I've missed.
> 
> That leaves you with very few friends and votes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You idiot, I am a woman, a scientist/ intellectual, not native English speaker, and a foreigner, a solid middle class  and I am as far from the dimocraps as one can possibly get
> Oh, and I have been poor. I came to this country with 600$ in a pocket and a 6 month long tourist visa  and my first job was serving coffee and pastries in an Italian pasticerria for 5$ per hour.
> 
> But I do not use Wikipedia as my primary source of information, contrary to the leftards
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you must be very angry about many of the insulting posts for what you are from conservatives here.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
Click to expand...


Show one, asshole. (With link) Certainly, Conservatives insult some women; Nancy pelosi for example, but not women in general. We insult some immigrants, but not because of their origin but for their status or actions.

I'm going to assume you are a native born male P.eople have been insulting you for days. As with others, your sex and national origin are irrelevant.


----------



## PMZ

Ernie S. said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vox said:
> 
> 
> 
> You idiot, I am a woman, a scientist/ intellectual, not native English speaker, and a foreigner, a solid middle class  and I am as far from the dimocraps as one can possibly get
> Oh, and I have been poor. I came to this country with 600$ in a pocket and a 6 month long tourist visa  and my first job was serving coffee and pastries in an Italian pasticerria for 5$ per hour.
> 
> But I do not use Wikipedia as my primary source of information, contrary to the leftards
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you must be very angry about many of the insulting posts for what you are from conservatives here.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Show one, asshole. (With link) Certainly, Conservatives insult some women; Nancy pelosi for example, but not women in general. We insult some immigrants, but not because of their origin but for their status or actions.
> 
> I'm going to assume you are a native born male P.eople have been insulting you for days. As with others, your sex and national origin are irrelevant.
Click to expand...


Truth is almost always inconvenient for conservatives. They are not proud of what they are but the propaganda is so compelling that they can't resist. 

Asshole.


----------



## Listening

PMZ said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's a lie. People with insurance do not let their insurance lapse as a matter of course. There are enrollment periods that are carefully scheduled to prevent that unfortunate event. If you MISS the enrollment deadline, then your insurance lapses, and you generally have to wait until the next enrollment period.
> 
> Does any of this sound familiar? Yes? No?
> 
> This is not something that people who have only had medicaid all their lives are familiar with. They generally don't even understand the MULTIPLE statements they receive in the mail that say "In 45 days your insurance will end, RE-CERTIFY NOW!" "If your insurance ends, you may not be eligible as a NEW medicaid client. Don't let it lapse! RECERTIFY NOW!"
> 
> And those of us who pay for or have insurance provided as part of our salary get notices (multiple ones) that say the exact same thing, only instead of "certify" they use the term "enrollment".
> 
> The objective is always to prevent a lapse in coverage. And for the most part, if your coverage always lapses, it's because you are an idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Never had a lapse so I'll let you speak to that.
> 
> Never been on Medicaid, so you can cover that too. Or unemployed up until I retired. Or without health insurance because I believe, as Obamacare does, that we each should be personally responsible for the cost of our own healthcare.
> 
> I like the terminology where conservatives "re-certify" their insurance but Obamacare "victims" have their insurance "canceled" but merely have to re-enroll to continue. I've always excused conservative gobbledygook as merely repetition of the propaganda that you fell for but more and more it's obvious that it's purposeful disingenuous from people who respect partisan politics more than truth.
Click to expand...


Pure bullshyt.

I don't re-certify and I don't do anything but change my elections going into the next year.

Generally the same insurance and I can choose from a variety of plans that certainly don't force a lof of unwanted coverages on me.

Never have I been told, we can't provide for you any more (i.e. you are cancelled becaues the government told us to either heavy up your policy or don't offer one), so go find your own insurance.

That the left somehow thinks this is the same thing only goes to show you that even Wikipedia can't cure stupid. 

The great thing about this country is that assholes like PMZ are allowed to exist.  In some countries, they are seen as a waste of resources, are shot, composted and recycle back into the food supply where they actually make a meaningful contribution.

Conservatives are not proud  of who they are ?  They are plenty proud to be "not liberals".


----------



## Vox

PMZ said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are a pro at the oldest propaganda trick in the world.  Speak for the scapegoats.  Believe for them what you want them to believe and how you want them to behave.
> 
> That a full time job for conservatives who have identified at one time or another all of the following scapegoats.
> 
> Democrats,  all workers,  especially union and government workers,  the poor,  liberals,  *foreigners*,  all non Christian religions, * all non English speakers,  t*he poor,  *women*,  gays,  the unarmed, * scientists and other intellectuals,*  other races,  *people who use Wikipedia* and non Fox approved websites,  consumers of mainstream media,  mainstream media practitioners,  environmentalists, *the middle class*  and probably a few groups that I've missed.
> 
> That leaves you with very few friends and votes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You idiot, I am a woman, a scientist/ intellectual, not native English speaker, and a foreigner, a solid middle class  and I am as far from the dimocraps as one can possibly get
> Oh, and I have been poor. I came to this country with 600$ in a pocket and a 6 month long tourist visa  and my first job was serving coffee and pastries in an Italian pasticerria for 5$ per hour.
> 
> But I do not use Wikipedia as my primary source of information, contrary to the leftards
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you must be very angry about many of the insulting posts for what you are from conservatives here.
Click to expand...


No I AM not.

I can be pretty insulting myself.

Because I hate ignorant IDIOTS.
and the vast majority of them are leftards.


----------



## PMZ

Listening said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's a lie. People with insurance do not let their insurance lapse as a matter of course. There are enrollment periods that are carefully scheduled to prevent that unfortunate event. If you MISS the enrollment deadline, then your insurance lapses, and you generally have to wait until the next enrollment period.
> 
> Does any of this sound familiar? Yes? No?
> 
> This is not something that people who have only had medicaid all their lives are familiar with. They generally don't even understand the MULTIPLE statements they receive in the mail that say "In 45 days your insurance will end, RE-CERTIFY NOW!" "If your insurance ends, you may not be eligible as a NEW medicaid client. Don't let it lapse! RECERTIFY NOW!"
> 
> And those of us who pay for or have insurance provided as part of our salary get notices (multiple ones) that say the exact same thing, only instead of "certify" they use the term "enrollment".
> 
> The objective is always to prevent a lapse in coverage. And for the most part, if your coverage always lapses, it's because you are an idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Never had a lapse so I'll let you speak to that.
> 
> Never been on Medicaid, so you can cover that too. Or unemployed up until I retired. Or without health insurance because I believe, as Obamacare does, that we each should be personally responsible for the cost of our own healthcare.
> 
> I like the terminology where conservatives "re-certify" their insurance but Obamacare "victims" have their insurance "canceled" but merely have to re-enroll to continue. I've always excused conservative gobbledygook as merely repetition of the propaganda that you fell for but more and more it's obvious that it's purposeful disingenuous from people who respect partisan politics more than truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pure bullshyt.
> 
> I don't re-certify and I don't do anything but change my elections going into the next year.
> 
> Generally the same insurance and I can choose from a variety of plans that certainly don't force a lof of unwanted coverages on me.
> 
> Never have I been told, we can't provide for you any more (i.e. you are cancelled becaues the government told us to either heavy up your policy or don't offer one), so go find your own insurance.
> 
> That the left somehow thinks this is the same thing only goes to show you that even Wikipedia can't cure stupid.
> 
> The great thing about this country is that assholes like PMZ are allowed to exist.  In some countries, they are seen as a waste of resources, are shot, composted and recycle back into the food supply where they actually make a meaningful contribution.
> 
> Conservatives are not proud  of who they are ?  They are plenty proud to be "not liberals".
Click to expand...


"Never have I been told, we can't provide for you any more (i.e. you are cancelled becaues the government told us to either heavy up your policy or don't offer one), so go find your own insurance."

 Provide evidence, that's not Republican propaganda, that anybody was refused health insurance as a result of Obamacare.


----------



## Listening

PMZ said:


> You are a pro at the oldest propaganda trick in the world.  Speak for the scapegoats.  Believe for them what you want them to believe and how you want them to behave.
> 
> That a full time job for conservatives who have identified at one time or another all of the following scapegoats.
> 
> Democrats,  all workers,  especially union and government workers,  the poor,  liberals,  foreigners,  all non Christian religions,  all non English speakers,  the poor,  women,  gays,  the unarmed,  scientists and other intellectuals,  other races,  people who use Wikipedia and non Fox approved websites,  consumers of mainstream media,  mainstream media practitioners,  environmentalists, the middle class  and probably a few groups that I've missed.
> 
> That leaves you with very few friends and votes.



I attend conservative functions all the time that are filled with people who are any combination of the above.

If you think the left has a lock on that....you really are that stupid.


----------



## Vox

Ernie S. said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vox said:
> 
> 
> 
> You idiot, I am a woman, a scientist/ intellectual, not native English speaker, and a foreigner, a solid middle class  and I am as far from the dimocraps as one can possibly get
> Oh, and I have been poor. I came to this country with 600$ in a pocket and a 6 month long tourist visa  and my first job was serving coffee and pastries in an Italian pasticerria for 5$ per hour.
> 
> But I do not use Wikipedia as my primary source of information, contrary to the leftards
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you must be very angry about many of the insulting posts for what you are from conservatives here.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Show one, asshole. (With link) Certainly, Conservatives insult some women; Nancy pelosi for example, but not women in general. We insult some immigrants, but not because of their origin but for their status or actions.
> 
> I'm going to assume you are a native born male P.eople have been insulting you for days. As with others, your sex and national origin are irrelevant.
Click to expand...


Relax, Ernie.

I name them as I see them.

And I have a pretty good differentiating ability ( part of why professionally I am what I am).


----------



## Listening

PMZ said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Never had a lapse so I'll let you speak to that.
> 
> Never been on Medicaid, so you can cover that too. Or unemployed up until I retired. Or without health insurance because I believe, as Obamacare does, that we each should be personally responsible for the cost of our own healthcare.
> 
> I like the terminology where conservatives "re-certify" their insurance but Obamacare "victims" have their insurance "canceled" but merely have to re-enroll to continue. I've always excused conservative gobbledygook as merely repetition of the propaganda that you fell for but more and more it's obvious that it's purposeful disingenuous from people who respect partisan politics more than truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pure bullshyt.
> 
> I don't re-certify and I don't do anything but change my elections going into the next year.
> 
> Generally the same insurance and I can choose from a variety of plans that certainly don't force a lof of unwanted coverages on me.
> 
> Never have I been told, we can't provide for you any more (i.e. you are cancelled becaues the government told us to either heavy up your policy or don't offer one), so go find your own insurance.
> 
> That the left somehow thinks this is the same thing only goes to show you that even Wikipedia can't cure stupid.
> 
> The great thing about this country is that assholes like PMZ are allowed to exist.  In some countries, they are seen as a waste of resources, are shot, composted and recycle back into the food supply where they actually make a meaningful contribution.
> 
> Conservatives are not proud  of who they are ?  They are plenty proud to be "not liberals".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Never have I been told, we can't provide for you any more (i.e. you are cancelled becaues the government told us to either heavy up your policy or don't offer one), so go find your own insurance."
> 
> Provide evidence, that's not Republican propaganda, that anybody was refused health insurance as a result of Obamacare.
Click to expand...


Besides 100 articles like this:

How Obamacare's 'Essential Benefits' Led To Cancellations - Forbes

There is the fact that our Affirmative Action Moron In Charge came out with a "fix".  If nothing bad was happening why did he need that fix.

If brains were dynamite you could not blow the fuzz off of bee's balls.


----------



## PMZ

Listening said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pure bullshyt.
> 
> I don't re-certify and I don't do anything but change my elections going into the next year.
> 
> Generally the same insurance and I can choose from a variety of plans that certainly don't force a lof of unwanted coverages on me.
> 
> Never have I been told, we can't provide for you any more (i.e. you are cancelled becaues the government told us to either heavy up your policy or don't offer one), so go find your own insurance.
> 
> That the left somehow thinks this is the same thing only goes to show you that even Wikipedia can't cure stupid.
> 
> The great thing about this country is that assholes like PMZ are allowed to exist.  In some countries, they are seen as a waste of resources, are shot, composted and recycle back into the food supply where they actually make a meaningful contribution.
> 
> Conservatives are not proud  of who they are ?  They are plenty proud to be "not liberals".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Never have I been told, we can't provide for you any more (i.e. you are cancelled becaues the government told us to either heavy up your policy or don't offer one), so go find your own insurance."
> 
> Provide evidence, that's not Republican propaganda, that anybody was refused health insurance as a result of Obamacare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Besides 100 articles like this:
> 
> How Obamacare's 'Essential Benefits' Led To Cancellations - Forbes
> 
> There is the fact that our Affirmative Action Moron In Charge came out with a "fix".  If nothing bad was happening why did he need that fix.
> 
> If brains were dynamite you could not blow the fuzz off of bee's balls.
Click to expand...


There isn't one word in your reference that in any way implies that anyone has been refused health insurance. 

Yet the goose steppers are all in a line reciting that in unison.  

What a bunch of jerk offs.


----------



## PMZ

Vox said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you must be very angry about many of the insulting posts for what you are from conservatives here.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Show one, asshole. (With link) Certainly, Conservatives insult some women; Nancy pelosi for example, but not women in general. We insult some immigrants, but not because of their origin but for their status or actions.
> 
> I'm going to assume you are a native born male P.eople have been insulting you for days. As with others, your sex and national origin are irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Relax, Ernie.
> 
> I name them as I see them.
> 
> And I have a pretty good differentiating ability ( part of why professionally I am what I am).
Click to expand...


I'm sure that you are near perfect in your mind with what you wish those you'll never meet are.  That's all part of the scapegoat propaganda that I addressed earlier. 

I'm pretty sure that Adolf thought that he was right on about  Jews too.


----------



## Listening

PMZ said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Never have I been told, we can't provide for you any more (i.e. you are cancelled becaues the government told us to either heavy up your policy or don't offer one), so go find your own insurance."
> 
> Provide evidence, that's not Republican propaganda, that anybody was refused health insurance as a result of Obamacare.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Besides 100 articles like this:
> 
> How Obamacare's 'Essential Benefits' Led To Cancellations - Forbes
> 
> There is the fact that our Affirmative Action Moron In Charge came out with a "fix".  If nothing bad was happening why did he need that fix.
> 
> If brains were dynamite you could not blow the fuzz off of bee's balls.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There isn't one word in your reference that in any way implies that anyone has been refused health insurance.
> 
> Yet the goose steppers are all in a line reciting that in unison.
> 
> What a bunch of jerk offs.
Click to expand...


Another grade-A asswipe response.  Nobody said they were refused health insurance.  The exchanges will be happy to bend them over and give them some (health insurance too).

But if you are saying nobody lost a perfectly servicable health insurance policy because of Obama care, then you'd better hope "head extracted from ass" is covered by whatever coverage you have now.

The only jerk off (besides yourself) is the one who had to stand up and say Sebelius made a liar out of me.  Here's the "fix".

It's beyond your world to comprehend that he had to offer it.  How could he.  He is your god.


----------



## PMZ

Listening said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> Besides 100 articles like this:
> 
> How Obamacare's 'Essential Benefits' Led To Cancellations - Forbes
> 
> There is the fact that our Affirmative Action Moron In Charge came out with a "fix".  If nothing bad was happening why did he need that fix.
> 
> If brains were dynamite you could not blow the fuzz off of bee's balls.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There isn't one word in your reference that in any way implies that anyone has been refused health insurance.
> 
> Yet the goose steppers are all in a line reciting that in unison.
> 
> What a bunch of jerk offs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only jerk off (besides yourself) is the one who had to stand up and say Sebelius made a liar out of me.  Here's the "fix".
> 
> It's beyond your world to comprehend that he had to offer it.  How could he.  He is your god.
Click to expand...


It's clear that you've learned tonight that nobody has been refused health insurance because of Obamacare. 

But as a loyal minion you'll probably never stop claiming it and yet never be able to prove it.  

Mindless.


----------



## Listening

PMZ said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> There isn't one word in your reference that in any way implies that anyone has been refused health insurance.
> 
> Yet the goose steppers are all in a line reciting that in unison.
> 
> What a bunch of jerk offs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only jerk off (besides yourself) is the one who had to stand up and say Sebelius made a liar out of me.  Here's the "fix".
> 
> It's beyond your world to comprehend that he had to offer it.  How could he.  He is your god.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's clear that you've learned tonight that nobody has been refused health insurance because of Obamacare.
> 
> But as a loyal minion you'll probably never stop claiming it and yet never be able to prove it.
> 
> Mindless.
Click to expand...


I am sure clarity is a goal you strive for as you continue to look out of your ass through your bellybutton.  Tons of folks have been cancelled.  Sorry Charlie, better luck with the next Affirmative action moron you decide to nominate.

It's already been proved.  Better check for polyps while you are there...you'll save some money on your GI exam.


----------



## PMZ

Listening said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> Besides 100 articles like this:
> 
> How Obamacare's 'Essential Benefits' Led To Cancellations - Forbes
> 
> There is the fact that our Affirmative Action Moron In Charge came out with a "fix".  If nothing bad was happening why did he need that fix.
> 
> If brains were dynamite you could not blow the fuzz off of bee's balls.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There isn't one word in your reference that in any way implies that anyone has been refused health insurance.
> 
> Yet the goose steppers are all in a line reciting that in unison.
> 
> What a bunch of jerk offs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another grade-A asswipe response.  Nobody said they were refused health insurance.  The exchanges will be happy to bend them over and give them some (health insurance too).
> 
> But if you are saying nobody lost a perfectly servicable health insurance policy because of Obama care, then you'd better hope "head extracted from ass" is covered by whatever coverage you have now.
> 
> The only jerk off (besides yourself) is the one who had to stand up and say Sebelius made a liar out of me.  Here's the "fix".
> 
> It's beyond your world to comprehend that he had to offer it.  How could he.  He is your god.
Click to expand...


Before Obamacare,  people were perfectly comfortable with inadequate coverage as there was always the emergency room or urgent care route or medical bankruptcy. In other words,  let others pay your bills.  

That's what is no longer OK.  We are all responsible for our own health care costs.  It's personal responsibility that people like you don't like.


----------



## Meister

beagle9 said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only answer then, is a single payer system where all are covered and taxed for it, but why are the people so afraid of this single payer system idea I wonder ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  Maybe that the government takes over an industry, they are able to dictate premium prices and coverage without any competition, and you have to wonder why people are afraid of it?  Sheesh, the government isn't capable of running a business, it's been proven.
> Socialists just can't help themselves, can they beagle?
> 
> PS....the only answer is NOT a single payer system if you wanted to do some critical thinking on your own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's just it, so we fear the government as a monopoly, and then we fear the private sector who had become a monopoly in many ways also, therefore doing what they wanted to do to us after they bought out the offices that they needed to buy out.  Then they defeated all the competition they needed to defeat quickly there afterwards (or) they are allowed to operate in a monopolized environment.  So we get nothing but high rates no matter what we do in the end right ? Who wins this in the end ? I don't see the working stiffs winning anything, because we haven't mattered for quite sometime now, other than the raping of our wallets continuously in order to hold it all up.
Click to expand...


Government won't allow state to state competition.


----------



## PMZ

Listening said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only jerk off (besides yourself) is the one who had to stand up and say Sebelius made a liar out of me.  Here's the "fix".
> 
> It's beyond your world to comprehend that he had to offer it.  How could he.  He is your god.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's clear that you've learned tonight that nobody has been refused health insurance because of Obamacare.
> 
> But as a loyal minion you'll probably never stop claiming it and yet never be able to prove it.
> 
> Mindless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am sure clarity is a goal you strive for as you continue to look out of your ass through your bellybutton.  Tons of folks have been cancelled.  Sorry Charlie, better luck with the next Affirmative action moron you decide to nominate.
> 
> It's already been proved.  Better check for polyps while you are there...you'll save some money on your GI exam.
Click to expand...


You offer not a shred of proof.  It's what you fell for so you think that I will too.  

Stop falling for propaganda.


----------



## PMZ

The truth about Obamacare. 

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/medicaid-expansion-map-obamacare-losers


----------



## Listening

PMZ said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> There isn't one word in your reference that in any way implies that anyone has been refused health insurance.
> 
> Yet the goose steppers are all in a line reciting that in unison.
> 
> What a bunch of jerk offs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another grade-A asswipe response.  Nobody said they were refused health insurance.  The exchanges will be happy to bend them over and give them some (health insurance too).
> 
> But if you are saying nobody lost a perfectly servicable health insurance policy because of Obama care, then you'd better hope "head extracted from ass" is covered by whatever coverage you have now.
> 
> The only jerk off (besides yourself) is the one who had to stand up and say Sebelius made a liar out of me.  Here's the "fix".
> 
> It's beyond your world to comprehend that he had to offer it.  How could he.  He is your god.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Before Obamacare,  people were perfectly comfortable with inadequate coverage as there was always the emergency room or urgent care route or medical bankruptcy. In other words,  let others pay your bills.
> 
> That's what is no longer OK.  We are all responsible for our own health care costs.  It's personal responsibility that people like you don't like.
Click to expand...


Short memory.....

Lots of people had "inadequate coverage" and still made it work without sucking off the ER.  I am in that group.

So the propaganda that Stephanie "The Whore" Cutter pushes in your direction won't fly here.

It's the fact that your world does not coincide with reality that causes you to sit on the toilet at night dreaming of David Axelrod.


----------



## Listening

PMZ said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's clear that you've learned tonight that nobody has been refused health insurance because of Obamacare.
> 
> But as a loyal minion you'll probably never stop claiming it and yet never be able to prove it.
> 
> Mindless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am sure clarity is a goal you strive for as you continue to look out of your ass through your bellybutton.  Tons of folks have been cancelled.  Sorry Charlie, better luck with the next Affirmative action moron you decide to nominate.
> 
> It's already been proved.  Better check for polyps while you are there...you'll save some money on your GI exam.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You offer not a shred of proof.  It's what you fell for so you think that I will too.
> 
> Stop falling for propaganda.
Click to expand...


Right....there is nothing that will cause you to pull your head out of your oversized ass and get a breath of fresh air and reality.

I get it.  Life is to short to be bothered by facts.

Keep at it.  You might actually talk yourself into believing this bullshyt.


----------



## PMZ

Listening said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another grade-A asswipe response.  Nobody said they were refused health insurance.  The exchanges will be happy to bend them over and give them some (health insurance too).
> 
> But if you are saying nobody lost a perfectly servicable health insurance policy because of Obama care, then you'd better hope "head extracted from ass" is covered by whatever coverage you have now.
> 
> The only jerk off (besides yourself) is the one who had to stand up and say Sebelius made a liar out of me.  Here's the "fix".
> 
> It's beyond your world to comprehend that he had to offer it.  How could he.  He is your god.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Before Obamacare,  people were perfectly comfortable with inadequate coverage as there was always the emergency room or urgent care route or medical bankruptcy. In other words,  let others pay your bills.
> 
> That's what is no longer OK.  We are all responsible for our own health care costs.  It's personal responsibility that people like you don't like.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Short memory.....
> 
> Lots of people had "inadequate coverage" and still made it work without sucking off the ER.  I am in that group.
> 
> So the propaganda that Stephanie "The Whore" Cutter pushes in your direction won't fly here.
> 
> It's the fact that your world does not coincide with reality that causes you to sit on the toilet at night dreaming of David Axelrod.
Click to expand...


A weird post,  I assume from a weird poster. 

It sounds like his point is that he made irresponsibility work by not getting sick.  Thats one approach,  but not very reliable. Hopefully that choice has been eliminated and he will be left with only responsible choices.  

Unless there's someone out there who'd like to volunteer to pay his bills.


----------



## BlackSand

Listening said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am sure clarity is a goal you strive for as you continue to look out of your ass through your bellybutton.  Tons of folks have been cancelled.  Sorry Charlie, better luck with the next Affirmative action moron you decide to nominate.
> 
> It's already been proved.  Better check for polyps while you are there...you'll save some money on your GI exam.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You offer not a shred of proof.  It's what you fell for so you think that I will too.
> 
> Stop falling for propaganda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right....there is nothing that will cause you to pull your head out of your oversized ass and get a breath of fresh air and reality.
> 
> I get it.  Life is to short to be bothered by facts.
> 
> Keep at it.  You might actually talk yourself into believing this bullshyt.
Click to expand...


  [MENTION=32163]Listening[/MENTION] ... PMZ just posted a link from _Talking Points Memo DC_ ... And then turned around and accused you of falling for propaganda.
That is why debating with PMZ is so much fun ... Doesn't have a clue what he/she is saying.

.


----------



## PMZ

BlackSand said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You offer not a shred of proof.  It's what you fell for so you think that I will too.
> 
> Stop falling for propaganda.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right....there is nothing that will cause you to pull your head out of your oversized ass and get a breath of fresh air and reality.
> 
> I get it.  Life is to short to be bothered by facts.
> 
> Keep at it.  You might actually talk yourself into believing this bullshyt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> [MENTION=32163]Listening[/MENTION] ... PMZ just posted a link from _Talking Points Memo DC_ ... And then turned around and accused you of falling for propaganda.
> That is why debating with PMZ is so much fun ... Doesn't have a clue what he/she is saying.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


I have no idea what you're talking about but that's typical.  You have nothing to say but say it with certainty. 

Why don't you run out and gather some facts and form your own opinion then come back and act like an adult.


----------



## PMZ

The "evidence"  word to conservatives is like light to cockroaches.


----------



## BlackSand

PMZ said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ just posted a link from _Talking Points Memo DC_ ... And then turned around and accused you of falling for propaganda.
> That is why debating with PMZ is so much fun ... *Doesn't have a clue what he/she is saying.*
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no idea what you're talking about but that's typical.  You have nothing to say but say it with certainty.
> 
> Why don't you run out and gather some facts and form your own opinion then come back and act like an adult.
Click to expand...


*I know you don't have an idea what I am talking about ... In fact, that is pretty much what I said ... And thanks for confirming it ... Again.*

.


----------



## Ernie S.

Vox said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you must be very angry about many of the insulting posts for what you are from conservatives here.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Show one, asshole. (With link) Certainly, Conservatives insult some women; Nancy pelosi for example, but not women in general. We insult some immigrants, but not because of their origin but for their status or actions.
> 
> I'm going to assume you are a native born male P.eople have been insulting you for days. As with others, your sex and national origin are irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Relax, Ernie.
> 
> I name them as I see them.
> 
> And I have a pretty good differentiating ability ( part of why professionally I am what I am).
Click to expand...


I'm perfectly relaxed. I get a bit pissy when Libs toss out the old "make gramma eat dog food" and hate women and foreigners bullshit. It holds as much water as the "You only disagree with Dear Leader because you're racist bullshit.
They invariably trot out the old tried and true bullshit when they have nothing else.

As a matter of fact, PMS rarely has anything else.

I find it amazing how he can sit there and say that Conservatives hate women, foreigners and science, while he attacks you.


----------



## Ernie S.

PMZ said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Show one, asshole. (With link) Certainly, Conservatives insult some women; Nancy pelosi for example, but not women in general. We insult some immigrants, but not because of their origin but for their status or actions.
> 
> I'm going to assume you are a native born male P.eople have been insulting you for days. As with others, your sex and national origin are irrelevant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Relax, Ernie.
> 
> I name them as I see them.
> 
> And I have a pretty good differentiating ability ( part of why professionally I am what I am).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sure that you are near perfect in your mind with what you wish those you'll never meet are.  That's all part of the scapegoat propaganda that I addressed earlier.
> 
> I'm pretty sure that Adolf thought that he was right on about  Jews too.
Click to expand...


Godwin's Law. You lose! Next time, you get an honored place on my shit list.


----------



## PMZ

Ernie S. said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vox said:
> 
> 
> 
> Relax, Ernie.
> 
> I name them as I see them.
> 
> And I have a pretty good differentiating ability ( part of why professionally I am what I am).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure that you are near perfect in your mind with what you wish those you'll never meet are.  That's all part of the scapegoat propaganda that I addressed earlier.
> 
> I'm pretty sure that Adolf thought that he was right on about  Jews too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Godwin's Law. You lose! Next time, you get an honored place on my shit list.
Click to expand...


Is that really the best you've got?


----------



## Geaux4it

The website debacle is by design. If it had worked by design the whole house of cards would crashed all at once. Instead, it's a slow, grueling death. Hoping the people will not notice ACA is bleeding out. Maybe Obamas death panels should rule on this

-Geaux


----------



## PMZ

Geaux4it said:


> The website debacle is by design. If it had worked by design the whole house of cards would crashed all at once. Instead, it's a slow, grueling death. Hoping the people will not notice ACA is bleeding out. Maybe Obamas death panels should rule on this
> 
> -Geaux



I'm sure that you will offer some evidence of this soon.


----------



## Listening

PMZ said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right....there is nothing that will cause you to pull your head out of your oversized ass and get a breath of fresh air and reality.
> 
> I get it.  Life is to short to be bothered by facts.
> 
> Keep at it.  You might actually talk yourself into believing this bullshyt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [MENTION=32163]Listening[/MENTION] ... PMZ just posted a link from _Talking Points Memo DC_ ... And then turned around and accused you of falling for propaganda.
> That is why debating with PMZ is so much fun ... Doesn't have a clue what he/she is saying.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *I have no idea* what you're talking about but that's typical.  You have nothing to say but say it with certainty.
> 
> Why don't you run out and gather some facts and form your own opinion then come back and act like an adult.
Click to expand...


I think the first for words pretty much sum it up for us.

The usual blather.....liberal self assurance that smells like the pile fido left in the back yard.


----------



## Listening

PMZ said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> The website debacle is by design. If it had worked by design the whole house of cards would crashed all at once. Instead, it's a slow, grueling death. Hoping the people will not notice ACA is bleeding out. Maybe Obamas death panels should rule on this
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure that you will offer some evidence of this soon.
Click to expand...


I am sure it will go right over your head.


----------



## Listening

PMZ said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Before Obamacare,  people were perfectly comfortable with inadequate coverage as there was always the emergency room or urgent care route or medical bankruptcy. In other words,  let others pay your bills.
> 
> That's what is no longer OK.  We are all responsible for our own health care costs.  It's personal responsibility that people like you don't like.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Short memory.....
> 
> Lots of people had "inadequate coverage" and still made it work without sucking off the ER.  I am in that group.
> 
> So the propaganda that Stephanie "The Whore" Cutter pushes in your direction won't fly here.
> 
> It's the fact that your world does not coincide with reality that causes you to sit on the toilet at night dreaming of David Axelrod.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A weird post,  I assume from a weird poster.
> 
> It sounds like his point is that he made irresponsibility work by not getting sick.  Thats one approach,  but not very reliable. Hopefully that choice has been eliminated and he will be left with only responsible choices.
> 
> Unless there's someone out there who'd like to volunteer to pay his bills.
Click to expand...


Obama would be proud of this post.

It is dripping with the liberal thumbprint of making statements about things they know nothing about.  All "facts" and assumptions have to point to the pre-concieved conclusion.

And they think they are intelligent !


----------



## BlackSand

Listening said:


> Obama would be proud of this post.
> 
> It is dripping with the liberal thumbprint of making statements about things they know nothing about.  All "facts" and assumptions have to point to the pre-concieved conclusion.
> 
> And they think they are intelligent !



*I am not sure PMZ has the wherewithal to think he/she is intelligent ... More like the blind loyalty of a puppet.*

.


----------



## Ernie S.

PMZ said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure that you are near perfect in your mind with what you wish those you'll never meet are.  That's all part of the scapegoat propaganda that I addressed earlier.
> 
> I'm pretty sure that Adolf thought that he was right on about  Jews too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Godwin's Law. You lose! Next time, you get an honored place on my shit list.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that really the best you've got?
Click to expand...

It's really all you deserve. You invoked Hitler, in a last ditch effort to support the unsupportable. You lose! *It's the law.*


----------



## Ernie S.

PMZ said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> The website debacle is by design. If it had worked by design the whole house of cards would crashed all at once. Instead, it's a slow, grueling death. Hoping the people will not notice ACA is bleeding out. Maybe Obamas death panels should rule on this
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure that you will offer some evidence of this soon.
Click to expand...


I'm sure you will offer some evidence of the successes in the ACA roll-out. So fare, all I see is hyperbole and Hitler. You lose!


----------



## PMZ

All the Fox addicts here repeating what the Republican Party wants them to think.  Pretty pathetic. Goose stepping through life.


----------



## koshergrl

Progressives typically goose step, not right wingers.


----------



## PMZ

koshergrl said:


> Progressives typically goose step, not right wingers.



Conservatives don't goose step????? 

Don't you read their posts here???? 

Same words to describe Fox's issue de jour with always their one solution.  Do nothing.  

Then a couple of paragraphs to call their scapegoats de jour every name in the book. 

There isn't a bigger herd of lemmings around.


----------



## koshergrl

Uh huh. Says the moron who doesn't understand insurance to begin with, and who is gobbling the lies about how fantastic Obamacare is working as fast as he can swallow.


----------



## P@triot

Rottweiler said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> We were paying twice as much as our global competition for mediocre,  at best,  results.  If you are really a businessman,  would you accept that performance in business?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So for the 4,000x - why don't you start a health insurance company and sell policies for a $1 each will providing a cadillac plan? You would instantly corner the market. This solves every problem for both sides:
> 
> 
> 100% of Americans would have coverage
> 
> 
> It would be affordable
> 
> 
> It would be Constitutional
> 
> 
> It would provide the coverage Obama wants
> 
> 
> You would end up filthy "rich" and American hero
> So please tell me why you refuse to do this basic, civic duty which is a win-win-win-win any way you look at it? Too lazy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The silence by  [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] is absolutely deafening here [MENTION=31640]koshergrl[/MENTION]! He keeps saying "do nothing Republican" yet what has he done to solve the problem? Nothing but sit on his big, fat, lazy ass and demand that government force you and I to provide him with free health insurance.
Click to expand...


It's like 10 pages later and the do nothing Dumbocrat [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] (who has sat on his lazy ass his entire life) cannot answer WHY, if he felt health care was too expensive, he didn't start an insurance company and offer it at a price that he felt was "affordable".

His silence speaks volumes (dumbocrats like him always did hate the FACTS)


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Progressives typically goose step, not right wingers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives don't goose step?????
> 
> Don't you read their posts here????
> 
> Same words to describe Fox's issue de jour with always their one solution.  Do nothing.
> 
> Then a couple of paragraphs to call their scapegoats de jour every name in the book.
> 
> There isn't a bigger herd of lemmings around.
Click to expand...


The asshole who has done NOTHING keeps crying that Republicans didn't give him something.

Hey PMZ, do you not realize Republicans "did nothing" because they abide by the law and realize that the Constitution does *not* authorize them to take action every time your dumb, lazy ass thinks something costs too much? 

Did you also not realize that the overwhelming majority of America has the best healthcare in the WORLD and at a price that they feel is very affordable? You're the only bitch crying about the price - yet you're not willing to enter the free market and offer it cheaper. Why is that?


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> The website debacle is by design. If it had worked by design the whole house of cards would crashed all at once. Instead, it's a slow, grueling death. Hoping the people will not notice ACA is bleeding out. Maybe Obamas death panels should rule on this
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure that you will offer some evidence of this soon.
Click to expand...


Oh the irony... 

The asshat who can't offer "evidence" of ONE SINGLE THING HE HAS LIED ABOUT wants "evidence" from others....


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Progressives typically goose step, not right wingers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives don't goose step?????
> 
> Don't you read their posts here????
> 
> Same words to describe Fox's issue de jour with always their one solution.  Do nothing.
> 
> Then a couple of paragraphs to call their scapegoats de jour every name in the book.
> 
> There isn't a bigger herd of lemmings around.
Click to expand...


Isn't it hilarious that FACTS are considered "goose stepping" in PMZ's twisted, parasite mind? If you don't eschew facts for his radical left-wing propaganda, then you are "goose steppping" .

You know, all you assholes "goose stepping" to gravity.

All of you assholes "goose stepping" to the earth being round

All of you assholes "goose stepping" in the lie that the sun is hot

You can't make this stuff up folks. You kill PMZ with facts, he will scream "Fox! Fox! Fox!" like a person suffering from Tourette's and then accuse you of "goose stepping".

You know a liberal has had their ass handed to them with the truth when they scream "racist" or "Fox"....


----------



## Meister

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Progressives typically goose step, not right wingers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives don't goose step?????
> 
> Don't you read their posts here????
> 
> Same words to describe Fox's issue de jour with always their one solution.  Do nothing.
> 
> Then a couple of paragraphs to call their scapegoats de jour every name in the book.
> 
> There isn't a bigger herd of lemmings around.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Isn't it hilarious that FACTS are considered "goose stepping" in PMZ's twisted, parasite mind? If you don't eschew facts for his radical left-wing propaganda, then you are "goose steppping" .
> 
> You know, all you assholes "goose stepping" to gravity.
> 
> All of you assholes "goose stepping" to the earth being round
> 
> All of you assholes "goose stepping" in the lie that the sun is hot
> 
> You can't make this stuff up folks. You kill PMZ with facts, he will scream "Fox! Fox! Fox!" like a person suffering from Tourette's and then accuse you of "goose stepping".
> 
> You know a liberal has had their ass handed to them with the truth when they scream "racist" or "Fox"....
Click to expand...


Other than him being no more than a chew toy, why do you people give PMZ so much credibility as to respond to his tripe?


----------



## Listening

PMZ said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Progressives typically goose step, not right wingers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives don't goose step?????
> 
> Don't you read their posts here????
> 
> Same words to describe Fox's issue de jour with always their one solution.  Do nothing.
> 
> Then a couple of paragraphs to call their scapegoats de jour every name in the book.
> 
> There isn't a bigger herd of lemmings around.
Click to expand...


It's like Pavlov's dog.

Just say limited government and they start frothing at the mouth.

Then they start yelling "Faux News" out the their asses.

Live must be pretty boring for someone so limited.


----------



## P@triot

Meister said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives don't goose step?????
> 
> Don't you read their posts here????
> 
> Same words to describe Fox's issue de jour with always their one solution.  Do nothing.
> 
> Then a couple of paragraphs to call their scapegoats de jour every name in the book.
> 
> There isn't a bigger herd of lemmings around.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't it hilarious that FACTS are considered "goose stepping" in PMZ's twisted, parasite mind? If you don't eschew facts for his radical left-wing propaganda, then you are "goose steppping" .
> 
> You know, all you assholes "goose stepping" to gravity.
> 
> All of you assholes "goose stepping" to the earth being round
> 
> All of you assholes "goose stepping" in the lie that the sun is hot
> 
> You can't make this stuff up folks. You kill PMZ with facts, he will scream "Fox! Fox! Fox!" like a person suffering from Tourette's and then accuse you of "goose stepping".
> 
> You know a liberal has had their ass handed to them with the truth when they scream "racist" or "Fox"....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Other than him being no more than a chew toy, why do you people give PMZ so much credibility as to respond to his tripe?
Click to expand...


"Credibility"? He's the laughing stock of USMB. He has ZERO credibility and me pointing out the absurdity of his posts and proving his lies does not give him any credibility. Quite the contrary, if further erodes any he might have with someone new to USMB and unaware of his ignorance.


----------



## Listening

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee Claims Cancellation Notices "Not the Truth" - Christine Rousselle

This was funny.

I wonder if this is PMS(Z) ?


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> So for the 4,000x - why don't you start a health insurance company and sell policies for a $1 each will providing a cadillac plan? You would instantly corner the market. This solves every problem for both sides:
> 
> 
> 100% of Americans would have coverage
> 
> 
> It would be affordable
> 
> 
> It would be Constitutional
> 
> 
> It would provide the coverage Obama wants
> 
> 
> You would end up filthy "rich" and American hero
> So please tell me why you refuse to do this basic, civic duty which is a win-win-win-win any way you look at it? Too lazy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The silence by  [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] is absolutely deafening here [MENTION=31640]koshergrl[/MENTION]! He keeps saying "do nothing Republican" yet what has he done to solve the problem? Nothing but sit on his big, fat, lazy ass and demand that government force you and I to provide him with free health insurance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's like 10 pages later and the do nothing Dumbocrat [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] (who has sat on his lazy ass his entire life) cannot answer WHY, if he felt health care was too expensive, he didn't start an insurance company and offer it at a price that he felt was "affordable".
> 
> His silence speaks volumes (dumbocrats like him always did hate the FACTS)
Click to expand...


This is typical Rotweiner logic.  He doesn't have the means to distinguish between health care and insurance.  

"health care was too expensive, he didn't start an insurance company and offer it at a price that he felt was "affordable""

This is exactly why the Republican solution for every problem is precisely the same.  Do nothing.  If that doesn't work,  do less.  

The US is spending twice as much for health care as every other country in the world for mediocre results.  The Republican solution?  Do nothing. 

Yet they have the balls to call themselves producers.  What do they produce?  More nothing.


----------



## PMZ

Listening said:


> Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee Claims Cancellation Notices "Not the Truth" - Christine Rousselle
> 
> This was funny.
> 
> I wonder if this is PMS(Z) ?



She was right on.  Only the GOP would even try to spin what happens in the insurance business every year,  new policies with new prices,  as cancellations, this year only, in their desperation to bury their inability to solve any problem. 

If they spent 10% of the time,  energy,  and money helping the country, rather than spinning propaganda,  they might have a chance at redemption. But they simply have zero ability to solve problems.  Any problems.


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Progressives typically goose step, not right wingers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives don't goose step?????
> 
> Don't you read their posts here????
> 
> Same words to describe Fox's issue de jour with always their one solution.  Do nothing.
> 
> Then a couple of paragraphs to call their scapegoats de jour every name in the book.
> 
> There isn't a bigger herd of lemmings around.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Isn't it hilarious that FACTS are considered "goose stepping" in PMZ's twisted, parasite mind? If you don't eschew facts for his radical left-wing propaganda, then you are "goose steppping" .
> 
> You know, all you assholes "goose stepping" to gravity.
> 
> All of you assholes "goose stepping" to the earth being round
> 
> All of you assholes "goose stepping" in the lie that the sun is hot
> 
> You can't make this stuff up folks. You kill PMZ with facts, he will scream "Fox! Fox! Fox!" like a person suffering from Tourette's and then accuse you of "goose stepping".
> 
> You know a liberal has had their ass handed to them with the truth when they scream "racist" or "Fox"....
Click to expand...


Rotweiner,  you wouldn't know a fact if someone nailed one to your sloped forehead.


----------



## Geaux4it

PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> The silence by  [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] is absolutely deafening here [MENTION=31640]koshergrl[/MENTION]! He keeps saying "do nothing Republican" yet what has he done to solve the problem? Nothing but sit on his big, fat, lazy ass and demand that government force you and I to provide him with free health insurance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's like 10 pages later and the do nothing Dumbocrat [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] (who has sat on his lazy ass his entire life) cannot answer WHY, if he felt health care was too expensive, he didn't start an insurance company and offer it at a price that he felt was "affordable".
> 
> His silence speaks volumes (dumbocrats like him always did hate the FACTS)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is typical Rotweiner logic.  He doesn't have the means to distinguish between health care and insurance.
> 
> "health care was too expensive, he didn't start an insurance company and offer it at a price that he felt was "affordable""
> 
> This is exactly why the Republican solution for every problem is precisely the same.  Do nothing.  If that doesn't work,  do less.
> 
> The US is spending twice as much for health care as every other country in the world for mediocre results.  The Republican solution?  Do nothing.
> 
> Yet they have the balls to call themselves producers.  What do they produce?  More nothing.
Click to expand...


I was happy with my healthcare. No complaints

-Geaux


----------



## PMZ

Geaux4it said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's like 10 pages later and the do nothing Dumbocrat [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] (who has sat on his lazy ass his entire life) cannot answer WHY, if he felt health care was too expensive, he didn't start an insurance company and offer it at a price that he felt was "affordable".
> 
> His silence speaks volumes (dumbocrats like him always did hate the FACTS)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is typical Rotweiner logic.  He doesn't have the means to distinguish between health care and insurance.
> 
> "health care was too expensive, he didn't start an insurance company and offer it at a price that he felt was "affordable""
> 
> This is exactly why the Republican solution for every problem is precisely the same.  Do nothing.  If that doesn't work,  do less.
> 
> The US is spending twice as much for health care as every other country in the world for mediocre results.  The Republican solution?  Do nothing.
> 
> Yet they have the balls to call themselves producers.  What do they produce?  More nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was happy with my healthcare. No complaints
> 
> -Geaux
Click to expand...


Of course.  You had the out of dumping your bills on us if your health luck ran out.  

Now we don't have to worry about you dumping your bills on us and you don't have to worry about us dumping on you.  A world of personal responsibility.


----------



## dblack

PMZ said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is typical Rotweiner logic.  He doesn't have the means to distinguish between health care and insurance.
> 
> "health care was too expensive, he didn't start an insurance company and offer it at a price that he felt was "affordable""
> 
> This is exactly why the Republican solution for every problem is precisely the same.  Do nothing.  If that doesn't work,  do less.
> 
> The US is spending twice as much for health care as every other country in the world for mediocre results.  The Republican solution?  Do nothing.
> 
> Yet they have the balls to call themselves producers.  What do they produce?  More nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was happy with my healthcare. No complaints
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course.  You had the out of dumping your bills on us if your health luck ran out.
> 
> Now we don't have to worry about you dumping your bills on his and you don't have to worry about us dumping on you.  A world of personal responsibility.
Click to expand...


It's like watching someone taking a shit out their mouth...


----------



## PMZ

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was happy with my healthcare. No complaints
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course.  You had the out of dumping your bills on us if your health luck ran out.
> 
> Now we don't have to worry about you dumping your bills on his and you don't have to worry about us dumping on you.  A world of personal responsibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's like watching someone taking a shit out their mouth...
Click to expand...


It's fun to watch anarchists being assaulted by the truth.  The wheels really come off their wagon.


----------



## Listening

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was happy with my healthcare. No complaints
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course.  You had the out of dumping your bills on us if your health luck ran out.
> 
> Now we don't have to worry about you dumping your bills on his and you don't have to worry about us dumping on you.  A world of personal responsibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's like watching someone taking a shit out their mouth...
Click to expand...


I think he just shyts out his mouth.

He certainly talks out his ass.


----------



## beagle9

I think that there should be one *medical card for workers*, *one med card for the poor*, and *one card for the elderly* and *one card for the special needs citizens or disabled *. Then a flat tax is taken out of the citizens incomes (all citizens who have an income be it young, middle aged or elderly that still work) and from those whom are the investors in this nation for whom no longer work a physical labor job, but they still have an income coming in through their investments and other means in which they have also that is taxed). This will completely pay for the health care needs of all citizens in the united states, and for the health care system in which we all need equally as human beings to work for us all.

Then these *Cards* could be managed in a way in order to see why some of the negative numbers are being found between the two main groups in which are primarily made up of the working class and the poor (i.e. a better managed look at it all once the numbers are known under the cards in which the cards do represent in these two category's). 

The focus would then be - to move as many as possible from the poor group over to the working class group, and this by working hard to get the poor for what ever reason they are there (off) of the free loader status in which they had become bogged down in for some reason or another in life, and to get them over onto the working participant status med card, therefore becoming a positive number instead of a negative number on the system if at all possible. 

Not only are you looking at the numbers found within these two groups (i.e. between the working class and the poor), but also you are looking at as to why they are being found within these specific groups in the numbers that they are being found in, and all the while we would be managing the health care needs of all citizens at the same time. 

Example: Lets say that I have a workers class health care card issued to me by the government, and with this card I am taxed $23.00 dollars a week out of my check under an (HCS)Health Care Services code, and so I am taxed this amount because that is what has been figured that the cost of health care will be for all once everybody is into the same flat single payer system listed under these 4 cards that will be issued unto us all in category there of.  Then we will receive the cards that will fit us all depending on where we find ourselves under each managed category as listed for the status in which we find ourselves in life, and at any given time in our lives. 

Ok so I should be able to take this card and go anywhere I want to, in order to get my services met within the health care industry right, but just as long as they are certified as legitimate service providers could I do this, and so for the private sector it's just a matter of being certified as legal and lawful providers within the industry, now wouldn't you think this was ok ? 

So the whole system is certified now, and we have our card to get our health care needs met by certified providers, and we are in such a large pool of people (all citizens who have an income are now in),  that we shouldn't have to pay such ridiculous prices each week that would be taken from our incomes by these wallet rapist that we have had to deal with in the past (win, win, right?). The money taken could be broken down like this for example: Lets say it is $25.00 a week that is figured for all working citizens or non physical labor working citizens with an income coming in or can afford to participate without an income coming in (i.e. the super rich), where as in this break down $7.50 is allocated to a workers health care needs, and then $7.50 goes to the needs of the poor who are not working at this time, and then $5.00 goes to the seniors needs as this is all the amount that they will need for their budget by what is known by the managers and/or accountants who reside over their managed part of it all, and then the special needs and disabled citizens get $5.oo dollars as well from us for their special needs part of it also. If a budget or category needs more for each group mentioned, then let it go through the proper request panel for review, and then the tax would be added to in a one time hike to be taken each week from each citizen working or from each citizen who has an income coming in as described before. This is in order to raise up the area in need as so that they won't go without just as we wouldn't want to go without either when it comes to our health care needs in this life also. 

It would be looked as we looked at the pie in math class, where as the pie is understood of it's portions and sizes being broken up into parts or by it's portions according to ones needs in life, but in this pie there is found percentages within each portion, and why one percentage is larger than the other or why is it that someone is taking so much more than the other in percentage of, so we would be looking at the reason always in order to try and get the portions under control and the health care system working smoothly for all. So the goals would be to get the working class or all whom have a taxable income coming in, to then help all those who had come before them in which deserve this help (retired or disabled citizens and/or our seniors for example), and to also help the special needs people whom can't help themselves, or to help the poor who are in a situation that was unfortunate in their lives also.

Now when looking at the numbers between the working class and the poor, they are to be looked at in a way that always works hard to try and shift the poor back over into a working class status sooner or later, because this would bring their numbers into a better arrangement or percentage to be found within the pie. Right now there is no pie, and people are going without needed health care in their lives, and they do this because they feel either that they are a burden on the system or that they still won't be able to withstand the bills with the current substandard policies in which they may have (so they put off and put off until things spiral way out of control for them), therefore making a small problem into a huge one that may even cause them to die earlier than they should have, so something has to be done to get people to not fear the medical part of their life because of money, and that should be the goal in all of this in the end. Would this work yall ? A Flat taxed single payer system for our health care needs in America ? Would it also be sort of like the time where the will of the American people did want a flat tax system in America, in which was being spoken about by so many times during these past campaigns, and would it or could it apply to the health care system as well, I mean since that is the focus at hand these days ?


----------



## PMZ

Listening said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course.  You had the out of dumping your bills on us if your health luck ran out.
> 
> Now we don't have to worry about you dumping your bills on his and you don't have to worry about us dumping on you.  A world of personal responsibility.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's like watching someone taking a shit out their mouth...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think he just shyts out his mouth.
> 
> He certainly talks out his ass.
Click to expand...


Another anarchist speaks up.  What rock are they all crawling out from under? 

Of all of the extreme political splinter groups in the world,  the Communists,  the Taliban,  the African private armies,  etc,  anarchists are the most dysfunctional.  They are against nothing less than civilization.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's like watching someone taking a shit out their mouth...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think he just shyts out his mouth.
> 
> He certainly talks out his ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another anarchist speaks up.  What rock are they all crawling out from under?
> 
> Of all of the extreme political splinter groups in the world,  the Communists,  the Taliban,  the African private armies,  etc,  anarchists are the most dysfunctional.  They are against nothing less than civilization.
Click to expand...

ROFL Anarchists ROFL what an idiot you are.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think he just shyts out his mouth.
> 
> He certainly talks out his ass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another anarchist speaks up.  What rock are they all crawling out from under?
> 
> Of all of the extreme political splinter groups in the world,  the Communists,  the Taliban,  the African private armies,  etc,  anarchists are the most dysfunctional.  They are against nothing less than civilization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ROFL Anarchists ROFL what an idiot you are.
Click to expand...


Are you one too?


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another anarchist speaks up.  What rock are they all crawling out from under?
> 
> Of all of the extreme political splinter groups in the world,  the Communists,  the Taliban,  the African private armies,  etc,  anarchists are the most dysfunctional.  They are against nothing less than civilization.
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL Anarchists ROFL what an idiot you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you one too?
Click to expand...


You are "a fucking moron."


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL Anarchists ROFL what an idiot you are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you one too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are "a fucking moron."
Click to expand...


Are you one too?


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you one too?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are "a fucking moron."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you one too?
Click to expand...


You cite and worship a shitty comedian who was elected to office via a trunk full of hand picked votes that were 100% for him, in a recount where he had lost.  Only a moron would worship Al. I don't worship him.. you do.  Ergo, you are the moron in the room.  In some rooms I would be the moron, but in this room, it's you because no one compares to you, not even close.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are "a fucking moron."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you one too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You cite and worship a shitty comedian who was elected to office via a trunk full of hand picked votes that were 100% for him, in a recount where he had lost.  Only a moron would worship Al. I don't worship him.. you do.  Ergo, you are the moron in the room.  In some rooms I would be the moron, but in this room, it's you because no one compares to you, not even close.
Click to expand...


I don't "worship" anyone.  I respect politicians in proportion to their accomplishments in solving problems.  I disrespect assholes like you for their hatred and disrespect of my country. 

You goose step to the orders of the revolutionary who's been hell bent on the destruction of America for 3 decades. You are less an asset to America than Kim Jong Un,  but a much bigger threat because you can vote here.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you one too?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You cite and worship a shitty comedian who was elected to office via a trunk full of hand picked votes that were 100% for him, in a recount where he had lost.  Only a moron would worship Al. I don't worship him.. you do.  Ergo, you are the moron in the room.  In some rooms I would be the moron, but in this room, it's you because no one compares to you, not even close.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't "worship" anyone.  I respect politicians in proportion to their accomplishments in solving problems.  I disrespect assholes like you for their hatred and disrespect of my country.
> 
> You goose step to the orders of the revolutionary who's been hell bent on the destruction of America for 3 decades. You are less an asset to America than Kim Jong Un,  but a much bigger threat because you can vote here.
Click to expand...

Al Frankenstien solving problems? How, by redistributing my money, you call that solving problems?

The one goosing a revolutionary is you.  Obama's friends are known commies & domestic terrorists you ignorant piece of shit. 

Ignorant hypocritical pieces of shit like you that are destroying this country so you can sit on your fat ass and collect welfare off other people's income should be keel hulled.


----------



## Listening

PMZ said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's like watching someone taking a shit out their mouth...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think he just shyts out his mouth.
> 
> He certainly talks out his ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another anarchist speaks up.  What rock are they all crawling out from under?
> 
> Of all of the extreme political splinter groups in the world,  the Communists,  the Taliban,  the African private armies,  etc,  anarchists are the most dysfunctional.  They are against nothing less than civilization.
Click to expand...


And now we know that PMZ gets his information out of CrackerJack boxes.

Only a moron would fail to understand just what a foolish comment that is.

And a bigger moron (like PMZ) is only to willing to demonstrate the ignorant arrogance associated with thinking they (the PMZbots of the world) know how to define civilization.

As Alan Keyes once said...his ancestors had everything the left wants for us...housing, food, and health care.....

His ancestors were slaves.


----------



## Listening

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you one too?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You cite and worship a shitty comedian who was elected to office via a trunk full of hand picked votes that were 100% for him, in a recount where he had lost.  Only a moron would worship Al. I don't worship him.. you do.  Ergo, you are the moron in the room.  In some rooms I would be the moron, but in this room, it's you because no one compares to you, not even close.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't "worship" anyone.  I respect politicians in proportion to their accomplishments in solving problems.  I disrespect assholes like you for their hatred and disrespect of my country.
> 
> You goose step to the orders of the revolutionary who's been hell bent on the destruction of America for 3 decades. You are less an asset to America than Kim Jong Un,  but a much bigger threat because you can vote here.
Click to expand...


Your country ?

You are one arrogant bastard.

You act like you are somehow "smart" enough to tell others how they should think and you somehow seem to have it in your tiny mind that you deserve special consideration.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> You cite and worship a shitty comedian who was elected to office via a trunk full of hand picked votes that were 100% for him, in a recount where he had lost.  Only a moron would worship Al. I don't worship him.. you do.  Ergo, you are the moron in the room.  In some rooms I would be the moron, but in this room, it's you because no one compares to you, not even close.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't "worship" anyone.  I respect politicians in proportion to their accomplishments in solving problems.  I disrespect assholes like you for their hatred and disrespect of my country.
> 
> You goose step to the orders of the revolutionary who's been hell bent on the destruction of America for 3 decades. You are less an asset to America than Kim Jong Un,  but a much bigger threat because you can vote here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Al Frankenstien solving problems? How, by redistributing my money, you call that solving problems?
> 
> The one goosing a revolutionary is you.  Obama's friends are known commies & domestic terrorists you ignorant piece of shit.
> 
> Ignorant hypocritical pieces of shit like you that are destroying this country so you can sit on your fat ass and collect welfare off other people's income should be keel hulled.
Click to expand...


Keep goose stepping to the right.  You are a loyal follower of lies unable to take the responsibility to sort truth from party dogma.  You're a disgrace to American education.


----------



## PMZ

Listening said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> You cite and worship a shitty comedian who was elected to office via a trunk full of hand picked votes that were 100% for him, in a recount where he had lost.  Only a moron would worship Al. I don't worship him.. you do.  Ergo, you are the moron in the room.  In some rooms I would be the moron, but in this room, it's you because no one compares to you, not even close.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't "worship" anyone.  I respect politicians in proportion to their accomplishments in solving problems.  I disrespect assholes like you for their hatred and disrespect of my country.
> 
> You goose step to the orders of the revolutionary who's been hell bent on the destruction of America for 3 decades. You are less an asset to America than Kim Jong Un,  but a much bigger threat because you can vote here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your country ?
> 
> You are one arrogant bastard.
Click to expand...


If everyone accepted the responsibility to care for their country like I do,  there wouldn't be threats like you represent,  around.


----------



## PMZ

Listening said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think he just shyts out his mouth.
> 
> He certainly talks out his ass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another anarchist speaks up.  What rock are they all crawling out from under?
> 
> Of all of the extreme political splinter groups in the world,  the Communists,  the Taliban,  the African private armies,  etc,  anarchists are the most dysfunctional.  They are against nothing less than civilization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And now we know that PMZ gets his information out of CrackerJack boxes.
> 
> Only a moron would fail to understand just what a foolish comment that is.
> 
> And a bigger moron (like PMZ) is only to willing to demonstrate the ignorant arrogance associated with thinking they (the PMZbots of the world) know how to define civilization.
> 
> As Alan Keyes once said...his ancestors had everything the left wants for us...housing, food, and health care.....
> 
> His ancestors were slaves.
Click to expand...


Alan should have considered the consequences of Americans not having even what his ancestors were forced to trade their freedom for.


----------



## Listening

PMZ said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't "worship" anyone.  I respect politicians in proportion to their accomplishments in solving problems.  I disrespect assholes like you for their hatred and disrespect of my country.
> 
> You goose step to the orders of the revolutionary who's been hell bent on the destruction of America for 3 decades. You are less an asset to America than Kim Jong Un,  but a much bigger threat because you can vote here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your country ?
> 
> You are one arrogant bastard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If everyone accepted the responsibility to care for their country like I do,  there wouldn't be threats like you represent,  around.
Click to expand...


Well, I am sorry.  But shoveling horseshyt does not give you any special political considerations.


----------



## Listening

PMZ said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another anarchist speaks up.  What rock are they all crawling out from under?
> 
> Of all of the extreme political splinter groups in the world,  the Communists,  the Taliban,  the African private armies,  etc,  anarchists are the most dysfunctional.  They are against nothing less than civilization.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And now we know that PMZ gets his information out of CrackerJack boxes.
> 
> Only a moron would fail to understand just what a foolish comment that is.
> 
> And a bigger moron (like PMZ) is only to willing to demonstrate the ignorant arrogance associated with thinking they (the PMZbots of the world) know how to define civilization.
> 
> As Alan Keyes once said...his ancestors had everything the left wants for us...housing, food, and health care.....
> 
> His ancestors were slaves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Alan should have considered the consequences of Americans not having even what his ancestors were forced to trade their freedom for.
Click to expand...


So you do advocate trading freedom for government goodies.  Thanks for clearing that up.


----------



## beagle9

Why don't everyone quit fighting, and try to come up with some bi-partisan ideas, because what has been formulated recently is a mess in this nation. To much favoritism involved, just as it was before.


----------



## Listening

beagle9 said:


> Why don't everyone quit fighting, and try to come up with some bi-partisan ideas, because what has been formulated recently is a mess in this nation. To much favoritism involved, just as it was before.



If it isn't federal, the left wants nothing to do with it.


----------



## PMZ

Listening said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your country ?
> 
> You are one arrogant bastard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If everyone accepted the responsibility to care for their country like I do,  there wouldn't be threats like you represent,  around.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I am sorry.  But shoveling horseshyt does not give you any special political considerations.
Click to expand...


I take care of myself as well as my country.  I certainly don't need your help for either.


----------



## PMZ

Listening said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't everyone quit fighting, and try to come up with some bi-partisan ideas, because what has been formulated recently is a mess in this nation. To much favoritism involved, just as it was before.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If it isn't federal, the left wants nothing to do with it.
Click to expand...


If it's a problem or solution,  Republicans don't want anything to do with it.


----------



## Listening

PMZ said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> If everyone accepted the responsibility to care for their country like I do,  there wouldn't be threats like you represent,  around.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I am sorry.  But shoveling horseshyt does not give you any special political considerations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I take care of myself as well as my country.  I certainly don't need your help for either.
Click to expand...


That made no sense.  I have no intentions of helping you in your chosen vocation of shoveling manure (literally or figuratively).

Your country again ?  Go f^^k yourself.

If you live in the U.S. it is our country and you are as lucky as I am to be here.


----------



## Listening

PMZ said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't everyone quit fighting, and try to come up with some bi-partisan ideas, because what has been formulated recently is a mess in this nation. To much favoritism involved, just as it was before.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If it isn't federal, the left wants nothing to do with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it's a problem or solution,  Republicans don't want anything to do with it.
Click to expand...


Now, you are being stupid.

The GOP in my state are fixing all kinds of problems.  A lots of other places too.

There are more GOP governors than there have been for a long long long time.

Sorry to bring it back to reality.


----------



## PMZ

Listening said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> And now we know that PMZ gets his information out of CrackerJack boxes.
> 
> Only a moron would fail to understand just what a foolish comment that is.
> 
> And a bigger moron (like PMZ) is only to willing to demonstrate the ignorant arrogance associated with thinking they (the PMZbots of the world) know how to define civilization.
> 
> As Alan Keyes once said...his ancestors had everything the left wants for us...housing, food, and health care.....
> 
> His ancestors were slaves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Alan should have considered the consequences of Americans not having even what his ancestors were forced to trade their freedom for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you do advocate trading freedom for government goodies.  Thanks for clearing that up.
Click to expand...


I think that the least expensive alternative to those that business fails to utilize in a productive job,  is what we do.  Mostly health care and Aid to Dependant Children and education.  Without them, living in America would be like living in Sao Paulo,  Mexico City,  Beijing or Nairobi. 

As you've never left your County apparently,  you'd never know.


----------



## Listening

PMZ said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Alan should have considered the consequences of Americans not having even what his ancestors were forced to trade their freedom for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you do advocate trading freedom for government goodies.  Thanks for clearing that up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think that the least expensive alternative to those that business fails to utilize in a productive job,  is what we do.  Mostly health care and Aid to Dependant Children and education.  Without them, living in America would be like living in Sao Paulo,  Mexico City,  Beijing or Nairobi.
> 
> As you've never left your County apparently,  you'd never know.
Click to expand...


You don't know where I've been....arroagant asswipe as usual.  In fact you don't know shyt.

And we do have places that are just like third world countries all thanks to libs.


----------



## Listening

PMZ said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Alan should have considered the consequences of Americans not having even what his ancestors were forced to trade their freedom for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you do advocate trading freedom for government goodies.  Thanks for clearing that up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *I think* that the least expensive alternative to those that business fails to utilize in a productive job,  is what we do.  Mostly health care and Aid to Dependant Children and education.  Without them, living in America would be like living in Sao Paulo,  Mexico City,  Beijing or Nairobi.
> 
> As you've never left your County apparently,  you'd never know.
Click to expand...


And that is a lie.


----------



## beagle9

Listening said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't everyone quit fighting, and try to come up with some bi-partisan ideas, because what has been formulated recently is a mess in this nation. To much favoritism involved, just as it was before.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If it isn't federal, the left wants nothing to do with it.
Click to expand...

It can be *both*(Government and Private solving the problems of today) just like it always was in so many things in the past, problem is though, is that the people have grown to not trust anything that moves anymore, and the rich dang sure don't trust the feds after they (the Rich/CEO's/ Producers or their Companies who were riding these waves) had turned and heaped hundreds of thousand of workers upon the government roles after the bubbles burst in this nation. 

It's a stand off it seems in everything now, where as the rich are suspicious of the government doing everything it can to protect it's bottom line, where as the government is wanting to curb the numbers in which they had acquired over time, by forcing the rich whom they think is mainly to blame in it all, to then help them deal with it all until balance returns to the system somehow. I mean hec the conservatives are crying that the government needs to curb it's appetite for more and more right, yet meanwhile the numbers were steady climbing and climbing in the unemployment sectors and/or out of work sectors. Now who takes care of these people in these sectors or within these numbers ? The government does right ? Meanwhile the private sector just walks away with their stream lined companies after the bubble burst, and trying to hold on to the profits in which they made in the bubbles before they had burst. The unbalance found in it all, has led to some serious situations, and  also some hard choices to be made, but the private sector wants no part of anything that affects their bottom lines or their profits gathered in the bubbles any further. Now it is them looking to stop the government in getting the money to deal with it all, and this by creating various instruments in order to do so. Am I hitting anywhere near what has transpired over time in all of this messy problem that we have finally inherited, and the mistrust that we have inherited as a result of it all today also ?


----------



## PMZ

Listening said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you do advocate trading freedom for government goodies.  Thanks for clearing that up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that the least expensive alternative to those that business fails to utilize in a productive job,  is what we do.  Mostly health care and Aid to Dependant Children and education.  Without them, living in America would be like living in Sao Paulo,  Mexico City,  Beijing or Nairobi.
> 
> As you've never left your County apparently,  you'd never know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't know where I've been....arroagant asswipe as usual.  In fact you don't know shyt.
> 
> And we do have places that are just like third world countries all thanks to libs.
Click to expand...


Proof that I know where you haven't been.


----------



## Listening

PMZ said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that the least expensive alternative to those that business fails to utilize in a productive job,  is what we do.  Mostly health care and Aid to Dependant Children and education.  Without them, living in America would be like living in Sao Paulo,  Mexico City,  Beijing or Nairobi.
> 
> As you've never left your County apparently,  you'd never know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know where I've been....arroagant asswipe as usual.  In fact you don't know shyt.
> 
> And we do have places that are just like third world countries all thanks to libs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Proof that I know where you haven't been.
Click to expand...


----------



## PMZ

beagle9 said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't everyone quit fighting, and try to come up with some bi-partisan ideas, because what has been formulated recently is a mess in this nation. To much favoritism involved, just as it was before.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If it isn't federal, the left wants nothing to do with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It can be *both*(Government and Private solving the problems of today) just like it always was in so many things in the past, problem is though, is that the people have grown to not trust anything that moves anymore, and the rich dang sure don't trust the feds after they (the Rich/CEO's/ Producers or their Companies who were riding these waves) had turned and heaped hundreds of thousand of workers upon the government roles after the bubbles burst in this nation.
> 
> It's a stand off it seems in everything now, where as the rich are suspicious of the government doing everything it can to protect it's bottom line, where as the government is wanting to curb the numbers in which they had acquired over time, by forcing the rich whom they think is mainly to blame in it all, to then help them deal with it all until balance returns to the system somehow. I mean hec the conservatives are crying that the government needs to curb it's appetite for more and more right, yet meanwhile the numbers were steady climbing and climbing in the unemployment sectors and/or out of work sectors. Now who takes care of these people in these sectors or within these numbers ? The government does right ? Meanwhile the private sector just walks away with their stream lined companies after the bubble burst, and trying to hold on to the profits in which they made in the bubbles before they had burst. The unbalance found in it all, has led to some serious situations, and  also some hard choices to be made, but the private sector wants no part of anything that affects their bottom lines or their profits gathered in the bubbles any further. Now it is them looking to stop the government in getting the money to deal with it all, and this by creating various instruments in order to do so. Am I hitting anywhere near what has transpired over time in all of this messy problem that we have finally inherited, and the mistrust that we have inherited as a result of it all today too ?
Click to expand...


I think that you are right on.  The last thing the country can afford is the country walking away from the same problems that the wealthy and companies are.


----------



## Listening

beagle9 said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't everyone quit fighting, and try to come up with some bi-partisan ideas, because what has been formulated recently is a mess in this nation. To much favoritism involved, just as it was before.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If it isn't federal, the left wants nothing to do with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It can be *both*(Government and Private solving the problems of today) just like it always was in so many things in the past, problem is though, is that the people have grown to not trust anything that moves anymore, and the rich dang sure don't trust the feds after they (the Rich/CEO's/ Producers or their Companies who were riding these waves) had turned and heaped hundreds of thousand of workers upon the government roles after the bubbles burst in this nation.
> 
> It's a stand off it seems in everything now, where as the rich are suspicious of the government doing everything it can to protect it's bottom line, where as the government is wanting to curb the numbers in which they had acquired over time, by forcing the rich whom they think is mainly to blame in it all, to then help them deal with it all until balance returns to the system somehow. I mean hec the conservatives are crying that the government needs to curb it's appetite for more and more right, yet meanwhile the numbers were steady climbing and climbing in the unemployment sectors and/or out of work sectors. Now who takes care of these people in these sectors or within these numbers ? The government does right ? Meanwhile the private sector just walks away with their stream lined companies after the bubble burst, and trying to hold on to the profits in which they made in the bubbles before they had burst. The unbalance found in it all, has led to some serious situations, and  also some hard choices to be made, but the private sector wants no part of anything that affects their bottom lines or their profits gathered in the bubbles any further. Now it is them looking to stop the government in getting the money to deal with it all, and this by creating various instruments in order to do so. Am I hitting anywhere near what has transpired over time in all of this messy problem that we have finally inherited, and the mistrust that we have inherited as a result of it all today also ?
Click to expand...


The only problem with all this is that big business and government are hardly any different and they are in bed together.


----------



## PMZ

Listening said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it isn't federal, the left wants nothing to do with it.
> 
> 
> 
> It can be *both*(Government and Private solving the problems of today) just like it always was in so many things in the past, problem is though, is that the people have grown to not trust anything that moves anymore, and the rich dang sure don't trust the feds after they (the Rich/CEO's/ Producers or their Companies who were riding these waves) had turned and heaped hundreds of thousand of workers upon the government roles after the bubbles burst in this nation.
> 
> It's a stand off it seems in everything now, where as the rich are suspicious of the government doing everything it can to protect it's bottom line, where as the government is wanting to curb the numbers in which they had acquired over time, by forcing the rich whom they think is mainly to blame in it all, to then help them deal with it all until balance returns to the system somehow. I mean hec the conservatives are crying that the government needs to curb it's appetite for more and more right, yet meanwhile the numbers were steady climbing and climbing in the unemployment sectors and/or out of work sectors. Now who takes care of these people in these sectors or within these numbers ? The government does right ? Meanwhile the private sector just walks away with their stream lined companies after the bubble burst, and trying to hold on to the profits in which they made in the bubbles before they had burst. The unbalance found in it all, has led to some serious situations, and  also some hard choices to be made, but the private sector wants no part of anything that affects their bottom lines or their profits gathered in the bubbles any further. Now it is them looking to stop the government in getting the money to deal with it all, and this by creating various instruments in order to do so. Am I hitting anywhere near what has transpired over time in all of this messy problem that we have finally inherited, and the mistrust that we have inherited as a result of it all today also ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only problem with all this is that big business and government are hardly any different and they are in bed together.
Click to expand...


We hire and fire our government representatives.  The only control we have over business is whose products we buy and government regulation.


----------



## beagle9

Listening said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it isn't federal, the left wants nothing to do with it.
> 
> 
> 
> It can be *both*(Government and Private solving the problems of today) just like it always was in so many things in the past, problem is though, is that the people have grown to not trust anything that moves anymore, and the rich dang sure don't trust the feds after they (the Rich/CEO's/ Producers or their Companies who were riding these waves) had turned and heaped hundreds of thousand of workers upon the government roles after the bubbles burst in this nation.
> 
> It's a stand off it seems in everything now, where as the rich are suspicious of the government doing everything it can to protect it's bottom line, where as the government is wanting to curb the numbers in which they had acquired over time, by forcing the rich whom they think is mainly to blame in it all, to then help them deal with it all until balance returns to the system somehow. I mean hec the conservatives are crying that the government needs to curb it's appetite for more and more right, yet meanwhile the numbers were steady climbing and climbing in the unemployment sectors and/or out of work sectors. Now who takes care of these people in these sectors or within these numbers ? The government does right ? Meanwhile the private sector just walks away with their stream lined companies after the bubble burst, and trying to hold on to the profits in which they made in the bubbles before they had burst. The unbalance found in it all, has led to some serious situations, and  also some hard choices to be made, but the private sector wants no part of anything that affects their bottom lines or their profits gathered in the bubbles any further. Now it is them looking to stop the government in getting the money to deal with it all, and this by creating various instruments in order to do so. Am I hitting anywhere near what has transpired over time in all of this messy problem that we have finally inherited, and the mistrust that we have inherited as a result of it all today also ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only problem with all this is that big business and government are hardly any different and they are in bed together.
Click to expand...

Ok, and if this is the case, then they are both looking to heap it all on the citizens whom they think are ignorant enough to take it on, and so you know what else ? We can't afford anymore to come at us, and money has got to be loosened up a bit by both the government and the private sectors (re-investments), or we will all lose in the end. The entire system will soon crash under it's own weight, but the insulated aren't concerned as they are not yet directly affected by it like we are down here, but it will reach them soon, just like it always has finally affected them in the past or back when we got ourselves into these situations before. It always takes a super good President and administration, along with the strong will of the people to get us out of it all again, but I'm not so sure that we have either at this point. All we have is confusion, because both the government and the private sector has taken advantage of our weakened positions, where as one is agenda oriented for a cause or specific struggle it believes in strongly going forward, while the other is protecting what it has already gathered and heaped away into the barns in order to preserve what they think is their culture, and their future for their families to inherit within this nation someday. We are just pawns in this game that is played between these two now, so hang on for the ride I guess, because that's all we (for whom are caught in the middle as these kinds or types of Americans), can do anymore it seems.


----------



## PMZ

beagle9 said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It can be *both*(Government and Private solving the problems of today) just like it always was in so many things in the past, problem is though, is that the people have grown to not trust anything that moves anymore, and the rich dang sure don't trust the feds after they (the Rich/CEO's/ Producers or their Companies who were riding these waves) had turned and heaped hundreds of thousand of workers upon the government roles after the bubbles burst in this nation.
> 
> It's a stand off it seems in everything now, where as the rich are suspicious of the government doing everything it can to protect it's bottom line, where as the government is wanting to curb the numbers in which they had acquired over time, by forcing the rich whom they think is mainly to blame in it all, to then help them deal with it all until balance returns to the system somehow. I mean hec the conservatives are crying that the government needs to curb it's appetite for more and more right, yet meanwhile the numbers were steady climbing and climbing in the unemployment sectors and/or out of work sectors. Now who takes care of these people in these sectors or within these numbers ? The government does right ? Meanwhile the private sector just walks away with their stream lined companies after the bubble burst, and trying to hold on to the profits in which they made in the bubbles before they had burst. The unbalance found in it all, has led to some serious situations, and  also some hard choices to be made, but the private sector wants no part of anything that affects their bottom lines or their profits gathered in the bubbles any further. Now it is them looking to stop the government in getting the money to deal with it all, and this by creating various instruments in order to do so. Am I hitting anywhere near what has transpired over time in all of this messy problem that we have finally inherited, and the mistrust that we have inherited as a result of it all today also ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only problem with all this is that big business and government are hardly any different and they are in bed together.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, and if this is the case, then they are both looking to heap it all on the citizens whom they think are ignorant enough to take it on, and so you know what else ? We can't afford anymore to come at us, and money has got to be loosened up a bit by both the government and the private sectors (re-investments), or we will all lose in the end. The entire system will soon crash under it's own weight, but the insulated aren't concerned as they are not yet directly affected by it like we are down here, but it will reach them soon, just like it always has finally affected them in the past or back when we got ourselves into these situations. It always takes a super good President and administration, along with the strong will of the people to get us out of it all again, but I'm not so sure that we have either at this point. All we have is confusion, because both the government and the private sector has taken advantage of our weakened positions, where as one is agenda oriented for a cause or specific struggle it believes in strongly going forward, while the other is protecting what it has already gathered and heaped away into the barns in order to preserve what they think is their culture, and their future for their families to inherit within this nation someday. We are just pawns in this game that is played between these two now, so hang on for the ride I guess, because that's all we (for whom are caught in the middle as these kinds or types of Americans), can do anymore it seems.
Click to expand...


Lincoln was widely criticized by his contemporaries as a backwoods buffoon not equal to the typical DC white wealthy polished politicians. 

I think that the same is true of his protégé,  Obama.  

Thats compounded by his every word and action vilified by the powerful Republican propaganda network. 

The result is to have rendered him reluctant to speak directly and often to the American people.  He uses the mainstream media to do that.  A fault. The Democrat side of every issue is not effectively presented. 

If Obama looked like Joe Biden as an example,  and vice versa,  the team would be treated with much more respect now,  but, they will still be so treated by history,  over time,  as was Lincoln.


----------



## koshergrl

Obama is certainly not Lincoln's protege, you nitwit.


----------



## PMZ

janeeng said:


> hahahaahah, it's just hillarious when you and Jim post right after another, all bouncing, up and down, geez!



Obviously you haven't read any of his autobiographies. 

pro·té·gé
&#712;pr&#333;t&#601;&#716;ZH&#257;,&#716;pr&#333;t&#601;&#712;ZH&#257;/
noun
1.
a person who is guided and supported by an older and more experienced or influential person.
"he was an aide and protégé of the former Tennessee senator"

Your type of idiocy is the disease caused by getting all your opinions from one source without questioning any of it.


----------



## Listening

PMZ said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It can be *both*(Government and Private solving the problems of today) just like it always was in so many things in the past, problem is though, is that the people have grown to not trust anything that moves anymore, and the rich dang sure don't trust the feds after they (the Rich/CEO's/ Producers or their Companies who were riding these waves) had turned and heaped hundreds of thousand of workers upon the government roles after the bubbles burst in this nation.
> 
> It's a stand off it seems in everything now, where as the rich are suspicious of the government doing everything it can to protect it's bottom line, where as the government is wanting to curb the numbers in which they had acquired over time, by forcing the rich whom they think is mainly to blame in it all, to then help them deal with it all until balance returns to the system somehow. I mean hec the conservatives are crying that the government needs to curb it's appetite for more and more right, yet meanwhile the numbers were steady climbing and climbing in the unemployment sectors and/or out of work sectors. Now who takes care of these people in these sectors or within these numbers ? The government does right ? Meanwhile the private sector just walks away with their stream lined companies after the bubble burst, and trying to hold on to the profits in which they made in the bubbles before they had burst. The unbalance found in it all, has led to some serious situations, and  also some hard choices to be made, but the private sector wants no part of anything that affects their bottom lines or their profits gathered in the bubbles any further. Now it is them looking to stop the government in getting the money to deal with it all, and this by creating various instruments in order to do so. Am I hitting anywhere near what has transpired over time in all of this messy problem that we have finally inherited, and the mistrust that we have inherited as a result of it all today also ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only problem with all this is that big business and government are hardly any different and they are in bed together.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We hire and fire our government representatives.  The only control we have over business is whose products we buy and government regulation.
Click to expand...


Now we know where you haven't been.


----------



## Listening

PMZ said:


> Lincoln was widely criticized by his contemporaries as a backwoods buffoon not equal to the typical DC white wealthy polished politicians.
> 
> I think that the same is true of his protégé,  Obama.
> 
> Thats compounded by his every word and action vilified by the powerful Republican propaganda network.
> 
> The result is to have rendered him reluctant to speak directly and often to the American people.  He uses the mainstream media to do that.  A fault. The Democrat side of every issue is not effectively presented.
> 
> If Obama looked like Joe Biden as an example,  and vice versa,  the team would be treated with much more respect now,  but, they will still be so treated by history,  over time,  as was Lincoln.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Alan should have considered the consequences of Americans not having even what his ancestors were forced to trade their freedom for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you do advocate trading freedom for government goodies.  Thanks for clearing that up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think that the least expensive alternative to those that business fails to utilize in a productive job,  is what we do.  Mostly health care and Aid to Dependant Children and education.  Without them, living in America would be like living in Sao Paulo,  Mexico City,  Beijing or Nairobi.
> 
> As you've never left your County apparently,  you'd never know.
Click to expand...


What a retard.


----------



## PMZ

Listening said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only problem with all this is that big business and government are hardly any different and they are in bed together.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We hire and fire our government representatives.  The only control we have over business is whose products we buy and government regulation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now we know where you haven't been.
Click to expand...


Emoticons are great for little kids. 

I'll assume that your little happy faces means that you agree with my post. 

It might be better to use your words though.


----------



## koshergrl

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you do advocate trading freedom for government goodies. Thanks for clearing that up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that the least expensive alternative to those that business fails to utilize in a productive job, is what we do. Mostly health care and Aid to Dependant Children and education. Without them, living in America would be like living in Sao Paulo, Mexico City, Beijing or Nairobi.
> 
> As you've never left your County apparently, you'd never know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What a retard.
Click to expand...

 
Lol...there's really not much more to say..


----------



## PMZ

koshergrl said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that the least expensive alternative to those that business fails to utilize in a productive job, is what we do. Mostly health care and Aid to Dependant Children and education. Without them, living in America would be like living in Sao Paulo, Mexico City, Beijing or Nairobi.
> 
> As you've never left your County apparently, you'd never know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a retard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol...there's really not much more to say..
Click to expand...


That's what Brownie always says when he can't think of any argument that what he wants to be true really is.


----------



## koshergrl

Actually, in this case, it's what he says when there's no point in saying anything else. You're ignorant of the topics you choose to debate, and there's not much a person can do with that.


----------



## Listening

PMZ said:


> Emoticons are great for little kids.



That's why I put them there for you.


----------



## PMZ

koshergrl said:


> Actually, in this case, it's what he says when there's no point in saying anything else. You're ignorant of the topics you choose to debate, and there's not much a person can do with that.



One thing that I've learned from folks like you is that people who are unable to learn are more loyal to what they've been told, as a substitute for learning, than people who take the time to wade through all sides of any issue. 

To the goose steppers life is pretty easy. Just believe and don't question. 

Thinking for yourself is much harder and unreachable for many people. It requires an open mind and the ability to sort truth from propaganda.

But, if blind partisanship is all that you can muster, it's at least a comfortable, if dysfunctional, life.

Enjoy it.


----------



## koshergrl

As I said, and others said, you're a fool who prates nonsense that is not worthy of response. 

Seriously. Have you gotten anything right since you've arrived on the scene?


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, in this case, it's what he says when there's no point in saying anything else. You're ignorant of the topics you choose to debate, and there's not much a person can do with that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One thing that I've learned from folks like you is that people who are unable to learn are more loyal to what they've been told, as a substitute for learning, than people who take the time to wade through all sides of any issue.
> 
> To the goose steppers life is pretty easy. Just believe and don't question.
> 
> Thinking for yourself is much harder and unreachable for many people. It requires an open mind and the ability to sort truth from propaganda.
> 
> But, if blind partisanship is all that you can muster, it's at least a comfortable, if dysfunctional, life.
> 
> Enjoy it.
Click to expand...


Projection, from a retard.


----------



## Listening

koshergrl said:


> As I said, and others said, you're a fool who prates nonsense that is not worthy of response.
> 
> Seriously. Have you gotten anything right since you've arrived on the scene?



Ooooh

Ooooh

Ooooh

I know, I know, I know......

That would be NO.


----------



## PMZ

koshergrl said:


> As I said, and others said, you're a fool who prates nonsense that is not worthy of response.
> 
> Seriously. Have you gotten anything right since you've arrived on the scene?



Most everything.  You,  however,  not so much.  You're,  at best,  a mediocre insulter and everything else is a repetition of what every other conservative posts right off Fox.  

Useless.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, in this case, it's what he says when there's no point in saying anything else. You're ignorant of the topics you choose to debate, and there's not much a person can do with that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One thing that I've learned from folks like you is that people who are unable to learn are more loyal to what they've been told, as a substitute for learning, than people who take the time to wade through all sides of any issue.
> 
> To the goose steppers life is pretty easy. Just believe and don't question.
> 
> Thinking for yourself is much harder and unreachable for many people. It requires an open mind and the ability to sort truth from propaganda.
> 
> But, if blind partisanship is all that you can muster, it's at least a comfortable, if dysfunctional, life.
> 
> Enjoy it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Projection, from a retard.
Click to expand...


You're really lacking for insults too.  RETARD?  Really?  In every post?  You have the imagination of a conservative.


----------



## koshergrl

What's the point of wasting eloquence on a retard?


----------



## Listening

koshergrl said:


> What's the point of wasting eloquence on a retard?



Yep.  Done.

At least the Fox News chant has stopped.


----------



## PMZ

koshergrl said:


> What's the point of wasting eloquence on a retard?



Eloquence?  You have none to waste. You have none period.


----------



## PMZ

Listening said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's the point of wasting eloquence on a retard?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep.  Done.
> 
> At least the Fox News chant has stopped.
Click to expand...


The truth is easy to avoid but impossible to escape.  Your addiction is a good example.  You can avoid admitting to it,  but you can't avoid it's impact on who you are.


----------



## Listening

PMZ said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's the point of wasting eloquence on a retard?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep.  Done.
> 
> At least the Fox News chant has stopped.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The truth is easy to avoid but impossible to escape.  Your addiction is a good example.  You can avoid admitting to it,  but you can't avoid it's impact on who you are.
Click to expand...


My mistake....the broken record is still broken.

Fox News....
Fox News....
Fox News....
Fox News....
Etc.
Etc.
Etc.


----------



## PMZ

Listening said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep.  Done.
> 
> At least the Fox News chant has stopped.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The truth is easy to avoid but impossible to escape.  Your addiction is a good example.  You can avoid admitting to it,  but you can't avoid it's impact on who you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My mistake....the broken record is still broken.
> 
> Fox News....
> Fox News....
> Fox News....
> Fox News....
> Etc.
> Etc.
> Etc.
Click to expand...


The truth often needs to be repeated many times before those with a position contrary to it will accept it.


----------



## BlackSand

PMZ said:


> The truth often needs to be repeated many times before those with a position contrary to it will accept it.



Uh Duh ... Why the hell do you think we keep talking to you?

.


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> What a retard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lol...there's really not much more to say..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's what *Brownie* always says when he can't think of any argument that what he wants to be true really is.
Click to expand...


Racist!!! Racist!!! Racist!!! PMZ essentially just called KG a "******".

Typical hateful, intolerant Dumbocrat....


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's the point of wasting eloquence on a retard?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep.  Done.
> 
> At least the Fox News chant has stopped.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The truth is easy to avoid but impossible to escape.  Your addiction is a good example.  You can avoid admitting to it,  but you can't avoid it's impact on who you are.
Click to expand...


Watching you get bent over by everyone on USMB with facts while you scream and wail against those facts is comical.

You're a joke on USMB. Everyone knows you're ignorant. More importantly, everyone knows you're a liar. There is a reason it's 30 on 1 in every thread you enter. It's because you're on the wrong side of the facts.


----------



## Kathy58

Wow, been away for a few days and it seems like most everyone here is 12 y/o or younger...geez. Anyway.....

In addition to health policies being cancelled, a Harvard poll indicates young people are not signing up for Obamacare;
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/1...-of-obamacare/

This administration and the DNC is making a mockery of the office of President by asking the NFL to promote Obamacare, suggesting talking points for the 'republican uncle' over the Thanksgiving table, and now asking bartenders to push the plan while serving drinks;

http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch...are-enrollment
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefi...publican-uncle
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...th-care-refor/


Between the lies, rocky implementation and Reid (you know, the guy that helped create the bill) exempting his staff from having to enroll in Obamacare, things are not only looking bad for Obamacare, but desperate as well. I just wonder how far this is going to fall before the plan is scrapped and a new one is created.

I don't have a clue how people are going to get their old ins. policies reissued but something needs to be done quickly, IMO.


----------



## PMZ

Kathy58 said:


> Wow, been away for a few days and it seems like most everyone here is 12 y/o or younger...geez. Anyway.....
> 
> In addition to health policies being cancelled, a Harvard poll indicates young people are not signing up for Obamacare;
> http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/1...-of-obamacare/
> 
> This administration and the DNC is making a mockery of the office of President by asking the NFL to promote Obamacare, suggesting talking points for the 'republican uncle' over the Thanksgiving table, and now asking bartenders to push the plan while serving drinks;
> 
> http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch...are-enrollment
> http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefi...publican-uncle
> http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...th-care-refor/
> 
> 
> Between the lies, rocky implementation and Reid (you know, the guy that helped create the bill) exempting his staff from having to enroll in Obamacare, things are not only looking bad for Obamacare, but desperate as well. I just wonder how far this is going to fall before the plan is scrapped and a new one is created.
> 
> I don't have a clue how people are going to get their old ins. policies reissued but something needs to be done quickly, IMO.



The dream of Republicans.  I suppose if such dreams, while cuddling with their Fox blanky, keep them from crying,  it's all good. 

Obamacare is here to stay.  The GOP,  not so much.  The only question is,  what are the next steps towards globally competitive health care. 

The health care insurance industry has largely been flying beneath the radar as the bulk of the exposure to them has been by corporate benefits specialists negotiating big contracts.  One of the things that Obamacare will accomplish,  and the real reason for Republican resistance to it,  is that it will expose the shabby business practices of many of them to public scrutiny. 

Some things can only survive in the dark.


----------



## Listening

PMZ said:


> Kathy58 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, been away for a few days and it seems like most everyone here is 12 y/o or younger...geez. Anyway.....
> 
> In addition to health policies being cancelled, a Harvard poll indicates young people are not signing up for Obamacare;
> http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/1...-of-obamacare/
> 
> This administration and the DNC is making a mockery of the office of President by asking the NFL to promote Obamacare, suggesting talking points for the 'republican uncle' over the Thanksgiving table, and now asking bartenders to push the plan while serving drinks;
> 
> http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch...are-enrollment
> http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefi...publican-uncle
> http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...th-care-refor/
> 
> 
> Between the lies, rocky implementation and Reid (you know, the guy that helped create the bill) exempting his staff from having to enroll in Obamacare, things are not only looking bad for Obamacare, but desperate as well. I just wonder how far this is going to fall before the plan is scrapped and a new one is created.
> 
> I don't have a clue how people are going to get their old ins. policies reissued but something needs to be done quickly, IMO.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The dream of Republicans.  I suppose if such dreams, while cuddling with their Fox blanky, keep them from crying,  it's all good.
> 
> Obamacare is here to stay.  The GOP,  not so much.  The only question is,  what are the next steps towards globally competitive health care.
> 
> The health care insurance industry has largely been flying beneath the radar as the bulk of the exposure to them has been by corporate benefits specialists negotiating big contracts.  One of the things that Obamacare will accomplish,  and the real reason for Republican resistance to it,  is that it will expose the shabby business practices of many of them to public scrutiny.
> 
> Some things can only survive in the dark.
Click to expand...


Typical PMS response to facts....don't address them.

Just drone on about Fox News...

Fox News....
Fox News....
Fox News....
Etc.
Etc.
Etc.

You need to expand your vocabulary beyond 50 words.


----------



## PMZ

Listening said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kathy58 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, been away for a few days and it seems like most everyone here is 12 y/o or younger...geez. Anyway.....
> 
> In addition to health policies being cancelled, a Harvard poll indicates young people are not signing up for Obamacare;
> http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/1...-of-obamacare/
> 
> This administration and the DNC is making a mockery of the office of President by asking the NFL to promote Obamacare, suggesting talking points for the 'republican uncle' over the Thanksgiving table, and now asking bartenders to push the plan while serving drinks;
> 
> http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch...are-enrollment
> http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefi...publican-uncle
> http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...th-care-refor/
> 
> 
> Between the lies, rocky implementation and Reid (you know, the guy that helped create the bill) exempting his staff from having to enroll in Obamacare, things are not only looking bad for Obamacare, but desperate as well. I just wonder how far this is going to fall before the plan is scrapped and a new one is created.
> 
> I don't have a clue how people are going to get their old ins. policies reissued but something needs to be done quickly, IMO.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The dream of Republicans.  I suppose if such dreams, while cuddling with their Fox blanky, keep them from crying,  it's all good.
> 
> Obamacare is here to stay.  The GOP,  not so much.  The only question is,  what are the next steps towards globally competitive health care.
> 
> The health care insurance industry has largely been flying beneath the radar as the bulk of the exposure to them has been by corporate benefits specialists negotiating big contracts.  One of the things that Obamacare will accomplish,  and the real reason for Republican resistance to it,  is that it will expose the shabby business practices of many of them to public scrutiny.
> 
> Some things can only survive in the dark.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Typical PMS response to facts....don't address them.
> 
> Just drone on about Fox News...
> 
> Fox News....
> Fox News....
> Fox News....
> Etc.
> Etc.
> Etc.
> 
> You need to expand your vocabulary beyond 50 words.
Click to expand...


If you see a house burning,  you only need one word,  "fire". 

I realize that you are worried that your opinion security blanket might go away and you'll get stuck having to think for yourself and form your own opinions. 

Scary,  like all of the monsters in the conservative closet.  

Confront those fears.  You may be more capable of thinking than you realize.


----------



## BlackSand

PMZ said:


> If you see a house burning,  you only need one word,  "fire".
> 
> I realize that you are worried that your opinion security blanket might go away and you'll get stuck having to think for yourself and form your own opinions.
> 
> Scary,  like all of the monsters in the conservative closet.
> 
> Confront those fears.  You may be more capable of thinking than you realize.



The scary part is that Liberals think yelling "Fire" is more effective than calmly saying ... "I'll get the hose ... You turn the water on".
Liberals just stand there screaming "fire" watching the house burn trying to get elected as Fire Chief ... Or even worse, try to put it out by dumping money on it.

.


----------



## Listening

PMZ said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> The dream of Republicans.  I suppose if such dreams, while cuddling with their Fox blanky, keep them from crying,  it's all good.
> 
> Obamacare is here to stay.  The GOP,  not so much.  The only question is,  what are the next steps towards globally competitive health care.
> 
> The health care insurance industry has largely been flying beneath the radar as the bulk of the exposure to them has been by corporate benefits specialists negotiating big contracts.  One of the things that Obamacare will accomplish,  and the real reason for Republican resistance to it,  is that it will expose the shabby business practices of many of them to public scrutiny.
> 
> Some things can only survive in the dark.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Typical PMS response to facts....don't address them.
> 
> Just drone on about Fox News...
> 
> Fox News....
> Fox News....
> Fox News....
> Etc.
> Etc.
> Etc.
> 
> You need to expand your vocabulary beyond 50 words.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you see a house burning,  you only need one word,  "fire".
> 
> I realize that you are worried that your opinion security blanket might go away and you'll get stuck having to think for yourself and form your own opinions.
> 
> Scary,  like all of the monsters in the conservative closet.
> 
> Confront those fears.  You may be more capable of thinking than you realize.
Click to expand...


Great story....why call 911 ?

I'm worried ?  Not at all.  Obama and Sebelius are doing our task for us.  Obama's approval numbers are in the tank.  The Economist is going out of business ?  Opinions ?  You think this is about opinions ?

What is scary is that people like you are allowed to breed.

With every post I put up I confront people like you who have no interest in anything but making sure you bend your perceptions to whatever universe your reality resides in.


----------



## PMZ

BlackSand said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you see a house burning,  you only need one word,  "fire".
> 
> I realize that you are worried that your opinion security blanket might go away and you'll get stuck having to think for yourself and form your own opinions.
> 
> Scary,  like all of the monsters in the conservative closet.
> 
> Confront those fears.  You may be more capable of thinking than you realize.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The scary part is that Liberals think yelling "Fire" is more effective than calmly saying ... "I'll get the hose ... You turn the water on".
> Liberals just stand there screaming "fire" watching the house burn trying to get elected as Fire Chief ... Or even worse, try to put it out by dumping money on it.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Conservatives just stand there saying that we can't afford putting fires out anymore.


----------



## PMZ

Listening said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> Typical PMS response to facts....don't address them.
> 
> Just drone on about Fox News...
> 
> Fox News....
> Fox News....
> Fox News....
> Etc.
> Etc.
> Etc.
> 
> You need to expand your vocabulary beyond 50 words.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you see a house burning,  you only need one word,  "fire".
> 
> I realize that you are worried that your opinion security blanket might go away and you'll get stuck having to think for yourself and form your own opinions.
> 
> Scary,  like all of the monsters in the conservative closet.
> 
> Confront those fears.  You may be more capable of thinking than you realize.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Great story....why call 911 ?
> 
> I'm worried ?  Not at all.  Obama and Sebelius are doing our task for us.  Obama's approval numbers are in the tank.  The Economist is going out of business ?  Opinions ?  You think this is about opinions ?
> 
> What is scary is that people like you are allowed to breed.
> 
> With every post I put up I confront people like you who have no interest in anything but making sure you bend your perceptions to whatever universe your reality resides in.
Click to expand...


Every post the you put out is perfectly predictable having come over the air from Republican headquarters through Fox.  You haven't had an original idea,  or a cogent thought even,  ever,  here. 

Do more nothing.  Avoid responsibility.  Make more money regardless of the cost to others. If you're wealthy enough you are protected from problems so the cost in happiness is worth it. 

Perfectly predictable posting.


----------



## RKMBrown

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol...there's really not much more to say..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's what *Brownie* always says when he can't think of any argument that what he wants to be true really is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Racist!!! Racist!!! Racist!!! PMZ essentially just called KG a "******".
> 
> Typical hateful, intolerant Dumbocrat....
Click to expand...


lol


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's what *Brownie* always says when he can't think of any argument that what he wants to be true really is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Racist!!! Racist!!! Racist!!! PMZ essentially just called KG a "******".
> 
> Typical hateful, intolerant Dumbocrat....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol
Click to expand...


More valuable insight into the depth of the conservative intellect.


----------



## Listening

PMZ said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you see a house burning,  you only need one word,  "fire".
> 
> I realize that you are worried that your opinion security blanket might go away and you'll get stuck having to think for yourself and form your own opinions.
> 
> Scary,  like all of the monsters in the conservative closet.
> 
> Confront those fears.  You may be more capable of thinking than you realize.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great story....why call 911 ?
> 
> I'm worried ?  Not at all.  Obama and Sebelius are doing our task for us.  Obama's approval numbers are in the tank.  The Economist is going out of business ?  Opinions ?  You think this is about opinions ?
> 
> What is scary is that people like you are allowed to breed.
> 
> With every post I put up I confront people like you who have no interest in anything but making sure you bend your perceptions to whatever universe your reality resides in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every post the you put out is perfectly predictable having come over the air from Republican headquarters through Fox.  You haven't had an original idea,  or a cogent thought even,  ever,  here.
> 
> Do more nothing.  Avoid responsibility.  Make more money regardless of the cost to others. If you're wealthy enough you are protected from problems so the cost in happiness is worth it.
> 
> Perfectly predictable posting.
Click to expand...


You need to expand your vocabulary.  50 words is a good start.  Try to get there.


----------



## PMZ

Listening said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> Great story....why call 911 ?
> 
> I'm worried ?  Not at all.  Obama and Sebelius are doing our task for us.  Obama's approval numbers are in the tank.  The Economist is going out of business ?  Opinions ?  You think this is about opinions ?
> 
> What is scary is that people like you are allowed to breed.
> 
> With every post I put up I confront people like you who have no interest in anything but making sure you bend your perceptions to whatever universe your reality resides in.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every post the you put out is perfectly predictable having come over the air from Republican headquarters through Fox.  You haven't had an original idea,  or a cogent thought even,  ever,  here.
> 
> Do more nothing.  Avoid responsibility.  Make more money regardless of the cost to others. If you're wealthy enough you are protected from problems so the cost in happiness is worth it.
> 
> Perfectly predictable posting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You need to expand your vocabulary.  50 words is a good start.  Try to get there.
Click to expand...


It's overkill, when conservatives only understand 25.


----------



## BlackSand

PMZ said:


> Conservatives just stand there saying that we can't afford putting fires out anymore.



Nah, Conservatives say ... "Is he going to wait for the fire department, or get a bucket and help us out" ... But you wouldn't know that.

.


----------



## PMZ

BlackSand said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives just stand there saying that we can't afford putting fires out anymore.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nah, Conservatives say ... "Is he going to wait for the fire department, or get a bucket and help us out" ... But you wouldn't know that.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


I've never met a conservative inclined to solve problems.  They,  as evidenced by their ACA actions,  absolutely hate personal responsibility,  and would say,  in our hypothetical situation,  it's not my house,  let it burn.


----------



## Listening

PMZ said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every post the you put out is perfectly predictable having come over the air from Republican headquarters through Fox.  You haven't had an original idea,  or a cogent thought even,  ever,  here.
> 
> Do more nothing.  Avoid responsibility.  Make more money regardless of the cost to others. If you're wealthy enough you are protected from problems so the cost in happiness is worth it.
> 
> Perfectly predictable posting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You need to expand your vocabulary.  50 words is a good start.  Try to get there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's overkill, when conservatives only understand 25.
Click to expand...


Thanks for explaining your very limited capacity.


----------



## BlackSand

PMZ said:


> I've never met a conservative inclined to solve problems.  They,  as evidenced by their ACA actions,  absolutely hate personal responsibility,  and would say,  in our hypothetical situation,  it's not my house,  let it burn.



You have never met a Conservative inclined on solving problems ... Because you have never been anywhere near a solution to a problem that works.
If Liberals were any good at solving problems ... They wouldn't be trying to solve the same problems they have been trying to act like they are solving for decades.
Conservatives don't show up on your radar because we don't require assistance from you or the government ... We don't have to pass a piece of legislation and send money to Washington to help the person next door.

.


----------



## Listening

BlackSand said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've never met a conservative inclined to solve problems.  They,  as evidenced by their ACA actions,  absolutely hate personal responsibility,  and would say,  in our hypothetical situation,  it's not my house,  let it burn.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have never met a Conservative inclined on solving problems ... Because you have never been anywhere near a solution to a problem that works.
> If Liberals were any good at solving problems ... They wouldn't be trying to solve the same problems they have been trying to act like they are solving for decades.
> Conservatives don't show up on your radar because we don't require assistance from you or the government ... We don't have to pass a piece of legislation and send money to Washington to help the person next door.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Conservatives don't solve problems at the federal level.  The Constitution was not set up to make congress a "problem solving" body.  It was to focus on managing certain aspects of a united group of independent states and the states were to solve their own problems.

One of the problems we should fix is the way Civics is taught in High School.


----------



## Meister

The Bill doesn't even have the software in place on how much to pay the insurance companies.
So what do they do?  They just let the insurance companies be on the "honor system" as to what they're charging. 

This is the model on how to run 1/5-1/6 of the GDP. 

Imagine the private sector running their business like this.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives just stand there saying that we can't afford putting fires out anymore.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nah, Conservatives say ... "Is he going to wait for the fire department, or get a bucket and help us out" ... But you wouldn't know that.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've never met a conservative inclined to solve problems.  They,  as evidenced by their ACA actions,  absolutely hate personal responsibility,  and would say,  in our hypothetical situation,  it's not my house,  let it burn.
Click to expand...


Says the retard who claims he was a conservative till after he retired.


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you see a house burning,  you only need one word,  "fire".
> 
> I realize that you are worried that your opinion security blanket might go away and you'll get stuck having to think for yourself and form your own opinions.
> 
> Scary,  like all of the monsters in the conservative closet.
> 
> Confront those fears.  You may be more capable of thinking than you realize.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The scary part is that Liberals think yelling "Fire" is more effective than calmly saying ... "I'll get the hose ... You turn the water on".
> Liberals just stand there screaming "fire" watching the house burn trying to get elected as Fire Chief ... Or even worse, try to put it out by dumping money on it.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Conservatives just stand there saying that we can't afford putting fires out anymore.
Click to expand...


That's because ignorant Dumbocrats like you create 436 fires for every one fire conservatives put out on your behalf. Do the math...

Oh wait - never mind. I forgot your a high school drop out and a parasite incapable of doing anything on his own. Have someone do the math for you [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION]!


----------



## P@triot

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nah, Conservatives say ... "Is he going to wait for the fire department, or get a bucket and help us out" ... But you wouldn't know that.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've never met a conservative inclined to solve problems.  They,  as evidenced by their ACA actions,  absolutely hate personal responsibility,  and would say,  in our hypothetical situation,  it's not my house,  let it burn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says the retard who claims he was a conservative till after he retired.
Click to expand...


  

Oops! Like every Dumbocrat, he forgot which lie he's told and it came back around to bite him!


----------



## PMZ

BlackSand said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've never met a conservative inclined to solve problems.  They,  as evidenced by their ACA actions,  absolutely hate personal responsibility,  and would say,  in our hypothetical situation,  it's not my house,  let it burn.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have never met a Conservative inclined on solving problems ... Because you have never been anywhere near a solution to a problem that works.
> If Liberals were any good at solving problems ... They wouldn't be trying to solve the same problems they have been trying to act like they are solving for decades.
> Conservatives don't show up on your radar because we don't require assistance from you or the government ... We don't have to pass a piece of legislation and send money to Washington to help the person next door.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


All of the conservatives that I know want to help one person. Themselves.  The only reason you've been taught the act that you recite in your post is that you know that you are required to pay your share of government solutions and you'd rather spend that money helping yourself rather than others.  

So spare us the crocodile tears.


----------



## RKMBrown

Rottweiler said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've never met a conservative inclined to solve problems.  They,  as evidenced by their ACA actions,  absolutely hate personal responsibility,  and would say,  in our hypothetical situation,  it's not my house,  let it burn.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Says the retard who claims he was a conservative till after he retired.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oops! Like every Dumbocrat, he forgot which lie he's told and it came back around to bite him!
Click to expand...

Just love catching the hippocrats in stupid lies, or maybe he was confessing to some crime.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've never met a conservative inclined to solve problems.  They,  as evidenced by their ACA actions,  absolutely hate personal responsibility,  and would say,  in our hypothetical situation,  it's not my house,  let it burn.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have never met a Conservative inclined on solving problems ... Because you have never been anywhere near a solution to a problem that works.
> If Liberals were any good at solving problems ... They wouldn't be trying to solve the same problems they have been trying to act like they are solving for decades.
> Conservatives don't show up on your radar because we don't require assistance from you or the government ... We don't have to pass a piece of legislation and send money to Washington to help the person next door.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All of the conservatives that I know want to help one person. Themselves.  The only reason you've been taught the act that you recite in your post is that you know that you are required to pay your share of government solutions and you'd rather spend that money helping yourself rather than others.
> 
> So spare us the crocodile tears.
Click to expand...


Another confession?


----------



## PMZ

Listening said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've never met a conservative inclined to solve problems.  They,  as evidenced by their ACA actions,  absolutely hate personal responsibility,  and would say,  in our hypothetical situation,  it's not my house,  let it burn.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have never met a Conservative inclined on solving problems ... Because you have never been anywhere near a solution to a problem that works.
> If Liberals were any good at solving problems ... They wouldn't be trying to solve the same problems they have been trying to act like they are solving for decades.
> Conservatives don't show up on your radar because we don't require assistance from you or the government ... We don't have to pass a piece of legislation and send money to Washington to help the person next door.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Conservatives don't solve problems at the federal level.  The Constitution was not set up to make congress a "problem solving" body.  It was to focus on managing certain aspects of a united group of independent states and the states were to solve their own problems.
> 
> One of the problems we should fix is the way Civics is taught in High School.
Click to expand...


"The Constitution was not set up to make congress a "problem solving" body."

The American Constitution creates the strong Union that Federalist thought,  correctly,  would make us a world power.  

Perhaps what confused you was the true statement,  the Republican Party was not set up to be a "problem solving" body.


----------



## PMZ

Meister said:


> The Bill doesn't even have the software in place on how much to pay the insurance companies.
> So what do they do?  They just let the insurance companies be on the "honor system" as to what they're charging.
> 
> This is the model on how to run 1/5-1/6 of the GDP.
> 
> Imagine the private sector running their business like this.



This is a bizarre statement.  You thought that government should and would tell the private insurance companies how much to charge for their products? 

BTW,  I agree that there is no "honor system" in business.  It's all make more money regardless of the cost to others.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nah, Conservatives say ... "Is he going to wait for the fire department, or get a bucket and help us out" ... But you wouldn't know that.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've never met a conservative inclined to solve problems.  They,  as evidenced by their ACA actions,  absolutely hate personal responsibility,  and would say,  in our hypothetical situation,  it's not my house,  let it burn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says the retard who claims he was a conservative till after he retired.
Click to expand...


It's very revealing that Brownie throws mentally handicapped people under the bus by referring to everyone smarter than he, as a "retard". 

I guess that that's the only way for him to feel adequate, given his handicaps.


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> The scary part is that Liberals think yelling "Fire" is more effective than calmly saying ... "I'll get the hose ... You turn the water on".
> Liberals just stand there screaming "fire" watching the house burn trying to get elected as Fire Chief ... Or even worse, try to put it out by dumping money on it.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives just stand there saying that we can't afford putting fires out anymore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's because ignorant Dumbocrats like you create 436 fires for every one fire conservatives put out on your behalf. Do the math...
> 
> Oh wait - never mind. I forgot your a high school drop out and a parasite incapable of doing anything on his own. Have someone do the math for you [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION]!
Click to expand...


You are truly magnificently ignorant.  Not garden variety at all.  Guiness Book of Records class ignorant.  

I can't tell you how powerful you are as a poster boy for the radical right.  I think as powerful a portrayal as the underwear bomber was for the Taliban. 

Perhaps,  in fact,  that is you.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have never met a Conservative inclined on solving problems ... Because you have never been anywhere near a solution to a problem that works.
> If Liberals were any good at solving problems ... They wouldn't be trying to solve the same problems they have been trying to act like they are solving for decades.
> Conservatives don't show up on your radar because we don't require assistance from you or the government ... We don't have to pass a piece of legislation and send money to Washington to help the person next door.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All of the conservatives that I know want to help one person. Themselves.  The only reason you've been taught the act that you recite in your post is that you know that you are required to pay your share of government solutions and you'd rather spend that money helping yourself rather than others.
> 
> So spare us the crocodile tears.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another confession?
Click to expand...


Here's an example,  right here.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've never met a conservative inclined to solve problems.  They,  as evidenced by their ACA actions,  absolutely hate personal responsibility,  and would say,  in our hypothetical situation,  it's not my house,  let it burn.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Says the retard who claims he was a conservative till after he retired.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's very revealing that Brownie throws mentally handicapped people under the bus by referring to everyone smarter than he, as a "retard".
> 
> I guess that that's the only way for him to feel adequate, given his handicaps.
Click to expand...


You threw yourself under the bus, my only handicap was having an above average memory of your long list of bull shit lies.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> All of the conservatives that I know want to help one person. Themselves.  The only reason you've been taught the act that you recite in your post is that you know that you are required to pay your share of government solutions and you'd rather spend that money helping yourself rather than others.
> 
> So spare us the crocodile tears.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another confession?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's an example,  right here.
Click to expand...


You appear to be "confused."

You claim you were a conservative, thus when you subsequently claim that all of the conservatives you've known only wanted to help one person, themselves, that means you are professing that you yourself only wanted to help one person, yourself right up to the point you decided to switch to anti-conservative. Thus, you are a hypocrite at best and at worst you are lying hypocrite piece of shit libtard.  Many people call this sort of confession of yours, projection.

I've known people of both the left and right who are self-centered jerks like you.  I don't think left/right means self-centered.  For example, I've known plenty of conservative priests who did not have a self-centered bone in their body, and I could say the same for some progressives.  But not you.  You are nothing but an authoritarian of the far left.  A libtard jerk.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Says the retard who claims he was a conservative till after he retired.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's very revealing that Brownie throws mentally handicapped people under the bus by referring to everyone smarter than he, as a "retard".
> 
> I guess that that's the only way for him to feel adequate, given his handicaps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You threw yourself under the bus, my only handicap was having an above average memory of your long list of bull shit lies.
Click to expand...


You use the word "retard" in almost every post. I can imagine the reaction to that from millions of parents who love and care for their mentally handicapped children. 

Just that fact alone demonstrates that you are a prototypical conservative as I've portrayed them.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another confession?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's an example,  right here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You appear to be "confused."
> 
> You claim you were a conservative, thus when you subsequently claim that all of the conservatives you've known only wanted to help one person, themselves, that means you are professing that you yourself only wanted to help one person, yourself right up to the point you decided to switch to anti-conservative. Thus, you are a hypocrite at best and at worst you are lying hypocrite piece of shit libtard.  Many people call this sort of confession of yours, projection.
> 
> I've known people of both the left and right who are self-centered jerks like you.  I don't think left/right means self-centered.  For example, I've known plenty of conservative priests who did not have a self-centered bone in their body, and I could say the same for some progressives.  But not you.  You are nothing but an authoritarian of the far left.  A libtard jerk.
Click to expand...


I did my share of dumb things when I was young. I was taught though, to expect to fail, but never pass up the opportunity to learn from it.

That would appear to be where you went wrong.


----------



## BlackSand

PMZ said:


> All of the conservatives that I know want to help one person. Themselves.  The only reason you've been taught the act that you recite in your post is that you know that you are required to pay your share of government solutions and you'd rather spend that money helping yourself rather than others.
> 
> So spare us the crocodile tears.



You are the one crying peanut ... Crying for help from a government that has failed you.
I pay my share ... And the find ways to actually help people with what the government doesn't waste doing nothing.
That certainly doesn't make me sad ... It is rewarding ... And often results in more income.

*Go Figure!*

.


----------



## PMZ

BlackSand said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> All of the conservatives that I know want to help one person. Themselves.  The only reason you've been taught the act that you recite in your post is that you know that you are required to pay your share of government solutions and you'd rather spend that money helping yourself rather than others.
> 
> So spare us the crocodile tears.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one crying peanut ... Crying for help from a government that has failed you.
> I pay my share ... And the find ways to actually help people with what the government doesn't waste doing nothing.
> That certainly doesn't make me sad ... It is rewarding ... And often results in more income.
> 
> *Go Figure!*
> 
> .
Click to expand...


"I pay my share ... And the find ways to actually help people with what the government doesn't waste doing nothing."

You make it sound like you actually believe that this is different than what most people do.

If all of the volunteering that we are famous for was sufficient, there'd be no need for additional government help. It's not even close. 

"It is rewarding"

To me, it is rewarding both to do volunteer work and to share my monetary good fortune with others. I'm not hung up on the route that it takes to do that good.


----------



## koshergrl

You were taught...to expect to fail?

Seriously.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's very revealing that Brownie throws mentally handicapped people under the bus by referring to everyone smarter than he, as a "retard".
> 
> I guess that that's the only way for him to feel adequate, given his handicaps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You threw yourself under the bus, my only handicap was having an above average memory of your long list of bull shit lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You use the word "retard" in almost every post. I can imagine the reaction to that from millions of parents who love and care for their mentally handicapped children.
> 
> Just that fact alone demonstrates that you are a prototypical conservative as I've portrayed them.
Click to expand...


What a dumb ass you are.  I don't call all mentally handicapped people retards, you ignorant piece of shit. You are retarded because of your political point of views, not because of your mental handicaps.


----------



## Listening

PMZ said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have never met a Conservative inclined on solving problems ... Because you have never been anywhere near a solution to a problem that works.
> If Liberals were any good at solving problems ... They wouldn't be trying to solve the same problems they have been trying to act like they are solving for decades.
> Conservatives don't show up on your radar because we don't require assistance from you or the government ... We don't have to pass a piece of legislation and send money to Washington to help the person next door.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives don't solve problems at the federal level.  The Constitution was not set up to make congress a "problem solving" body.  It was to focus on managing certain aspects of a united group of independent states and the states were to solve their own problems.
> 
> One of the problems we should fix is the way Civics is taught in High School.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "The Constitution was not set up to make congress a "problem solving" body."
> 
> The American Constitution creates the strong Union that Federalist thought,  correctly,  would make us a world power.
> 
> Perhaps what confused you was the true statement,  the Republican Party was not set up to be a "problem solving" body.
Click to expand...


True.....

Do live on Mt. Sinai....?

Like you have clue as to what the truth is.

Oh, you do....as told you by your masters.


----------



## Listening

koshergrl said:


> You were taught...to expect to fail?
> 
> Seriously.



And he learned it quite well.


----------



## PMZ

koshergrl said:


> You were taught...to expect to fail?
> 
> Seriously.



You weren't?

People afraid of failure never do anything. Perhaps that explains why you shelter yourself in a do nothing political tribe. No mistakes possible when no action is taken. 

Whoever taught you that forgot the corollary that says that often the biggest mistake is doing nothing at all.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> You threw yourself under the bus, my only handicap was having an above average memory of your long list of bull shit lies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You use the word "retard" in almost every post. I can imagine the reaction to that from millions of parents who love and care for their mentally handicapped children.
> 
> Just that fact alone demonstrates that you are a prototypical conservative as I've portrayed them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What a dumb ass you are.  I don't call all mentally handicapped people retards, you ignorant piece of shit. You are retarded because of your political point of views, not because of your mental handicaps.
Click to expand...


And you are a typical conservative thug because you treat handicapped people like shit.

Calling anyone a retard is like calling anyone a ******. Or a wop. Of course, you probably do that too.


----------



## PMZ

Listening said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives don't solve problems at the federal level.  The Constitution was not set up to make congress a "problem solving" body.  It was to focus on managing certain aspects of a united group of independent states and the states were to solve their own problems.
> 
> One of the problems we should fix is the way Civics is taught in High School.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The Constitution was not set up to make congress a "problem solving" body."
> 
> The American Constitution creates the strong Union that Federalist thought,  correctly,  would make us a world power.
> 
> Perhaps what confused you was the true statement,  the Republican Party was not set up to be a "problem solving" body.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True.....
> 
> Do live on Mt. Sinai....?
> 
> Like you have clue as to what the truth is.
> 
> Oh, you do....as told you by your masters.
Click to expand...


I can defend my opinions. You can only repeat yours. That's because Fix News never reports "why".


----------



## Ernie S.

Obamacare Site For Congressional Staffers Crashes
Katie Pavlich | Dec 05, 2013


----------



## PMZ

Ernie S. said:


> Obamacare Site For Congressional Staffers Crashes
> Katie Pavlich | Dec 05, 2013



My god! The first network system crash ever!


----------



## Listening

PMZ said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The Constitution was not set up to make congress a "problem solving" body."
> 
> The American Constitution creates the strong Union that Federalist thought,  correctly,  would make us a world power.
> 
> Perhaps what confused you was the true statement,  the Republican Party was not set up to be a "problem solving" body.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True.....
> 
> Do live on Mt. Sinai....?
> 
> Like you have clue as to what the truth is.
> 
> Oh, you do....as told you by your masters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *I can defend my opinions. *You can only repeat yours. That's because Fix News never reports "why".
Click to expand...


Yep,

We know how that works.....

"You're wrong because (I think) you listen to Fox News.  You don't have an open mind because (I think) you listen to Fox News.  You are a goostepper because (I think you listen to Fox News....Fox News....Fox News....Fox News...Fox Nnnnnneeeeeeeewwwwwwsssss."

Why don't you post one of your "opinions" over in the CDZ and we'll see how well you can defend it.


----------



## Listening

PMZ said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> You were taught...to expect to fail?
> 
> Seriously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You weren't?
> 
> People afraid of failure never do anything. Perhaps that explains why you shelter yourself in a do nothing political tribe. No mistakes possible when no action is taken.
> 
> Whoever taught you that forgot the corollary that says that often the biggest mistake is doing nothing at all.
Click to expand...


No asswipe...

We were taught to learn from our failures.

Not to expect to fail.



Somebody screwed you.


----------



## PMZ

Listening said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> True.....
> 
> Do live on Mt. Sinai....?
> 
> Like you have clue as to what the truth is.
> 
> Oh, you do....as told you by your masters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I can defend my opinions. *You can only repeat yours. That's because Fix News never reports "why".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep,
> 
> We know how that works.....
> 
> "You're wrong because (I think) you listen to Fox News.  You don't have an open mind because (I think) you listen to Fox News.  You are a goostepper because (I think you listen to Fox News....Fox News....Fox News....Fox News...Fox Nnnnnneeeeeeeewwwwwwsssss."
> 
> Why don't you post one of your "opinions" over in the CDZ and we'll see how well you can defend it.
Click to expand...


I do and I have.


----------



## PMZ

Listening said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> You were taught...to expect to fail?
> 
> Seriously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You weren't?
> 
> People afraid of failure never do anything. Perhaps that explains why you shelter yourself in a do nothing political tribe. No mistakes possible when no action is taken.
> 
> Whoever taught you that forgot the corollary that says that often the biggest mistake is doing nothing at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No asswipe...
> 
> We were taught to learn from our failures.
> 
> Not to expect to fail.
> 
> 
> 
> Somebody screwed you.
Click to expand...


You are expected to learn from failures that you are not expected to have? 

Who do you know who has never failed at anything?


----------



## Listening

PMZ said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You weren't?
> 
> People afraid of failure never do anything. Perhaps that explains why you shelter yourself in a do nothing political tribe. No mistakes possible when no action is taken.
> 
> Whoever taught you that forgot the corollary that says that often the biggest mistake is doing nothing at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No asswipe...
> 
> We were taught to learn from our failures.
> 
> Not to expect to fail.
> 
> 
> 
> Somebody screwed you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are expected to learn from failures that you are not expected to have?
> 
> Who do you know who has never failed at anything?
Click to expand...


Earth to dickweed...earth to dickweed.....

We were never taught to expect to fail (and I was really only taught that you only fail when you quit....temporary failure is called a setback)...but ultimately those setbacks taught you what you needed to succeed.

Can you ever stop making up stuff to argue against ?


----------



## Listening

PMZ said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I can defend my opinions. *You can only repeat yours. That's because Fix News never reports "why".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep,
> 
> We know how that works.....
> 
> "You're wrong because (I think) you listen to Fox News.  You don't have an open mind because (I think) you listen to Fox News.  You are a goostepper because (I think you listen to Fox News....Fox News....Fox News....Fox News...Fox Nnnnnneeeeeeeewwwwwwsssss."
> 
> Why don't you post one of your "opinions" over in the CDZ and we'll see how well you can defend it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do and I have.
Click to expand...


O.K. let me ask if you've ever started a thread in the CDZ ?  It would be easier to find.

O.K. Strike that...I checked your profile and searched for threads you've started....zero.

Why don't you start a thread in the CDZ and we'll see how it goes.


----------



## PMZ

Listening said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> No asswipe...
> 
> We were taught to learn from our failures.
> 
> Not to expect to fail.
> 
> 
> 
> Somebody screwed you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are expected to learn from failures that you are not expected to have?
> 
> Who do you know who has never failed at anything?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Earth to dickweed...earth to dickweed.....
> 
> We were never taught to expect to fail (and I was really only taught that you only fail when you quit....temporary failure is called a setback)...but ultimately those setbacks taught you what you needed to succeed.
> 
> Can you ever stop making up stuff to argue against ?
Click to expand...


Can you ever stop acting idiotic?

People who strive to never fail are paralyzed. It's the main source of conservatism's do nothing mantra. It is dysfunctional in every aspect of life.


----------



## PMZ

Listening said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep,
> 
> We know how that works.....
> 
> "You're wrong because (I think) you listen to Fox News.  You don't have an open mind because (I think) you listen to Fox News.  You are a goostepper because (I think you listen to Fox News....Fox News....Fox News....Fox News...Fox Nnnnnneeeeeeeewwwwwwsssss."
> 
> Why don't you post one of your "opinions" over in the CDZ and we'll see how well you can defend it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do and I have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> O.K. let me ask if you've ever started a thread in the CDZ ?  It would be easier to find.
> 
> O.K. Strike that...I checked your profile and searched for threads you've started....zero.
> 
> Why don't you start a thread in the CDZ and we'll see how it goes.
Click to expand...


I will.


----------



## Listening

PMZ said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are expected to learn from failures that you are not expected to have?
> 
> Who do you know who has never failed at anything?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Earth to dickweed...earth to dickweed.....
> 
> We were never taught to expect to fail (and I was really only taught that you only fail when you quit....temporary failure is called a setback)...but ultimately those setbacks taught you what you needed to succeed.
> 
> Can you ever stop making up stuff to argue against ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you ever stop acting idiotic?
> 
> People who strive to never fail are paralyzed. It's the main source of conservatism's do nothing mantra. It is dysfunctional in every aspect of life.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
Click to expand...


People who strive never to fail ?  As in people who strive to succeed.

Now, if I step out of my "PMZ is a total asswipe" mentality, I might ask if you are not getting that confused with fear of failure.

I was taught never to fear failure.  I was taught to learn from it.

Failure generally only occures when you give up....or when you're on the Challenger (not much of a second chance for them.....but NASA didn't quit).


----------



## BlackSand

PMZ said:


> "I pay my share ... And the find ways to actually help people with what the government doesn't waste doing nothing."
> 
> You make it sound like you actually believe that this is different than what most people do.
> 
> If all of the volunteering that we are famous for was sufficient, there'd be no need for additional government help. It's not even close.
> 
> "It is rewarding"
> 
> To me, it is rewarding both to do volunteer work and to share my monetary good fortune with others. I'm not hung up on the route that it takes to do that good.



You are the one crying it is not enough ... And I don't know or much care what other people do with their money.
What I do accomplishes more positive results for the people it touches than the same amount of money given to the government.
You share or whatever all you want ... I invest in people so they are no longer at my mercy.

.


----------



## PMZ

BlackSand said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> "I pay my share ... And the find ways to actually help people with what the government doesn't waste doing nothing."
> 
> You make it sound like you actually believe that this is different than what most people do.
> 
> If all of the volunteering that we are famous for was sufficient, there'd be no need for additional government help. It's not even close.
> 
> "It is rewarding"
> 
> To me, it is rewarding both to do volunteer work and to share my monetary good fortune with others. I'm not hung up on the route that it takes to do that good.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one crying it is not enough ... And I don't know or much care what other people do with their money.
> What I do accomplishes more positive results for the people it touches than the same amount of money given to the government.
> You share or whatever all you want ... I invest in people so they are no longer at my mercy.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


"I invest in people so they are no longer at my mercy."

I wouldn't accept any help from anyone that arrogant. It's attitude like that gives charity a bad name.


----------



## BlackSand

PMZ said:


> "I invest in people so they are no longer at my mercy."
> 
> I wouldn't accept any help from anyone that arrogant. It's attitude like that gives charity a bad name.



You are starting to catch on ... It isn't charity ... It is actually helping people.
Charity is Band-Aid ... I don't just treat the problem ... I fix it which is something you and your government don't do.

.


----------



## Listening

BlackSand said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> "I invest in people so they are no longer at my mercy."
> 
> I wouldn't accept any help from anyone that arrogant. It's attitude like that gives charity a bad name.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are starting to catch on ... It isn't charity ... It is actually helping people.
> Charity is Band-Aid ... I don't just treat the problem ... I fix it which is something you and your government don't do.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Or in other words....give a man a fish...feed him for a day....teach a man to fish....feed him for a lifetime.

You are dead on.


----------



## PMZ

BlackSand said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> "I invest in people so they are no longer at my mercy."
> 
> I wouldn't accept any help from anyone that arrogant. It's attitude like that gives charity a bad name.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are starting to catch on ... It isn't charity ... It is actually helping people.
> Charity is Band-Aid ... I don't just treat the problem ... I fix it which is something you and your government don't do.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


So, you would leave people hungry, sick, homeless, uneducated, without hope, unemployed, broke because it's good for them?


----------



## koshergrl

If they're so stupid they turn it down, that's their chioce.


----------



## PMZ

koshergrl said:


> If they're so stupid they turn it down, that's their chioce.



Turn what down?


----------



## Listening

PMZ said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> If they're so stupid they turn it down, that's their chioce.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turn what down?
Click to expand...


You said you'd turn down charity.


----------



## BlackSand

PMZ said:


> So, you would leave people hungry, sick, homeless, uneducated, without hope, unemployed, broke because it's good for them?



When did I ever say that I leave people any of those ways?
How will charity ever fix the situations that cause any of those problems?
All I have said is that I fix those problems for people where the government doesn't ... And I am tired of the government wasting money trying to do so.

.


----------



## koshergrl

Omg.


----------



## PMZ

BlackSand said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, you would leave people hungry, sick, homeless, uneducated, without hope, unemployed, broke because it's good for them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When did I ever say that I leave people any of those ways?
> How will charity ever fix the situations that cause any of those problems?
> All I have said is that I fix those problems for people where the government doesn't ... And I am tired of the government wasting money trying to do so.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


The government can keep people afloat and prepared for the day when private business has a job for them.

In cases like the depression the government can actually employ them. 

It used to be that the military offered employment for young people at loose ends, but now they just want warriors.

Keeping people gainfully employed is mostly the business of business.


----------



## koshergrl

omg and wow. Again.


----------



## PMZ

Listening said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> If they're so stupid they turn it down, that's their chioce.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turn what down?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You said you'd turn down charity.
Click to expand...


I would if those offering it said "I invest in people so they are no longer at my mercy."

I'd sooner starve.


----------



## P@triot

BlackSand said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've never met a conservative inclined to solve problems.  They,  as evidenced by their ACA actions,  absolutely hate personal responsibility,  and would say,  in our hypothetical situation,  it's not my house,  let it burn.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have never met a Conservative inclined on solving problems ... Because you have never been anywhere near a solution to a problem that works.
> If Liberals were any good at solving problems ... They wouldn't be trying to solve the same problems they have been trying to act like they are solving for decades.
> Conservatives don't show up on your radar because we don't require assistance from you or the government ... We don't have to pass a piece of legislation and send money to Washington to help the person next door.
Click to expand...


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> "I pay my share ... And the find ways to actually help people with what the government doesn't waste doing nothing."
> 
> You make it sound like you actually believe that this is different than what most people do.
> 
> If all of the volunteering that we are famous for was sufficient, there'd be no need for additional government help. It's not even close.
> 
> "It is rewarding"
> 
> To me, it is rewarding both to do volunteer work and to share my monetary good fortune with others. I'm not hung up on the route that it takes to do that good.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one crying it is not enough ... And I don't know or much care what other people do with their money.
> What I do accomplishes more positive results for the people it touches than the same amount of money given to the government.
> You share or whatever all you want ... I invest in people so they are no longer at my mercy.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "I invest in people so they are no longer at my mercy."
> 
> I wouldn't accept any help from anyone that arrogant. It's attitude like that gives charity a bad name.
Click to expand...


It's ungrateful, demanding, parasites like _you_ that gives the needy a bad name...


----------



## koshergrl

Yup.


----------



## koshergrl

And they would rather their children would starve, too...

Except they know that someone will ultimately support their children.

What scum.


----------



## BlackSand

PMZ said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Turn what down?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You said you'd turn down charity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would if those offering it said "I invest in people so they are no longer at my mercy."
> 
> I'd sooner starve.
Click to expand...


You just want free crap and don't want a better life ... Which is why Progressive Liberalism never fixes anything.
We have been saying that all along ... And finally you agree with it.

.


----------



## koshergrl

PMZ said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You weren't?
> 
> People afraid of failure never do anything. Perhaps that explains why you shelter yourself in a do nothing political tribe. No mistakes possible when no action is taken.
> 
> Whoever taught you that forgot the corollary that says that often the biggest mistake is doing nothing at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No asswipe...
> 
> We were taught to learn from our failures.
> 
> Not to expect to fail.
> 
> 
> 
> Somebody screwed you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are expected to learn from failures that you are not expected to have?
> 
> Who do you know who has never failed at anything?
Click to expand...

 
Wow.

Wow. 

Wow.


----------



## PMZ

BlackSand said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> You said you'd turn down charity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would if those offering it said "I invest in people so they are no longer at my mercy."
> 
> I'd sooner starve.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just want free crap and don't want a better life ... Which is why Progressive Liberalism never fixes anything.
> We have been saying that all along ... And finally you agree with it.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Nobody has ever given me a thing and that drives conservatives crazy. They've been fully programmed to believe that only they are producers. Everyone else is a leech. Believing that, they've alienated nearly every group in the electorate except radical right wing Dixiecrats. 

Good for you. As you get booted from government you'll be further programmed to blame any and everybody but your programmers and yourselves.


----------



## BlackSand

PMZ said:


> Nobody has ever given me a thing and that drives conservatives crazy. They've been fully programmed to believe that only they are producers. Everyone else is a leech. Believing that, they've alienated nearly every group in the electorate except radical right wing Dixiecrats.
> 
> Good for you. As you get booted from government you'll be further programmed to blame any and everybody but your programmers and yourselves.



*It doesn't matter if you just want free crap for you or someone else ... You still are not providing them a better life ... Or fixing any of the problems.*

I am not the only producer at all ... And can help someone become a producer quicker than the government ... With less waste and without your help.
You and your kind are the leeches that suck the life and hope out of people ... The festering rot that destroys the human heart ... And have successfully hauled politics down to your level of filth and decay.
To be a Conservative is to not give a shit about your political parties and politics ... Because none of it solves much of anything ... That's why we don't like overgrown government.

*Blaming anyone for anything is what people who need an excuse do ... And if you need an excuse ... Then you are fucking up.*

.


----------



## PMZ

BlackSand said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody has ever given me a thing and that drives conservatives crazy. They've been fully programmed to believe that only they are producers. Everyone else is a leech. Believing that, they've alienated nearly every group in the electorate except radical right wing Dixiecrats.
> 
> Good for you. As you get booted from government you'll be further programmed to blame any and everybody but your programmers and yourselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *It doesn't matter if you just want free crap for you or someone else ... You still are not providing them a better life ... Or fixing any of the problems.*
> 
> I am not the only producer at all ... And can help someone become a producer quicker than the government ... With less waste and without your help.
> You and your kind are the leeches that suck the life and hope out of people ... The festering rot that destroys the human heart ... And have successfully hauled politics down to your level of filth and decay.
> To be a Conservative is to not give a shit about your political parties and politics ... Because none of it solves much of anything ... That's why we don't like overgrown government.
> 
> *Blaming anyone for anything is what people who need an excuse do ... And if you need an excuse ... Then you are fucking up.*
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Nobody is in your way of helping people.

"To be a Conservative is to not give a shit about your political parties and politics ..."

The big lie.


----------



## BlackSand

PMZ said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody has ever given me a thing and that drives conservatives crazy. They've been fully programmed to believe that only they are producers. Everyone else is a leech. Believing that, they've alienated nearly every group in the electorate except radical right wing Dixiecrats.
> 
> Good for you. As you get booted from government you'll be further programmed to blame any and everybody but your programmers and yourselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *It doesn't matter if you just want free crap for you or someone else ... You still are not providing them a better life ... Or fixing any of the problems.*
> 
> I am not the only producer at all ... And can help someone become a producer quicker than the government ... With less waste and without your help.
> You and your kind are the leeches that suck the life and hope out of people ... The festering rot that destroys the human heart ... And have successfully hauled politics down to your level of filth and decay.
> To be a Conservative is to not give a shit about your political parties and politics ... Because none of it solves much of anything ... That's why we don't like overgrown government.
> 
> *Blaming anyone for anything is what people who need an excuse do ... And if you need an excuse ... Then you are fucking up.*
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody is in your way of helping people.
> 
> "To be a Conservative is to not give a shit about your political parties and politics ..."
> 
> The big lie.
Click to expand...


What is the lie ... And where did I suggest anyone was standing in my way or stopping me?

.


----------



## Listening

BlackSand said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> *It doesn't matter if you just want free crap for you or someone else ... You still are not providing them a better life ... Or fixing any of the problems.*
> 
> I am not the only producer at all ... And can help someone become a producer quicker than the government ... With less waste and without your help.
> You and your kind are the leeches that suck the life and hope out of people ... The festering rot that destroys the human heart ... And have successfully hauled politics down to your level of filth and decay.
> To be a Conservative is to not give a shit about your political parties and politics ... Because none of it solves much of anything ... That's why we don't like overgrown government.
> 
> *Blaming anyone for anything is what people who need an excuse do ... And if you need an excuse ... Then you are fucking up.*
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody is in your way of helping people.
> 
> "To be a Conservative is to not give a shit about your political parties and politics ..."
> 
> The big lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is the lie ... And where did I suggest anyone was standing in my way or stopping me?
> 
> .
Click to expand...


It's the chant that follows....

Fox News....
Fox News....
Fox News....
Fox News....


----------



## Mr. H.

Monday is my day of reckoning. My latest chance to call my health insurer and ask them what the fuck is going on. Will they allow me to keep my policy for one year as Obama promised? Am I "grandfathered"?

At best, the inevitable will be prolonged. To keep myself and my family insured at current coverage will, under the ACA, cost an additional $800/month. Where will that money come from? I don't know and I sure as fuck can't afford it.


----------



## PMZ

BlackSand said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> *It doesn't matter if you just want free crap for you or someone else ... You still are not providing them a better life ... Or fixing any of the problems.*
> 
> I am not the only producer at all ... And can help someone become a producer quicker than the government ... With less waste and without your help.
> You and your kind are the leeches that suck the life and hope out of people ... The festering rot that destroys the human heart ... And have successfully hauled politics down to your level of filth and decay.
> To be a Conservative is to not give a shit about your political parties and politics ... Because none of it solves much of anything ... That's why we don't like overgrown government.
> 
> *Blaming anyone for anything is what people who need an excuse do ... And if you need an excuse ... Then you are fucking up.*
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody is in your way of helping people.
> 
> "To be a Conservative is to not give a shit about your political parties and politics ..."
> 
> The big lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is the lie ... And where did I suggest anyone was standing in my way or stopping me?
> 
> .
Click to expand...


"To be a Conservative is to not give a shit about your political parties and politics ..."

Conservatives are completely about their party and dogma.  Consumed over it. Convinced that they,  and only they,  have the answer for everything.  And everyone not them is their sworn enemy.


----------



## BlackSand

Mr. H. said:


> Monday is my day of reckoning. My latest chance to call my health insurer and ask them what the fuck is going on. Will they allow me to keep my policy for one year as Obama promised? Am I "grandfathered"?
> 
> At best, the inevitable will be prolonged. To keep myself and my family insured at current coverage will, under the ACA, cost an additional $800/month. Where will that money come from? I don't know and I sure as fuck can't afford it.



Well at least you don't know what will happen ... Others like me know what to expect.
I cover a third of my employees with what is considered a "Cadillac Plan" ... Mainly due to certain risks associated with their professions.
No matter how much the insurance company tacks onto the plan for added costs ... The Government will tack on an additional 40% in fines starting in 2018.

.


----------



## PMZ

Mr. H. said:


> Monday is my day of reckoning. My latest chance to call my health insurer and ask them what the fuck is going on. Will they allow me to keep my policy for one year as Obama promised? Am I "grandfathered"?
> 
> At best, the inevitable will be prolonged. To keep myself and my family insured at current coverage will, under the ACA, cost an additional $800/month. Where will that money come from? I don't know and I sure as fuck can't afford it.



If you can't afford it,  it will be subsidized.  If you just don't want to give up anything to be personally responsible for your own health care costs,  you may be out of luck.  

I personally believe that your insurance company is trying to screw you and you owe it to yourself to look around.


----------



## dblack

PMZ said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Monday is my day of reckoning. My latest chance to call my health insurer and ask them what the fuck is going on. Will they allow me to keep my policy for one year as Obama promised? Am I "grandfathered"?
> 
> At best, the inevitable will be prolonged. To keep myself and my family insured at current coverage will, under the ACA, cost an additional $800/month. Where will that money come from? I don't know and I sure as fuck can't afford it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you can't afford it,  it will be subsidized.  If you just don't want to give up anything to be personally responsible for your own health care costs,  you may be out of luck.
> 
> I personally believe that your insurance company is trying to screw you and you owe it to yourself to look around.
Click to expand...


Or maybe like a carnival sideshow ...


----------



## BlackSand

PMZ said:


> "To be a Conservative is to not give a shit about your political parties and politics ..."
> 
> Conservatives are completely about their party and dogma.  Consumed over it. Convinced that they,  and only they,  have the answer for everything.  And everyone not them is their sworn enemy.



Hell ... You don't know what a Conservative is ... You must be thinking about a Republican or maybe even a Tea Party member.
I don't want government to do a damn thing but handle the military , foreign concerns, interstate trade, and stabilized currency.
With the exception of providing us with a decent military (not so happy about how they use it all the time) ... The Government has failed in all the other concerns ... Not to mention their failures at all the stupid nanny state side projects they take on.

.


----------



## PMZ

BlackSand said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Monday is my day of reckoning. My latest chance to call my health insurer and ask them what the fuck is going on. Will they allow me to keep my policy for one year as Obama promised? Am I "grandfathered"?
> 
> At best, the inevitable will be prolonged. To keep myself and my family insured at current coverage will, under the ACA, cost an additional $800/month. Where will that money come from? I don't know and I sure as fuck can't afford it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well at least you don't know what will happen ... Others like me know what to expect.
> I cover a third of my employees with what is considered a "Cadillac Plan" ... Mainly due to certain risks associated with their professions.
> No matter how much the insurance company tacks onto the plan for added costs ... The Government will tack on an additional 40% in fines starting in 2018.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Fines for what?


----------



## BlackSand

PMZ said:


> Fines for what?



The plans they need and I provide are in excess of $10,200 per individual and $27,500 per family ... And indexed to inflation by 2018.
At their current rate ... Without any added costs ... They exceed the threshold that makes them applicable to the Excise Tax (fine) of an additional 40% as part of the ACA.
I will be fined for giving them better healthcare than the government can provide ... And better healthcare coverage than the rest of you are required to purchase.

Yeah PMZ ... The government is going to fine me for doing a better job than they do.

.


----------



## Mr. H.

PMZ said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Monday is my day of reckoning. My latest chance to call my health insurer and ask them what the fuck is going on. Will they allow me to keep my policy for one year as Obama promised? Am I "grandfathered"?
> 
> At best, the inevitable will be prolonged. To keep myself and my family insured at current coverage will, under the ACA, cost an additional $800/month. Where will that money come from? I don't know and I sure as fuck can't afford it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well at least you don't know what will happen ... Others like me know what to expect.
> I cover a third of my employees with what is considered a "Cadillac Plan" ... Mainly due to certain risks associated with their professions.
> No matter how much the insurance company tacks onto the plan for added costs ... The Government will tack on an additional 40% in fines starting in 2018.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fines for what?
Click to expand...


Sphinctersyaswhat?


----------



## RKMBrown

BlackSand said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fines for what?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The plans they need and I provide are in excess of $10,200 per individual and $27,500 per family ... And indexed to inflation by 2018.
> At their current rate ... Without any added costs ... They exceed the threshold that makes them applicable to the Excise Tax (fine) of an additional 40% as part of the ACA.
> I will be fined for giving them better healthcare than the government can provide ... And better healthcare coverage than the rest of you are required to purchase.
> 
> Yeah PMZ ... The government is going to fine me for doing a better job than they do.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Clearly you've been hoarding our money and now our health care. Time for you to be punished.


----------



## PMZ

BlackSand said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fines for what?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The plans they need and I provide are in excess of $10,200 per individual and $27,500 per family ... And indexed to inflation by 2018.
> At their current rate ... Without any added costs ... They exceed the threshold that makes them applicable to the Excise Tax (fine) of an additional 40% as part of the ACA.
> I will be fined for giving them better healthcare than the government can provide ... And better healthcare coverage than the rest of you are required to purchase.
> 
> Yeah PMZ ... The government is going to fine me for doing a better job than they do.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Yet conservatives believe that we don't have a problem with health care costs.


----------



## BlackSand

RKMBrown said:


> Clearly you've been hoarding our money and now our health care. Time for you to be punished.



I don't have 50 employees ... So when I keep them covered ... I don't have to worry about the fine I wouldn't have to pay for dropping them.

.


----------



## BlackSand

PMZ said:


> Yet conservatives believe that we don't have a problem with health care costs.



That is insurance we are talking about ... Not healthcare costs.
You don't even know what a Conservative is ... How the hell would you know what they have a problem with?

.


----------



## PMZ

BlackSand said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet conservatives believe that we don't have a problem with health care costs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is insurance we are talking about ... Not healthcare costs ... And who gives a rat's ass what Republicans say anyways?
> 
> .
Click to expand...


So you think that there's no relationship between what America spends in health care insurance and the cost of health care? 

That's quite an indictment of the insurance business.


----------



## BlackSand

PMZ said:


> So you think that there's no relationship between what America spends in health care insurance and the cost of health care?
> 
> That's quite an indictment of the insurance business.



Are you saying that I should provide them with less than what they need ... Because it is more than what the government provides ... Is a good idea?
Do you think that when I pay more money for their coverage ... That it isn't because there is a greater chance they will need to use it?

Since you are as dumb as a box of rocks ... I will use a simple example to help you understand.
Smokers pay more for insurance because they smoke ... Not because of the overall cost of healthcare.

.


----------



## PMZ

BlackSand said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you think that there's no relationship between what America spends in health care insurance and the cost of health care?
> 
> That's quite an indictment of the insurance business.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying that I should provide them with less than what they need ... Because it is more than what the government provides ... Is a good idea?
> Do you think that when I pay more money for their coverage ... That it isn't because there is a greater chance they will need to use it?
> 
> Since you are as dumb as a box of rocks ... I will use a simple example to help you understand.
> Smokers pay more for insurance because they smoke ... Not because of the overall cost of healthcare.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Smokers pay more because they require more health care.


----------



## BlackSand

PMZ said:


> Smokers pay more because they require more health care.



That is what I said ... They often require more healthcare because they smoke.
That is why they pay more for insurance.

.


----------



## PMZ

BlackSand said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Smokers pay more because they require more health care.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is what I said ... They require more healthcare because they smoke.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


So there is a relationship between the cost of health care for a given population and the cost of health care insurance for that population.


----------



## percysunshine

PMZ said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet conservatives believe that we don't have a problem with health care costs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is insurance we are talking about ... Not healthcare costs ... And who gives a rat's ass what Republicans say anyways?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you think that there's no relationship between what America spends in health care insurance and the cost of health care?
> 
> That's quite an indictment of the insurance business.
Click to expand...


Kind of cool how you edited BlackSands post there.


----------



## PMZ

percysunshine said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is insurance we are talking about ... Not healthcare costs ... And who gives a rat's ass what Republicans say anyways?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you think that there's no relationship between what America spends in health care insurance and the cost of health care?
> 
> That's quite an indictment of the insurance business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kind of cool how you edited BlackSands post there.
Click to expand...


Don't think that's possible.


----------



## percysunshine

PMZ said:


> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you think that there's no relationship between what America spends in health care insurance and the cost of health care?
> 
> That's quite an indictment of the insurance business.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kind of cool how you edited BlackSands post there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't think that's possible.
Click to expand...


Uh huh....chuckle


----------



## BlackSand

percysunshine said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is insurance we are talking about ... Not healthcare costs ... And who gives a rat's ass what Republicans say anyways?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you think that there's no relationship between what America spends in health care insurance and the cost of health care?
> 
> That's quite an indictment of the insurance business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kind of cool how you edited BlackSands post there.
Click to expand...


I did that ... Not PMZ's fault.


----------



## BlackSand

PMZ said:


> So there is a relationship between the cost of health care for a given population and the cost of health care insurance for that population.



Smokers cost more so they pay more ... Other than that I don't know what you are trying to say.
If you would like to suggest that SUV drivers pay more than Prius drivers at the gas station ... Because the price of gas is so high ... Then I would guess you are just as high.

.


----------



## percysunshine

BlackSand said:


> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you think that there's no relationship between what America spends in health care insurance and the cost of health care?
> 
> That's quite an indictment of the insurance business.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kind of cool how you edited BlackSands post there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did that ... Not PMZ's fault.
Click to expand...


My mistake.


----------



## BlackSand

percysunshine said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kind of cool how you edited BlackSands post there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did that ... Not PMZ's fault.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My mistake.
Click to expand...


Well I was going by what PMZ usually thinks a Conservative is ... Then thought I should clarify the difference.
Which is why I struck the other comment ... And added the comment about how PMZ doesn't know what a Conservative is.

My Bad ... Got in a Hurry ... Jumping through hoops ... My apologies to you.


----------



## percysunshine

BlackSand said:


> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> I did that ... Not PMZ's fault.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My mistake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I was going by what PMZ usually thinks a Conservative is ... Then thought I should clarify the difference.
> Which is why I struck the other comment ... And added the comment about how PMZ doesn't know what a Conservative is.
> 
> My Bad ... Got in a Hurry ... Jumping through hoops ... My apologies to you.
Click to expand...


My apologies to PMZ.


----------



## PMZ

percysunshine said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> My mistake.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well I was going by what PMZ usually thinks a Conservative is ... Then thought I should clarify the difference.
> Which is why I struck the other comment ... And added the comment about how PMZ doesn't know what a Conservative is.
> 
> My Bad ... Got in a Hurry ... Jumping through hoops ... My apologies to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My apologies to PMZ.
Click to expand...


Thanks. My impression really is that the system only allows you to edit your own posts.


----------



## percysunshine

PMZ said:


> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well I was going by what PMZ usually thinks a Conservative is ... Then thought I should clarify the difference.
> Which is why I struck the other comment ... And added the comment about how PMZ doesn't know what a Conservative is.
> 
> My Bad ... Got in a Hurry ... Jumping through hoops ... My apologies to you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My apologies to PMZ.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks. My impression really is that the system only allows you to edit your own posts.
Click to expand...


Well, let's all do a group hug and get back to bashing each other over politics.


----------



## Listening

PMZ said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fines for what?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The plans they need and I provide are in excess of $10,200 per individual and $27,500 per family ... And indexed to inflation by 2018.
> At their current rate ... Without any added costs ... They exceed the threshold that makes them applicable to the Excise Tax (fine) of an additional 40% as part of the ACA.
> I will be fined for giving them better healthcare than the government can provide ... And better healthcare coverage than the rest of you are required to purchase.
> 
> Yeah PMZ ... The government is going to fine me for doing a better job than they do.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet conservatives believe that we don't have a problem with health care costs.
Click to expand...


Please support that claim.  A specific statement to this effect....not a statement where you draw you conclusions from.


----------



## PMZ

Listening said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> The plans they need and I provide are in excess of $10,200 per individual and $27,500 per family ... And indexed to inflation by 2018.
> At their current rate ... Without any added costs ... They exceed the threshold that makes them applicable to the Excise Tax (fine) of an additional 40% as part of the ACA.
> I will be fined for giving them better healthcare than the government can provide ... And better healthcare coverage than the rest of you are required to purchase.
> 
> Yeah PMZ ... The government is going to fine me for doing a better job than they do.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet conservatives believe that we don't have a problem with health care costs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please support that claim.  A specific statement to this effect....not a statement where you draw you conclusions from.
Click to expand...


Why else would anyone think that doing nothing is even an option?


----------



## Listening

PMZ said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet conservatives believe that we don't have a problem with health care costs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please support that claim.  A specific statement to this effect....not a statement where you draw you conclusions from.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why else would anyone think that doing nothing is even an option?
Click to expand...


There is no doing nothing.  Such a claim is bullshyt.  The normal market functions as it does and if there is anything to do.....it would be to get the government out of it.

And I know you meant to include those examples....but forgot.


----------



## PMZ

Listening said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please support that claim.  A specific statement to this effect....not a statement where you draw you conclusions from.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why else would anyone think that doing nothing is even an option?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no doing nothing.  Such a claim is bullshyt.  The normal market functions as it does and if there is anything to do.....it would be to get the government out of it.
Click to expand...


You live on the assumption that make more money regardless of the cost to others is some kind of magic potion that automatically allocates resources to the best use.  There might be a shade of truth to that if you only consider the lavishly wealthy 20% of US residents that have 85% of the country's wealth.  Thats the group that Romney wanted to be President for. 

ACA addresses the other 80% of us that business loves to use to create wealth,  but ignorantly chooses to keep poor.  I remember the days when they were employed and paid enough to consume and that created wealth for everyone. 

ACA addresses this need because capitalism failed to.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why else would anyone think that doing nothing is even an option?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no doing nothing.  Such a claim is bullshyt.  The normal market functions as it does and if there is anything to do.....it would be to get the government out of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You live on the assumption that make more money regardless of the cost to others is some kind of magic potion that automatically allocates resources to the best use.  There might be a shade of truth to that if you only consider the lavishly wealthy 20% of US residents that have 85% of the country's wealth.  That&#8217;s the group that Romney wanted to be President for.
> 
> ACA addresses the other 80% of us that business loves to use to create wealth,  but ignorantly chooses to keep poor.  I remember the days when they were employed and paid enough to consume and that created wealth for everyone.
> 
> ACA addresses this need because capitalism failed to.
Click to expand...


Capitalism failed to destroy itself by providing the American Dream, for free, to anyone and everyone who does not want to do even an ounce of work?  ROFL what a retard.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no doing nothing.  Such a claim is bullshyt.  The normal market functions as it does and if there is anything to do.....it would be to get the government out of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You live on the assumption that make more money regardless of the cost to others is some kind of magic potion that automatically allocates resources to the best use.  There might be a shade of truth to that if you only consider the lavishly wealthy 20% of US residents that have 85% of the country's wealth.  Thats the group that Romney wanted to be President for.
> 
> ACA addresses the other 80% of us that business loves to use to create wealth,  but ignorantly chooses to keep poor.  I remember the days when they were employed and paid enough to consume and that created wealth for everyone.
> 
> ACA addresses this need because capitalism failed to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Capitalism failed to destroy itself by providing the American Dream, for free, to anyone and everyone who does not want to do even an ounce of work?  ROFL what a retard.
Click to expand...


Ahhh,  the retarded guy is back again. 

Who taught you that most people don't want to work?  That must be a Texas thing because where I live those are pretty small numbers.


----------



## koshergrl

I got a call today from a woman who is living with her spouse, she has 4 kids..the only income is out of state unemployment, so neither adult is working..

And she wanted to know if she was eligible for state-paid daycare.

Doh!


----------



## PMZ

koshergrl said:


> I got a call today from a woman who is living with her spouse, she has 4 kids..the only income is out of state unemployment, so neither adult is working..
> 
> And she wanted to know if she was eligible for state-paid daycare.
> 
> Doh!



Was she?

I assume not.  Seems then like the system is doing what it should be.


----------



## Vox

koshergrl said:


> I got a call today from a woman who is living with her spouse, she has 4 kids..the only income is out of state unemployment, so neither adult is working..
> 
> And she wanted to know if she was eligible for state-paid daycare.
> 
> Doh!



and then our "bleeding heart" leftards are amazed why we call those welfare queens LAZY


----------



## PMZ

Vox said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> I got a call today from a woman who is living with her spouse, she has 4 kids..the only income is out of state unemployment, so neither adult is working..
> 
> And she wanted to know if she was eligible for state-paid daycare.
> 
> Doh!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and then our "bleeding heart" leftards are amazed why we call those welfare queens LAZY
Click to expand...


Not really.  What I object to is you calling everyone who doesn't agree with you "lazy" or "bleeding heart" leotards.


----------



## Listening

PMZ said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> I got a call today from a woman who is living with her spouse, she has 4 kids..the only income is out of state unemployment, so neither adult is working..
> 
> And she wanted to know if she was eligible for state-paid daycare.
> 
> Doh!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Was she?
> 
> I assume not.  Seems then like the system is doing what it should be.
Click to expand...


Was she what ???

Your posts get more weird with time.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You live on the assumption that make more money regardless of the cost to others is some kind of magic potion that automatically allocates resources to the best use.  There might be a shade of truth to that if you only consider the lavishly wealthy 20% of US residents that have 85% of the country's wealth.  That&#8217;s the group that Romney wanted to be President for.
> 
> ACA addresses the other 80% of us that business loves to use to create wealth,  but ignorantly chooses to keep poor.  I remember the days when they were employed and paid enough to consume and that created wealth for everyone.
> 
> ACA addresses this need because capitalism failed to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism failed to destroy itself by providing the American Dream, for free, to anyone and everyone who does not want to do even an ounce of work?  ROFL what a retard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ahhh,  the retarded guy is back again.
> 
> Who taught you that most people don't want to work?  That must be a Texas thing because where I live those are pretty small numbers.
Click to expand...


Everyone that wants to work, is working in Texas. Everyone that wants the American Dream and is willing to work for it, achieves it in Texas.  The only people that don't work and / or don't achieve the American Dream in Texas are lazy ass jerks like you.


----------



## RKMBrown

Vox said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> I got a call today from a woman who is living with her spouse, she has 4 kids..the only income is out of state unemployment, so neither adult is working..
> 
> And she wanted to know if she was eligible for state-paid daycare.
> 
> Doh!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and then our "bleeding heart" leftards are amazed why we call those welfare queens LAZY
Click to expand...


ROFL... I'm out of work can I have some state paid daycare, PMZ voice on, "hell yeah you can those son-of a bitch republicans will suffer for their mistake of not giving you a job!"  The gall of a person who is not working, did not even work in that state, and staying at some place in that state and asking for in-state paid daycare is only surpassed by the gall of the jerk who says why not it's not my money.


----------



## PMZ

Listening said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> I got a call today from a woman who is living with her spouse, she has 4 kids..the only income is out of state unemployment, so neither adult is working..
> 
> And she wanted to know if she was eligible for state-paid daycare.
> 
> Doh!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Was she?
> 
> I assume not.  Seems then like the system is doing what it should be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Was she what ???
> 
> Your posts get more weird with time.
Click to expand...


You seem to have trouble tracking from one sentence to the next.

Was she ELIGIBLE?


----------



## Listening

PMZ said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Was she?
> 
> I assume not.  Seems then like the system is doing what it should be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Was she what ???
> 
> Your posts get more weird with time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You seem to have trouble tracking from one sentence to the next.
> 
> Was she ELIGIBLE?
Click to expand...


Thanks.

I think the point was that this woman had the nerve to go looking for more goodies.


----------



## PMZ

Listening said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> Was she what ???
> 
> Your posts get more weird with time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to have trouble tracking from one sentence to the next.
> 
> Was she ELIGIBLE?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> I think the point was that this woman had the nerve to go looking for more goodies.
Click to expand...


That's why we have laws. So people can't impose what's best for them on people that it's not good for.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism failed to destroy itself by providing the American Dream, for free, to anyone and everyone who does not want to do even an ounce of work?  ROFL what a retard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ahhh,  the retarded guy is back again.
> 
> Who taught you that most people don't want to work?  That must be a Texas thing because where I live those are pretty small numbers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everyone that wants to work, is working in Texas. Everyone that wants the American Dream and is willing to work for it, achieves it in Texas.  The only people that don't work and / or don't achieve the American Dream in Texas are lazy ass jerks like you.
Click to expand...


Apparently only 93.7% of Texans want to work.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> I got a call today from a woman who is living with her spouse, she has 4 kids..the only income is out of state unemployment, so neither adult is working..
> 
> And she wanted to know if she was eligible for state-paid daycare.
> 
> Doh!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and then our "bleeding heart" leftards are amazed why we call those welfare queens LAZY
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROFL... I'm out of work can I have some state paid daycare, PMZ voice on, "hell yeah you can those son-of a bitch republicans will suffer for their mistake of not giving you a job!"  The gall of a person who is not working, did not even work in that state, and staying at some place in that state and asking for in-state paid daycare is only surpassed by the gall of the jerk who says why not it's not my money.
Click to expand...


In what ever state that koshergrl was reporting from it was against the law. That's the responsibility of government. Are you saying that it Texas people aren't allowed to ask questions about the law? Or Evolution? Or homosexuality? Or about anything beyond conservative dogma?


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ahhh,  the retarded guy is back again.
> 
> Who taught you that most people don't want to work?  That must be a Texas thing because where I live those are pretty small numbers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone that wants to work, is working in Texas. Everyone that wants the American Dream and is willing to work for it, achieves it in Texas.  The only people that don't work and / or don't achieve the American Dream in Texas are lazy ass jerks like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently only 93.7% of Texans want to work.
Click to expand...


Some folks who are unemployed are only very briefly unemployed.  But you wouldn't know about such things.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone that wants to work, is working in Texas. Everyone that wants the American Dream and is willing to work for it, achieves it in Texas.  The only people that don't work and / or don't achieve the American Dream in Texas are lazy ass jerks like you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently only 93.7% of Texans want to work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some folks who are unemployed are only very briefly unemployed.  But you wouldn't know about such things.
Click to expand...


I've never been unemployed.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently only 93.7% of Texans want to work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some folks who are unemployed are only very briefly unemployed.  But you wouldn't know about such things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've never been unemployed.
Click to expand...


If someone like you can remain gainfully employed, it speaks volumes about the people that choose to stay unemployed, then claim disability, and essentially retire on the backs of the taxpayer at a very young age by making up BS claims that they can't work for this or that reason, doesn't it?


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some folks who are unemployed are only very briefly unemployed.  But you wouldn't know about such things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've never been unemployed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If someone like you can remain gainfully employed, it speaks volumes about the people that choose to stay unemployed, then claim disability, and essentially retire on the backs of the taxpayer at a very young age by making up BS claims that they can't work for this or that reason, doesn't it?
Click to expand...


How am I different from you?

There are criminals in every field. Including doing nothing.  I say that we arrest and convict them and have them suffer the prescribed consequences.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've never been unemployed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If someone like you can remain gainfully employed, it speaks volumes about the people that choose to stay unemployed, then claim disability, and essentially retire on the backs of the taxpayer at a very young age by making up BS claims that they can't work for this or that reason, doesn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How am I different from you?
> 
> There are criminals in every field. Including doing nothing.  I say that we arrest and convict them and have them suffer the prescribed consequences.
Click to expand...


>> How am I different from you?
Seriously?  

>> There are criminals in every field. Including doing nothing.  I say that we arrest and convict them and have them suffer the prescribed consequences.

Ok I'm good with vagrancy laws.  Criminals, yes arrest them.


----------



## Meister

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> If someone like you can remain gainfully employed, it speaks volumes about the people that choose to stay unemployed, then claim disability, and essentially retire on the backs of the taxpayer at a very young age by making up BS claims that they can't work for this or that reason, doesn't it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How am I different from you?
> 
> There are criminals in every field. Including doing nothing.  I say that we arrest and convict them and have them suffer the prescribed consequences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> >> How am I different from you?
> Seriously?
> 
> >> There are criminals in every field. Including doing nothing.  I say that we arrest and convict them and have them suffer the prescribed consequences.
> 
> Ok I'm good with vagrancy laws.  Criminals, yes arrest them.
Click to expand...

Illegals?  Yes, prosecute them, also....I'm kinda liking this.


----------



## PMZ

Meister said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> How am I different from you?
> 
> There are criminals in every field. Including doing nothing.  I say that we arrest and convict them and have them suffer the prescribed consequences.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >> How am I different from you?
> Seriously?
> 
> >> There are criminals in every field. Including doing nothing.  I say that we arrest and convict them and have them suffer the prescribed consequences.
> 
> Ok I'm good with vagrancy laws.  Criminals, yes arrest them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Illegals?  Yes, prosecute them, also....I'm kinda liking this.
Click to expand...


Who we ought to prosecute are businesses who hire them. They're the problem.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> If someone like you can remain gainfully employed, it speaks volumes about the people that choose to stay unemployed, then claim disability, and essentially retire on the backs of the taxpayer at a very young age by making up BS claims that they can't work for this or that reason, doesn't it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How am I different from you?
> 
> There are criminals in every field. Including doing nothing.  I say that we arrest and convict them and have them suffer the prescribed consequences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> >> How am I different from you?
> Seriously?
> 
> >> There are criminals in every field. Including doing nothing.  I say that we arrest and convict them and have them suffer the prescribed consequences.
> 
> Ok I'm good with vagrancy laws.  Criminals, yes arrest them.
Click to expand...


>> How am I different from you?
Seriously?  

Yes.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> How am I different from you?
> 
> There are criminals in every field. Including doing nothing.  I say that we arrest and convict them and have them suffer the prescribed consequences.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >> How am I different from you?
> Seriously?
> 
> >> There are criminals in every field. Including doing nothing.  I say that we arrest and convict them and have them suffer the prescribed consequences.
> 
> Ok I'm good with vagrancy laws.  Criminals, yes arrest them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> >> How am I different from you?
> Seriously?
> 
> Yes.
Click to expand...


We were both Republicans, when they moved authoritarian I moved to the libertarian conservative views you moved to authoritarian socialist views.  IOW your politics are the opposite of mine.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> >> How am I different from you?
> Seriously?
> 
> >> There are criminals in every field. Including doing nothing.  I say that we arrest and convict them and have them suffer the prescribed consequences.
> 
> Ok I'm good with vagrancy laws.  Criminals, yes arrest them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >> How am I different from you?
> Seriously?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We were both Republicans, when they moved authoritarian I moved to the libertarian conservative views you moved to authoritarian socialist views.  IOW your politics are the opposite of mine.
Click to expand...


Our politics are opposite.  But,  we want the same things.  I want them for everyone.


----------



## Listening

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> >> How am I different from you?
> Seriously?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We were both Republicans, when they moved authoritarian I moved to the libertarian conservative views you moved to authoritarian socialist views.  IOW your politics are the opposite of mine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our politics are opposite.  But,  we want the same things.  I want them for everyone.
Click to expand...


But, not everybody wants or values the same things.


----------



## Intense

Listening said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> We were both Republicans, when they moved authoritarian I moved to the libertarian conservative views you moved to authoritarian socialist views.  IOW your politics are the opposite of mine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our politics are opposite.  But,  we want the same things.  I want them for everyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But, not everybody wants or values the same things.
Click to expand...

 It's not a question of wanting or not wanting. Who gets what, and who pays is both a matter of property rights, and conscience. When consent is taken away, what exactly is left?


----------



## PMZ

Listening said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> We were both Republicans, when they moved authoritarian I moved to the libertarian conservative views you moved to authoritarian socialist views.  IOW your politics are the opposite of mine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our politics are opposite.  But,  we want the same things.  I want them for everyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But, not everybody wants or values the same things.
Click to expand...


True. Thats why equal opportunity is what's important.


----------



## PMZ

Intense said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our politics are opposite.  But,  we want the same things.  I want them for everyone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But, not everybody wants or values the same things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not a question of wanting or not wanting. Who gets what, and who pays is both a matter of property rights, and conscience. When consent is taken away, what exactly is left?
Click to expand...


If you have the power of consent,  you also have the power of denial.  There is nothing at all in the way of complete voluntary removal of all of the obstacles that today restrict equal access to the American dream,  yet many remain despite the best efforts of wonderful people. 

More is required. Other actions that not enough do voluntarily are required.


----------



## Meister

PMZ said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> >> How am I different from you?
> Seriously?
> 
> >> There are criminals in every field. Including doing nothing.  I say that we arrest and convict them and have them suffer the prescribed consequences.
> 
> Ok I'm good with vagrancy laws.  Criminals, yes arrest them.
> 
> 
> 
> Illegals?  Yes, prosecute them, also....I'm kinda liking this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who we ought to prosecute are businesses who hire them. They're the problem.
Click to expand...


Prosecute the both of them if they're breaking the law.


----------



## BlackSand

PMZ said:


> If you have the power of consent,  you also have the power of denial.  There is nothing at all in the way of complete voluntary removal of all of the obstacles that today restrict equal access to the American dream,  yet many remain despite the best efforts of wonderful people.
> 
> More is required. Other actions that not enough do voluntarily are required.



The only obstacle that keeps people from the American Dream is the lack of a desire to pursue it.
The power of another to consent or deny doesn't give you the right to ask ... And you are the only thing that stands between yourself and the American Dream.

Each person has the key ... All they have to do is nut-up and use it.

.


----------



## Ernie S.

PMZ said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our politics are opposite.  But,  we want the same things.  I want them for everyone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But, not everybody wants or values the same things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True. Thats why equal opportunity is what's important.
Click to expand...


Equal opportunity IS important. Equal outcome is impossible to guarantee.
What people achieve, given equal opportunity is up to the individual.


----------



## dblack

Listening said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> We were both Republicans, when they moved authoritarian I moved to the libertarian conservative views you moved to authoritarian socialist views.  IOW your politics are the opposite of mine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our politics are opposite.  But,  we want the same things.  I want them for everyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But, not everybody wants or values the same things.
Click to expand...


This is really is key. The core conceit of the statist is that there's one right way to live and it's up to government to force us all down that path.


----------



## PMZ

BlackSand said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you have the power of consent,  you also have the power of denial.  There is nothing at all in the way of complete voluntary removal of all of the obstacles that today restrict equal access to the American dream,  yet many remain despite the best efforts of wonderful people.
> 
> More is required. Other actions that not enough do voluntarily are required.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only obstacle that keeps people from the American Dream is the lack of a desire to pursue it.
> The power of another to consent or deny doesn't give you the right to ask ... And you are the only thing that stands between yourself and the American Dream.
> 
> Each person has the key ... All they have to do is nut-up and use it.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


I find that people who think like you do, disregard the things that are fortunate about their lives because they are really big on taking credit, and acknowledging good fortune detracts,  in their minds anyway,  from credit. 

I've never yet met anyone, who I see as notably happy, that hasn't been the recipient of good fortune as well as having the ability to accomplish what makes them happy.  I know for sure that I am that way. 
So,  I disagree with your statement,  "the only obstacle that keeps people from the American Dream is the lack of a desire to pursue it." It's just not been my experience.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

RDD_1210 said:


> It is sad that this has to happen.
> 
> It's also sad that the GOP has convinced people of "death panels", "losing freedom" and all the other hysterical nonsense that you sheep believe, that have actually made you think you hate a law that is a Republican idea.
> 
> So yeah, it's sad that a campaign needs to be waged to combat such blatant misinformation.



I've never seen a law created that also had to have propaganda to enforce it?


----------



## BlackSand

PMZ said:


> I find that people who think like you do, disregard the things that are fortunate about their lives because they are really big on taking credit, and acknowledging good fortune detracts,  in their minds anyway,  from credit.
> 
> I've never yet met anyone, who I see as notably happy, that hasn't been the recipient of good fortune as well as having the ability to accomplish what makes them happy.  I know for sure that I am that way.
> So,  I disagree with your statement,  "the only obstacle that keeps people from the American Dream is the lack of a desire to pursue it." It's just not been my experience.



*Good fortune is what happens when you start doing the right things.*

When you make a success of your life and business ... Other people want to be a part of it.
The more people that join your efforts and purchase your products, services or support your cause ... The less the chance that you will fall upon bad times you cannot overcome.
You are denying the fact that to a certain extent ... You do make your own luck.
If you take the risk ... Make a good investment ... Manage it wisely ... And succeed ... That doesn't mean it was just good luck.

*Just like if you walk off into the ghetto ... Start waving around a stack of $100 bills ... If someone beats you over  the head and steals your money ... It is not simply the result of bad luck.*

.


----------



## PMZ

Ernie S. said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> But, not everybody wants or values the same things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True. Thats why equal opportunity is what's important.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Equal opportunity IS important. Equal outcome is impossible to guarantee.
> What people achieve, given equal opportunity is up to the individual.
Click to expand...


"Equal outcome is impossible to guarantee."

I agree that it's impossible to do perfectly.  So what?


----------



## PMZ

dblack said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our politics are opposite.  But,  we want the same things.  I want them for everyone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But, not everybody wants or values the same things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is really is key. The core conceit of the statist is that there's one right way to live and it's up to government to force us all down that path.
Click to expand...


As I've said before,  I go through everyday abiding by the law and don't even notice it.  There is nothing illegal that I feel compelled to do.  That's true of everyone that I know too.  If you are always feeling restricted from compelling actions by our law,  I'd worry more about you personally,  than the law.


----------



## PMZ

bigrebnc1775 said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is sad that this has to happen.
> 
> It's also sad that the GOP has convinced people of "death panels", "losing freedom" and all the other hysterical nonsense that you sheep believe, that have actually made you think you hate a law that is a Republican idea.
> 
> So yeah, it's sad that a campaign needs to be waged to combat such blatant misinformation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've never seen a law created that also had to have propaganda to enforce it?
Click to expand...


Every law ever passed,  certainly including the Constitution, had to be sold to Congress and the President at a minimum.  Most also required selling to the people as well.  

I personally don't distinguish between advertising and propaganda because they have identical purposes. But by either word,  lots is invested into creating consensus for law making. 

What is different today is Republican propaganda being invested against the law of the land.  Heretofore once a law was agreed to, politicians actively supported it.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

PMZ said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is sad that this has to happen.
> 
> It's also sad that the GOP has convinced people of "death panels", "losing freedom" and all the other hysterical nonsense that you sheep believe, that have actually made you think you hate a law that is a Republican idea.
> 
> So yeah, it's sad that a campaign needs to be waged to combat such blatant misinformation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've never seen a law created that also had to have propaganda to enforce it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every law ever passed,  certainly including the Constitution, had to be sold to Congress and the President at a minimum.  Most also required selling to the people as well.
> 
> I personally don't distinguish between advertising and propaganda because they have identical purposes. But by either word,  lots is invested into creating consensus for law making.
> 
> What is different today is Republican propaganda being invested against the law of the land.  Heretofore once a law was agreed to, politicians actively supported it.
Click to expand...


Sure it had to be sold before it was passed not after it was passed.


----------



## PMZ

bigrebnc1775 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've never seen a law created that also had to have propaganda to enforce it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every law ever passed,  certainly including the Constitution, had to be sold to Congress and the President at a minimum.  Most also required selling to the people as well.
> 
> I personally don't distinguish between advertising and propaganda because they have identical purposes. But by either word,  lots is invested into creating consensus for law making.
> 
> What is different today is Republican propaganda being invested against the law of the land.  Heretofore once a law was agreed to, politicians actively supported it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure it had to be sold before it was passed not after it was passed.
Click to expand...


Laws are inextricably tied to cultural change. If you use slavery as an example,  the winds of abolitionism began in colonial times and by the mid 19th century had built to an intensity that couldn't be denied. Once that happened the movement was codified into law. It would take at least two decades before the concept was achieved and our culture redefined to exclude the ownership of one people by another. 

That whole process was one of the selling of both pro and anti slavery.  It probably can be accurately said that the selling is still going on.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

PMZ said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every law ever passed,  certainly including the Constitution, had to be sold to Congress and the President at a minimum.  Most also required selling to the people as well.
> 
> I personally don't distinguish between advertising and propaganda because they have identical purposes. But by either word,  lots is invested into creating consensus for law making.
> 
> What is different today is Republican propaganda being invested against the law of the land.  Heretofore once a law was agreed to, politicians actively supported it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it had to be sold before it was passed not after it was passed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Laws are inextricably tied to cultural change. If you use slavery as an example,  the winds of abolitionism began in colonial times and by the mid 19th century had built to an intensity that couldn't be denied. Once that happened the movement was codified into law. It would take at least two decades before the concept was achieved and our culture redefined to exclude the ownership of one people by another.
> 
> That whole process was one of the selling of both pro and anti slavery.  It probably can be accurately said that the selling is still going on.
Click to expand...


Stop sputtering, slavery? Stop it 
 YOU'RE FAILING
 No law has ever had to use propaganda from the government.

Maybe it's because it's unsustainable without over half of America buying into obamacare.
I don't think that tax will be able to handle the cost of obamacare for 2 years.


----------



## PMZ

bigrebnc1775 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it had to be sold before it was passed not after it was passed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Laws are inextricably tied to cultural change. If you use slavery as an example,  the winds of abolitionism began in colonial times and by the mid 19th century had built to an intensity that couldn't be denied. Once that happened the movement was codified into law. It would take at least two decades before the concept was achieved and our culture redefined to exclude the ownership of one people by another.
> 
> That whole process was one of the selling of both pro and anti slavery.  It probably can be accurately said that the selling is still going on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop sputtering, slavery? Stop it
> YOU'RE FAILING
> No law has ever had to use propaganda from the government.
> 
> Maybe it's because it's unsustainable without over half of America buying into obamacare.
> I don't think that tax will be able to handle the cost of obamacare for 2 years.
Click to expand...


One of the most misinformed statements that I've read here. By anyone.  It's simply not even in the same zip code as the truth.


----------



## BlackSand

PMZ said:


> That whole process was one of the selling of both pro and anti slavery.  It probably can be accurately said that the selling is still going on.



*American taxpayers spend $41.3 million advertising Food Stamps ... Which is a 6 fold increase since over the last decade.*

Gov't spends $41.3 million in 2011 to advertise food stamps | The Daily Caller
http://money.cnn.com/2012/06/25/news/economy/food-stamps-ads/

The government just wastes money ... And a shitload of it.
That is $41.3 million that could have fed a bunch of people ... Or better yet ... Paid for an education that would provide them with a job where they wouldn't need food stamps anymore.

*And you Liberals think you are helping someone by wasting their money.*


----------



## PMZ

BlackSand said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> That whole process was one of the selling of both pro and anti slavery.  It probably can be accurately said that the selling is still going on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *American taxpayers spend $41.3 million advertising Food Stamps ... Which is a 6 fold increase since over the last decade.*
> 
> Gov't spends $41.3 million in 2011 to advertise food stamps | The Daily Caller
> http://money.cnn.com/2012/06/25/news/economy/food-stamps-ads/
> 
> The government just wastes money ... And a shitload of it.
> That is $41.3 million that could have fed a bunch of people ... Or better yet ... Paid for an education that would provide them with a job where they wouldn't need food stamps anymore.
> 
> *And you Liberals think you are helping someone by wasting their money.*
Click to expand...


I think that all advertising by everybody ought to be outlawed.


----------



## BlackSand

PMZ said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> *American taxpayers spend $41.3 million advertising Food Stamps ... Which is a 6 fold increase since over the last decade.*
> 
> Gov't spends $41.3 million in 2011 to advertise food stamps | The Daily Caller
> Government runs ads to get more people on food stamps - Jun. 25, 2012
> 
> The government just wastes money ... And a shitload of it.
> That is $41.3 million that could have fed a bunch of people ... Or better yet ... Paid for an education that would provide them with a job where they wouldn't need food stamps anymore.
> 
> *And you Liberals think you are helping someone by wasting their money.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that all advertising by everybody ought to be outlawed.
Click to expand...


So what ... Because you support sending more money to the government and the government keeps doing stupid things with it ... Like promoting more advertising.
That just means you are both ineffective and inefficient ... Along with the fact you are counterproductive to what you want to happen as far as advertising is concerned.

That is three strikes against you and you are still standing at the plate.

.


----------



## dblack

PMZ said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> That whole process was one of the selling of both pro and anti slavery.  It probably can be accurately said that the selling is still going on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *American taxpayers spend $41.3 million advertising Food Stamps ... Which is a 6 fold increase since over the last decade.*
> 
> Gov't spends $41.3 million in 2011 to advertise food stamps | The Daily Caller
> Government runs ads to get more people on food stamps - Jun. 25, 2012
> 
> The government just wastes money ... And a shitload of it.
> That is $41.3 million that could have fed a bunch of people ... Or better yet ... Paid for an education that would provide them with a job where they wouldn't need food stamps anymore.
> 
> *And you Liberals think you are helping someone by wasting their money.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think that all advertising by everybody ought to be outlawed.
Click to expand...


Carrying around all that irony must be exhausting.


----------



## PMZ

BlackSand said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> *American taxpayers spend $41.3 million advertising Food Stamps ... Which is a 6 fold increase since over the last decade.*
> 
> Gov't spends $41.3 million in 2011 to advertise food stamps | The Daily Caller
> Government runs ads to get more people on food stamps - Jun. 25, 2012
> 
> The government just wastes money ... And a shitload of it.
> That is $41.3 million that could have fed a bunch of people ... Or better yet ... Paid for an education that would provide them with a job where they wouldn't need food stamps anymore.
> 
> *And you Liberals think you are helping someone by wasting their money.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that all advertising by everybody ought to be outlawed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what ... Because you support sending more money to the government and the government keeps doing stupid things with it ... Like promoting more advertising.
> That just means you are both ineffective and inefficient ... Along with the fact you are counterproductive to what you want to happen as far as advertising is concerned.
> 
> That is three strikes against you and you are still standing at the plate.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Advertising has become a hugely expensive arms race for business. Everybody has to do it to not fall behind but it gives nobody a competitive advantage anymore. 

More money will be spent by business just during the Super Bowl than your figure. 

The rest of your post is typical conservative trash talking employed when you have no point but want to argue anyway.


----------



## PMZ

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> *American taxpayers spend $41.3 million advertising Food Stamps ... Which is a 6 fold increase since over the last decade.*
> 
> Gov't spends $41.3 million in 2011 to advertise food stamps | The Daily Caller
> Government runs ads to get more people on food stamps - Jun. 25, 2012
> 
> The government just wastes money ... And a shitload of it.
> That is $41.3 million that could have fed a bunch of people ... Or better yet ... Paid for an education that would provide them with a job where they wouldn't need food stamps anymore.
> 
> *And you Liberals think you are helping someone by wasting their money.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that all advertising by everybody ought to be outlawed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Carrying around all that irony must be exhausting.
Click to expand...


Neither you nor I have any idea what you are talking about.


----------



## BlackSand

PMZ said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that all advertising by everybody ought to be outlawed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what ... Because you support sending more money to the government and the government keeps doing stupid things with it ... Like promoting more advertising.
> That just means you are both ineffective and inefficient ... Along with the fact you are counterproductive to what you want to happen as far as advertising is concerned.
> 
> That is three strikes against you and you are still standing at the plate.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Advertising has become a hugely expensive arms race for business. Everybody has to do it to not fall behind but it gives nobody a competitive advantage anymore.
> 
> More money will be spent by business just during the Super Bowl than your figure.
> 
> The rest of your post is typical conservative trash talking employed when you have no point but want to argue anyway.
Click to expand...


I already argued my point ... Because you don't like it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
The money spent on Super Bowl ads doesn't come from taxpayer subsidies.

You don't even have a point to make one way or the other ... Typical Liberal trash talk ... About as ineffective as their policies.

.


----------



## PMZ

BlackSand said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what ... Because you support sending more money to the government and the government keeps doing stupid things with it ... Like promoting more advertising.
> That just means you are both ineffective and inefficient ... Along with the fact you are counterproductive to what you want to happen as far as advertising is concerned.
> 
> That is three strikes against you and you are still standing at the plate.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Advertising has become a hugely expensive arms race for business. Everybody has to do it to not fall behind but it gives nobody a competitive advantage anymore.
> 
> More money will be spent by business just during the Super Bowl than your figure.
> 
> The rest of your post is typical conservative trash talking employed when you have no point but want to argue anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I already argued my point ... Because you don't like doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
> The money spent on Super Bowl ads doesn't come from taxpayer subsidies.
> 
> You don't even have a point to make one way or the other ... Typical Liberal trash talk ... About as ineffective as their policies.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


It comes from your wallet.


----------



## BlackSand

PMZ said:


> It comes from your wallet.



Taxpayer subsidies come from my wallet ... And you want more of them.
Other than that ... I couldn't tell you who has an ad during the Super Bowl ... Or the last time I watched one ... So neither you nor I could say any of that money comes from my wallet because neither of us knows.
It doesn't come out of anyone's wallet as a matter of legislation ... The desire to expand government ... Or through taxation.

In any case ... You still don't have a point.

.


----------



## PMZ

BlackSand said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> It comes from your wallet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taxpayer subsidies come from my wallet ... And you want more of them.
> Other than that ... I couldn't tell you who has an ad during the Super Bowl ... Or the last time I watched one ... So neither you nor I could say any of that money comes from my wallet because neither of us knows.
> It doesn't come out of anyone's wallet as a matter of legislation ... The desire to expand government ... Or through taxation.
> 
> In any case ... You still don't have a point.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


The point that I have made is that you are unable to think past the propaganda that you are unable to defend yourself from. You're stuck there. You will reject, without any consideration, any fact contrary to it. 

I encourage you to keep that up as your tribe gets voted off of the island. It guarantees your continued irrelevance.


----------



## BlackSand

PMZ said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> It comes from your wallet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taxpayer subsidies come from my wallet ... And you want more of them.
> Other than that ... I couldn't tell you who has an ad during the Super Bowl ... Or the last time I watched one ... So neither you nor I could say any of that money comes from my wallet because neither of us knows.
> It doesn't come out of anyone's wallet as a matter of legislation ... The desire to expand government ... Or through taxation.
> 
> In any case ... You still don't have a point.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The point that I have made is that you are unable to think past the propaganda that you are unable to defend yourself from. You're stuck there. You will reject, without any consideration, any fact contrary to it.
> 
> I encourage you to keep that up as your tribe gets voted off of the island. It guarantees your continued irrelevance.
Click to expand...


You are the only one stuck with propaganda  ... And that is pretty much the extent of most of what you offer.
I try to engage you in conversation all the time ... And you reject the idea of any consideration that isn't blinded by your own eagerness to swallow the Liberal Kool-Aid.

Keep trying ... You still haven't made a point ... And you cannot blame me for your inefficiency, ineffectiveness and general lack of anything productive.

.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> >> How am I different from you?
> Seriously?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We were both Republicans, when they moved authoritarian I moved to the libertarian conservative views you moved to authoritarian socialist views.  IOW your politics are the opposite of mine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our politics are opposite.  But,  we want the same things.  I want them for everyone.
Click to expand...

I also want them for everyone, we have two completely different approaches.  Mine is tried and true and works to the betterment of everyone.  Yours lacks common sense and has been a proven failure in every way in every situation from the dawn of man.


----------



## dblack

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> But, not everybody wants or values the same things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is really is key. The core conceit of the statist is that there's one right way to live and it's up to government to force us all down that path.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I've said before,  I go through everyday abiding by the law and don't even notice it.  There is nothing illegal that I feel compelled to do.  That's true of everyone that I know too.  If you are always feeling restricted from compelling actions by our law,  I'd worry more about you personally,  than the law.
Click to expand...


I hear you. And I believe you're being honest here. But maybe you should consider what you're confessing to. You 'go through everyday' without ever thinking, and certainly not caring, about the fact that there are others who don't see things as you do, people with different goals, different concerns and different values than those you take for granted.

Your political ideology, regardless of what you call it, has nothing but disdain for the American political traditions of individuality, diversity and freedom of conscience. Those values stand in the way of everything you believe in and, based on the views you've been expressing, you won't miss them when they're gone.


----------



## Antares

The Dems are fucked for next November.
All of the Grandfathered Individual Plans get cancelled and the Small Group Plans start to get dumped, armageddon.


----------



## RKMBrown

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is really is key. The core conceit of the statist is that there's one right way to live and it's up to government to force us all down that path.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I've said before,  I go through everyday abiding by the law and don't even notice it.  There is nothing illegal that I feel compelled to do.  That's true of everyone that I know too.  If you are always feeling restricted from compelling actions by our law,  I'd worry more about you personally,  than the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I hear you. And I believe you're being honest here. But maybe you should consider what you're confessing to. You 'go through everyday' without ever thinking, and certainly not caring, about the fact that there are others who don't see things as you do, people with different goals, different concerns and different values than those you take for granted.
> 
> Your political ideology, regardless of what you call it, has nothing but disdain for the American political traditions of individuality, diversity and freedom of conscience. Those values stand in the way of everything you believe in and, based on the views you've been expressing, you won't miss them when they're gone.
Click to expand...


Well let's take this in context.  PMZ no longer has taxable income and he's decided we should have a 70% + or whatever it takes tax rate.  IOW he's wants the authority to compel others to fork over their hard earned money while he basks in the glory of his earning years.


----------



## Politico

It's not about the money now.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vA7HtLT4pF4]Obamacare Promotional Song Contest Winn - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Antares

RDD_1210 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL. Drama Queen much?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. Yes you Dumbocrats do "drama queen" MUCH! Remember all of you little bitches in the streets during the Bush Administration? I sure do...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course you remember. You had nothing else to do and your life has amounted to being a professional (unpaid) complainer.
Click to expand...


You remind me of a child with his bib on waiting for  his next spoon full.

Thank you daddy Bammy, may I have more?


----------



## beagle9

PMZ said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that all advertising by everybody ought to be outlawed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what ... Because you support sending more money to the government and the government keeps doing stupid things with it ... Like promoting more advertising.
> That just means you are both ineffective and inefficient ... Along with the fact you are counterproductive to what you want to happen as far as advertising is concerned.
> 
> That is three strikes against you and you are still standing at the plate.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Advertising has become a hugely expensive arms race for business. Everybody has to do it to not fall behind but it gives nobody a competitive advantage anymore.
> 
> More money will be spent by business just during the Super Bowl than your figure.
> 
> The rest of your post is typical conservative trash talking employed when you have no point but want to argue anyway.
Click to expand...

The government ought to have it's own TV and Radio channel that it exclusively advertises or gives government information to us on, and it should never pay the private sector for any messaging it has to bring forward to the American people. The only reason that the government uses private industry to get the message out, must undoubtedly be because it is scratching the backs of it's political supporters from that industry. This makes our government waste our money big time in this way, and it makes it to become corrupted just as it is these days. I mean the airways or airwaves frequency's that are still up above last time we checked, are still free, so why is the government paying this kind of money out to private industry, when it can get the message out for free to the people ? I mean of course it would have the cost of the government running the channel that it would run, but the tax payers wouldn't mind paying for something like that. I think a full investigation needs to be done for the people, upon the goings on as to why government is blowing the tax payers money as it is doing in these ways. Don't yall think ?  Do they still have the capabilities for an arms services radio channel ? I think this would be the one that was operated during world war two right ?


----------



## percysunshine

Oh Gosh...when does the 'Draft ObamaDoc' act get passed?

'An estimated seven out of every 10 physicians in deep-blue California are rebelling against the state's Obamacare health insurance exchange and won't participate, the head of the state's largest medical association said.'

Doctors boycotting California's Obamacare exchange | WashingtonExaminer.com

.


----------



## PMZ

BlackSand said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> Taxpayer subsidies come from my wallet ... And you want more of them.
> Other than that ... I couldn't tell you who has an ad during the Super Bowl ... Or the last time I watched one ... So neither you nor I could say any of that money comes from my wallet because neither of us knows.
> It doesn't come out of anyone's wallet as a matter of legislation ... The desire to expand government ... Or through taxation.
> 
> In any case ... You still don't have a point.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The point that I have made is that you are unable to think past the propaganda that you are unable to defend yourself from. You're stuck there. You will reject, without any consideration, any fact contrary to it.
> 
> I encourage you to keep that up as your tribe gets voted off of the island. It guarantees your continued irrelevance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the only one stuck with propaganda  ... And that is pretty much the extent of most of what you offer.
> I try to engage you in conversation all the time ... And you reject the idea of any consideration that isn't blinded by your own eagerness to swallow the Liberal Kool-Aid.
> 
> Keep trying ... You still haven't made a point ... And you cannot blame me for your inefficiency, ineffectiveness and general lack of anything productive.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


You report the current Republican propaganda from Fox. You don't engage anybody in conversation.  You,  like Fox,  tell them what to believe.  Most of us aren't as gullible as you.  We don't just believe.  We question,  we think,  we research,  we analyze.  

You meekly accept.


----------



## BlackSand

PMZ said:


> You report the current Republican propaganda from Fox. You don't engage anybody in conversation.  You,  like Fox,  tell them what to believe.  Most of us aren't as gullible as you.  We don't just believe.  We question,  we think,  we research,  we analyze.
> 
> You meekly accept.



There you go with Fox again ... And it doesn't matter to you that I don't watch Fox.
Just another one of your propaganda plugs ... Meaningless ... Like most everything you post.

You still don't have a point ... And day by day the ACA suffers, the people suffer ... And you strut around like what you or the government has anything to offer those in need.
You are a victim of your own propaganda ... And think you can project that on others.

.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> We were both Republicans, when they moved authoritarian I moved to the libertarian conservative views you moved to authoritarian socialist views.  IOW your politics are the opposite of mine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our politics are opposite.  But,  we want the same things.  I want them for everyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I also want them for everyone, we have two completely different approaches.  Mine is tried and true and works to the betterment of everyone.  Yours lacks common sense and has been a proven failure in every way in every situation from the dawn of man.
Click to expand...


Yours is do nothing.  That's been  tried,  and guess what?  Surprise.  Doing nothing results in nothing. What's criminal is if Bush had done nothing we'd be debt free now.  Thousands of Americans killed in his holy wars would be alive. The Great Recession would be only a nightmare,  not history. 

Doing nothing will maximise the cost of AGW and the largest project mankind has ever undertaken,  the conversion to sustainable energy. 

Business continuing to do nothing about growth will keep the most productive workers in the world,  idle.  

Doing nothing is what Boehner and his house thugs accomplish with their strike of Congress,  and periodic shutdown of government. 

Doing nothing has resulted in our extreme and extremely dysfunctional wealth distribution that is putting the middle class out of business. 

Doing nothing about health care insures our completely uncompetitive 2X the cost,  mediocre results health care non-system will stay the anchor keeping us out of global business success.  

The good news is that Republicans will have lots of time to do nothing as former Congress members booted by an informed electorate.


----------



## PMZ

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is really is key. The core conceit of the statist is that there's one right way to live and it's up to government to force us all down that path.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I've said before,  I go through everyday abiding by the law and don't even notice it.  There is nothing illegal that I feel compelled to do.  That's true of everyone that I know too.  If you are always feeling restricted from compelling actions by our law,  I'd worry more about you personally,  than the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I hear you. And I believe you're being honest here. But maybe you should consider what you're confessing to. You 'go through everyday' without ever thinking, and certainly not caring, about the fact that there are others who don't see things as you do, people with different goals, different concerns and different values than those you take for granted.
> 
> Your political ideology, regardless of what you call it, has nothing but disdain for the American political traditions of individuality, diversity and freedom of conscience. Those values stand in the way of everything you believe in and, based on the views you've been expressing, you won't miss them when they're gone.
Click to expand...


Here's what you are completely oblivious to.  My political persuasion is the centrist perspective that has always worked for America.  What's changed is that the power of propaganda has dragged conservatives to extremes previously unknown to Americans. Destroyed pride in our capability,  our democracy,  and our purpose. Brought into disdain the American dream and replaced it with self centered,  me first and only,  wealth centric,  aristocracy. 

From where you've been led to you can't even see America.


----------



## PMZ

BlackSand said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You report the current Republican propaganda from Fox. You don't engage anybody in conversation.  You,  like Fox,  tell them what to believe.  Most of us aren't as gullible as you.  We don't just believe.  We question,  we think,  we research,  we analyze.
> 
> You meekly accept.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There you go with Fox again ... And it doesn't matter to you that I don't watch Fox.
> Just another one of your propaganda plugs ... Meaningless ... Like most everything you post.
> 
> You still don't have a point ... And day by day the ACA suffers, the people suffer ... And you strut around like what you or the government has anything to offer those in need.
> You are a victim of your own propaganda ... And think you can project that on others.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


The failure of ACA is merely the scenario that Republicans have portrayed for the last five years in their propaganda that you claim that you never watch but report on daily. 

Why do you think that even though their claims have failed to materialize for the last five years this time they are real? 

Stop being a sucker.


----------



## Listening

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our politics are opposite.  But,  we want the same things.  I want them for everyone.
> 
> 
> 
> I also want them for everyone, we have two completely different approaches.  Mine is tried and true and works to the betterment of everyone.  Yours lacks common sense and has been a proven failure in every way in every situation from the dawn of man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yours is do nothing.  That's been  tried,  and guess what?  Surprise.  Doing nothing results in nothing. What's criminal is if Bush had done nothing we'd be debt free now.  Thousands of Americans killed in his holy wars would be alive. The Great Recession would be only a nightmare,  not history.
> 
> Doing nothing will maximise the cost of AGW and the largest project mankind has ever undertaken,  the conversion to sustainable energy.
> 
> Business continuing to do nothing about growth will keep the most productive workers in the world,  idle.
> 
> Doing nothing is what Boehner and his house thugs accomplish with their strike of Congress,  and periodic shutdown of government.
> 
> *Doing nothing has resulted in our extreme and extremely dysfunctional wealth distribution that is putting the middle class out of business. *
> 
> Doing nothing about health care insures our completely uncompetitive 2X the cost,  mediocre results health care non-system will stay the anchor keeping us out of global business success.
> 
> The good news is that Republicans will have lots of time to do nothing as former Congress members booted by an informed electorate.
Click to expand...


That you somehow think that Republicans are the only ones responsible for this is somewhat strange.  Do you really believe that the democrats in the federal house have any more interest in your well being than Republicans.

If so, you are deluded.

I would welcome a discussion on the bolded topic above as I think many conservatives would agree that we have a system that is rigged against wealth mobility.  Unfortunately, people like you don't see that is as much the fault of government as it is anyone else.  I've got some very good first hand examples if you are interested.

The government involvement in health care is only going to exacerbate the issue as they will burden and tax us with more and more.

And...how about those proposed special unions ?  I am looking for more data on those, but right now, it seems pretty suspicious.


----------



## Listening

PMZ said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point that I have made is that you are unable to think past the propaganda that you are unable to defend yourself from. You're stuck there. You will reject, without any consideration, any fact contrary to it.
> 
> I encourage you to keep that up as your tribe gets voted off of the island. It guarantees your continued irrelevance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are the only one stuck with propaganda  ... And that is pretty much the extent of most of what you offer.
> I try to engage you in conversation all the time ... And you reject the idea of any consideration that isn't blinded by your own eagerness to swallow the Liberal Kool-Aid.
> 
> Keep trying ... You still haven't made a point ... And you cannot blame me for your inefficiency, ineffectiveness and general lack of anything productive.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You report the current Republican propaganda from Fox. You don't engage anybody in conversation.  You,  like Fox,  tell them what to believe.  Most of us aren't as gullible as you.  We don't just believe.  We question,  we think,  we research,  we analyze.
> 
> You meekly accept.
Click to expand...


What have you analyzed ?  Please, by all means...tell us.


----------



## skookerasbil

PMZ said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point that I have made is that you are unable to think past the propaganda that you are unable to defend yourself from. You're stuck there. You will reject, without any consideration, any fact contrary to it.
> 
> I encourage you to keep that up as your tribe gets voted off of the island. It guarantees your continued irrelevance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are the only one stuck with propaganda  ... And that is pretty much the extent of most of what you offer.
> I try to engage you in conversation all the time ... And you reject the idea of any consideration that isn't blinded by your own eagerness to swallow the Liberal Kool-Aid.
> 
> Keep trying ... You still haven't made a point ... And you cannot blame me for your inefficiency, ineffectiveness and general lack of anything productive.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You report the current Republican propaganda from Fox. You don't engage anybody in conversation.  You,  like Fox,  tell them what to believe.  Most of us aren't as gullible as you.  We don't just believe.  We question,  we think,  we research,  we analyze.
> 
> You meekly accept.
Click to expand...




LOL.....that's right.......its all the fault of FOX that 3/4 of the population think this Obamacare stuff is absurd.


----------



## Listening

PMZ said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> It comes from your wallet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taxpayer subsidies come from my wallet ... And you want more of them.
> Other than that ... I couldn't tell you who has an ad during the Super Bowl ... Or the last time I watched one ... So neither you nor I could say any of that money comes from my wallet because neither of us knows.
> It doesn't come out of anyone's wallet as a matter of legislation ... The desire to expand government ... Or through taxation.
> 
> In any case ... You still don't have a point.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The point that I have made is that you are unable to think past the propaganda that you are unable to defend yourself from. You're stuck there. You will reject, without any consideration, any fact contrary to it.
> 
> I encourage you to keep that up as your tribe gets voted off of the island. It guarantees your continued irrelevance.
Click to expand...


You are the tribe that got voted out in 2010 (and not much changed in 2012).  That wasn't supposed to happen.  So where did you go wrong ?


----------



## skookerasbil

People need to ask themselves.......if the economy crashes due to this impossible to succeed healthcare law, who wins??!!


WHen people call this "the holy grail" for liberals, it  has nothing at all to do with health.


----------



## BlackSand

PMZ said:


> The failure of ACA is merely the scenario that Republicans have portrayed for the last five years in their propaganda that you claim that you never watch but report on daily.
> 
> Why do you think that even though their claims have failed to materialize for the last five years this time they are real?
> 
> Stop being a sucker.



I have said that welfare and entitlement programs have failed to produce acceptable results ... But you have said that yourself in that you constantly post about how people are suffering.
I said the ACA is *suffering* ... Because to say it has failed is not even something we can assess yet ... Hell, we haven't even seen half of it enacted at this point.
I know that the government had 4 years and more than $600 million to build a website and couldn't ... When IBM offered to build it for free.

The only thing that has failed to materialize over the last 5 years is anything worth a damn coming from the government ... You still don't have a point and are the only sucker for it.

.


----------



## PMZ

Listening said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> I also want them for everyone, we have two completely different approaches.  Mine is tried and true and works to the betterment of everyone.  Yours lacks common sense and has been a proven failure in every way in every situation from the dawn of man.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yours is do nothing.  That's been  tried,  and guess what?  Surprise.  Doing nothing results in nothing. What's criminal is if Bush had done nothing we'd be debt free now.  Thousands of Americans killed in his holy wars would be alive. The Great Recession would be only a nightmare,  not history.
> 
> Doing nothing will maximise the cost of AGW and the largest project mankind has ever undertaken,  the conversion to sustainable energy.
> 
> Business continuing to do nothing about growth will keep the most productive workers in the world,  idle.
> 
> Doing nothing is what Boehner and his house thugs accomplish with their strike of Congress,  and periodic shutdown of government.
> 
> *Doing nothing has resulted in our extreme and extremely dysfunctional wealth distribution that is putting the middle class out of business. *
> 
> Doing nothing about health care insures our completely uncompetitive 2X the cost,  mediocre results health care non-system will stay the anchor keeping us out of global business success.
> 
> The good news is that Republicans will have lots of time to do nothing as former Congress members booted by an informed electorate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That you somehow think that Republicans are the only ones responsible for this is somewhat strange.  Do you really believe that the democrats in the federal house have any more interest in your well being than Republicans.
> 
> If so, you are deluded.
> 
> I would welcome a discussion on the bolded topic above as I think many conservatives would agree that we have a system that is rigged against wealth mobility.  Unfortunately, people like you don't see that is as much the fault of government as it is anyone else.  I've got some very good first hand examples if you are interested.
> 
> The government involvement in health care is only going to exacerbate the issue as they will burden and tax us with more and more.
> 
> And...how about those proposed special unions ?  I am looking for more data on those, but right now, it seems pretty suspicious.
Click to expand...


What is wealth mobility?


----------



## percysunshine

skookerasbil said:


> People need to ask themselves.......if the economy crashes due to this impossible to succeed healthcare law, who wins??!!
> 
> 
> WHen people call this "the holy grail" for liberals, it  has nothing at all to do with health.



Who wins? Anyone short an S&P index.


----------



## PMZ

skookerasbil said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are the only one stuck with propaganda  ... And that is pretty much the extent of most of what you offer.
> I try to engage you in conversation all the time ... And you reject the idea of any consideration that isn't blinded by your own eagerness to swallow the Liberal Kool-Aid.
> 
> Keep trying ... You still haven't made a point ... And you cannot blame me for your inefficiency, ineffectiveness and general lack of anything productive.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You report the current Republican propaganda from Fox. You don't engage anybody in conversation.  You,  like Fox,  tell them what to believe.  Most of us aren't as gullible as you.  We don't just believe.  We question,  we think,  we research,  we analyze.
> 
> You meekly accept.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL.....that's right.......its all the fault of FOX that 3/4 of the population think this Obamacare stuff is absurd.
Click to expand...


That's what propaganda is designed to do.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our politics are opposite.  But,  we want the same things.  I want them for everyone.
> 
> 
> 
> I also want them for everyone, we have two completely different approaches.  Mine is tried and true and works to the betterment of everyone.  Yours lacks common sense and has been a proven failure in every way in every situation from the dawn of man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yours is do nothing.  That's been  tried,  and guess what?  Surprise.  Doing nothing results in nothing. What's criminal is if Bush had done nothing we'd be debt free now.  Thousands of Americans killed in his holy wars would be alive. The Great Recession would be only a nightmare,  not history.
> 
> Doing nothing will maximise the cost of AGW and the largest project mankind has ever undertaken,  the conversion to sustainable energy.
> 
> Business continuing to do nothing about growth will keep the most productive workers in the world,  idle.
> 
> Doing nothing is what Boehner and his house thugs accomplish with their strike of Congress,  and periodic shutdown of government.
> 
> Doing nothing has resulted in our extreme and extremely dysfunctional wealth distribution that is putting the middle class out of business.
> 
> Doing nothing about health care insures our completely uncompetitive 2X the cost,  mediocre results health care non-system will stay the anchor keeping us out of global business success.
> 
> The good news is that Republicans will have lots of time to do nothing as former Congress members booted by an informed electorate.
Click to expand...

You are so retarded.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> I also want them for everyone, we have two completely different approaches.  Mine is tried and true and works to the betterment of everyone.  Yours lacks common sense and has been a proven failure in every way in every situation from the dawn of man.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yours is do nothing.  That's been  tried,  and guess what?  Surprise.  Doing nothing results in nothing. What's criminal is if Bush had done nothing we'd be debt free now.  Thousands of Americans killed in his holy wars would be alive. The Great Recession would be only a nightmare,  not history.
> 
> Doing nothing will maximise the cost of AGW and the largest project mankind has ever undertaken,  the conversion to sustainable energy.
> 
> Business continuing to do nothing about growth will keep the most productive workers in the world,  idle.
> 
> Doing nothing is what Boehner and his house thugs accomplish with their strike of Congress,  and periodic shutdown of government.
> 
> Doing nothing has resulted in our extreme and extremely dysfunctional wealth distribution that is putting the middle class out of business.
> 
> Doing nothing about health care insures our completely uncompetitive 2X the cost,  mediocre results health care non-system will stay the anchor keeping us out of global business success.
> 
> The good news is that Republicans will have lots of time to do nothing as former Congress members booted by an informed electorate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are so retarded.
Click to expand...


And so much smarter and better informed than you.


----------



## dblack

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I've said before,  I go through everyday abiding by the law and don't even notice it.  There is nothing illegal that I feel compelled to do.  That's true of everyone that I know too.  If you are always feeling restricted from compelling actions by our law,  I'd worry more about you personally,  than the law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hear you. And I believe you're being honest here. But maybe you should consider what you're confessing to. You 'go through everyday' without ever thinking, and certainly not caring, about the fact that there are others who don't see things as you do, people with different goals, different concerns and different values than those you take for granted.
> 
> Your political ideology, regardless of what you call it, has nothing but disdain for the American political traditions of individuality, diversity and freedom of conscience. Those values stand in the way of everything you believe in and, based on the views you've been expressing, you won't miss them when they're gone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's what you are completely oblivious to.  My political persuasion is the centrist perspective that has always worked for America.  What's changed is that the power of propaganda has dragged conservatives to extremes previously unknown to Americans. Destroyed pride in our capability,  our democracy,  and our purpose. Brought into disdain the American dream and replaced it with self centered,  me first and only,  wealth centric,  aristocracy.
> 
> From where you've been led to you can't even see America.
Click to expand...


Like I said, how you label your views doesn't interest me. I'd classify you as firmly in the Straussian Neo-con camp, which often masquerades as 'centrist', but it's the values you represent that I find repugnant. You want to move our nation further and further from the liberal values on which it was founded.

And you're right. It "works", at least in the short term. Authoritarian state power can drive us to great things (at great cost). That's why fascism has been so damnably hard to eradicate. I suspect we're in for a nasty resurgence early this century.


----------



## PMZ

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hear you. And I believe you're being honest here. But maybe you should consider what you're confessing to. You 'go through everyday' without ever thinking, and certainly not caring, about the fact that there are others who don't see things as you do, people with different goals, different concerns and different values than those you take for granted.
> 
> Your political ideology, regardless of what you call it, has nothing but disdain for the American political traditions of individuality, diversity and freedom of conscience. Those values stand in the way of everything you believe in and, based on the views you've been expressing, you won't miss them when they're gone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's what you are completely oblivious to.  My political persuasion is the centrist perspective that has always worked for America.  What's changed is that the power of propaganda has dragged conservatives to extremes previously unknown to Americans. Destroyed pride in our capability,  our democracy,  and our purpose. Brought into disdain the American dream and replaced it with self centered,  me first and only,  wealth centric,  aristocracy.
> 
> From where you've been led to you can't even see America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I said, how you label your views doesn't interest me. I'd classify you as firmly in the Straussian Neo-con camp, which often masquerades as 'centrist', but it's the values you represent that I find repugnant. You want to move our nation further and further from the liberal values on which it was founded.
> 
> And you're right. It "works", at least in the short term. Authoritarian state power can drive us to great things (at great cost). That's why fascism has been so damnably hard to eradicate. I suspect we're in for a nasty resurgence early this century.
Click to expand...


You agenda is fully revealed by your labeling traditional American values and culture and democracy as fascist. That's the same line that Stalin enslaved the USSR with.


----------



## dblack

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's what you are completely oblivious to.  My political persuasion is the centrist perspective that has always worked for America.  What's changed is that the power of propaganda has dragged conservatives to extremes previously unknown to Americans. Destroyed pride in our capability,  our democracy,  and our purpose. Brought into disdain the American dream and replaced it with self centered,  me first and only,  wealth centric,  aristocracy.
> 
> From where you've been led to you can't even see America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, how you label your views doesn't interest me. I'd classify you as firmly in the Straussian Neo-con camp, which often masquerades as 'centrist', but it's the values you represent that I find repugnant. You want to move our nation further and further from the liberal values on which it was founded.
> 
> And you're right. It "works", at least in the short term. Authoritarian state power can drive us to great things (at great cost). That's why fascism has been so damnably hard to eradicate. I suspect we're in for a nasty resurgence early this century.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You agenda is fully revealed by your labeling traditional American values and culture and democracy as fascist. That's the same line that Stalin enslaved the USSR with.
Click to expand...


George Orwell has arrived! 

As I'm saying the labels don't interest me - but the values you oppose (individuality, diversity, freedom of conscience) are important and I'll continue to speak up for them regardless.


----------



## oreo

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hear you. And I believe you're being honest here. But maybe you should consider what you're confessing to. You 'go through everyday' without ever thinking, and certainly not caring, about the fact that there are others who don't see things as you do, people with different goals, different concerns and different values than those you take for granted.
> 
> Your political ideology, regardless of what you call it, has nothing but disdain for the American political traditions of individuality, diversity and freedom of conscience. Those values stand in the way of everything you believe in and, based on the views you've been expressing, you won't miss them when they're gone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's what you are completely oblivious to.  My political persuasion is the centrist perspective that has always worked for America.  What's changed is that the power of propaganda has dragged conservatives to extremes previously unknown to Americans. Destroyed pride in our capability,  our democracy,  and our purpose. Brought into disdain the American dream and replaced it with self centered,  me first and only,  wealth centric,  aristocracy.
> 
> From where you've been led to you can't even see America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I said, how you label your views doesn't interest me. I'd classify you as firmly in the Straussian Neo-con camp, which often masquerades as 'centrist', but it's the values you represent that I find repugnant. You want to move our nation further and further from the liberal values on which it was founded.
> 
> And you're right. It "works", at least in the short term. Authoritarian state power can drive us to great things (at great cost). That's why fascism has been so damnably hard to eradicate. I suspect we're in for a nasty resurgence early this century.
Click to expand...


That's a new one--this country was cough-cough founded on "liberalism."--


----------



## PMZ

oreo said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's what you are completely oblivious to.  My political persuasion is the centrist perspective that has always worked for America.  What's changed is that the power of propaganda has dragged conservatives to extremes previously unknown to Americans. Destroyed pride in our capability,  our democracy,  and our purpose. Brought into disdain the American dream and replaced it with self centered,  me first and only,  wealth centric,  aristocracy.
> 
> From where you've been led to you can't even see America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, how you label your views doesn't interest me. I'd classify you as firmly in the Straussian Neo-con camp, which often masquerades as 'centrist', but it's the values you represent that I find repugnant. You want to move our nation further and further from the liberal values on which it was founded.
> 
> And you're right. It "works", at least in the short term. Authoritarian state power can drive us to great things (at great cost). That's why fascism has been so damnably hard to eradicate. I suspect we're in for a nasty resurgence early this century.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a new one--this country was cough-cough founded on "liberalism."--
Click to expand...


Revolutions are inherently liberal.  Future focused. Solution oriented. Based on a vision of better.


----------



## dblack

oreo said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's what you are completely oblivious to.  My political persuasion is the centrist perspective that has always worked for America.  What's changed is that the power of propaganda has dragged conservatives to extremes previously unknown to Americans. Destroyed pride in our capability,  our democracy,  and our purpose. Brought into disdain the American dream and replaced it with self centered,  me first and only,  wealth centric,  aristocracy.
> 
> From where you've been led to you can't even see America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, how you label your views doesn't interest me. I'd classify you as firmly in the Straussian Neo-con camp, which often masquerades as 'centrist', but it's the values you represent that I find repugnant. You want to move our nation further and further from the liberal values on which it was founded.
> 
> And you're right. It "works", at least in the short term. Authoritarian state power can drive us to great things (at great cost). That's why fascism has been so damnably hard to eradicate. I suspect we're in for a nasty resurgence early this century.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a new one--this country was cough-cough founded on "liberalism."--
Click to expand...


Of course it was. Do some reading.

Granted, the term has been twisted into the authoritarian nonsense PMZ is shilling for, but once-upon-a-time liberalism was the voice for individual rights and liberty in America.


----------



## Listening

PMZ said:


> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, how you label your views doesn't interest me. I'd classify you as firmly in the Straussian Neo-con camp, which often masquerades as 'centrist', but it's the values you represent that I find repugnant. You want to move our nation further and further from the liberal values on which it was founded.
> 
> And you're right. It "works", at least in the short term. Authoritarian state power can drive us to great things (at great cost). That's why fascism has been so damnably hard to eradicate. I suspect we're in for a nasty resurgence early this century.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a new one--this country was cough-cough founded on "liberalism."--
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Revolutions are inherently liberal.  Future focused. Solution oriented. Based on a vision of better.
Click to expand...


And often devolve into power grabs and the killing of a lot of innocents....

i.e. the French Revolution, Pol Pot, Hitler, and the North Vietnamese takeover of the south.

The Who had a great song for this.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Un5oEdfrm_A]The Who Wont Get Fooled Again Lyrics - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## oreo

PMZ said:


> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, how you label your views doesn't interest me. I'd classify you as firmly in the Straussian Neo-con camp, which often masquerades as 'centrist', but it's the values you represent that I find repugnant. You want to move our nation further and further from the liberal values on which it was founded.
> 
> And you're right. It "works", at least in the short term. Authoritarian state power can drive us to great things (at great cost). That's why fascism has been so damnably hard to eradicate. I suspect we're in for a nasty resurgence early this century.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a new one--this country was cough-cough founded on "liberalism."--
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Revolutions are inherently liberal.  Future focused. Solution oriented. Based on a vision of better.
Click to expand...



Well--the revelations of our "fore-fathers" was to physically work very hard forming a new country.  *I doubt that John Adams corn crop was "redistributed" by the federal government.*

And I seem to remember something about the "Boston Tea Party" when the government wanted to tax tea--and what happened then.

No this country was never founded upon "liberalism."  *Everyone worked-*-they fed themselves and or traded for other crops.  Someone who was lazy and wanted hand-outs from everyone else who was producing--did not survive in those days.

THE FIVE BEST SENTENCES:


> 1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.
> 
> 2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.
> 
> 3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.
> 
> 4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!
> 
> 5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.


----------



## Listening

dblack said:


> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, how you label your views doesn't interest me. I'd classify you as firmly in the Straussian Neo-con camp, which often masquerades as 'centrist', but it's the values you represent that I find repugnant. You want to move our nation further and further from the liberal values on which it was founded.
> 
> And you're right. It "works", at least in the short term. Authoritarian state power can drive us to great things (at great cost). That's why fascism has been so damnably hard to eradicate. I suspect we're in for a nasty resurgence early this century.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a new one--this country was cough-cough founded on "liberalism."--
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course it was. Do some reading.
> 
> Granted, the term has been twisted into the authoritarian nonsense PMZ is shilling for, but once-upon-a-time liberalism was the voice for individual rights and liberty in America.
Click to expand...


I am a liberal at home and in my community.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, how you label your views doesn't interest me. I'd classify you as firmly in the Straussian Neo-con camp, which often masquerades as 'centrist', but it's the values you represent that I find repugnant. You want to move our nation further and further from the liberal values on which it was founded.
> 
> And you're right. It "works", at least in the short term. Authoritarian state power can drive us to great things (at great cost). That's why fascism has been so damnably hard to eradicate. I suspect we're in for a nasty resurgence early this century.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a new one--this country was cough-cough founded on "liberalism."--
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Revolutions are inherently liberal.  Future focused. Solution oriented. Based on a vision of better.
Click to expand...


So running folks like you out of town on rails, would be a revolution.  Hmm..


----------



## PMZ

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, how you label your views doesn't interest me. I'd classify you as firmly in the Straussian Neo-con camp, which often masquerades as 'centrist', but it's the values you represent that I find repugnant. You want to move our nation further and further from the liberal values on which it was founded.
> 
> And you're right. It "works", at least in the short term. Authoritarian state power can drive us to great things (at great cost). That's why fascism has been so damnably hard to eradicate. I suspect we're in for a nasty resurgence early this century.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You agenda is fully revealed by your labeling traditional American values and culture and democracy as fascist. That's the same line that Stalin enslaved the USSR with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> George Orwell has arrived!
> 
> As I'm saying the labels don't interest me - but the values you oppose (individuality, diversity, freedom of conscience) are important and I'll continue to speak up for them regardless.
Click to expand...


"(individuality, diversity, freedom of conscience)"

All great characteristics for individuals.  Sounds like me too.  The good news that we are free to be all of those things,  even to the extreme,  and not break a single law here.


----------



## oreo

Listening said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's a new one--this country was cough-cough founded on "liberalism."--
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it was. Do some reading.
> 
> Granted, the term has been twisted into the authoritarian nonsense PMZ is shilling for, but once-upon-a-time liberalism was the voice for individual rights and liberty in America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am a liberal at home and in my community.
Click to expand...



You must be trying to re-write history and or insert a word that our fore-fathers would have strongly disagreed with--ie being liberal?  This country was founded on the basis of liberty and freedom--but it certainly wasn't described as "liberalism"-- 

Not a single one of our fore-fathers would have considered themselves a liberal.  "They didn't believe in re-distribution of wealth."  They fought against taxation at every single opportunity.  They physically worked hard to make this country work--and they would have had a very low opinion of those that didn't.

A liberal today--and their expectations of what government should do for them would have been laughed at by these people.  They would have been tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail.


----------



## PMZ

dblack said:


> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, how you label your views doesn't interest me. I'd classify you as firmly in the Straussian Neo-con camp, which often masquerades as 'centrist', but it's the values you represent that I find repugnant. You want to move our nation further and further from the liberal values on which it was founded.
> 
> And you're right. It "works", at least in the short term. Authoritarian state power can drive us to great things (at great cost). That's why fascism has been so damnably hard to eradicate. I suspect we're in for a nasty resurgence early this century.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a new one--this country was cough-cough founded on "liberalism."--
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course it was. Do some reading.
> 
> Granted, the term has been twisted into the authoritarian nonsense PMZ is shilling for, but once-upon-a-time liberalism was the voice for individual rights and liberty in America.
Click to expand...


Your statement is pure propaganda.


----------



## PMZ

Listening said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's a new one--this country was cough-cough founded on "liberalism."--
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Revolutions are inherently liberal.  Future focused. Solution oriented. Based on a vision of better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And often devolve into power grabs and the killing of a lot of innocents....
> 
> i.e. the French Revolution, Pol Pot, Hitler, and the North Vietnamese takeover of the south.
> 
> The Who had a great song for this.
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Un5oEdfrm_A]The Who Wont Get Fooled Again Lyrics - YouTube[/ame]
Click to expand...


It must have been the destruction of royal aristocracy in the French Revolution that got you interested in the recreation of it here.  I'll bet you can't wait for the American version of Versailles.  

I live near a prototype of it.  Naples,  FL.


----------



## PMZ

oreo said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's a new one--this country was cough-cough founded on "liberalism."--
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Revolutions are inherently liberal.  Future focused. Solution oriented. Based on a vision of better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Well--the revelations of our "fore-fathers" was to physically work very hard forming a new country.  *I doubt that John Adams corn crop was "redistributed" by the federal government.*
> 
> And I seem to remember something about the "Boston Tea Party" when the government wanted to tax tea--and what happened then.
> 
> No this country was never founded upon "liberalism."  *Everyone worked-*-they fed themselves and or traded for other crops.  Someone who was lazy and wanted hand-outs from everyone else who was producing--did not survive in those days.
> 
> THE FIVE BEST SENTENCES:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.
> 
> 2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.
> 
> 3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.
> 
> 4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!
> 
> 5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


There is nothing more purely propaganda than that conservatives work harder than liberals. It has no basis in reality and is nothing more than a feel good hook to addiction to Republican media.


----------



## PMZ

Listening said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's a new one--this country was cough-cough founded on "liberalism."--
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it was. Do some reading.
> 
> Granted, the term has been twisted into the authoritarian nonsense PMZ is shilling for, but once-upon-a-time liberalism was the voice for individual rights and liberty in America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am a liberal at home and in my community.
Click to expand...


Being liberal or conservative has much more to do with how you see the world than anything.  I'm not sure you can see it one way inside your house and community and another way outside.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's a new one--this country was cough-cough founded on "liberalism."--
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Revolutions are inherently liberal.  Future focused. Solution oriented. Based on a vision of better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So running folks like you out of town on rails, would be a revolution.  Hmm..
Click to expand...


Thats what happens in Revolutions. people like me run people like you, who live off of us,  out of town.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Revolutions are inherently liberal.  Future focused. Solution oriented. Based on a vision of better.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So running folks like you out of town on rails, would be a revolution.  Hmm..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That&#8217;s what happens in Revolutions. people like me run people like you, who live off of us,  out of town.
Click to expand...

ROFL I'm already living "out of town."  Looks like your gonna have to go back to work retard.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> So running folks like you out of town on rails, would be a revolution.  Hmm..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thats what happens in Revolutions. people like me run people like you, who live off of us,  out of town.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ROFL I'm already living "out of town."  Looks like your gonna have to go back to work retard.
Click to expand...


I've always done what needed doing.  I'm not going to stop now. 

So you chose to reside elsewhere but continually whine about America? 

Why don't you whine about your country?


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thats what happens in Revolutions. people like me run people like you, who live off of us,  out of town.
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL I'm already living "out of town."  Looks like your gonna have to go back to work retard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've always done what needed doing.  I'm not going to stop now.
> 
> So you chose to reside elsewhere but continually whine about America?
> 
> Why don't you whine about your country?
Click to expand...

Do I really need to teach you the difference between living in town and out of town? There's a village looking for it's idiot, you need to report back in retard.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL I'm already living "out of town."  Looks like your gonna have to go back to work retard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've always done what needed doing.  I'm not going to stop now.
> 
> So you chose to reside elsewhere but continually whine about America?
> 
> Why don't you whine about your country?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do I really need to teach you the difference between living in town and out of town? There's a village looking for it's idiot, you need to report back in retard.
Click to expand...


What you need is to be clearer in your posts.  Tough for the marginally literate.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've always done what needed doing.  I'm not going to stop now.
> 
> So you chose to reside elsewhere but continually whine about America?
> 
> Why don't you whine about your country?
> 
> 
> 
> Do I really need to teach you the difference between living in town and out of town? There's a village looking for it's idiot, you need to report back in retard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you need is to be clearer in your posts.  Tough for the marginally literate.
Click to expand...


How many times have you talked about me living in Texas?  How many times?  What part of living in texas gave you the impression I'm not living in texas?


----------



## dblack

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You agenda is fully revealed by your labeling traditional American values and culture and democracy as fascist. That's the same line that Stalin enslaved the USSR with.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> George Orwell has arrived!
> 
> As I'm saying the labels don't interest me - but the values you oppose (individuality, diversity, freedom of conscience) are important and I'll continue to speak up for them regardless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "(individuality, diversity, freedom of conscience)"
> 
> All great characteristics for individuals.  Sounds like me too.  The good news that we are free to be all of those things,  even to the extreme,  and not break a single law here.
Click to expand...


		LOL .... riiiiight.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do I really need to teach you the difference between living in town and out of town? There's a village looking for it's idiot, you need to report back in retard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you need is to be clearer in your posts.  Tough for the marginally literate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many times have you talked about me living in Texas?  How many times?  What part of living in texas gave you the impression I'm not living in texas?
Click to expand...


What you posted today.


----------



## PMZ

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> George Orwell has arrived!
> 
> As I'm saying the labels don't interest me - but the values you oppose (individuality, diversity, freedom of conscience) are important and I'll continue to speak up for them regardless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "(individuality, diversity, freedom of conscience)"
> 
> All great characteristics for individuals.  Sounds like me too.  The good news that we are free to be all of those things,  even to the extreme,  and not break a single law here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL .... riiiiight.
Click to expand...


So,  if you are free to live as you want in America,  why do you advocate anarchy?


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> "(individuality, diversity, freedom of conscience)"
> 
> All great characteristics for individuals.  Sounds like me too.  The good news that we are free to be all of those things,  even to the extreme,  and not break a single law here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL .... riiiiight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So,  if you are free to live as you want in America,  why do you advocate anarchy?
Click to expand...


You are so retarded.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL .... riiiiight.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So,  if you are free to live as you want in America,  why do you advocate anarchy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are so retarded.
Click to expand...


And yet,  so much smarter and better informed than you.  I guess Texans get so used to being behind like that.  

I'm thinking that they will be the last people in the world,  if they don't go extinct first,  to accept evolution and natural selection.


----------



## Listening

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> So,  if you are free to live as you want in America,  why do you advocate anarchy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are so retarded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet,  so much smarter and better informed than you.  I guess Texans get so used to being behind like that.
> 
> I'm thinking that they will be the last people in the world,  if they don't go extinct first,  to accept evolution and natural selection.
Click to expand...


You are generalizing about all Texans ?

Wow, you are something special.


----------



## PMZ

Listening said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are so retarded.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet,  so much smarter and better informed than you.  I guess Texans get so used to being behind like that.
> 
> I'm thinking that they will be the last people in the world,  if they don't go extinct first,  to accept evolution and natural selection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are generalizing about all Texans ?
> 
> Wow, you are something special.
Click to expand...


Yes I am.  Just like you and Brownie do about everyone not radical right.


----------



## Listening

PMZ said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet,  so much smarter and better informed than you.  I guess Texans get so used to being behind like that.
> 
> I'm thinking that they will be the last people in the world,  if they don't go extinct first,  to accept evolution and natural selection.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are generalizing about all Texans ?
> 
> Wow, you are something special.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes I am.  Just like you and Brownie do about everyone not radical right.
Click to expand...


So, that justifies you ?  

Got it.


----------



## PMZ

Listening said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are generalizing about all Texans ?
> 
> Wow, you are something special.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I am.  Just like you and Brownie do about everyone not radical right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, that justifies you ?
> 
> Got it.
Click to expand...


I respond in kind. If you don't like that,  change your tone.


----------



## Listening

PMZ said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I am.  Just like you and Brownie do about everyone not radical right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, that justifies you ?
> 
> Got it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I respond in kind. If you don't like that,  change your tone.
Click to expand...


You are the moron who keeps spouting off about Fox News even though you have no idea what we watch.

Please keep your all-knowing, know-nothing opinions to yourself.


----------



## PMZ

Listening said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, that justifies you ?
> 
> Got it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I respond in kind. If you don't like that,  change your tone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the moron who keeps spouting off about Fox News even though you have no idea what we watch.
> 
> Please keep your all-knowing, know-nothing opinions to yourself.
Click to expand...


I can deal with all styles, idiot.

You can keep Fox's all-knowing, know-nothing opinions to yourself.


----------



## Listening

PMZ said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it was. Do some reading.
> 
> Granted, the term has been twisted into the authoritarian nonsense PMZ is shilling for, but once-upon-a-time liberalism was the voice for individual rights and liberty in America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am a liberal at home and in my community.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Being liberal or conservative has much more to do with how you see the world than anything.  I'm not sure you can see it one way inside your house and community and another way outside.
Click to expand...


And that admission is what separates those of us who can think from those of you who have your heads shoved squarely up your asses.


----------



## Listening

PMZ said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I respond in kind. If you don't like that,  change your tone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are the moron who keeps spouting off about Fox News even though you have no idea what we watch.
> 
> Please keep your all-knowing, know-nothing opinions to yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can deal with all styles, idiot.
> 
> You can keep Fox's all-knowing, know-nothing opinions to yourself.
Click to expand...


How original.


----------



## PMZ

Listening said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am a liberal at home and in my community.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Being liberal or conservative has much more to do with how you see the world than anything.  I'm not sure you can see it one way inside your house and community and another way outside.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that admission is what separates those of us who can think from those of you who have your heads shoved squarely up your asses.
Click to expand...


I've been looking for evidence of you thinking rather than reciting right wing dogma all day.

Maybe tomorrow.


----------



## Listening

PMZ said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Being liberal or conservative has much more to do with how you see the world than anything.  I'm not sure you can see it one way inside your house and community and another way outside.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that admission is what separates those of us who can think from those of you who have your heads shoved squarely up your asses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've been looking for evidence of you thinking rather than reciting right wing dogma all day.
> 
> Maybe tomorrow.
Click to expand...


You won't find it in your colon.


----------



## PMZ

Listening said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> And that admission is what separates those of us who can think from those of you who have your heads shoved squarely up your asses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've been looking for evidence of you thinking rather than reciting right wing dogma all day.
> 
> Maybe tomorrow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You won't find it in your colon.
Click to expand...


Actually, I can't find it anywhere.


----------



## dblack

PMZ said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've been looking for evidence of you thinking rather than reciting right wing dogma all day.
> 
> Maybe tomorrow.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You won't find it in your colon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, I can't find it anywhere.
Click to expand...


You can't find your own colon?

Why am I not surprised?

You know, for awhile there I wondered if you weren't a paid shill for ACA. But now I'm suspecting the opposite, that you're here to stir up righteous anger over the health care takeover. Maybe I should be thanking you.


----------



## Listening

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> You won't find it in your colon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I can't find it anywhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't find your own colon?
Click to expand...


----------



## PMZ

I am a shill for the law of the land. Most responsible citizens are. Those of you who want to tear the country down and rebuild it into a tribal society would like us to fail.

I don't see that happening.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> I am a shill for the law of the land. Most responsible citizens are. Those of you who want to tear the country down and rebuild it into a tribal society would like us to fail.
> 
> I don't see that happening.



You are the shill for shit, and you are full up.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am a shill for the law of the land. Most responsible citizens are. Those of you who want to tear the country down and rebuild it into a tribal society would like us to fail.
> 
> I don't see that happening.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are the shill for shit, and you are full up.
Click to expand...


Another insight into the corrupt conservative "mind".


----------



## Listening

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am a shill for the law of the land. Most responsible citizens are. Those of you who want to tear the country down and rebuild it into a tribal society would like us to fail.
> 
> I don't see that happening.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are the shill for shit, and you are full up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another insight into the corrupt conservative "mind".
Click to expand...


More generalizations that are meaningless.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet,  so much smarter and better informed than you.  I guess Texans get so used to being behind like that.
> 
> I'm thinking that they will be the last people in the world,  if they don't go extinct first,  to accept evolution and natural selection.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are generalizing about all Texans ?
> 
> Wow, you are something special.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes I am.  Just like you and Brownie do about everyone not radical right.
Click to expand...


I'm not radical right you retard.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are generalizing about all Texans ?
> 
> Wow, you are something special.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I am.  Just like you and Brownie do about everyone not radical right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not radical right you retard.
Click to expand...


Look to the right of you.  Who's there.  Maybe one or two of the most extreme Taliban,  and they are not Americans.  

You are extreme.  You are radical.  As you've been trained to be. 

The army of the media vultures circling America trying to hasten the death of democracy and the rebirth of aristocracy.


----------



## dblack

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I am.  Just like you and Brownie do about everyone not radical right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not radical right you retard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look to the right of you.  Who's there.  Maybe one or two of the most extreme Taliban,  and they are not Americans.
> 
> You are extreme.  You are radical.  As you've been trained to be.
> 
> The army of the media vultures circling America trying to hasten the death of democracy and the rebirth of aristocracy.
Click to expand...


Nope. It's a common theme for neo-cons, but libertarians aren't 'hard-right'. We're the opposite of you, which confuses you a bit, but in many ways we're more liberal, so the left right thing really doesn't work.


----------



## PMZ

Listening said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are the shill for shit, and you are full up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another insight into the corrupt conservative "mind".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More generalizations that are meaningless.
Click to expand...


Clearly one of the propaganda lessons that you have internalized is that resistance to the media message is "meaningless"  and futile.  Only compliance will be rewarded with a pat on the head.  Independent thought must be nipped in the bud.


----------



## PMZ

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not radical right you retard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look to the right of you.  Who's there.  Maybe one or two of the most extreme Taliban,  and they are not Americans.
> 
> You are extreme.  You are radical.  As you've been trained to be.
> 
> The army of the media vultures circling America trying to hasten the death of democracy and the rebirth of aristocracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. It's a common theme for neo-cons, but libertarians aren't 'hard-right'. We're the opposite of you, which confuses you a bit, but in many ways we're more liberal, so the left right thing really doesn't work.
Click to expand...


Where is that written,  by who,  and how ratified by we,  the people?


----------



## PMZ

One of the jobs of those seeking change through propaganda,  is to sell that their movement is fundamental and God sent as opposed to the conspiracy presently in place. 

And lots of people willingly fall for that.  Virtually every tyrannical revolution went through that stage to obtain real power. 

It takes people well founded in objective history and willing to  stand up for truth to resist the siren song of propaganda.


----------



## PMZ

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not radical right you retard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look to the right of you.  Who's there.  Maybe one or two of the most extreme Taliban,  and they are not Americans.
> 
> You are extreme.  You are radical.  As you've been trained to be.
> 
> The army of the media vultures circling America trying to hasten the death of democracy and the rebirth of aristocracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. It's a common theme for neo-cons, but libertarians aren't 'hard-right'. We're the opposite of you, which confuses you a bit, but in many ways we're more liberal, so the left right thing really doesn't work.
Click to expand...


Just to be clear,  to me,  labels are mostly used as pig lipstick.  They are very subjective and abstract attempts to curry favor from a broader base. 

My problems with your cause is not any label, but that it's anti American.  Not what got us here.  Outside of the mainstream interpretation of our Constitution.


----------



## dblack

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look to the right of you.  Who's there.  Maybe one or two of the most extreme Taliban,  and they are not Americans.
> 
> You are extreme.  You are radical.  As you've been trained to be.
> 
> The army of the media vultures circling America trying to hasten the death of democracy and the rebirth of aristocracy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. It's a common theme for neo-cons, but libertarians aren't 'hard-right'. We're the opposite of you, which confuses you a bit, but in many ways we're more liberal, so the left right thing really doesn't work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where is that written,  by who,  and how ratified by we,  the people?
Click to expand...




PMZ said:


> One of the jobs of those seeking change through propaganda,  is to sell that their movement is fundamental and God sent as opposed to the conspiracy presently in place.
> 
> And lots of people willingly fall for that.  Virtually every tyrannical revolution went through that stage to obtain real power.
> 
> It takes people well founded in objective history and willing to  stand up for truth to resist the siren song of propaganda.



What in the hell are you rambling about?


----------



## dblack

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look to the right of you.  Who's there.  Maybe one or two of the most extreme Taliban,  and they are not Americans.
> 
> You are extreme.  You are radical.  As you've been trained to be.
> 
> The army of the media vultures circling America trying to hasten the death of democracy and the rebirth of aristocracy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. It's a common theme for neo-cons, but libertarians aren't 'hard-right'. We're the opposite of you, which confuses you a bit, but in many ways we're more liberal, so the left right thing really doesn't work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just to be clear,  to me,  labels are mostly used as pig lipstick.  They are very subjective and abstract attempts to curry favor from a broader base.
> 
> My problems with your cause is not any label, but that it's anti American.  Not what got us here.  Outside of the mainstream interpretation of our Constitution.
Click to expand...


Clear is good. And I completely agree, my problems with your cause is not any label, but that it's anti American.  Not what got us here.  Outside of the mainstream interpretation of our Constitution.


----------



## PMZ

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. It's a common theme for neo-cons, but libertarians aren't 'hard-right'. We're the opposite of you, which confuses you a bit, but in many ways we're more liberal, so the left right thing really doesn't work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just to be clear,  to me,  labels are mostly used as pig lipstick.  They are very subjective and abstract attempts to curry favor from a broader base.
> 
> My problems with your cause is not any label, but that it's anti American.  Not what got us here.  Outside of the mainstream interpretation of our Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clear is good. And I completely agree, my problems with your cause is not any label, but that it's anti American.  Not what got us here.  Outside of the mainstream interpretation of our Constitution.
Click to expand...


I don't see how it's possible for anyone to believe that libertarianism or  certainly anarchy has ever been mainstream or even ever put into practice here.


----------



## Listening

PMZ said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another insight into the corrupt conservative "mind".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More generalizations that are meaningless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clearly one of the propaganda lessons that you have internalized is that resistance to the media message is "meaningless"  and futile.  Only compliance will be rewarded with a pat on the head.  Independent thought must be nipped in the bud.
Click to expand...


More chanting.


----------



## Listening

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just to be clear,  to me,  labels are mostly used as pig lipstick.  They are very subjective and abstract attempts to curry favor from a broader base.
> 
> My problems with your cause is not any label, but that it's anti American.  Not what got us here.  Outside of the mainstream interpretation of our Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clear is good. And I completely agree, my problems with your cause is not any label, but that it's anti American.  Not what got us here.  Outside of the mainstream interpretation of our Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't see how it's possible for anyone to believe that libertarianism or  certainly anarchy has ever been mainstream or even ever put into practice here.
Click to expand...


When you get away from your handbook of labels and get a breath of fresh air I hope you won't be to embarrassed by the silliness of these posts.

Never heard of the Free State Project.  Mainstream does not have to apply to all 320,000,000 of us.  Only enough that control a small local segment.  You can see it in neighborhoods where I live.

What is unAmerican about you is that you constantly seek to homogonize society when the country was designed to allow maximum latitude.


----------



## dblack

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just to be clear,  to me,  labels are mostly used as pig lipstick.  They are very subjective and abstract attempts to curry favor from a broader base.
> 
> My problems with your cause is not any label, but that it's anti American.  Not what got us here.  Outside of the mainstream interpretation of our Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clear is good. And I completely agree, my problems with your cause is not any label, but that it's anti American.  Not what got us here.  Outside of the mainstream interpretation of our Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't see how it's possible for anyone to believe that libertarianism or  certainly anarchy has ever been mainstream or even ever put into practice here.
Click to expand...


What I find most interesting is how the left/right artifice completely fails to distinguish our views meaningfully. I'd wager that on a typical left/right test, you and I would both fall somewhere near the middle, even if we'd answer nearly every question the opposite. Authoritarians and libertarians ARE polar opposites, but not along the one dimensional conservative/liberal axis.


----------



## Listening

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clear is good. And I completely agree, my problems with your cause is not any label, but that it's anti American.  Not what got us here.  Outside of the mainstream interpretation of our Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see how it's possible for anyone to believe that libertarianism or  certainly anarchy has ever been mainstream or even ever put into practice here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I find most interesting is how the left/right artifice completely fails to distinguish our views meaningfully. I'd wager that on a typical left/right test, you and I would both fall somewhere near the middle, even if we'd answer nearly every question the opposite. Authoritarians and libertarians ARE polar opposites, but not along the one dimensional conservative/liberal axis.
Click to expand...


Typical left/right test ?  Is there such a thing ?

Yes you are polar opposites.  I tend to lean libertarian myself (or so I thought).


----------



## PMZ

Listening said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clear is good. And I completely agree, my problems with your cause is not any label, but that it's anti American.  Not what got us here.  Outside of the mainstream interpretation of our Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see how it's possible for anyone to believe that libertarianism or  certainly anarchy has ever been mainstream or even ever put into practice here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you get away from your handbook of labels and get a breath of fresh air I hope you won't be to embarrassed by the silliness of these posts.
> 
> Never heard of the Free State Project.  Mainstream does not have to apply to all 320,000,000 of us.  Only enough that control a small local segment.  You can see it in neighborhoods where I live.
> 
> What is unAmerican about you is that you constantly seek to homogonize society when the country was designed to allow maximum latitude.
Click to expand...


You apparently have not yet learned that you don't define other people.  Just yourself.


----------



## PMZ

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clear is good. And I completely agree, my problems with your cause is not any label, but that it's anti American.  Not what got us here.  Outside of the mainstream interpretation of our Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see how it's possible for anyone to believe that libertarianism or  certainly anarchy has ever been mainstream or even ever put into practice here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I find most interesting is how the left/right artifice completely fails to distinguish our views meaningfully. I'd wager that on a typical left/right test, you and I would both fall somewhere near the middle, even if we'd answer nearly every question the opposite. Authoritarians and libertarians ARE polar opposites, but not along the one dimensional conservative/liberal axis.
Click to expand...


I don't know what an authoritarian is.  I doubt if I know one.  

What I'm for is collaboration, which can only exist within an organization with structure,  rules,  roles,  and purpose.  What exists without that is chaos.  

That's why every corporation,  service organization,  government,  military,  volunteer group,  church,  school,  religion,  community,  neighborhood,  charity,  etc has organization.


----------



## PMZ

Listening said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clear is good. And I completely agree, my problems with your cause is not any label, but that it's anti American.  Not what got us here.  Outside of the mainstream interpretation of our Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see how it's possible for anyone to believe that libertarianism or  certainly anarchy has ever been mainstream or even ever put into practice here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you get away from your handbook of labels and get a breath of fresh air I hope you won't be to embarrassed by the silliness of these posts.
> 
> Never heard of the Free State Project.  Mainstream does not have to apply to all 320,000,000 of us.  Only enough that control a small local segment.  You can see it in neighborhoods where I live.
> 
> What is unAmerican about you is that you constantly seek to homogonize society when the country was designed to allow maximum latitude.
Click to expand...


"homogonize society"

Another thing that I've never experienced.  The human race is about as diverse as can be imagined.  Nobody can change or control that.


----------



## Listening

PMZ said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see how it's possible for anyone to believe that libertarianism or  certainly anarchy has ever been mainstream or even ever put into practice here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you get away from your handbook of labels and get a breath of fresh air I hope you won't be to embarrassed by the silliness of these posts.
> 
> Never heard of the Free State Project.  Mainstream does not have to apply to all 320,000,000 of us.  Only enough that control a small local segment.  You can see it in neighborhoods where I live.
> 
> What is unAmerican about you is that you constantly seek to homogonize society when the country was designed to allow maximum latitude.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You apparently have not yet learned that you don't define other people.  Just yourself.
Click to expand...


I see...and yet you keep yelling Fox News at anyone who does not agree with you.

Swallow your own medicine.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see how it's possible for anyone to believe that libertarianism or  certainly anarchy has ever been mainstream or even ever put into practice here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What I find most interesting is how the left/right artifice completely fails to distinguish our views meaningfully. I'd wager that on a typical left/right test, you and I would both fall somewhere near the middle, even if we'd answer nearly every question the opposite. Authoritarians and libertarians ARE polar opposites, but not along the one dimensional conservative/liberal axis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know what an authoritarian is.  I doubt if I know one.
> 
> What I'm for is collaboration, which can only exist within an organization with structure,  rules,  roles,  and purpose.  What exists without that is chaos.
> 
> That's why every corporation,  service organization,  government,  military,  volunteer group,  church,  school,  religion,  community,  neighborhood,  charity,  etc has organization.
Click to expand...


Retard.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I find most interesting is how the left/right artifice completely fails to distinguish our views meaningfully. I'd wager that on a typical left/right test, you and I would both fall somewhere near the middle, even if we'd answer nearly every question the opposite. Authoritarians and libertarians ARE polar opposites, but not along the one dimensional conservative/liberal axis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know what an authoritarian is.  I doubt if I know one.
> 
> What I'm for is collaboration, which can only exist within an organization with structure,  rules,  roles,  and purpose.  What exists without that is chaos.
> 
> That's why every corporation,  service organization,  government,  military,  volunteer group,  church,  school,  religion,  community,  neighborhood,  charity,  etc has organization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Retard.
Click to expand...


Idiot.


----------



## Listening

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know what an authoritarian is.  I doubt if I know one.
> 
> What I'm for is collaboration, which can only exist within an organization with structure,  rules,  roles,  and purpose.  What exists without that is chaos.
> 
> That's why every corporation,  service organization,  government,  military,  volunteer group,  church,  school,  religion,  community,  neighborhood,  charity,  etc has organization.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Retard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Idiot.
Click to expand...


Well, at least it wasn't Fox News.  You should join Franco in posting together.  You could be the twin assholes of the board.

I am afraid that you really don't know how to do much except wag your finger and use the term's opinion and Fox News much.

You really did get screwed by whoever you paid to educate  you.  They did a miserable job.


----------



## PMZ

Listening said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Retard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, at least it wasn't Fox News.  You should join Franco in posting together.  You could be the twin assholes of the board.
> 
> I am afraid that you really don't know how to do much except wag your finger and use the term's opinion and Fox News much.
> 
> You really did get screwed by whoever you paid to educate  you.  They did a miserable job.
Click to expand...


Apparently you are against collaboration and organization. Your choice. Not only my education, but my experience is that that's how things get done. But, I realize that, as a conservative, you don't want to get things done. So, I have to agree, if you don't ever do anything, chaos accomplishes nothing as well as any other process.


----------



## Listening

PMZ said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, at least it wasn't Fox News.  You should join Franco in posting together.  You could be the twin assholes of the board.
> 
> I am afraid that you really don't know how to do much except wag your finger and use the term's opinion and Fox News much.
> 
> You really did get screwed by whoever you paid to educate  you.  They did a miserable job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently you are against collaboration and organization. Your choice. Not only my education, but my experience is that that's how things get done. But, I realize that, as a conservative, you don't want to get things done. So, I have to agree, if you don't ever do anything, chaos accomplishes nothing as well as any other process.
Click to expand...


Apparently, you need to change the bubble gum cards you buy because this stuff (which you copy off of them) is getting old.  You know so much about me.  I can only assume, that like so many liberals you have a crystal ball shoved up your ass and have to stick your head there to read it (after all "you realize" so much that is pure bullshyt).  The best you do is sit on a message board pretending to be smart and educated when your posts show that not only are you uneducated, you are lazy.

Well, somewhat narcissistic too.  As you somehow thing that the physics of the universe bend to your valued "opinions" (valued by you).

If this is how you "get things done", then thank heavens for those who really know what that means.


----------



## PMZ

Listening said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, at least it wasn't Fox News.  You should join Franco in posting together.  You could be the twin assholes of the board.
> 
> I am afraid that you really don't know how to do much except wag your finger and use the term's opinion and Fox News much.
> 
> You really did get screwed by whoever you paid to educate  you.  They did a miserable job.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently you are against collaboration and organization. Your choice. Not only my education, but my experience is that that's how things get done. But, I realize that, as a conservative, you don't want to get things done. So, I have to agree, if you don't ever do anything, chaos accomplishes nothing as well as any other process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently, you need to change the bubble gum cards you buy because this stuff (which you copy off of them) is getting old.  You know so much about me.  I can only assume, that like so many liberals you have a crystal ball shoved up your ass and have to stick your head there to read it (after all "you realize" so much that is pure bullshyt).  The best you do is sit on a message board pretending to be smart and educated when your posts show that not only are you uneducated, you are lazy.
> 
> Well, somewhat narcissistic too.  As you somehow thing that the physics of the universe bend to your valued "opinions" (valued by you).
> 
> If this is how you "get things done", then thank heavens for those who really know what that means.
Click to expand...


I think that you have completely lost it. The not surprising result of blind allegiance to an indefensible dogma. So be it. If you ever recover, and want to explore alternatives, let me know. If you stay in the you are always right about everything mode, don't call me, I'll call you.


----------



## Listening

PMZ said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently you are against collaboration and organization. Your choice. Not only my education, but my experience is that that's how things get done. But, I realize that, as a conservative, you don't want to get things done. So, I have to agree, if you don't ever do anything, chaos accomplishes nothing as well as any other process.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently, you need to change the bubble gum cards you buy because this stuff (which you copy off of them) is getting old.  You know so much about me.  I can only assume, that like so many liberals you have a crystal ball shoved up your ass and have to stick your head there to read it (after all "you realize" so much that is pure bullshyt).  The best you do is sit on a message board pretending to be smart and educated when your posts show that not only are you uneducated, you are lazy.
> 
> Well, somewhat narcissistic too.  As you somehow thing that the physics of the universe bend to your valued "opinions" (valued by you).
> 
> If this is how you "get things done", then thank heavens for those who really know what that means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *I think* that you have completely lost it. The not surprising result of blind allegiance to an indefensible dogma. So be it. If you ever recover, and want to explore alternatives, let me know. If you stay in the you are always right about everything mode, don't call me, I'll call you.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
Click to expand...


The first two words in your post are a lie.


----------



## PMZ

Listening said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently, you need to change the bubble gum cards you buy because this stuff (which you copy off of them) is getting old.  You know so much about me.  I can only assume, that like so many liberals you have a crystal ball shoved up your ass and have to stick your head there to read it (after all "you realize" so much that is pure bullshyt).  The best you do is sit on a message board pretending to be smart and educated when your posts show that not only are you uneducated, you are lazy.
> 
> Well, somewhat narcissistic too.  As you somehow thing that the physics of the universe bend to your valued "opinions" (valued by you).
> 
> If this is how you "get things done", then thank heavens for those who really know what that means.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I think* that you have completely lost it. The not surprising result of blind allegiance to an indefensible dogma. So be it. If you ever recover, and want to explore alternatives, let me know. If you stay in the you are always right about everything mode, don't call me, I'll call you.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The first two words in your post are a lie.
Click to expand...


I assume that this means that you are unable, or unwilling, to attempt to defend your media propaganda based dogma, and instead want to let it stand as what you wish was true.

I think that's a smart choice.


----------



## Listening

PMZ said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I think* that you have completely lost it. The not surprising result of blind allegiance to an indefensible dogma. So be it. If you ever recover, and want to explore alternatives, let me know. If you stay in the you are always right about everything mode, don't call me, I'll call you.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The first two words in your post are a lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I assume that this means that you are unable, or unwilling, to attempt to defend your media propaganda based dogma, and instead want to let it stand as what you wish was true.
> 
> I think that's a smart choice.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
Click to expand...


Why would I defend anything to a liar ?


----------



## dblack

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see how it's possible for anyone to believe that libertarianism or  certainly anarchy has ever been mainstream or even ever put into practice here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What I find most interesting is how the left/right artifice completely fails to distinguish our views meaningfully. I'd wager that on a typical left/right test, you and I would both fall somewhere near the middle, even if we'd answer nearly every question the opposite. Authoritarians and libertarians ARE polar opposites, but not along the one dimensional conservative/liberal axis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know what an authoritarian is.  I doubt if I know one.
Click to expand...


What name do you like then? I'm using 'authoritarian' to describe the ideology you espouse, which is diametrically oppose to the 'libertarian' spirit of American democracy.



> What I'm for is collaboration, which can only exist within an organization with structure,  rules,  roles,  and purpose.  What exists without that is chaos.



I'm not advocating chaos or anarchy, so don't waste time on that strawman. 'Collaboration' implies voluntarily working together to solve our problems, and that's definitely NOT what you've been arguing for. You're for obedience to coercive mandates from government. I call that 'authoritarian'. I think that's an accurate moniker, but as we've agreed, the labels aren't important. It's the policies and values we're advocating that matter.


----------



## Listening

dblack said:


> I'm not advocating chaos or anarchy, so don't waste time on that strawman. 'Collaboration' implies voluntarily working together to solve our problems, and that's definitely NOT what you've been arguing for. You're for obedience to coercive mandates from government. I call that 'authoritarian'. I think that's an accurate moniker, but as we've agreed, the labels aren't important. It's the policies and values we're advocating that matter.



You nailed it...

Collaboration means you'll do what they say and you'll like it.


----------



## PMZ

Listening said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> The first two words in your post are a lie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I assume that this means that you are unable, or unwilling, to attempt to defend your media propaganda based dogma, and instead want to let it stand as what you wish was true.
> 
> I think that's a smart choice.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would I defend anything to a liar ?
Click to expand...


I've told nothing but the truth but, not unexpectedly, it is inconsistent with the propaganda that you swallow every day. No surprise. What your programmers have as an objective is your complete allegiance to, and belief in, what they are paid to instill. And they're good at what they do.

If I were you, I'd avoid trying to defend their dogma as strenuously as I could. It can only lead to frustration and you already have more of that then you can stand. 

Run, run, run, to the place of other believers and reassure each other that you and the programmers are the sole proprietors of the truth. It's the only way to be right.


----------



## Listening

PMZ said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I assume that this means that you are unable, or unwilling, to attempt to defend your media propaganda based dogma, and instead want to let it stand as what you wish was true.
> 
> I think that's a smart choice.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would I defend anything to a liar ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *I've told nothing* but the truth but, not unexpectedly, it is inconsistent with the propaganda that you swallow every day. No surprise. What your programmers have as an objective is your complete allegiance to, and belief in, what they are paid to instill. And they're good at what they do.
> 
> If I were you, I'd avoid trying to defend their dogma as strenuously as I could. It can only lead to frustration and you already have more of that then you can stand.
> 
> Run, run, run, to the place of other believers and reassure each other that you and the programmers are the sole proprietors of the truth. It's the only way to be right.
Click to expand...


Nothing is right.  You've not say'd anything of value on this board since you started posting.


----------



## PMZ

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I find most interesting is how the left/right artifice completely fails to distinguish our views meaningfully. I'd wager that on a typical left/right test, you and I would both fall somewhere near the middle, even if we'd answer nearly every question the opposite. Authoritarians and libertarians ARE polar opposites, but not along the one dimensional conservative/liberal axis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know what an authoritarian is.  I doubt if I know one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What name do you like then? I'm using 'authoritarian' to describe the ideology you espouse, which is diametrically oppose to the 'libertarian' spirit of American democracy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What I'm for is collaboration, which can only exist within an organization with structure,  rules,  roles,  and purpose.  What exists without that is chaos.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not advocating chaos or anarchy, so don't waste time on that strawman. 'Collaboration' implies voluntarily working together to solve our problems, and that's definitely NOT what you've been arguing for. You're for obedience to coercive mandates from government. I call that 'authoritarian'. I think that's an accurate moniker, but as we've agreed, the labels aren't important. It's the policies and values we're advocating that matter.
Click to expand...


I am, in no way, libertarian or anarchist. I believe in organization and collaboration despite the cognitive dissonance that that causes you. It is the essence of civilization which is the essence of democracy. Rules made by representatives of we, the people.


----------



## dblack

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know what an authoritarian is.  I doubt if I know one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What name do you like then? I'm using 'authoritarian' to describe the ideology you espouse, which is diametrically oppose to the 'libertarian' spirit of American democracy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What I'm for is collaboration, which can only exist within an organization with structure,  rules,  roles,  and purpose.  What exists without that is chaos.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not advocating chaos or anarchy, so don't waste time on that strawman. 'Collaboration' implies voluntarily working together to solve our problems, and that's definitely NOT what you've been arguing for. You're for obedience to coercive mandates from government. I call that 'authoritarian'. I think that's an accurate moniker, but as we've agreed, the labels aren't important. It's the policies and values we're advocating that matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am, in no way, libertarian or anarchist.
Click to expand...


Heh... Yeah, I get that.



> I believe in organization and collaboration despite the cognitive dissonance that that causes you. It is the essence of civilization which is the essence of democracy. Rules made by representatives of we, the people.



Ok, but I'm calling you out on the equivocation with the 'collaboration' term. You're using that, instead of the more accurate 'obedience', because you recognize that it sounds better to Americans, who have a natural revulsion at being ordered around in the manner you support. There's nothing in what you advocate that enlists voluntary cooperation. What you want is a coercive state dictating behavior. It's hard to view that as 'collaboration'.


----------



## PMZ

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> What name do you like then? I'm using 'authoritarian' to describe the ideology you espouse, which is diametrically oppose to the 'libertarian' spirit of American democracy.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not advocating chaos or anarchy, so don't waste time on that strawman. 'Collaboration' implies voluntarily working together to solve our problems, and that's definitely NOT what you've been arguing for. You're for obedience to coercive mandates from government. I call that 'authoritarian'. I think that's an accurate moniker, but as we've agreed, the labels aren't important. It's the policies and values we're advocating that matter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am, in no way, libertarian or anarchist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Heh... Yeah, I get that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe in organization and collaboration despite the cognitive dissonance that that causes you. It is the essence of civilization which is the essence of democracy. Rules made by representatives of we, the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok, but I'm calling you out on the equivocation with the 'collaboration' term. You're using that, instead of the more accurate 'obedience', because you recognize that it sounds better to Americans, who have a natural revulsion at being ordered around in the manner you support. There's nothing in what you advocate that enlists voluntary cooperation. What you want is a coercive state dictating behavior. It's hard to view that as 'collaboration'.
Click to expand...


I'm calling you out on obedience which is the libertarian bogeyman for organization, rule of law, and collaboration, the product of those other two. Get a group together with a common purpose. What do they do, naturally? They organize. They agree to roles and responsibilities. They adopt rules. Just like our countries founders did 250 or so years ago.

Your religion, that from chaos comes progress, is the big lie. From chaos comes chaos.


----------



## dblack

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am, in no way, libertarian or anarchist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Heh... Yeah, I get that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe in organization and collaboration despite the cognitive dissonance that that causes you. It is the essence of civilization which is the essence of democracy. Rules made by representatives of we, the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok, but I'm calling you out on the equivocation with the 'collaboration' term. You're using that, instead of the more accurate 'obedience', because you recognize that it sounds better to Americans, who have a natural revulsion at being ordered around in the manner you support. There's nothing in what you advocate that enlists voluntary cooperation. What you want is a coercive state dictating behavior. It's hard to view that as 'collaboration'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm calling you out on obedience which is the libertarian bogeyman for organization, rule of law, and collaboration, the product of those other two. Get a group together with a common purpose. What do they do, naturally? They organize. They agree to roles and responsibilities. They adopt rules. Just like our countries founders did 250 or so years ago.
> 
> Your religion, that from chaos comes progress, is the big lie. From chaos comes chaos.
Click to expand...


Well, as I said, I don't advocate chaos or anarchy. So, you're just shadowboxing. You can come up with whatever euphemisms make it all palatable to you, just as long as we're clear that you're diametrically opposed to liberty as a value.


----------



## PMZ

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Heh... Yeah, I get that.
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, but I'm calling you out on the equivocation with the 'collaboration' term. You're using that, instead of the more accurate 'obedience', because you recognize that it sounds better to Americans, who have a natural revulsion at being ordered around in the manner you support. There's nothing in what you advocate that enlists voluntary cooperation. What you want is a coercive state dictating behavior. It's hard to view that as 'collaboration'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm calling you out on obedience which is the libertarian bogeyman for organization, rule of law, and collaboration, the product of those other two. Get a group together with a common purpose. What do they do, naturally? They organize. They agree to roles and responsibilities. They adopt rules. Just like our countries founders did 250 or so years ago.
> 
> Your religion, that from chaos comes progress, is the big lie. From chaos comes chaos.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, as I said, I don't advocate chaos or anarchy. So, you're just shadowboxing. You can come up with whatever euphemisms make it all palatable to you, just as long as we're clear that you're diametrically opposed to liberty as a value.
Click to expand...


First,  I've never gotten from you,  or anyone else here,  a definition of "liberty",  so I can only guess at what's in your head when you say it. 

Second, living free of rules,  as long as you are the only one free,  is a compelling fantasy for most people. 

Third,  if everyone lived without rules and organization,  the result would be chaos.  There is an experiment performed about once a week in the middle east,  which always demonstrates the mindlessness of mobs. 

So,  in the absence of any definition to the contrary,  I think that your world is not real,  but what you and others wish was true.


----------



## dblack

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm calling you out on obedience which is the libertarian bogeyman for organization, rule of law, and collaboration, the product of those other two. Get a group together with a common purpose. What do they do, naturally? They organize. They agree to roles and responsibilities. They adopt rules. Just like our countries founders did 250 or so years ago.
> 
> Your religion, that from chaos comes progress, is the big lie. From chaos comes chaos.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, as I said, I don't advocate chaos or anarchy. So, you're just shadowboxing. You can come up with whatever euphemisms make it all palatable to you, just as long as we're clear that you're diametrically opposed to liberty as a value.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First,  I've never gotten from you,  or anyone else here,  a definition of "liberty",  so I can only guess at what's in your head when you say it.
Click to expand...


Nothing fancy - Let me google that for you



> Second, living free of rules,  as long as you are the only one free,  is a compelling fantasy for most people.
> 
> Third,  if everyone lived without rules and organization,  the result would be chaos.  There is an experiment performed about once a week in the middle east,  which always demonstrates the mindlessness of mobs.
> 
> So,  in the absence of any definition to the contrary,  I think that your world is not real,  but what you and others wish was true.



Wrong answer. Try again. The libertarian cause isn't a demand for 'no rules'. It's a defense of individual rights. You've had this explained to you. Repeatedly. Liberty requires rules. 

Again (and again), we're not anarchists.


----------



## PMZ

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, as I said, I don't advocate chaos or anarchy. So, you're just shadowboxing. You can come up with whatever euphemisms make it all palatable to you, just as long as we're clear that you're diametrically opposed to liberty as a value.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First,  I've never gotten from you,  or anyone else here,  a definition of "liberty",  so I can only guess at what's in your head when you say it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing fancy - Let me google that for you
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Second, living free of rules,  as long as you are the only one free,  is a compelling fantasy for most people.
> 
> Third,  if everyone lived without rules and organization,  the result would be chaos.  There is an experiment performed about once a week in the middle east,  which always demonstrates the mindlessness of mobs.
> 
> So,  in the absence of any definition to the contrary,  I think that your world is not real,  but what you and others wish was true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong answer. Try again. Libertarians aren't after 'no rules'. You've had this explained to you. Repeatedly. Liberty requires rules. Again (and again), we're not anarchists.
Click to expand...


What is the difference then between your "vision" and today's reality?


----------



## PMZ

Let me add that my real life experience is that there is nothing that I feel compelled to do that is illegal here and now. So my view of the law here and now is that it has no impact on my life but is rather 100% aimed at preventing others from imposing on me what's best for them.  Near perfect freedom.  Near perfect liberty.


----------



## dblack

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> First,  I've never gotten from you,  or anyone else here,  a definition of "liberty",  so I can only guess at what's in your head when you say it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing fancy - Let me google that for you
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Second, living free of rules,  as long as you are the only one free,  is a compelling fantasy for most people.
> 
> Third,  if everyone lived without rules and organization,  the result would be chaos.  There is an experiment performed about once a week in the middle east,  which always demonstrates the mindlessness of mobs.
> 
> So,  in the absence of any definition to the contrary,  I think that your world is not real,  but what you and others wish was true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong answer. Try again. Libertarians aren't after 'no rules'. You've had this explained to you. Repeatedly. Liberty requires rules. Again (and again), we're not anarchists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is the difference then between your "vision" and today's reality?
Click to expand...


Assholes like you, moving our government toward authoritarian corporatism and away from liberal democracy.


----------



## PMZ

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing fancy - Let me google that for you
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong answer. Try again. Libertarians aren't after 'no rules'. You've had this explained to you. Repeatedly. Liberty requires rules. Again (and again), we're not anarchists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is the difference then between your "vision" and today's reality?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Assholes like you, moving our government toward authoritarian corporatism and away from liberal democracy.
Click to expand...


Is you calling me an "asshole",  liberty?


----------



## dblack

PMZ said:


> Let me add that my real life experience is that there is nothing that I feel compelled to do that is illegal here and now. So my view of the law here and now is that it has no impact on my life but is rather 100% aimed at preventing others from imposing on me what's best for them.  Near perfect freedom.  Near perfect liberty.



Yes. We've established your myopia in this regard. Other people, however, see things differently than you. They have different goals, different values.

You're concerned with far more than protecting yourself. You want to control others for your convenience.


----------



## PMZ

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me add that my real life experience is that there is nothing that I feel compelled to do that is illegal here and now. So my view of the law here and now is that it has no impact on my life but is rather 100% aimed at preventing others from imposing on me what's best for them.  Near perfect freedom.  Near perfect liberty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. We've established your myopia in this regard. Other people, however, see things differently than you. They have different goals, different values.
> 
> You're concerned with far more than protecting yourself. You want to control others for your convenience.
Click to expand...


I want others limited by law to what things,  better for them,  but worse for me,  that they can impose on me.  Freedom for all of us. 

Is living my life on my terms rather than on the terms that others would impose on me, freedom?  Yes,  I think that it is.


----------



## dblack

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me add that my real life experience is that there is nothing that I feel compelled to do that is illegal here and now. So my view of the law here and now is that it has no impact on my life but is rather 100% aimed at preventing others from imposing on me what's best for them.  Near perfect freedom.  Near perfect liberty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. We've established your myopia in this regard. Other people, however, see things differently than you. They have different goals, different values.
> 
> You're concerned with far more than protecting yourself. You want to control others for your convenience.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I want others limited by law to what things,  better for them,  but worse for me,  that they can impose on me.  Freedom for all of us.
> 
> Is living my life on my terms rather than on the terms that others would impose on me, freedom?  Yes,  I think that it is.
Click to expand...


Nah... when you see fit to force others to comply with *your* plans to solve *your* problems (ie the insurance mandate) for *your* convenience, you're no longer protecting your rights. You're forcing your will on others. Your insistence that someone else not having insurance imposes anything on you is simply a lie.


----------



## PMZ

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. We've established your myopia in this regard. Other people, however, see things differently than you. They have different goals, different values.
> 
> You're concerned with far more than protecting yourself. You want to control others for your convenience.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I want others limited by law to what things,  better for them,  but worse for me,  that they can impose on me.  Freedom for all of us.
> 
> Is living my life on my terms rather than on the terms that others would impose on me, freedom?  Yes,  I think that it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nah... when you see fit to force others to comply with *your* plans to solve *your* problems (ie the insurance mandate) for *your* convenience, you're no longer protecting your rights. You're forcing your will on others. Your insistence that someone else not having insurance imposes anything on you is simply a lie.
Click to expand...


"Your insistence that someone else not having insurance imposes anything on you is simply a lie."

Somewhere around 6% of what your insurance company charges you for hospitalization coverage,  without any doubt,  is to cover people without insurance who have no option to the use of emergency rooms for normal health care.  You in denial has no effect on that. 

That's way more money, that you and I are paying, than giving those people the alternative of normal health care delivery. 

That's simple reality.  

You've merely and meekly accepted Republican propaganda to the contrary, as they need you to excuse them for piss poor governance, when they had every chance to participate in health care reform,  but chose not to, because they thought that they could kill it and embarrass Obama.  

They made a stupid mistake and have recruited you to help cover it up. 

Thinking for yourself is necessary in life.  If you don't,  others will think for you,  and use you to their advantage. Unless that's made  illegal,  or you prevent it yourself.


----------



## RKMBrown

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. We've established your myopia in this regard. Other people, however, see things differently than you. They have different goals, different values.
> 
> You're concerned with far more than protecting yourself. You want to control others for your convenience.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I want others limited by law to what things,  better for them,  but worse for me,  that they can impose on me.  Freedom for all of us.
> 
> Is living my life on my terms rather than on the terms that others would impose on me, freedom?  Yes,  I think that it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nah... when you see fit to force others to comply with *your* plans to solve *your* problems (ie the insurance mandate) for *your* convenience, you're no longer protecting your rights. You're forcing your will on others. Your insistence that someone else not having insurance imposes anything on you is simply a lie.
Click to expand...


Yeah PMZ is basically a one trick pony.  He has stated numerous times that he thinks liberty means the liberty to do get away anything desired within the letter of the law proscribed by the tyranny of the majority.   He also states that he believes it's ok to use government regulations to figuratively tie women and children down involuntarily and economically rape them again and again by taking their assets at his tyranny's pleasure for his benefit.  IOW he gets off on pillaging and torturing people, that's what liberty is for him.


----------



## dblack

PMZ said:


> You've merely and meekly accepted Republican propaganda to the contrary



Yeah... You're pretty fixated on Republicans. I don't really care. I don't listen to them any more than I listen to your bullshit. I'm just not interested in your partisan pissing match.



> Thinking for yourself is necessary in life.  If you don't,  others will think for you,  and use you to their advantage. Unless that's made  illegal,  or you prevent it yourself.



Do you ever read back over what you post?


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I want others limited by law to what things,  better for them,  but worse for me,  that they can impose on me.  Freedom for all of us.
> 
> Is living my life on my terms rather than on the terms that others would impose on me, freedom?  Yes,  I think that it is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nah... when you see fit to force others to comply with *your* plans to solve *your* problems (ie the insurance mandate) for *your* convenience, you're no longer protecting your rights. You're forcing your will on others. Your insistence that someone else not having insurance imposes anything on you is simply a lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah PMZ is basically a one trick pony.  He has stated numerous times that he thinks liberty means the liberty to do get away anything desired within the letter of the law proscribed by the tyranny of the majority.   He also states that he believes it's ok to use government regulations to figuratively tie women and children down involuntarily and economically rape them again and again by taking their assets at his tyranny's pleasure for his benefit.
Click to expand...


You calling me a one trick pony is record setting irony. 

"He has stated numerous times that he thinks liberty means the liberty to do get away anything desired within the letter of the law proscribed by the tyranny of the majority."

If your fractured English can be roughly translated as "he thinks liberty is the freedom for all to do what's legal",  we have it today.  So he and you ought to be happy,  not whiney. 

"He also states that he believes it's ok to use government regulations to figuratively tie women and children down involuntarily and economically rape them again and again by taking their assets at his tyranny's pleasure for his benefit."

More fractured English.  Hopefully English is your fourth or fifth language. 

I would say this is the opposite of what he thinks.  I would say what he thinks is that the current capitalist system of wealth distribution towards ruthlessness,  should be left unchecked until the wealthy have vacuumed up the few crumbs of wealth that are now shared by the creators of all wealth,  those that work productively,  and those who would, but for business choosing to keep them on the bench.


----------



## dblack

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nah... when you see fit to force others to comply with *your* plans to solve *your* problems (ie the insurance mandate) for *your* convenience, you're no longer protecting your rights. You're forcing your will on others. Your insistence that someone else not having insurance imposes anything on you is simply a lie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah PMZ is basically a one trick pony.  He has stated numerous times that he thinks liberty means the liberty to do get away anything desired within the letter of the law proscribed by the tyranny of the majority.   He also states that he believes it's ok to use government regulations to figuratively tie women and children down involuntarily and economically rape them again and again by taking their assets at his tyranny's pleasure for his benefit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You calling me a one trick pony is record setting irony.
> 
> "He has stated numerous times that he thinks liberty means the liberty to do get away anything desired within the letter of the law proscribed by the tyranny of the majority."
> 
> If your fractured English can be roughly translated as "he thinks liberty is the freedom for all to do what's legal",  we have it today.  So he and you ought to be happy,  not whiney.
> 
> "He also states that he believes it's ok to use government regulations to figuratively tie women and children down involuntarily and economically rape them again and again by taking their assets at his tyranny's pleasure for his benefit."
> 
> More fractured English.  Hopefully English is your fourth or fifth language.
> 
> I would say this is the opposite of what he thinks.  I would say what he thinks is that the current capitalist system of wealth distribution towards ruthlessness,  should be left unchecked until the wealthy have vacuumed up the few crumbs of wealth that are now shared by the creators of all wealth,  those that work productively,  and those who would, but for business choosing to keep them on the bench.
Click to expand...


The one reassuring thing about authoritarians is that they pretty much always burn themselves out, usually fairly quickly. Their lust for power undoes them every time, as witnessed by the way the Democrats are taking a seemingly unsurmountable lead over Republicans and pissing it away on their overreaching ambitions.


----------



## Meister

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah PMZ is basically a one trick pony.  He has stated numerous times that he thinks liberty means the liberty to do get away anything desired within the letter of the law proscribed by the tyranny of the majority.   He also states that he believes it's ok to use government regulations to figuratively tie women and children down involuntarily and economically rape them again and again by taking their assets at his tyranny's pleasure for his benefit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You calling me a one trick pony is record setting irony.
> 
> "He has stated numerous times that he thinks liberty means the liberty to do get away anything desired within the letter of the law proscribed by the tyranny of the majority."
> 
> If your fractured English can be roughly translated as "he thinks liberty is the freedom for all to do what's legal",  we have it today.  So he and you ought to be happy,  not whiney.
> 
> "He also states that he believes it's ok to use government regulations to figuratively tie women and children down involuntarily and economically rape them again and again by taking their assets at his tyranny's pleasure for his benefit."
> 
> More fractured English.  Hopefully English is your fourth or fifth language.
> 
> I would say this is the opposite of what he thinks.  I would say what he thinks is that the current capitalist system of wealth distribution towards ruthlessness,  should be left unchecked until the wealthy have vacuumed up the few crumbs of wealth that are now shared by the creators of all wealth,  those that work productively,  and those who would, but for business choosing to keep them on the bench.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The one reassuring thing about authoritarians is that they pretty much always burn themselves out, usually fairly quickly. Their lust for power undoes them every time, as witnessed by the way the* Democrats are taking a seemingly unsurmountable lead over Republicans and pissing it away on their overreaching ambitions*.
Click to expand...

It sure is showing in the Michigan polls.


----------



## PMZ

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah PMZ is basically a one trick pony.  He has stated numerous times that he thinks liberty means the liberty to do get away anything desired within the letter of the law proscribed by the tyranny of the majority.   He also states that he believes it's ok to use government regulations to figuratively tie women and children down involuntarily and economically rape them again and again by taking their assets at his tyranny's pleasure for his benefit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You calling me a one trick pony is record setting irony.
> 
> "He has stated numerous times that he thinks liberty means the liberty to do get away anything desired within the letter of the law proscribed by the tyranny of the majority."
> 
> If your fractured English can be roughly translated as "he thinks liberty is the freedom for all to do what's legal",  we have it today.  So he and you ought to be happy,  not whiney.
> 
> "He also states that he believes it's ok to use government regulations to figuratively tie women and children down involuntarily and economically rape them again and again by taking their assets at his tyranny's pleasure for his benefit."
> 
> More fractured English.  Hopefully English is your fourth or fifth language.
> 
> I would say this is the opposite of what he thinks.  I would say what he thinks is that the current capitalist system of wealth distribution towards ruthlessness,  should be left unchecked until the wealthy have vacuumed up the few crumbs of wealth that are now shared by the creators of all wealth,  those that work productively,  and those who would, but for business choosing to keep them on the bench.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The one reassuring thing about authoritarians is that they pretty much always burn themselves out, usually fairly quickly. Their lust for power undoes them every time, as witnessed by the way the Democrats are taking a seemingly unsurmountable lead over Republicans and pissing it away on their overreaching ambitions.
Click to expand...


Why not call us what we are and you aren't.  Collaborators. People supporting democracy. 

People who favor minority rule are authoritarian. Look how hard,  for instance,  John Boehner is trying to impose conservative economic dogma on the entire Congress and country.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nah... when you see fit to force others to comply with *your* plans to solve *your* problems (ie the insurance mandate) for *your* convenience, you're no longer protecting your rights. You're forcing your will on others. Your insistence that someone else not having insurance imposes anything on you is simply a lie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah PMZ is basically a one trick pony.  He has stated numerous times that he thinks liberty means the liberty to do get away anything desired within the letter of the law proscribed by the tyranny of the majority.   He also states that he believes it's ok to use government regulations to figuratively tie women and children down involuntarily and economically rape them again and again by taking their assets at his tyranny's pleasure for his benefit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You calling me a one trick pony is record setting irony.
> 
> "He has stated numerous times that he thinks liberty means the liberty to do get away anything desired within the letter of the law proscribed by the tyranny of the majority."
> 
> If your fractured English can be roughly translated as "he thinks liberty is the freedom for all to do what's legal",  we have it today.  So he and you ought to be happy,  not whiney.
> 
> "He also states that he believes it's ok to use government regulations to figuratively tie women and children down involuntarily and economically rape them again and again by taking their assets at his tyranny's pleasure for his benefit."
> 
> More fractured English.  Hopefully English is your fourth or fifth language.
> 
> I would say this is the opposite of what he thinks.  I would say what he thinks is that the current capitalist system of wealth distribution towards ruthlessness,  should be left unchecked until the wealthy have vacuumed up the few crumbs of wealth that are now shared by the creators of all wealth,  those that work productively,  and those who would, but for business choosing to keep them on the bench.
Click to expand...


ROFL You saying my English is fractured, is just hilarious. What was your first language? English is clearly beyond your scope of expertise.  FYI talking about yourself in the third person by using the pronoun "he" tells us one of two things.  1) You are a retard; or 2) you are a retarded sock puppet.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah PMZ is basically a one trick pony.  He has stated numerous times that he thinks liberty means the liberty to do get away anything desired within the letter of the law proscribed by the tyranny of the majority.   He also states that he believes it's ok to use government regulations to figuratively tie women and children down involuntarily and economically rape them again and again by taking their assets at his tyranny's pleasure for his benefit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You calling me a one trick pony is record setting irony.
> 
> "He has stated numerous times that he thinks liberty means the liberty to do get away anything desired within the letter of the law proscribed by the tyranny of the majority."
> 
> If your fractured English can be roughly translated as "he thinks liberty is the freedom for all to do what's legal",  we have it today.  So he and you ought to be happy,  not whiney.
> 
> "He also states that he believes it's ok to use government regulations to figuratively tie women and children down involuntarily and economically rape them again and again by taking their assets at his tyranny's pleasure for his benefit."
> 
> More fractured English.  Hopefully English is your fourth or fifth language.
> 
> I would say this is the opposite of what he thinks.  I would say what he thinks is that the current capitalist system of wealth distribution towards ruthlessness,  should be left unchecked until the wealthy have vacuumed up the few crumbs of wealth that are now shared by the creators of all wealth,  those that work productively,  and those who would, but for business choosing to keep them on the bench.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROFL You saying my English is fractured, is just hilarious. What was your first language? English is clearly beyond your scope of expertise.  FYI talking about yourself in the third person by using the pronoun "he" tells us one of two things.  1) You are a retard; or 2) you are a retarded sock puppet.
Click to expand...


Good avoidance.  Keep dancing.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You calling me a one trick pony is record setting irony.
> 
> "He has stated numerous times that he thinks liberty means the liberty to do get away anything desired within the letter of the law proscribed by the tyranny of the majority."
> 
> If your fractured English can be roughly translated as "he thinks liberty is the freedom for all to do what's legal",  we have it today.  So he and you ought to be happy,  not whiney.
> 
> "He also states that he believes it's ok to use government regulations to figuratively tie women and children down involuntarily and economically rape them again and again by taking their assets at his tyranny's pleasure for his benefit."
> 
> More fractured English.  Hopefully English is your fourth or fifth language.
> 
> I would say this is the opposite of what he thinks.  I would say what he thinks is that the current capitalist system of wealth distribution towards ruthlessness,  should be left unchecked until the wealthy have vacuumed up the few crumbs of wealth that are now shared by the creators of all wealth,  those that work productively,  and those who would, but for business choosing to keep them on the bench.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL You saying my English is fractured, is just hilarious. What was your first language? English is clearly beyond your scope of expertise.  FYI talking about yourself in the third person by using the pronoun "he" tells us one of two things.  1) You are a retard; or 2) you are a retarded sock puppet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good avoidance.  Keep dancing.
Click to expand...


Avoidance of what?  I addressed your thesis, as merely an exercise in self projection.  What else do you think I need to address?


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL You saying my English is fractured, is just hilarious. What was your first language? English is clearly beyond your scope of expertise.  FYI talking about yourself in the third person by using the pronoun "he" tells us one of two things.  1) You are a retard; or 2) you are a retarded sock puppet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good avoidance.  Keep dancing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Avoidance of what?  I addressed your thesis, as merely an exercise in self projection.  What else do you think I need to address?
Click to expand...


If you had expressed yourself better, and had an actual point to make, you could attempt to defend it. Given that you did neither, avoidance was the only choice.


----------



## dblack

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You calling me a one trick pony is record setting irony.
> 
> "He has stated numerous times that he thinks liberty means the liberty to do get away anything desired within the letter of the law proscribed by the tyranny of the majority."
> 
> If your fractured English can be roughly translated as "he thinks liberty is the freedom for all to do what's legal",  we have it today.  So he and you ought to be happy,  not whiney.
> 
> "He also states that he believes it's ok to use government regulations to figuratively tie women and children down involuntarily and economically rape them again and again by taking their assets at his tyranny's pleasure for his benefit."
> 
> More fractured English.  Hopefully English is your fourth or fifth language.
> 
> I would say this is the opposite of what he thinks.  I would say what he thinks is that the current capitalist system of wealth distribution towards ruthlessness,  should be left unchecked until the wealthy have vacuumed up the few crumbs of wealth that are now shared by the creators of all wealth,  those that work productively,  and those who would, but for business choosing to keep them on the bench.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The one reassuring thing about authoritarians is that they pretty much always burn themselves out, usually fairly quickly. Their lust for power undoes them every time, as witnessed by the way the Democrats are taking a seemingly unsurmountable lead over Republicans and pissing it away on their overreaching ambitions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why not call us what we are and you aren't.  Collaborators. People supporting democracy.
Click to expand...


Because collaboration is a voluntary activity. By your accounting, the slave plantations of the old south were 'collaborative farms'. No, when you employ the coercive power of the law to force your solutions on someone else, that's not 'collaboration'.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good avoidance.  Keep dancing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avoidance of what?  I addressed your thesis, as merely an exercise in self projection.  What else do you think I need to address?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you had expressed yourself better, and had an actual point to make, you could attempt to defend it. Given that you did neither, avoidance was the only choice.
Click to expand...


God you are an ignorant shit head.  Answer the question retard.  What is it that you think that I did not address?


----------



## PMZ

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> The one reassuring thing about authoritarians is that they pretty much always burn themselves out, usually fairly quickly. Their lust for power undoes them every time, as witnessed by the way the Democrats are taking a seemingly unsurmountable lead over Republicans and pissing it away on their overreaching ambitions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why not call us what we are and you aren't.  Collaborators. People supporting democracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because collaboration is a voluntary activity. By your accounting, the slave plantations of the old south were 'collaborative farms'. No, when you employ the coercive power of the law to force your solutions on someone else, that's not 'collaboration'.
Click to expand...


Every organization that I have ever, or do now, belong  to, strives for collaboration. Some of them are purely voluntary, some require you to for pay, some are quite involuntary, like the military, for instance, or citizenship. In all cases, except for your example and incarceration, you have agreed to those terms by your election to be there. 

With incarceration, if it is legitimate, you chose it by deciding to be criminal. 

That leaves slavery, alone, as a crime for the slaver, not the slave. The fact that you would compare your life as an American resident to slavery is an abomination and shows how far your mind has strayed from reality

Another name for collaboration is civilization.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Avoidance of what?  I addressed your thesis, as merely an exercise in self projection.  What else do you think I need to address?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you had expressed yourself better, and had an actual point to make, you could attempt to defend it. Given that you did neither, avoidance was the only choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God you are an ignorant shit head.  Answer the question retard.  What is it that you think that I did not address?
Click to expand...


I have no intention to call you and read for you. If your English is inadequate to that task, sneak back across the border.


----------



## koshergrl

Nobody agreed to Obamacare. It was forced upon us, illegally, by a tyrant.


----------



## PMZ

koshergrl said:


> Nobody agreed to Obamacare. It was forced upon us, illegally, by a tyrant.



Apparently you are not aware that we are a representative democracy. Not the best place for a control freak.


----------



## koshergrl

It doesn't matter if the tyrant was elected or not, if he is a tyrant who imposes his will illegally.

Lots of tyrants were *elected*. That doesn't mean they have the permission of the people to break the law, and the backs, of the people.


----------



## PMZ

koshergrl said:


> It doesn't matter if the tyrant was elected or not, if he is a tyrant who imposes his will illegally.
> 
> Lots of tyrants were *elected*. That doesn't mean they have the permission of the people to break the law, and the backs, of the people.



Here's the difference. He, as duly elected leader, speaks for we, the people. You, as a control freak, speak for you alone. Media entertainers, as propagandists, speak for the highest bidder. Republicans, as a failed political party, speak for the wealthy who bought their bankrupt remains.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter if the tyrant was elected or not, if he is a tyrant who imposes his will illegally.
> 
> Lots of tyrants were *elected*. That doesn't mean they have the permission of the people to break the law, and the backs, of the people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the difference. He, as duly elected leader, speaks for we, the people. You, as a control freak, speak for you alone. Media entertainers, as propagandists, speak for the highest bidder. Republicans, as a failed political party, speak for the wealthy who bought their bankrupt remains.
Click to expand...


BULLSHIT RETARD  

I have not given Obama liberty to speak for me.  You are a freak.  A lunatic with a dysfunctional brain-stem.


----------



## koshergrl

PMZ said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter if the tyrant was elected or not, if he is a tyrant who imposes his will illegally.
> 
> Lots of tyrants were *elected*. That doesn't mean they have the permission of the people to break the law, and the backs, of the people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the difference. He, as duly elected leader, speaks for we, the people. You, as a control freak, speak for you alone. Media entertainers, as propagandists, speak for the highest bidder. Republicans, as a failed political party, speak for the wealthy who bought their bankrupt remains.
Click to expand...

 
Oh, okay.

Moron.

PS...morons should not do drugs on TOP of their obvious disability. It may make you FEEL like you're smarter, but it really doesn't help things.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter if the tyrant was elected or not, if he is a tyrant who imposes his will illegally.
> 
> Lots of tyrants were *elected*. That doesn't mean they have the permission of the people to break the law, and the backs, of the people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the difference. He, as duly elected leader, speaks for we, the people. You, as a control freak, speak for you alone. Media entertainers, as propagandists, speak for the highest bidder. Republicans, as a failed political party, speak for the wealthy who bought their bankrupt remains.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> BULLSHIT RETARD
> 
> I have not given Obama liberty to speak for me.  You are a freaking lunatic.
Click to expand...


Democracy sucks, doesn't it? Especially if you are compelled to impose what you think is best for you on others. A control freak. Really the only government that you'll be happy with is if you become a dictator. Maybe Kim Jong Un gives correspondence courses. Or, try Michiavelli's, The Prince, or Hitler's, Das Kampf.


----------



## PMZ

koshergrl said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter if the tyrant was elected or not, if he is a tyrant who imposes his will illegally.
> 
> Lots of tyrants were *elected*. That doesn't mean they have the permission of the people to break the law, and the backs, of the people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the difference. He, as duly elected leader, speaks for we, the people. You, as a control freak, speak for you alone. Media entertainers, as propagandists, speak for the highest bidder. Republicans, as a failed political party, speak for the wealthy who bought their bankrupt remains.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, okay.
> 
> Moron.
> 
> PS...morons should not do drugs on TOP of their obvious disability. It may make you FEEL like you're smarter, but it really doesn't help things.
Click to expand...


Truth is a terrible enemy to make, slimeball. He'll get you in the end. Never loses.


----------



## dblack

PMZ said:


> That leaves slavery, alone, as a crime for the slaver, not the slave. The fact that you would compare your life as an American resident to slavery is an abomination and shows how far your mind has strayed from reality.



I didn't make that comparison. Build a different strawman. I was illustrating your inability to distinguish voluntary collaboration from coercive government. You want to pretend that the policies you're advocating aren't coercive by calling them 'collaboration', but that's a lie.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the difference. He, as duly elected leader, speaks for we, the people. You, as a control freak, speak for you alone. Media entertainers, as propagandists, speak for the highest bidder. Republicans, as a failed political party, speak for the wealthy who bought their bankrupt remains.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLSHIT RETARD
> 
> I have not given Obama liberty to speak for me.  You are a freaking lunatic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Democracy sucks, doesn't it? Especially if you are compelled to impose what you think is best for you on others. A control freak. Really the only government that you'll be happy with is if you become a dictator. Maybe Kim Jong Un gives correspondence courses. Or, try Michiavelli's, The Prince, or Hitler's, Das Kampf.
Click to expand...

We don't live in a democracy, we live in a free republic retard.  You are nothing but a despicable piece of shit trying to turn this country to authoritarian rule.


----------



## itfitzme

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> That leaves slavery, alone, as a crime for the slaver, not the slave. The fact that you would compare your life as an American resident to slavery is an abomination and shows how far your mind has strayed from reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't make that comparison. Build a different strawman. I was illustrating your inability to distinguish voluntary collaboration from coercive government. You want to pretend that the policies you're advocating aren't coercive by calling them 'collaboration', but that's a lie.
Click to expand...


Sure they are coersive to YOU.  That is why they are laws, because you can't control yourself in a society of adults.


----------



## RKMBrown

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> That leaves slavery, alone, as a crime for the slaver, not the slave. The fact that you would compare your life as an American resident to slavery is an abomination and shows how far your mind has strayed from reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't make that comparison. Build a different strawman. I was illustrating your inability to distinguish voluntary collaboration from coercive government. You want to pretend that the policies you're advocating aren't coercive by calling them 'collaboration', but that's a lie.
Click to expand...

That would be because he's a lying piece of shit.


----------



## Listening

itfitzme said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> That leaves slavery, alone, as a crime for the slaver, not the slave. The fact that you would compare your life as an American resident to slavery is an abomination and shows how far your mind has strayed from reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't make that comparison. Build a different strawman. I was illustrating your inability to distinguish voluntary collaboration from coercive government. You want to pretend that the policies you're advocating aren't coercive by calling them 'collaboration', but that's a lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure they are coersive to YOU.  That is why they are laws, because you can't control yourself in a society of adults.
Click to expand...


If you go back and get the context of this discussion, there is someone claiming to be a "cooperation" kind of person.  However, that has been challenged.

What you say is true in that laws are binding.  However, the broader they reach and the more they extend into our lives, the less cooperative things feel and the more coercive they become.

Just sayin'.


----------



## PMZ

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> That leaves slavery, alone, as a crime for the slaver, not the slave. The fact that you would compare your life as an American resident to slavery is an abomination and shows how far your mind has strayed from reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't make that comparison. Build a different strawman. I was illustrating your inability to distinguish voluntary collaboration from coercive government. You want to pretend that the policies you're advocating aren't coercive by calling them 'collaboration', but that's a lie.
Click to expand...


"You want to pretend that the policies you're advocating aren't coercive by calling them 'collaboration', but that's a lie."

All laws are coercive in that they establish consequences for behavior. Just like everything else in life. There is no behavior that's consequence free. Laws define the limits of how you can impose on others. 

Laws are designed by mankind for mankind. They establish the guidelines for collaboration. Just like every single organization in the world does. They are the basis of civilization. 

You can't define liberty but worship it. You don't like rules and organization and roles and responsibilities but claim to not be an anarchist. 

Until you can specify what you are, instead of what you are not, what you are for, not what you are against, what your vision for a different reality is, I have no idea what your world view is. 

You can't live an abstraction.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> BULLSHIT RETARD
> 
> I have not given Obama liberty to speak for me.  You are a freaking lunatic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Democracy sucks, doesn't it? Especially if you are compelled to impose what you think is best for you on others. A control freak. Really the only government that you'll be happy with is if you become a dictator. Maybe Kim Jong Un gives correspondence courses. Or, try Michiavelli's, The Prince, or Hitler's, Das Kampf.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We don't live in a democracy, we live in a free republic retard.  You are nothing but a despicable piece of shit trying to turn this country to authoritarian rule.
Click to expand...


We live in a representative democratic republic. That is, everyone but you and the little friends that live in your head. The more deluded that you become, the less relevant that you are. 

Your dream of aristocratic tyranny here is your nightmare, not our future.


----------



## koshergrl

Moron.


----------



## PMZ

Listening said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't make that comparison. Build a different strawman. I was illustrating your inability to distinguish voluntary collaboration from coercive government. You want to pretend that the policies you're advocating aren't coercive by calling them 'collaboration', but that's a lie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure they are coersive to YOU.  That is why they are laws, because you can't control yourself in a society of adults.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you go back and get the context of this discussion, there is someone claiming to be a "cooperation" kind of person.  However, that has been challenged.
> 
> What you say is true in that laws are binding.  However, the broader they reach and the more they extend into our lives, the less cooperative things feel and the more coercive they become.
> 
> Just sayin'.
Click to expand...


The more technology that we employ, and the more of us there are, and the more we all bump up against the limits of our only home, the more ways there are for people to impose what's best for them on others. 

That means more laws, more civilization, more organization, more collaboration. 

You being out of step with today's reality changes nothing but your ability to lead a satisfying life in the current real world. You will fail to change our reality. You can't create a separate reality.


----------



## Indeependent

koshergrl said:


> Moron.



How would you have managed the legal process concerning the ACA?
Be precise.


----------



## eagle1462010

Drive by post............

Libs can't handle the truth..........My rates for next year went up 60%............

That's right 60%.................I have to drop my insurance............Because I can't survive financially with that increase...............

So thanks to the Liberal Losers, Obama and the Dems I will not have insurance next year............

To Liberal posters...............Up yours..................

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FnO3igOkOk]You Can't Handle the Truth! - A Few Good Men (7/8) Movie CLIP (1992) HD - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Meister

eagle1462010 said:


> Drive by post............
> 
> Libs can't handle the truth..........My rates for next year went up 60%............
> 
> That's right 60%.................I have to drop my insurance............Because I can't survive financially with that increase...............
> 
> So thanks to the Liberal Losers, Obama and the Dems I will not have insurance next year............
> 
> To Liberal posters...............Up yours..................
> 
> You Can't Handle the Truth! - A Few Good Men (7/8) Movie CLIP (1992) HD - YouTube



Yup, some get help, but the lion's share get hosed by Obamacare


----------



## dblack

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> That leaves slavery, alone, as a crime for the slaver, not the slave. The fact that you would compare your life as an American resident to slavery is an abomination and shows how far your mind has strayed from reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't make that comparison. Build a different strawman. I was illustrating your inability to distinguish voluntary collaboration from coercive government. You want to pretend that the policies you're advocating aren't coercive by calling them 'collaboration', but that's a lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "You want to pretend that the policies you're advocating aren't coercive by calling them 'collaboration', but that's a lie."
> 
> All laws are coercive in that they establish consequences for behavior. Just like everything else in life. There is no behavior that's consequence free. Laws define the limits of how you can impose on others.
> 
> Laws are designed by mankind for mankind. They establish the guidelines for collaboration. Just like every single organization in the world does. They are the basis of civilization.
Click to expand...


That's all fine and dandy. But again, you're not advocating for 'guidelines' voluntary collaboration. And you're not looking to defend your rights. You're advocating for coercing people to buy insurance because it's how you want to finance your health care, and you're convinced that forcing everyone else to play along will save you money. It probably will. But it's not your right to force other people to save you money. And they're not 'imposing' jack shit on you for refusing to oblige.



> You can't define liberty but worship it. You don't like rules and organization and roles and responsibilities but claim to not be an anarchist.
> 
> Until you can specify what you are, instead of what you are not, what you are for, not what you are against, what your vision for a different reality is, I have no idea what your world view is.
> 
> You can't live an abstraction.



Who are you even arguing with? None of the nonsense you're attributing to me remotely reflects my views. So, I can't even really respond other than to say - nope. Try a different strawman.


----------



## PMZ

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't make that comparison. Build a different strawman. I was illustrating your inability to distinguish voluntary collaboration from coercive government. You want to pretend that the policies you're advocating aren't coercive by calling them 'collaboration', but that's a lie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "You want to pretend that the policies you're advocating aren't coercive by calling them 'collaboration', but that's a lie."
> 
> All laws are coercive in that they establish consequences for behavior. Just like everything else in life. There is no behavior that's consequence free. Laws define the limits of how you can impose on others.
> 
> Laws are designed by mankind for mankind. They establish the guidelines for collaboration. Just like every single organization in the world does. They are the basis of civilization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's all fine and dandy. But again, you're not advocating for 'guidelines' voluntary collaboration. And you're not looking to defend your rights. You're advocating for coercing people to buy insurance because it's how you want to finance your health care, and you're convinced that forcing everyone else to play along will save you money. It probably will. But it's not your right to force other people to save you money. And they're not 'imposing' jack shit on you for refusing to oblige.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't define liberty but worship it. You don't like rules and organization and roles and responsibilities but claim to not be an anarchist.
> 
> Until you can specify what you are, instead of what you are not, what you are for, not what you are against, what your vision for a different reality is, I have no idea what your world view is.
> 
> You can't live an abstraction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who are you even arguing with? None of the nonsense you're attributing to me remotely reflects my views. So, I can't even really respond other than to say - nope. Try a different strawman.
Click to expand...


My current healthcare is financed by contributions that I made during my entire career and today as well. It's Medicare. So, I am not in any way affected by ACA. Like most Americans. 

I know how you feel cheated by the fact that your exclusive right to health care has been now made available to people you consider beneath you. 

I know how being coerced into personal responsibility goes against the grain of whatever you call yourself today. 

I know how what's good for the country pales in comparison to what's good for you personally.

I know how much you want to live lawlessly. 

I know how much you want Obama and the country to fail so Bush doesn't look so bad in comparison. 

I know how much you want the Fox boobs and boobies to be right.

I know how much you want the country to regress one or two hundred years to simpler times. 

But, in a democracy, you don't get to have it your way always. 

Time to grow up.


----------



## dblack

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> "You want to pretend that the policies you're advocating aren't coercive by calling them 'collaboration', but that's a lie."
> 
> All laws are coercive in that they establish consequences for behavior. Just like everything else in life. There is no behavior that's consequence free. Laws define the limits of how you can impose on others.
> 
> Laws are designed by mankind for mankind. They establish the guidelines for collaboration. Just like every single organization in the world does. They are the basis of civilization.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's all fine and dandy. But again, you're not advocating for 'guidelines' voluntary collaboration. And you're not looking to defend your rights. You're advocating for coercing people to buy insurance because it's how you want to finance your health care, and you're convinced that forcing everyone else to play along will save you money. It probably will. But it's not your right to force other people to save you money. And they're not 'imposing' jack shit on you for refusing to oblige.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't define liberty but worship it. You don't like rules and organization and roles and responsibilities but claim to not be an anarchist.
> 
> Until you can specify what you are, instead of what you are not, what you are for, not what you are against, what your vision for a different reality is, I have no idea what your world view is.
> 
> You can't live an abstraction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who are you even arguing with? None of the nonsense you're attributing to me remotely reflects my views. So, I can't even really respond other than to say - nope. Try a different strawman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My current healthcare is financed by contributions that I made during my entire career and today as well. It's Medicare. So, I am not in any way affected by ACA. Like most Americans.
> 
> I know how you feel cheated by the fact that your exclusive right to health care has been now made available to people you consider beneath you.
> 
> I know how being coerced into personal responsibility goes against the grain of whatever you call yourself today.
> 
> I know how what's good for the country pales in comparison to what's good for you personally.
> 
> I know how much you want to live lawlessly.
> 
> I know how much you want Obama and the country to fail so Bush doesn't look so bad in comparison.
> 
> I know how much you want the Fox boobs and boobies to be right.
> 
> I know how much you want the country to regress one or two hundred years to simpler times.
> 
> But, in a democracy, you don't get to have it your way always.
> 
> Time to grow up.
Click to expand...


You "know" much that isn't true.


----------



## PMZ

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's all fine and dandy. But again, you're not advocating for 'guidelines' voluntary collaboration. And you're not looking to defend your rights. You're advocating for coercing people to buy insurance because it's how you want to finance your health care, and you're convinced that forcing everyone else to play along will save you money. It probably will. But it's not your right to force other people to save you money. And they're not 'imposing' jack shit on you for refusing to oblige.
> 
> 
> 
> Who are you even arguing with? None of the nonsense you're attributing to me remotely reflects my views. So, I can't even really respond other than to say - nope. Try a different strawman.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My current healthcare is financed by contributions that I made during my entire career and today as well. It's Medicare. So, I am not in any way affected by ACA. Like most Americans.
> 
> I know how you feel cheated by the fact that your exclusive right to health care has been now made available to people you consider beneath you.
> 
> I know how being coerced into personal responsibility goes against the grain of whatever you call yourself today.
> 
> I know how what's good for the country pales in comparison to what's good for you personally.
> 
> I know how much you want to live lawlessly.
> 
> I know how much you want Obama and the country to fail so Bush doesn't look so bad in comparison.
> 
> I know how much you want the Fox boobs and boobies to be right.
> 
> I know how much you want the country to regress one or two hundred years to simpler times.
> 
> But, in a democracy, you don't get to have it your way always.
> 
> Time to grow up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know far less than you believe.
Click to expand...


I only know about you what you post about you.


----------



## eagle1462010

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> "You want to pretend that the policies you're advocating aren't coercive by calling them 'collaboration', but that's a lie."
> 
> All laws are coercive in that they establish consequences for behavior. Just like everything else in life. There is no behavior that's consequence free. Laws define the limits of how you can impose on others.
> 
> Laws are designed by mankind for mankind. They establish the guidelines for collaboration. Just like every single organization in the world does. They are the basis of civilization.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's all fine and dandy. But again, you're not advocating for 'guidelines' voluntary collaboration. And you're not looking to defend your rights. You're advocating for coercing people to buy insurance because it's how you want to finance your health care, and you're convinced that forcing everyone else to play along will save you money. It probably will. But it's not your right to force other people to save you money. And they're not 'imposing' jack shit on you for refusing to oblige.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't define liberty but worship it. You don't like rules and organization and roles and responsibilities but claim to not be an anarchist.
> 
> Until you can specify what you are, instead of what you are not, what you are for, not what you are against, what your vision for a different reality is, I have no idea what your world view is.
> 
> You can't live an abstraction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who are you even arguing with? None of the nonsense you're attributing to me remotely reflects my views. So, I can't even really respond other than to say - nope. Try a different strawman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My current healthcare is financed by contributions that I made during my entire career and today as well. It's Medicare. So, I am not in any way affected by ACA. Like most Americans.
> 
> I know how you feel cheated by the fact that your exclusive right to health care has been now made available to people you consider beneath you.
> 
> I know how being coerced into personal responsibility goes against the grain of whatever you call yourself today.
> 
> I know how what's good for the country pales in comparison to what's good for you personally.
> 
> I know how much you want to live lawlessly.
> 
> I know how much you want Obama and the country to fail so Bush doesn't look so bad in comparison.
> 
> I know how much you want the Fox boobs and boobies to be right.
> 
> I know how much you want the country to regress one or two hundred years to simpler times.
> 
> But, in a democracy, you don't get to have it your way always.
> 
> Time to grow up.
Click to expand...


Time for you to face the Reality of the BS you are peddling.   People like me are getting Fucked over you Liberal loser, but because it doesn't effect you..........you don't give a rats ass.........


----------



## PMZ

eagle1462010 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's all fine and dandy. But again, you're not advocating for 'guidelines' voluntary collaboration. And you're not looking to defend your rights. You're advocating for coercing people to buy insurance because it's how you want to finance your health care, and you're convinced that forcing everyone else to play along will save you money. It probably will. But it's not your right to force other people to save you money. And they're not 'imposing' jack shit on you for refusing to oblige.
> 
> 
> 
> Who are you even arguing with? None of the nonsense you're attributing to me remotely reflects my views. So, I can't even really respond other than to say - nope. Try a different strawman.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My current healthcare is financed by contributions that I made during my entire career and today as well. It's Medicare. So, I am not in any way affected by ACA. Like most Americans.
> 
> I know how you feel cheated by the fact that your exclusive right to health care has been now made available to people you consider beneath you.
> 
> I know how being coerced into personal responsibility goes against the grain of whatever you call yourself today.
> 
> I know how what's good for the country pales in comparison to what's good for you personally.
> 
> I know how much you want to live lawlessly.
> 
> I know how much you want Obama and the country to fail so Bush doesn't look so bad in comparison.
> 
> I know how much you want the Fox boobs and boobies to be right.
> 
> I know how much you want the country to regress one or two hundred years to simpler times.
> 
> But, in a democracy, you don't get to have it your way always.
> 
> Time to grow up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Time for you to face the Reality of the BS you are peddling.   People like me are getting Fucked over you Liberal loser, but because it doesn't effect you..........you don't give a rats ass.........
Click to expand...


Tell us who your insurance was with and what reason they gave you for a 60% increase.


----------



## Indeependent

eagle1462010 said:


> Drive by post............
> 
> Libs can't handle the truth..........My rates for next year went up 60%............
> 
> That's right 60%.................I have to drop my insurance............Because I can't survive financially with that increase...............
> 
> So thanks to the Liberal Losers, Obama and the Dems I will not have insurance next year............
> 
> To Liberal posters...............Up yours..................
> 
> You Can't Handle the Truth! - A Few Good Men (7/8) Movie CLIP (1992) HD - YouTube



I'm always leery of relative statements such as these.
What's the composition of your family (I know, a drive by poster won't be back to answer this question)?
What was the actual amount you were paying before?
What are your co-pays?
What are your deductibles?

I understand Conservatives being FORCED to buy Health Insurance.
I don't like statements void of solid information.


----------



## dblack

eagle1462010 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's all fine and dandy. But again, you're not advocating for 'guidelines' voluntary collaboration. And you're not looking to defend your rights. You're advocating for coercing people to buy insurance because it's how you want to finance your health care, and you're convinced that forcing everyone else to play along will save you money. It probably will. But it's not your right to force other people to save you money. And they're not 'imposing' jack shit on you for refusing to oblige.
> 
> 
> 
> Who are you even arguing with? None of the nonsense you're attributing to me remotely reflects my views. So, I can't even really respond other than to say - nope. Try a different strawman.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My current healthcare is financed by contributions that I made during my entire career and today as well. It's Medicare. So, I am not in any way affected by ACA. Like most Americans.
> 
> I know how you feel cheated by the fact that your exclusive right to health care has been now made available to people you consider beneath you.
> 
> I know how being coerced into personal responsibility goes against the grain of whatever you call yourself today.
> 
> I know how what's good for the country pales in comparison to what's good for you personally.
> 
> I know how much you want to live lawlessly.
> 
> I know how much you want Obama and the country to fail so Bush doesn't look so bad in comparison.
> 
> I know how much you want the Fox boobs and boobies to be right.
> 
> I know how much you want the country to regress one or two hundred years to simpler times.
> 
> But, in a democracy, you don't get to have it your way always.
> 
> Time to grow up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Time for you to face the Reality of the BS you are peddling.   People like me are getting Fucked over you Liberal loser, but because it doesn't effect you..........you don't give a rats ass.........
Click to expand...


Have no fear. Authoritarians always over play their hands. They can't help themselves. Obama will crash and burn. The only open question is how many of us go with him....


----------



## eagle1462010

PMZ said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> My current healthcare is financed by contributions that I made during my entire career and today as well. It's Medicare. So, I am not in any way affected by ACA. Like most Americans.
> 
> I know how you feel cheated by the fact that your exclusive right to health care has been now made available to people you consider beneath you.
> 
> I know how being coerced into personal responsibility goes against the grain of whatever you call yourself today.
> 
> I know how what's good for the country pales in comparison to what's good for you personally.
> 
> I know how much you want to live lawlessly.
> 
> I know how much you want Obama and the country to fail so Bush doesn't look so bad in comparison.
> 
> I know how much you want the Fox boobs and boobies to be right.
> 
> I know how much you want the country to regress one or two hundred years to simpler times.
> 
> But, in a democracy, you don't get to have it your way always.
> 
> Time to grow up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Time for you to face the Reality of the BS you are peddling.   People like me are getting Fucked over you Liberal loser, but because it doesn't effect you..........you don't give a rats ass.........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell us who your insurance was with and what reason they gave you for a 60% increase.
Click to expand...


Due to the new Health Care Reform Act, ________ is having an open enrollment period for All employees.  Our next open enrollment will be August 2014.  If you are currently enrolled, you will see an increase in your current rates beginning January 2014.  the deadline to enroll is December 20, 2013.

Following is the new rates and coverages.

Blue Cross Blue shield.  

Family coverage to $1,675.11 a month.
$386.86 a week
Deduct $1,000
Coinsurance 80%
Out of pocket max $1,000
Office visit $25/40
Prescription drugs
Deductible $50
Tier one $10
Tier two $25
Tier three $50
Tier four $100


----------



## eagle1462010

Indeependent said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Drive by post............
> 
> Libs can't handle the truth..........My rates for next year went up 60%............
> 
> That's right 60%.................I have to drop my insurance............Because I can't survive financially with that increase...............
> 
> So thanks to the Liberal Losers, Obama and the Dems I will not have insurance next year............
> 
> To Liberal posters...............Up yours..................
> 
> You Can't Handle the Truth! - A Few Good Men (7/8) Movie CLIP (1992) HD - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm always leery of relative statements such as these.
> What's the composition of your family (I know, a drive by poster won't be back to answer this question)?
> What was the actual amount you were paying before?
> What are your co-pays?
> What are your deductibles?
> 
> I understand Conservatives being FORCED to buy Health Insurance.
> I don't like statements void of solid information.
Click to expand...


Family of 3.............

$1020 a month previous.
Construction industry, small company.
could hardly fucking afford that 

Rest already posted from the letter I signed today to cancel my insurance.


----------



## Indeependent

eagle1462010 said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Drive by post............
> 
> Libs can't handle the truth..........My rates for next year went up 60%............
> 
> That's right 60%.................I have to drop my insurance............Because I can't survive financially with that increase...............
> 
> So thanks to the Liberal Losers, Obama and the Dems I will not have insurance next year............
> 
> To Liberal posters...............Up yours..................
> 
> You Can't Handle the Truth! - A Few Good Men (7/8) Movie CLIP (1992) HD - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm always leery of relative statements such as these.
> What's the composition of your family (I know, a drive by poster won't be back to answer this question)?
> What was the actual amount you were paying before?
> What are your co-pays?
> What are your deductibles?
> 
> I understand Conservatives being FORCED to buy Health Insurance.
> I don't like statements void of solid information.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Family of 3.............
> 
> $1020 a month previous.
> Construction industry, small company.
> could hardly fucking afford that
> 
> Rest already posted from the letter I signed today to cancel my insurance.
Click to expand...


Thank you.
That is quite a shock to the system and it seems you are being now sucked dry to satisfy some actuarial pool.


----------



## PMZ

eagle1462010 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Time for you to face the Reality of the BS you are peddling.   People like me are getting Fucked over you Liberal loser, but because it doesn't effect you..........you don't give a rats ass.........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell us who your insurance was with and what reason they gave you for a 60% increase.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Due to the new Health Care Reform Act, ________ is having an open enrollment period for All employees.  Our next open enrollment will be August 2014.  If you are currently enrolled, you will see an increase in your current rates beginning January 2014.  the deadline to enroll is December 20, 2013.
> 
> Following is the new rates and coverages.
> 
> Blue Cross Blue shield.
> 
> Family coverage to $1,675.11 a month.
> $386.86 a week
> Deduct $1,000
> Coinsurance 80%
> Out of pocket max $1,000
> Office visit $25/40
> Prescription drugs
> Deductible $50
> Tier one $10
> Tier two $25
> Tier three $50
> Tier four $100
Click to expand...


So you have no idea what the contribution to the increase of ACA is.


----------



## eagle1462010

PMZ said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell us who your insurance was with and what reason they gave you for a 60% increase.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Due to the new Health Care Reform Act, ________ is having an open enrollment period for All employees.  Our next open enrollment will be August 2014.  If you are currently enrolled, you will see an increase in your current rates beginning January 2014.  the deadline to enroll is December 20, 2013.
> 
> Following is the new rates and coverages.
> 
> Blue Cross Blue shield.
> 
> Family coverage to $1,675.11 a month.
> $386.86 a week
> Deduct $1,000
> Coinsurance 80%
> Out of pocket max $1,000
> Office visit $25/40
> Prescription drugs
> Deductible $50
> Tier one $10
> Tier two $25
> Tier three $50
> Tier four $100
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you have no idea what the contribution to the increase of ACA is.
Click to expand...


Clarify..........................$1675.11 from $1020

Which part of that don't you understand...............

I posted that from the actual letter signed.


----------



## PMZ

Indeependent said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm always leery of relative statements such as these.
> What's the composition of your family (I know, a drive by poster won't be back to answer this question)?
> What was the actual amount you were paying before?
> What are your co-pays?
> What are your deductibles?
> 
> I understand Conservatives being FORCED to buy Health Insurance.
> I don't like statements void of solid information.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Family of 3.............
> 
> $1020 a month previous.
> Construction industry, small company.
> could hardly fucking afford that
> 
> Rest already posted from the letter I signed today to cancel my insurance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you.
> That is quite a shock to the system and it seems you are being now sucked dry to satisfy some actuarial pool.
Click to expand...


One of the provisions of ACA has to do with what's called age band rating. The majority of states allow a ratio of 1:5 between the premiums for their youngest folks, and the premiums of the oldest. As Medicare kicks in at age 65, the oldest for regular insurance, is 64. 

As the actual health care cost range is about 1:3, ACA requires that to be the limiting range. The intention was to stop the traditional practice that resulted in the older subsidizing the younger. 

Insurance companies chose to apply that by keeping the rates of the oldest where they were, and dividing by 3 for the younger, resulting in a more realistic rate for the younger, not subsidized by the older.

A great deal for insurance companies, but a shock to younger folks now required to have insurance.

I think that the net result, which should surprise nobody, is that the insurance companies are bringing about further regulation on themselves.


----------



## Indeependent

eagle1462010 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Due to the new Health Care Reform Act, ________ is having an open enrollment period for All employees.  Our next open enrollment will be August 2014.  If you are currently enrolled, you will see an increase in your current rates beginning January 2014.  the deadline to enroll is December 20, 2013.
> 
> Following is the new rates and coverages.
> 
> Blue Cross Blue shield.
> 
> Family coverage to $1,675.11 a month.
> $386.86 a week
> Deduct $1,000
> Coinsurance 80%
> Out of pocket max $1,000
> Office visit $25/40
> Prescription drugs
> Deductible $50
> Tier one $10
> Tier two $25
> Tier three $50
> Tier four $100
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you have no idea what the contribution to the increase of ACA is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clarify..........................$1675.11 from $1020
> 
> Which part of that don't you understand...............
> 
> I posted that from the actual letter signed.
Click to expand...


Under ordinary circumstances a $100.00/month increase, but $500.00/month is crushing.


----------



## PMZ

eagle1462010 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Due to the new Health Care Reform Act, ________ is having an open enrollment period for All employees.  Our next open enrollment will be August 2014.  If you are currently enrolled, you will see an increase in your current rates beginning January 2014.  the deadline to enroll is December 20, 2013.
> 
> Following is the new rates and coverages.
> 
> Blue Cross Blue shield.
> 
> Family coverage to $1,675.11 a month.
> $386.86 a week
> Deduct $1,000
> Coinsurance 80%
> Out of pocket max $1,000
> Office visit $25/40
> Prescription drugs
> Deductible $50
> Tier one $10
> Tier two $25
> Tier three $50
> Tier four $100
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you have no idea what the contribution to the increase of ACA is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clarify..........................$1675.11 from $1020
> 
> Which part of that don't you understand...............
> 
> I posted that from the actual letter signed.
Click to expand...


There are many contributors to health insurance premium increases every year. The largest is typically the never ending higher than inflation increases in health care delivery costs. Or, insurance companies lowering their risks and increasing their profits. Or covering higher administration costs. 

This year was no different.


----------



## dblack

kdublubatub said:


> Sorry to butt into the dialogue, but I need responses for a quick survey regarding healthcare facebook memes so I can pass a college class. If you take it, you will be entered in a drawing to win $100, your odds are 1 in 150, which are better than most $5 scratch offs, and you DON'T have to pay. https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/HMW695H. You will only be contacted if you win.



In the most thoughtful and considerate way possible, kindly fuck off and die in an avalanche of putrid spam gunk.


----------



## BlackSand

PMZ said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you have no idea what the contribution to the increase of ACA is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clarify..........................$1675.11 from $1020
> 
> Which part of that don't you understand...............
> 
> I posted that from the actual letter signed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are many contributors to health insurance premium increases every year. The largest is typically the never ending higher than inflation increases in health care delivery costs. Or, insurance companies lowering their risks and increasing their profits. Or covering higher administration costs.
> 
> This year was no different.
Click to expand...


Uh ... Premiums do increase from time to time, but they don't go up 61% at a time ... And certainly not 61% every year ... So this year would definitely be different.
Of course if you had ever bought insurance  and paid for it more than a year ... You would know that.

.


----------



## Indeependent

I'm not sucking up to any politician; a $500.00/month bump is untenable for most working families.


----------



## eagle1462010

$655. a month increase............for clarification

I don't know how the hell they came up with that amount.

But it's posted as received.  From the actual letter signed.


----------



## PMZ

BlackSand said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clarify..........................$1675.11 from $1020
> 
> Which part of that don't you understand...............
> 
> I posted that from the actual letter signed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are many contributors to health insurance premium increases every year. The largest is typically the never ending higher than inflation increases in health care delivery costs. Or, insurance companies lowering their risks and increasing their profits. Or covering higher administration costs.
> 
> This year was no different.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh ... Premiums do increase from time to time, but they don't go up 61% at a time ... And certainly not 61% every year ... So this year would definitely be different.
> Of course if you had ever bought insurance  and paid for it more than a year ... You would know that.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


I've been paying for my current insurance, Medicare, every year that I worked professionally, and still am. 

For my professional career my employers had to give me health care insurance or I wouldn't have worked there.

I see you don't know the answer to my original question either. How much of the person's health insurance increase was due to ACA.


----------



## eagle1462010

PMZ said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are many contributors to health insurance premium increases every year. The largest is typically the never ending higher than inflation increases in health care delivery costs. Or, insurance companies lowering their risks and increasing their profits. Or covering higher administration costs.
> 
> This year was no different.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh ... Premiums do increase from time to time, but they don't go up 61% at a time ... And certainly not 61% every year ... So this year would definitely be different.
> Of course if you had ever bought insurance  and paid for it more than a year ... You would know that.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've been paying for my current insurance, Medicare, every year that I worked professionally, and still am.
> 
> For my professional career my employers had to give me health care insurance or I wouldn't have worked there.
> 
> I see you don't know the answer to my original question either. How much of the person's health insurance increase was due to ACA.
Click to expand...


You've got to be kidding me..........Even though this post wasn't directed at me.................

You're posting like the expert here.  You tell me if it's because of the January 2014 mark...............This is VERY LARGE INCREASE..............You explain how this isn't a DIRECT RESULT OF OBAMACARE.


----------



## PMZ

eagle1462010 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uh ... Premiums do increase from time to time, but they don't go up 61% at a time ... And certainly not 61% every year ... So this year would definitely be different.
> Of course if you had ever bought insurance  and paid for it more than a year ... You would know that.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've been paying for my current insurance, Medicare, every year that I worked professionally, and still am.
> 
> For my professional career my employers had to give me health care insurance or I wouldn't have worked there.
> 
> I see you don't know the answer to my original question either. How much of the person's health insurance increase was due to ACA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've got to be kidding me..........Even though this post wasn't directed at me.................
> 
> You're posting like the expert here.  You tell me if it's because of the January 2014 mark...............This is VERY LARGE INCREASE..............You explain how this isn't a DIRECT RESULT OF OBAMACARE.
Click to expand...


I don't know any more than you do about the contribution of various factors. 

Did you go to the exchange and look for alternatives?


----------



## eagle1462010

PMZ said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've been paying for my current insurance, Medicare, every year that I worked professionally, and still am.
> 
> For my professional career my employers had to give me health care insurance or I wouldn't have worked there.
> 
> I see you don't know the answer to my original question either. How much of the person's health insurance increase was due to ACA.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've got to be kidding me..........Even though this post wasn't directed at me.................
> 
> You're posting like the expert here.  You tell me if it's because of the January 2014 mark...............This is VERY LARGE INCREASE..............You explain how this isn't a DIRECT RESULT OF OBAMACARE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know any more than you do about the contribution of various factors.
> 
> Did you go to the exchange and look for alternatives?
Click to expand...


Quite frankly I don't trust the exchanges with my information...............

My daughter already compared her rates in the exchanges which were far higher than the company offered insurance.  They have very good insurance. Dell computers.........................

We have sorry insurance where I work........and because of the company being Construction it's considerable higher due to the work we do.


----------



## Listening

PMZ said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you have no idea what the contribution to the increase of ACA is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clarify..........................$1675.11 from $1020
> 
> Which part of that don't you understand...............
> 
> I posted that from the actual letter signed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are many contributors to health insurance premium increases every year. The largest is typically the never ending higher than inflation increases in health care delivery costs. Or, insurance companies lowering their risks and increasing their profits. Or covering higher administration costs.
> 
> This year was no different.
Click to expand...


If this were not so lame, it would be sad.


----------



## oreo

Rottweiler said:


> As the Dumbocrats on USMB love to crow about - Obamacare was passed into law by Congress, signed into law by the president, and upheld by the Supreme Court. So _why_ exactly does the federal government have to piss away billions to *promote* an existing law?!? Has this _ever_ been done with any other law in U.S. _history_?
> 
> They begged the NBA to help promote it and the NBA said yes. They begged the NFL to help promote it, and the NFL told them to go fuck themselves (doh!). So why are they so desperate to reach people through Hollywood and sports? Because even the Dumbocrats know this is a miserable failure, and they _know_ it is going to be repealed eventually unless they can do major damage control and brainwash the masses (especially the young and impressionable - hence the NBA, NFL, etc.) that this is a "good" thing.
> 
> Super Bowl champ Baltimore Ravens getting paid $130,000 to promote Obamacare | WashingtonExaminer.com




Well the "thought" of medical insurance for everyone is great--that is until they look at the PREMIUMS on the Obamacare sites.  So they still haven't gotten the numbers of exactly how many are pushing the* BUY button* on these exchanges.  

We do know there was a fire sale with the FREE Medicade enrollment--500K signed up--then we also know that the elderly--(who have to have medical insurance because of an illness or other signed up)--but what is lacking is the healthy YOUTH in this country that don't seem to be the least bit interested in pushing the BUY button.

_And without the YOUNG AND HEALTHY pushing the BUY button--Obamacare goes into the noted death spiral--because it is they that have to off-set the cost of all the Medicade and elderly enrollee's._  If they don't--insurance rates goes up on the exchanges making it even less affordable for all Americans--until Obamacare collapses onto itself.


----------



## Listening

eagle1462010 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uh ... Premiums do increase from time to time, but they don't go up 61% at a time ... And certainly not 61% every year ... So this year would definitely be different.
> Of course if you had ever bought insurance  and paid for it more than a year ... You would know that.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've been paying for my current insurance, Medicare, every year that I worked professionally, and still am.
> 
> For my professional career my employers had to give me health care insurance or I wouldn't have worked there.
> 
> I see you don't know the answer to my original question either. How much of the person's health insurance increase was due to ACA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've got to be kidding me..........Even though this post wasn't directed at me.................
> 
> You're posting like the expert here.  You tell me if it's because of the January 2014 mark...............This is VERY LARGE INCREASE..............You explain how this isn't a DIRECT RESULT OF OBAMACARE.
Click to expand...


What makes PMS's response so funny is that Obamacare was supposed to PREVENT this from happening.  Remember that 2500/year REDUCTION you were supposed to get ?


----------



## Indeependent

oreo said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> As the Dumbocrats on USMB love to crow about - Obamacare was passed into law by Congress, signed into law by the president, and upheld by the Supreme Court. So _why_ exactly does the federal government have to piss away billions to *promote* an existing law?!? Has this _ever_ been done with any other law in U.S. _history_?
> 
> They begged the NBA to help promote it and the NBA said yes. They begged the NFL to help promote it, and the NFL told them to go fuck themselves (doh!). So why are they so desperate to reach people through Hollywood and sports? Because even the Dumbocrats know this is a miserable failure, and they _know_ it is going to be repealed eventually unless they can do major damage control and brainwash the masses (especially the young and impressionable - hence the NBA, NFL, etc.) that this is a "good" thing.
> 
> Super Bowl champ Baltimore Ravens getting paid $130,000 to promote Obamacare | WashingtonExaminer.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well the "thought" of medical insurance for everyone is great--that is until they look at the PREMIUMS on the Obamacare sites.  So still haven't gotten the numbers of exactly how many are pushing the BUY button on these exchanges.
> 
> We do know there was a fire sale with the FREE Medicade enrollment--500K signed up--then we also know that the elderly--(who have to have medical insurance signed up)--but what is lacking is the healthy YOUTH in this country that don't seem to be the least bit interested in pushing the BUY button.
> 
> And without them--Obamacare goes into the noted death spiral--because it is they that have to off-set the cost of all the Medicade and Elderly enrollee's.
Click to expand...


If you like your ReaganCare, you can keep it.


----------



## eagle1462010

Listening said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've been paying for my current insurance, Medicare, every year that I worked professionally, and still am.
> 
> For my professional career my employers had to give me health care insurance or I wouldn't have worked there.
> 
> I see you don't know the answer to my original question either. How much of the person's health insurance increase was due to ACA.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've got to be kidding me..........Even though this post wasn't directed at me.................
> 
> You're posting like the expert here.  You tell me if it's because of the January 2014 mark...............This is VERY LARGE INCREASE..............You explain how this isn't a DIRECT RESULT OF OBAMACARE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What makes PMS's response so funny is that Obamacare was supposed to PREVENT this from happening.  Remember that 2500/year REDUCTION you were supposed to get ?
Click to expand...


We just get screwed because we make money out of the poverty ranges............The real fucked up part is that if I can't find another plan not only do I lose my insurance, but I get to pay the IRS a fine, no a tax, no a fine...................


----------



## Listening

eagle1462010 said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've got to be kidding me..........Even though this post wasn't directed at me.................
> 
> You're posting like the expert here.  You tell me if it's because of the January 2014 mark...............This is VERY LARGE INCREASE..............You explain how this isn't a DIRECT RESULT OF OBAMACARE.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What makes PMS's response so funny is that Obamacare was supposed to PREVENT this from happening.  Remember that 2500/year REDUCTION you were supposed to get ?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We just get screwed because we make money out of the poverty ranges............The real fucked up part is that if I can't find another plan not only do I lose my insurance, but I get to pay the IRS a fine, no a tax, no a fine...................
Click to expand...


That is what PMS calls collaborative.

Bend over and grab your ankles....and don't complain.


----------



## eagle1462010

In the Navy we called it..........................

*BOHICA*


----------



## oreo

Listening said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've been paying for my current insurance, Medicare, every year that I worked professionally, and still am.
> 
> For my professional career my employers had to give me health care insurance or I wouldn't have worked there.
> 
> I see you don't know the answer to my original question either. How much of the person's health insurance increase was due to ACA.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've got to be kidding me..........Even though this post wasn't directed at me.................
> 
> You're posting like the expert here.  You tell me if it's because of the January 2014 mark...............This is VERY LARGE INCREASE..............You explain how this isn't a DIRECT RESULT OF OBAMACARE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What makes PMS's response so funny is that Obamacare was supposed to PREVENT this from happening.  Remember that 2500/year REDUCTION you were supposed to get ?
> 
> 
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNZEMu-u6nc]Obama Promises To Lower Health Insurance Premiums by 2,500 Per Year - YouTube[/ame]
Click to expand...



Obviously not true either.  What liberals don't understand is that the 5.5 million policies that just received cancellation notices on the plans they liked--(if they were finding less expensive premiums for more value in benefits on the Obamacare exchanges)--OBAMA would be a hero right now--and his approval rating would be going through the roof--and not like it is--in the toilet.

*The premiums are double to triple to what they were paying. *



> Sen. Dianne Feinstein on Tuesday joined the ranks of worried Democrats demanding that President Obama allow people to keep their current insurance policies. Feinstein&#8217;s move is bad news for an administration desperate for good news following the roll-out debacle of the Affordable Care Act&#8217;s health insurance exchange on Oct. 1, which has been plagued by technical problems.
> 
> &#8220;Since the beginning of September, I have received *30,842 calls,* emails and letters from Californians, many of whom are very distressed by cancellations of their insurance policies and who are facing increased out-of-pocket costs.
> 
> &#8220;For example, a father from Rancho Mirage called and said: &#8216;I work three jobs to pay the bills for my wife and daughter. I got a letter that my plan is going from $420 to $943. I went to HealthCare.Gov, then Covered California. I researched my premiums. A policy almost identical to my old one is being offered for $863. I&#8217;m now being forced to come up with over $400 a month with 30 days&#8217; notice. Let me spell it out: I do not have the income to afford this.&#8217;



Dianne Feinstein joins effort to change Affordable Care Act - Politics Blog

*PURPOSE OF OBAMACARE:* to insure the uninsured    *EFFECT OF OBAMACARE:*  uninsuring the insured

_Now just wait until this moves into the employer mandate--now postponed until AFTER the midterm election next year._  Millions upon Millions more will lose the premiums and the insurance they liked due to the Obamacare mandates.






*Welcome to your hope and change*


----------



## beagle9

You know what, I think that going to the emergency room because one can't or couldn't afford health care, ((to me)) is the same as going to the back of the bus just as Rosa Parks was expected to.

Single Payer finally for everyone ?


----------



## PMZ

beagle9 said:


> You know what, I think that going to the emergency room because one can't or couldn't afford health care, ((to me)) is the same as going to the back of the bus just as Rosa Parks was expected to.
> 
> Single Payer finally for everyone ?



Aristocrats don't like not being exclusive.


----------



## oreo

Indeependent said:


> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> As the Dumbocrats on USMB love to crow about - Obamacare was passed into law by Congress, signed into law by the president, and upheld by the Supreme Court. So _why_ exactly does the federal government have to piss away billions to *promote* an existing law?!? Has this _ever_ been done with any other law in U.S. _history_?
> 
> They begged the NBA to help promote it and the NBA said yes. They begged the NFL to help promote it, and the NFL told them to go fuck themselves (doh!). So why are they so desperate to reach people through Hollywood and sports? Because even the Dumbocrats know this is a miserable failure, and they _know_ it is going to be repealed eventually unless they can do major damage control and brainwash the masses (especially the young and impressionable - hence the NBA, NFL, etc.) that this is a "good" thing.
> 
> Super Bowl champ Baltimore Ravens getting paid $130,000 to promote Obamacare | WashingtonExaminer.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well the "thought" of medical insurance for everyone is great--that is until they look at the PREMIUMS on the Obamacare sites.  So still haven't gotten the numbers of exactly how many are pushing the BUY button on these exchanges.
> 
> We do know there was a fire sale with the FREE Medicade enrollment--500K signed up--then we also know that the elderly--(who have to have medical insurance signed up)--but what is lacking is the healthy YOUTH in this country that don't seem to be the least bit interested in pushing the BUY button.
> 
> And without them--Obamacare goes into the noted death spiral--because it is they that have to off-set the cost of all the Medicade and Elderly enrollee's.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you like your ReaganCare, you can keep it.
Click to expand...


There was no such thing as Reagan Care--and Your guy made certain that I can't keep the plan I like--or the premiums I like either. * OBAMA LIED.* * Obama LIED to the American public over 40 times regarding them being able to keep the policies they liked.*

*250,000 Coloradoans lose the health plans they liked, and I am one of them.  5.5 million policies across this nation (to-date) have been cancelled because of the mandates in Obamacare.  These same people are looking at double to triple the premiums that they were paying for their now cancelled plans.  And this plague is going to spread into the employer mandate, of course, now delayed until "after" the mid term elections next year.
*
Almost 250,000 Colo. residents lose health plans under ObamaCare | Fox News

PURPOSE OF OBAMACARE:  to insure the uninsured    EFFECT OF OBAMACARE:  uninsuring the insured






*Welcome to your Hope and Change*


----------



## PMZ

Near as I can tell from Republican propaganda,  nobody will have health insurance in 2014.


----------



## oreo

PMZ said:


> Near as I can tell from Republican propaganda,  nobody will have health insurance in 2014.




The numbers aren't showing it, that's for certain.  5.5 million polices were just cancelled--and if you add in the spouses and children under these plans--you could be talking about *12 million actually losing their insurance-*-and they sure don't seem to be jumping in there to push the *BUY button* on these Obamacare exchanges.  Everyone has to be signed up prior to December 23, 2013 to be covered Jan. 1 2014.

Tons of free Medicade enrollees though-I guess that's something you can celebrate?


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> Near as I can tell from Republican propaganda,  nobody will have health insurance in 2014.


Retarded ass hole.


----------



## oreo

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Near as I can tell from Republican propaganda,  nobody will have health insurance in 2014.
> 
> 
> 
> Retarded ass hole.
Click to expand...


Well, he may actually be right.  If the young and healthy do not push the BUY button on these Obamacare exchanges--insurance rates across this country will in fact get so high that no one will be able to afford it.

The insurers were due to let us know what rates would be in 2015 in October 2014--but that too has been postponed until "after" the mid-term election cycle.


----------



## beagle9

So it's all just another stand off, while the good people of this country continue to lose, lose, lose.


----------



## beagle9

Single payer is the only alternative to this mess I think.


----------



## dblack

oreo said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Near as I can tell from Republican propaganda,  nobody will have health insurance in 2014.
> 
> 
> 
> Retarded ass hole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, he may actually be right.  If the young and healthy do not push the BUY button on these Obamacare exchanges--insurance rates across this country will in fact get so high that no one will be able to afford it.
> 
> The insurers were due to let us know what rates would be in 2015 in October 2014--but that too has been postponed until "after" the mid-term election cycle.
Click to expand...


Then maybe we'll wise up and look into buy health _care_ instead.


----------



## dblack

beagle9 said:


> Single payer is the only alternative to this mess I think.



The last thing we should do is put all our eggs in one basket.


----------



## PMZ

oreo said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Near as I can tell from Republican propaganda,  nobody will have health insurance in 2014.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The numbers aren't showing it, that's for certain.  5.5 million polices were just cancelled--and if you add in the spouses and children under these plans--you could be talking about *12 million actually losing their insurance-*-and they sure don't seem to be jumping in there to push the *BUY button* on these Obamacare exchanges.  Everyone has to be signed up prior to December 23, 2013 to be covered Jan. 1 2014.
> 
> Tons of free Medicade enrollees though-I guess that's something you can celebrate?
Click to expand...


Nobody is losing insurance.  There are plenty of plans for everyone.  Those that were excluded before because we chose not to pay them enough,  now can afford it. 

The noise that you hear are the living dead media zombies moaning because they've been held accountable for their abysmal performance in governance.  It has nothing to do with insurance.  It's only about power. 

They failed to impose their bankrupt dogma on we,  the people,  and they're pouting.


----------



## PMZ

dblack said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Single payer is the only alternative to this mess I think.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The last thing we should do is put all our eggs in one basket.
Click to expand...


Works fine for Medicare.  It works fine for most of the developed countries of the world.  But it won't work here?????


----------



## Listening

PMZ said:


> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Near as I can tell from Republican propaganda,  nobody will have health insurance in 2014.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The numbers aren't showing it, that's for certain.  5.5 million polices were just cancelled--and if you add in the spouses and children under these plans--you could be talking about *12 million actually losing their insurance-*-and they sure don't seem to be jumping in there to push the *BUY button* on these Obamacare exchanges.  Everyone has to be signed up prior to December 23, 2013 to be covered Jan. 1 2014.
> 
> Tons of free Medicade enrollees though-I guess that's something you can celebrate?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody is losing insurance. * There are plenty of plans for everyone. * Those that were excluded before because we chose not to pay them enough,  now can afford it.
> 
> The noise that you hear are the living dead media zombies moaning because they've been held accountable for their abysmal performance in governance.  It has nothing to do with insurance.  It's only about power.
> 
> They failed to impose their bankrupt dogma on we,  the people,  and they're pouting.
Click to expand...


You could just as easily say there are plenty of BMW's for everyone too.  That fact that people can't afford them (or don't want them) does not seem to bother you socialist pricks.

Your Taurus was "substandard".......

Assholes.


----------



## Listening

I keep reading about other countries.  

We are not other countries.  We don't live in crowded cities with energy policies that drive the price of gas up to the point where all have to live in apartments....and where unemployment is so high.

I am fine with what they do for them.  I certainly don't want any part of it.

They have health care systems that work for them.

We had a health care system that worked fine for us and is the envy of many (so much so that their rich tend to come here for the more difficult procedures).  

I would not change theirs.

And our Affirmative Action Failure should not have changed ours.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/obama_and_democrats_health_care_plan-1130.html


----------



## RKMBrown

Listening said:


> I keep reading about other countries.
> 
> We are not other countries.  We don't live in crowded cities with energy policies that drive the price of gas up to the point where all have to live in apartments....and where unemployment is so high.
> 
> I am fine with what they do for them.  I certainly don't want any part of it.
> 
> They have health care systems that work for them.
> 
> We had a health care system that worked fine for us and is the envy of many (so much so that their rich tend to come here for the more difficult procedures).
> 
> I would not change theirs.
> 
> And our Affirmative Action Failure should not have changed ours.
> 
> RealClearPolitics - Election Other - Public Approval of Health Care Law



Wait till you see the new Obama approved price tags.  I won't pay the extra 60%.  When this hits corporations next year there's gonna be rioting in the streets.  The only people that won't give a shit are the folks that Obama is giving exemptions to.  Have you seen all the new taxes this thing comes with?  This is no longer our country, the demoscum have set their fires and are burning it down one group at a time.


----------



## Listening

RKMBrown said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> I keep reading about other countries.
> 
> We are not other countries.  We don't live in crowded cities with energy policies that drive the price of gas up to the point where all have to live in apartments....and where unemployment is so high.
> 
> I am fine with what they do for them.  I certainly don't want any part of it.
> 
> They have health care systems that work for them.
> 
> We have a health care system that works fine for us and is the envy of many (so much so that their rich tend to come here for the more difficult procedures).
> 
> I would not change theirs.
> 
> And our Affirmative Action Failure should not have changed ours.
> 
> RealClearPolitics - Election Other - Public Approval of Health Care Law
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >>> We have a health care system that works fine for us
> 
> Wait till you see the new Obama approved price tags.  I won't pay the extra 60%.  When this hits corporations next year there's gonna be rioting in the streets.  The only people that won't give a shit are the folks that Obama is giving exemptions to.  Have you not seen all the new taxes this thing comes with?
Click to expand...


Thank....I edited the post....we "had" a health care system that worked fine for us.

And you served in the navy.  I can't think of anything that is worse than this for you.  I am so sorry we have so many who actually believed that money grows on trees and they somehow are smarter than the rest of us.

Look over at this thread.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...43-when-did-junk-plans-become-junk-plans.html

The liars on the left have yet to produce one clip of Obama calling plans junk until it became obvious he needed to be rescued from his BIG LIE.


----------



## RKMBrown

Listening said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> I keep reading about other countries.
> 
> We are not other countries.  We don't live in crowded cities with energy policies that drive the price of gas up to the point where all have to live in apartments....and where unemployment is so high.
> 
> I am fine with what they do for them.  I certainly don't want any part of it.
> 
> They have health care systems that work for them.
> 
> We had a health care system that worked fine for us and is the envy of many (so much so that their rich tend to come here for the more difficult procedures).
> 
> I would not change theirs.
> 
> And our Affirmative Action Failure should not have changed ours.
> 
> RealClearPolitics - Election Other - Public Approval of Health Care Law
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wait till you see the new Obama approved price tags.  I won't pay the extra 60%.  When this hits corporations next year there's gonna be rioting in the streets.  The only people that won't give a shit are the folks that Obama is giving exemptions to.  Have you seen all the new taxes this thing comes with?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am so sorry we have so many who actually believed that money grows on trees and they somehow are smarter than the rest of us.
> 
> Look over at this thread.
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...43-when-did-junk-plans-become-junk-plans.html
> 
> The liars on the left have yet to produce one clip of Obama calling plans junk until it became obvious he needed to be rescued from his BIG LIE.
Click to expand...


HSAs with high deductibles are the way to go.  The democrats know this and thus have freaked out and made HSA essentially illegal.  HSAs would have given people what amounts to their own 401k for health care.  It's a system where the free market would shine.  I hate these assholes who have done this to my family.


----------



## PMZ

Listening said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The numbers aren't showing it, that's for certain.  5.5 million polices were just cancelled--and if you add in the spouses and children under these plans--you could be talking about *12 million actually losing their insurance-*-and they sure don't seem to be jumping in there to push the *BUY button* on these Obamacare exchanges.  Everyone has to be signed up prior to December 23, 2013 to be covered Jan. 1 2014.
> 
> Tons of free Medicade enrollees though-I guess that's something you can celebrate?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody is losing insurance. * There are plenty of plans for everyone. * Those that were excluded before because we chose not to pay them enough,  now can afford it.
> 
> The noise that you hear are the living dead media zombies moaning because they've been held accountable for their abysmal performance in governance.  It has nothing to do with insurance.  It's only about power.
> 
> They failed to impose their bankrupt dogma on we,  the people,  and they're pouting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You could just as easily say there are plenty of BMW's for everyone too.  That fact that people can't afford them (or don't want them) does not seem to bother you socialist pricks.
> 
> Your Taurus was "substandard".......
> 
> Assholes.
Click to expand...


The government has nothing to do with health care costs or insurance profitability.  You just refuse to deal with the real culprits.


----------



## PMZ

Listening said:


> I keep reading about other countries.
> 
> We are not other countries.  We don't live in crowded cities with energy policies that drive the price of gas up to the point where all have to live in apartments....and where unemployment is so high.
> 
> I am fine with what they do for them.  I certainly don't want any part of it.
> 
> They have health care systems that work for them.
> 
> We had a health care system that worked fine for us and is the envy of many (so much so that their rich tend to come here for the more difficult procedures).
> 
> I would not change theirs.
> 
> And our Affirmative Action Failure should not have changed ours.
> 
> http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/obama_and_democrats_health_care_plan-1130.html



By "we"  you, of course, meant "you". Those others don't count because presumably,  they're not Republicans.


----------



## Listening

RKMBrown said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wait till you see the new Obama approved price tags.  I won't pay the extra 60%.  When this hits corporations next year there's gonna be rioting in the streets.  The only people that won't give a shit are the folks that Obama is giving exemptions to.  Have you seen all the new taxes this thing comes with?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am so sorry we have so many who actually believed that money grows on trees and they somehow are smarter than the rest of us.
> 
> Look over at this thread.
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...43-when-did-junk-plans-become-junk-plans.html
> 
> The liars on the left have yet to produce one clip of Obama calling plans junk until it became obvious he needed to be rescued from his BIG LIE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> HSAs with high deductibles are the way to go.  The democrats know this and thus have freaked out and made HSA essentially illegal.  HSAs would have given people what amounts to their own 401k for health care.  It's a system where the free market would shine.  I hate these assholes who have done this to my family.
Click to expand...


It is what I have now....started when they first came out.  

They work great.


----------



## Listening

PMZ said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> I keep reading about other countries.
> 
> We are not other countries.  We don't live in crowded cities with energy policies that drive the price of gas up to the point where all have to live in apartments....and where unemployment is so high.
> 
> I am fine with what they do for them.  I certainly don't want any part of it.
> 
> They have health care systems that work for them.
> 
> We had a health care system that worked fine for us and is the envy of many (so much so that their rich tend to come here for the more difficult procedures).
> 
> I would not change theirs.
> 
> And our Affirmative Action Failure should not have changed ours.
> 
> RealClearPolitics - Election Other - Public Approval of Health Care Law
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By "we"  you, of course, meant "you". Those others don't count because presumably,  they're not Republicans.
Click to expand...


I am sorry you can't understand what the pronouns mean.

Is that covered under the ACA ?


----------



## dblack

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Single payer is the only alternative to this mess I think.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The last thing we should do is put all our eggs in one basket.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Works fine for Medicare.  It works fine for most of the developed countries of the world.  But it won't work here?????
Click to expand...


It's dangerous in general to commit to only one method of solving our problems. Diversity is the key to long term sustainability.


----------



## Listening

PMZ said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody is losing insurance. * There are plenty of plans for everyone. * Those that were excluded before because we chose not to pay them enough,  now can afford it.
> 
> The noise that you hear are the living dead media zombies moaning because they've been held accountable for their abysmal performance in governance.  It has nothing to do with insurance.  It's only about power.
> 
> They failed to impose their bankrupt dogma on we,  the people,  and they're pouting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You could just as easily say there are plenty of BMW's for everyone too.  That fact that people can't afford them (or don't want them) does not seem to bother you socialist pricks.
> 
> Your Taurus was "substandard".......
> 
> Assholes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The government has nothing to do with health care costs or insurance profitability.  You just refuse to deal with the real culprits.
Click to expand...


As usual, you don't have a good quote from you list of "Talking points for ACA idiots" so you put something in that *might* touch on the topic at hand.

Fail


----------



## Katzndogz

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Single payer is the only alternative to this mess I think.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The last thing we should do is put all our eggs in one basket.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Works fine for Medicare.  It works fine for most of the developed countries of the world.  But it won't work here?????
Click to expand...


It doesn't work fine for Medicare.   Medicare might be somewhat better than Medicaid, but only marginally so.

Single payer doesn't work.  It doesn't work in those countries that have it and very few do.  Those that have single payer don't have it for everyone.  There is still a private option.  England has a private option as does Germany.  The best doctors and the most doctors opt out of accepting patients under government plans.  Just like what's happening here.  And, in every country that has single payer there is no right to sue your doctor for malpractice.  You can file a complaint.  Out of a population of 82.5 million, medical malpractice claims are no more than 40,000 a year.  There are no large awards because there is no jury.

Medical Malpractice Liability: Germany | Law Library of Congress


----------



## RKMBrown

Listening said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am so sorry we have so many who actually believed that money grows on trees and they somehow are smarter than the rest of us.
> 
> Look over at this thread.
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...43-when-did-junk-plans-become-junk-plans.html
> 
> The liars on the left have yet to produce one clip of Obama calling plans junk until it became obvious he needed to be rescued from his BIG LIE.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HSAs with high deductibles are the way to go.  The democrats know this and thus have freaked out and made HSA essentially illegal.  HSAs would have given people what amounts to their own 401k for health care.  It's a system where the free market would shine.  I hate these assholes who have done this to my family.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is what I have now....started when they first came out.
> 
> They work great.
Click to expand...


HSAs are cheap because they are basically low premium high deductive plans where you use your own money to shop for health care up to the deductible.  Essentially, they are unlimited catastrophic policies that are fantastic for healthy people and also work very well for the folks who saved the delta into their own accounts in later years when they eventually do need to spend a lot of money on health care.  

Obuma care makes all low premium high deductible plans illegal.  As such HSAs will no longer make any sense.  They will be high premium low deductible plans whether you use the health care or not.  IOW Obama's plan is to re-distribute your money for you to the folks who had pre-existing conditions, illegal immigrants, and all the other folks who will be getting subsidies under this plan.


----------



## BlackSand

beagle9 said:


> Single payer is the only alternative to this mess I think.



*I love the notion of "single payer" ... I am willing to pay for all of mine.*

.


----------



## RKMBrown

BlackSand said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Single payer is the only alternative to this mess I think.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I love the notion of "single payer" ... I am willing to pay for all of mine.*
> 
> .
Click to expand...


lol... yeah they mean no one has to worry about paying the bill.. it will just all come out of the taxes from the evil rich that refuse to pay us six figures for flipping burgers.


----------



## BlackSand

RKMBrown said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Single payer is the only alternative to this mess I think.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I love the notion of "single payer" ... I am willing to pay for all of mine.*
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol... yeah they mean no one has to worry about paying the bill.. it will just all come out of the taxes from the evil rich that refuse to pay us six figures for flipping burgers.
Click to expand...


Actually I think calling it "single payer" ranks right up there with "You can keep your plan if you like it".
Shouldn't they call it something like "someone else pays"?

.


----------



## PMZ

Katzndogz said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> The last thing we should do is put all our eggs in one basket.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Works fine for Medicare.  It works fine for most of the developed countries of the world.  But it won't work here?????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't work fine for Medicare.   Medicare might be somewhat better than Medicaid, but only marginally so.
> 
> Single payer doesn't work.  It doesn't work in those countries that have it and very few do.  Those that have single payer don't have it for everyone.  There is still a private option.  England has a private option as does Germany.  The best doctors and the most doctors opt out of accepting patients under government plans.  Just like what's happening here.  And, in every country that has single payer there is no right to sue your doctor for malpractice.  You can file a complaint.  Out of a population of 82.5 million, medical malpractice claims are no more than 40,000 a year.  There are no large awards because there is no jury.
> 
> Medical Malpractice Liability: Germany | Law Library of Congress
Click to expand...


I've been on Medicare for many years and have yet to encounter a single issue. Yet you say that it doesn't work. It works fine for me. Have you tried it? Are you speaking from experience or merely what you wish was true?


----------



## PMZ

BlackSand said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I love the notion of "single payer" ... I am willing to pay for all of mine.*
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lol... yeah they mean no one has to worry about paying the bill.. it will just all come out of the taxes from the evil rich that refuse to pay us six figures for flipping burgers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually I think calling it "single payer" ranks right up there with "You can keep your plan if you like it".
> Shouldn't they call it something like "someone else pays"?
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Why would you change its name from what it is to what it's not?


----------



## Listening

PMZ said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Works fine for Medicare.  It works fine for most of the developed countries of the world.  But it won't work here?????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't work fine for Medicare.   Medicare might be somewhat better than Medicaid, but only marginally so.
> 
> Single payer doesn't work.  It doesn't work in those countries that have it and very few do.  Those that have single payer don't have it for everyone.  There is still a private option.  England has a private option as does Germany.  The best doctors and the most doctors opt out of accepting patients under government plans.  Just like what's happening here.  And, in every country that has single payer there is no right to sue your doctor for malpractice.  You can file a complaint.  Out of a population of 82.5 million, medical malpractice claims are no more than 40,000 a year.  There are no large awards because there is no jury.
> 
> Medical Malpractice Liability: Germany | Law Library of Congress
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've been on Medicare for many years and have yet to encounter a single issue. Yet you say that it doesn't work. It works fine for me. Have you tried it? Are you speaking from experience or merely what you wish was true?
Click to expand...


Look at those pronouns now.


----------



## PMZ

BlackSand said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Single payer is the only alternative to this mess I think.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I love the notion of "single payer" ... I am willing to pay for all of mine.*
> 
> .
Click to expand...


I don't think that's heroic. In fact, it's very ordinary. The vast majority of Americans do.

No extra credit for you.


----------



## PMZ

Listening said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't work fine for Medicare.   Medicare might be somewhat better than Medicaid, but only marginally so.
> 
> Single payer doesn't work.  It doesn't work in those countries that have it and very few do.  Those that have single payer don't have it for everyone.  There is still a private option.  England has a private option as does Germany.  The best doctors and the most doctors opt out of accepting patients under government plans.  Just like what's happening here.  And, in every country that has single payer there is no right to sue your doctor for malpractice.  You can file a complaint.  Out of a population of 82.5 million, medical malpractice claims are no more than 40,000 a year.  There are no large awards because there is no jury.
> 
> Medical Malpractice Liability: Germany | Law Library of Congress
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've been on Medicare for many years and have yet to encounter a single issue. Yet you say that it doesn't work. It works fine for me. Have you tried it? Are you speaking from experience or merely what you wish was true?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look at those pronouns now.
Click to expand...


It's typically conservative to not base opinions on first hand experience but rather what the talking head tells you is true. Conservatives are the most susceptible to propaganda. They will believe anything that they want to be true.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Single payer is the only alternative to this mess I think.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I love the notion of "single payer" ... I am willing to pay for all of mine.*
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol... yeah they mean no one has to worry about paying the bill.. it will just all come out of the taxes from the evil rich that refuse to pay us six figures for flipping burgers.
Click to expand...


I believe that you are auditioning for poster boy for the "evil rich".


----------



## Listening

PMZ said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've been on Medicare for many years and have yet to encounter a single issue. Yet you say that it doesn't work. It works fine for me. Have you tried it? Are you speaking from experience or merely what you wish was true?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look at those pronouns now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's typically conservative to not base opinions on first hand experience but rather what the talking head tells you is true. Conservatives are the most susceptible to propaganda. They will believe anything that they want to be true.
Click to expand...


Sorry, but I have a member of my family who was very involved in medicare and medicaid...who helped the elderly make decisions and also who helped smoke out quite a number of doctors who were defrauding people and the system.... and who communicated this all of us (with details)....who knew the strengths and weaknesses of the system...who saw people who were helped and hurt by the system......

So, I think I am justified in telling you to go fuck yourself.


----------



## PMZ

Listening said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look at those pronouns now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's typically conservative to not base opinions on first hand experience but rather what the talking head tells you is true. Conservatives are the most susceptible to propaganda. They will believe anything that they want to be true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, but I have a member of my family who was very involved in medicare and medicaid...who helped the elderly make decisions and also who helped smoke out quite a number of doctors who were defrauding people....
> 
> I think I am justified in telling you to go fuck yourself.
Click to expand...


Truth makes suckers angry.  Thats why I tell it.


----------



## dblack

BlackSand said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I love the notion of "single payer" ... I am willing to pay for all of mine.*
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lol... yeah they mean no one has to worry about paying the bill.. it will just all come out of the taxes from the evil rich that refuse to pay us six figures for flipping burgers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually I think calling it "single payer" ranks right up there with "You can keep your plan if you like it".
> Shouldn't they call it something like "someone else pays"?
> 
> .
Click to expand...


That's all anybody really wants out of a health care 'system' - to get someone else to pay for their health care. Chasing that golden ring is what's painted us into this corner in the first place.


----------



## Listening

PMZ said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's typically conservative to not base opinions on first hand experience but rather what the talking head tells you is true. Conservatives are the most susceptible to propaganda. They will believe anything that they want to be true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but I have a member of my family who was very involved in medicare and medicaid...who helped the elderly make decisions and also who helped smoke out quite a number of doctors who were defrauding people....
> 
> I think I am justified in telling you to go fuck yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Truth makes suckers angry.  Thats why I tell it.
Click to expand...


Not angry at all.

Laughing all the time at you and your know-nothing posts.

My response is more out of respect for the way someone rolled up their sleeves and really got involved (and learned the system, in general) in deference to you sitting in some padded room essentially claiming to be something you are not...smart.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> HSAs with high deductibles are the way to go.  The democrats know this and thus have freaked out and made HSA essentially illegal.  HSAs would have given people what amounts to their own 401k for health care.  It's a system where the free market would shine.  I hate these assholes who have done this to my family.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is what I have now....started when they first came out.
> 
> They work great.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> HSAs are cheap because they are basically low premium high deductive plans where you use your own money to shop for health care up to the deductible.  Essentially, they are unlimited catastrophic policies that are fantastic for healthy people and also work very well for the folks who saved the delta into their own accounts in later years when they eventually do need to spend a lot of money on health care.
> 
> Obuma care makes all low premium high deductible plans illegal.  As such HSAs will no longer make any sense.  They will be high premium low deductible plans whether you use the health care or not.  IOW Obama's plan is to re-distribute your money for you to the folks who had pre-existing conditions, illegal immigrants, and all the other folks who will be getting subsidies under this plan.
Click to expand...


"Healthy" is a temporary condition.


----------



## Listening

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is what I have now....started when they first came out.
> 
> They work great.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HSAs are cheap because they are basically low premium high deductive plans where you use your own money to shop for health care up to the deductible.  Essentially, they are unlimited catastrophic policies that are fantastic for healthy people and also work very well for the folks who saved the delta into their own accounts in later years when they eventually do need to spend a lot of money on health care.
> 
> Obuma care makes all low premium high deductible plans illegal.  As such HSAs will no longer make any sense.  They will be high premium low deductible plans whether you use the health care or not.  IOW Obama's plan is to re-distribute your money for you to the folks who had pre-existing conditions, illegal immigrants, and all the other folks who will be getting subsidies under this plan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Healthy" is a temporary condition.
Click to expand...


You better hope stupid is too.


----------



## PMZ

dblack said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol... yeah they mean no one has to worry about paying the bill.. it will just all come out of the taxes from the evil rich that refuse to pay us six figures for flipping burgers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually I think calling it "single payer" ranks right up there with "You can keep your plan if you like it".
> Shouldn't they call it something like "someone else pays"?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's all anybody really wants out of a health care 'system' - to get someone else to pay for their health care. Chasing that golden ring is what's painted us into this corner in the first place.
Click to expand...


The single most ridiculous post here.


----------



## PMZ

Listening said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but I have a member of my family who was very involved in medicare and medicaid...who helped the elderly make decisions and also who helped smoke out quite a number of doctors who were defrauding people....
> 
> I think I am justified in telling you to go fuck yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truth makes suckers angry.  Thats why I tell it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not angry at all.
> 
> Laughing all the time at you and your know-nothing posts.
> 
> My response is more out of respect for the way someone rolled up their sleeves and really got involved (and learned the system, in general) in deference to you sitting in some padded room essentially claiming to be something you are not...smart.
Click to expand...


What you posted was a confession that you are as big a sucker for family members as you are for Fox boobs and boobies.


----------



## dblack

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually I think calling it "single payer" ranks right up there with "You can keep your plan if you like it".
> Shouldn't they call it something like "someone else pays"?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's all anybody really wants out of a health care 'system' - to get someone else to pay for their health care. Chasing that golden ring is what's painted us into this corner in the first place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The single most ridiculous post here.
Click to expand...


Ridiculous, and utterly true. That's the entire lure of insurance in the first place. Most people think they'll 'win', that they'll end up spending less money on health care if they buy insurance. It's delusional, but it's the con game at the core of it all.


----------



## Listening

PMZ said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Truth makes suckers angry.  Thats why I tell it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not angry at all.
> 
> Laughing all the time at you and your know-nothing posts.
> 
> My response is more out of respect for the way someone rolled up their sleeves and really got involved (and learned the system, in general) in deference to you sitting in some padded room essentially claiming to be something you are not...smart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you posted was a confession that you are as big a sucker for family members as you are for Fox boobs and boobies.
Click to expand...


As opposed to the fact that you've given a single testament to the system.

To be amazed at such a stupid position would be normal.

In your case, I'm way beyond that.


----------



## Listening

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's all anybody really wants out of a health care 'system' - to get someone else to pay for their health care. Chasing that golden ring is what's painted us into this corner in the first place.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The single most ridiculous post here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ridiculous, and utterly true. That's the entire lure of insurance in the first place. Most people think they'll 'win', that they'll end up spending less money on health care if they buy insurance. It's delusional, but it's the con game at the core of it all.
Click to expand...


Hey...now...don't take that personal responsibility thing too far.


----------



## PMZ

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's all anybody really wants out of a health care 'system' - to get someone else to pay for their health care. Chasing that golden ring is what's painted us into this corner in the first place.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The single most ridiculous post here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ridiculous, and utterly true. That's the entire lure of insurance in the first place. Most people think they'll 'win', that they'll end up spending less money on health care if they buy insurance. It's delusional, but it's the con game at the core of it all.
Click to expand...


Sensible,  responsible people,  have an aversion to bankruptcy because they are not like you.  They want to pay their own way in life.  People like you looking for a free ride hate laws because they establish consequences for your irresponsibility.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> The single most ridiculous post here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ridiculous, and utterly true. That's the entire lure of insurance in the first place. Most people think they'll 'win', that they'll end up spending less money on health care if they buy insurance. It's delusional, but it's the con game at the core of it all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sensible,  responsible people,  have an aversion to bankruptcy because they are not like you.  They want to pay their own way in life.  People like you looking for a free ride hate laws because they establish consequences for your irresponsibility.
Click to expand...

Retard.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ridiculous, and utterly true. That's the entire lure of insurance in the first place. Most people think they'll 'win', that they'll end up spending less money on health care if they buy insurance. It's delusional, but it's the con game at the core of it all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sensible,  responsible people,  have an aversion to bankruptcy because they are not like you.  They want to pay their own way in life.  People like you looking for a free ride hate laws because they establish consequences for your irresponsibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Retard.
Click to expand...


Your reaction to the truth reveals the depth of your ignorance.  When you find yourself in such a hole,  first,  stop digging.


----------



## dblack

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> The single most ridiculous post here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ridiculous, and utterly true. That's the entire lure of insurance in the first place. Most people think they'll 'win', that they'll end up spending less money on health care if they buy insurance. It's delusional, but it's the con game at the core of it all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sensible,  responsible people,  have an aversion to bankruptcy because they are not like you.  They want to pay their own way in life.  People like you looking for a free ride hate laws because they establish consequences for your irresponsibility.
Click to expand...


Yeah... I'm a terrible person.


----------



## BlackSand

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sensible,  responsible people,  have an aversion to bankruptcy because they are not like you.  They want to pay their own way in life.  People like you looking for a free ride hate laws because they establish consequences for your irresponsibility.
> 
> 
> 
> Retard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your reaction to the truth reveals the depth of your ignorance.  When you find yourself in such a hole,  first,  stop digging.
Click to expand...


The only retarded part is that you don't understand where you make a better case for those you oppose.
You are digging like wildfire and just throwing dirt from one side of the hole to the other.

.


----------



## PMZ

BlackSand said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Retard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your reaction to the truth reveals the depth of your ignorance.  When you find yourself in such a hole,  first,  stop digging.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only retarded part is that you don't understand where you make a better case for those you oppose.
> You are digging like wildfire and just throwing dirt from one side of the hole to the other.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


I'm sure,  well not too,  that your opinion matters to someone.  It's not me.  If I let people like you tell me how to think,  I'd be no better than them.  

What a drag.  

Once you've learned to think independently and critically,  you can't go back.


----------



## koshergrl

Ah, the mantra of the willfully ignorant.

You nailed it, PMZ.


----------



## BlackSand

PMZ said:


> I'm sure,  we'll not too,  that your opinion matters to someone.  It's not me.  If I let people like you tell me how to think,  I'd be no better than them.
> 
> What a drag.
> 
> Once you've learned to think independently and critically,  you can't go back.



That is just it peanut ... I have never told you how to think ... Or suggested anyone is better than anyone else.
If you don't like the way you come across to others when you describe what you think ... That is neither my fault nor my problem.

I find it more entertaining than a drag ... But that's just me I guess.
If a person thinks at all ... It is independent and conscience in as no one else is in your brain ... The problem is not enough people think about what they believe and disregard introspection as an useful tool.

.


----------



## PMZ

koshergrl said:


> Ah, the mantra of the willfully ignorant.
> 
> You nailed it, PMZ.



Why people choose that is beyond me.


----------



## BlackSand

PMZ said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, the mantra of the willfully ignorant.
> 
> You nailed it, PMZ.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why people choose that is beyond me.
Click to expand...


I guess that makes it self-explanatory ... Lolz!


----------



## PMZ

BlackSand said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure,  we'll not too,  that your opinion matters to someone.  It's not me.  If I let people like you tell me how to think,  I'd be no better than them.
> 
> What a drag.
> 
> Once you've learned to think independently and critically,  you can't go back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is just it peanut ... I have never told you how to think ... Or suggested anyone is better than anyone else.
> If you don't like the way you come across to others when you describe what you think ... That is neither my fault nor my problem.
> 
> I find it more entertaining than a drag ... But that's just me I guess.
> If a person thinks at all ... It is independent and conscience in as no one else is in your brain ... The problem is not enough people think about what they believe and disregard introspection as an useful tool.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


I'm sure,  that,  like you,  I come across differently to different people.  I don't suffer fools  gladly.  I'm sure that that comes across.  I hope so.  

The brain is a terrible thing to waste and that's what dogma does. It's one size fits all thinking. Life is much more complex than that.


----------



## dblack

PMZ said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure,  we'll not too,  that your opinion matters to someone.  It's not me.  If I let people like you tell me how to think,  I'd be no better than them.
> 
> What a drag.
> 
> Once you've learned to think independently and critically,  you can't go back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is just it peanut ... I have never told you how to think ... Or suggested anyone is better than anyone else.
> If you don't like the way you come across to others when you describe what you think ... That is neither my fault nor my problem.
> 
> I find it more entertaining than a drag ... But that's just me I guess.
> If a person thinks at all ... It is independent and conscience in as no one else is in your brain ... The problem is not enough people think about what they believe and disregard introspection as an useful tool.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sure,  that,  like you,  I come across differently to different people.  I don't suffer fools  gladly.  I'm sure that that comes across.  I hope so.
> 
> The brain is a terrible thing to waste and that's what dogma does. It's one size fits all thinking. Life is much more complex than that.
Click to expand...


Mostly what comes across is your persistent desire to see people controlled by a central authority. You seem to have a really hard time accepting the fact that others don't necessarily see things as you do and don't share your preferences, and you seem all too eager to force your views on others through government. 

Live and let live is a less predictable ethic, but it's more human. I hope some day you'll see that.


----------



## PMZ

BlackSand said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, the mantra of the willfully ignorant.
> 
> You nailed it, PMZ.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why people choose that is beyond me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess that makes it self-explanatory ... Lolz!
Click to expand...


Exactly the opposite.


----------



## PMZ

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is just it peanut ... I have never told you how to think ... Or suggested anyone is better than anyone else.
> If you don't like the way you come across to others when you describe what you think ... That is neither my fault nor my problem.
> 
> I find it more entertaining than a drag ... But that's just me I guess.
> If a person thinks at all ... It is independent and conscience in as no one else is in your brain ... The problem is not enough people think about what they believe and disregard introspection as an useful tool.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure,  that,  like you,  I come across differently to different people.  I don't suffer fools  gladly.  I'm sure that that comes across.  I hope so.
> 
> The brain is a terrible thing to waste and that's what dogma does. It's one size fits all thinking. Life is much more complex than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mostly what comes across is your persistent desire to see people controlled by a central authority. You seem to have a really hard time accepting the fact that others don't necessarily see things as you do and don't share your preferences, and you seem all too eager to force your views on others through government.
> 
> Live and let live is a less predictable ethic, but it's more human. I hope some day you'll see that.
Click to expand...


I hope that some day you'll offer something tangible.  Something other than,  if mankind does nothing,  problems will go away. That all problems are the result of solutions rather than all solutions are the result of problems. If we stop solving problems,  a miracle will occur.  

It's the mark of humanity to solve problems rather than hope for better without effort. 

The purpose of laws is to let responsible mankind live and let live.  Laws only get in the way of the irresponsible and criminal. 

Why you favor them is quite beyond me.


----------



## Listening

PMZ said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure,  we'll not too,  that your opinion matters to someone.  It's not me.  If I let people like you tell me how to think,  I'd be no better than them.
> 
> What a drag.
> 
> Once you've learned to think independently and critically,  you can't go back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is just it peanut ... I have never told you how to think ... Or suggested anyone is better than anyone else.
> If you don't like the way you come across to others when you describe what you think ... That is neither my fault nor my problem.
> 
> I find it more entertaining than a drag ... But that's just me I guess.
> If a person thinks at all ... It is independent and conscience in as no one else is in your brain ... The problem is not enough people think about what they believe and disregard introspection as an useful tool.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sure,  that,  like you,  I come across differently to different people.  I don't suffer fools  gladly.  I'm sure that that comes across.  I hope so.
> 
> The brain is a terrible thing to waste and that's what dogma does. *It's one size fits all thinking.* Life is much more complex than that.
Click to expand...


You do suffer fools...and you are one.

The one size fits all thinking is the same bullshyt that got us us Obamacare.  How does the federal government pretend to even know how to administer a program that covers 320,000,000 people with a huge spectrum of situations....all with a convoluted 2,000 page document.

You've already wiped out the options that 5 million people were exercising.  Now, they are forced to another option many don't want.

And please, spare me the policies get cancelled all the time, horsecrap.

If that were the case, our Affirmate Action Moron would not have had to come out with his so called fix.

Yep, one size fits all is the liberal, authoritarian way.


----------



## Listening

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure,  that,  like you,  I come across differently to different people.  I don't suffer fools  gladly.  I'm sure that that comes across.  I hope so.
> 
> The brain is a terrible thing to waste and that's what dogma does. It's one size fits all thinking. Life is much more complex than that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mostly what comes across is your persistent desire to see people controlled by a central authority. You seem to have a really hard time accepting the fact that others don't necessarily see things as you do and don't share your preferences, and you seem all too eager to force your views on others through government.
> 
> Live and let live is a less predictable ethic, but it's more human. I hope some day you'll see that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *I hope that some day you'll offer something tangible. * Something other than,  if mankind does nothing,  problems will go away. That all problems are the result of solutions rather than all solutions are the result of problems. If we stop solving problems,  a miracle will occur.
> 
> It's the mark of humanity to solve problems rather than hope for better without effort.
> 
> The purpose of laws is to let responsible mankind live and let live.  Laws only get in the way of the irresponsible and criminal.
> 
> Why you favor them is quite beyond me.
Click to expand...


ROTFLMAO.....

You mean like your opinions...on history, no less.  

Your statement about laws is laughable.  How do you have prohibition and not have prohibition...and have them both fit the same bill.  TFM.


----------



## Listening

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is just it peanut ... I have never told you how to think ... Or suggested anyone is better than anyone else.
> If you don't like the way you come across to others when you describe what you think ... That is neither my fault nor my problem.
> 
> I find it more entertaining than a drag ... But that's just me I guess.
> If a person thinks at all ... It is independent and conscience in as no one else is in your brain ... The problem is not enough people think about what they believe and disregard introspection as an useful tool.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure,  that,  like you,  I come across differently to different people.  I don't suffer fools  gladly.  I'm sure that that comes across.  I hope so.
> 
> The brain is a terrible thing to waste and that's what dogma does. It's one size fits all thinking. Life is much more complex than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mostly what comes across is your persistent desire to see people controlled by a central authority. You seem to have a really hard time accepting the fact that others don't necessarily see things as you do and don't share your preferences, and you seem all too eager to force your views on others through government.
> 
> Live and let live is a less predictable ethic, but it's more human. I hope some day you'll see that.
Click to expand...


Yes, there is  this chant of personal responsibility....which I agree with.  However,  it is foolish to believe the government has ever been able to promote such a cause with affirmative legal thinking.


----------



## PMZ

Listening said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is just it peanut ... I have never told you how to think ... Or suggested anyone is better than anyone else.
> If you don't like the way you come across to others when you describe what you think ... That is neither my fault nor my problem.
> 
> I find it more entertaining than a drag ... But that's just me I guess.
> If a person thinks at all ... It is independent and conscience in as no one else is in your brain ... The problem is not enough people think about what they believe and disregard introspection as an useful tool.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure,  that,  like you,  I come across differently to different people.  I don't suffer fools  gladly.  I'm sure that that comes across.  I hope so.
> 
> The brain is a terrible thing to waste and that's what dogma does. *It's one size fits all thinking.* Life is much more complex than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do suffer fools...and you are one.
> 
> The one size fits all thinking is the same bullshyt that got us us Obamacare.  How does the federal government pretend to even know how to administer a program that covers 320,000,000 people with a huge spectrum of situations....all with a convoluted 2,000 page document.
> 
> You've already wiped out the options that 5 million people were exercising.  Now, they are forced to another option many don't want.
> 
> And please, spare me the policies get cancelled all the time, horsecrap.
> 
> If that were the case, our Affirmate Action Moron would not have had to come out with his so called fix.
> 
> Yep, one size fits all is the liberal, authoritarian way.
Click to expand...


Liberal and authoritarian are opposites. 

What distinguishes liberalism from conservatism is solutions vs stasis. Action vs inaction.  Building the future rather than longing for the past. 

The reason that you don't know that is that you are a willing political puppet. 

You'll accept anything that makes you feel informed,  rather than take action to become informed. 

The perfect stooge for those desperate for power that they lost due to incompetence.


----------



## Listening

PMZ said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure,  that,  like you,  I come across differently to different people.  I don't suffer fools  gladly.  I'm sure that that comes across.  I hope so.
> 
> The brain is a terrible thing to waste and that's what dogma does. *It's one size fits all thinking.* Life is much more complex than that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do suffer fools...and you are one.
> 
> The one size fits all thinking is the same bullshyt that got us us Obamacare.  How does the federal government pretend to even know how to administer a program that covers 320,000,000 people with a huge spectrum of situations....all with a convoluted 2,000 page document.
> 
> You've already wiped out the options that 5 million people were exercising.  Now, they are forced to another option many don't want.
> 
> And please, spare me the policies get cancelled all the time, horsecrap.
> 
> If that were the case, our Affirmate Action Moron would not have had to come out with his so called fix.
> 
> Yep, one size fits all is the liberal, authoritarian way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Liberal and authoritarian are opposites.
> 
> What distinguishes liberalism from conservatism is solutions vs stasis. Action vs inaction.  Building the future rather than longing for the past.
> 
> The reason that you don't know that is that you are a willing political puppet.
> 
> You'll accept anything that makes you feel informed,  rather than take action to become informed.
> 
> The perfect stooge for those desperate for power that they lost due to incompetence.
Click to expand...


I am sorry you can't accept responsibility for your own stupid posts and feel the need the deflect when caught in your own bullshyt.

I am much more informed than you could ever hope to be.

You and your one size fits all thinking....now that is liberal...and action we don't need...or want.

BTW...the GOP owns the house and it's looking even better.  So your wet dream of a disappearing GOP (the same one Chris Matthews had in 2008) will need to be washed from your underwear.


----------



## PMZ

Listening said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do suffer fools...and you are one.
> 
> The one size fits all thinking is the same bullshyt that got us us Obamacare.  How does the federal government pretend to even know how to administer a program that covers 320,000,000 people with a huge spectrum of situations....all with a convoluted 2,000 page document.
> 
> You've already wiped out the options that 5 million people were exercising.  Now, they are forced to another option many don't want.
> 
> And please, spare me the policies get cancelled all the time, horsecrap.
> 
> If that were the case, our Affirmate Action Moron would not have had to come out with his so called fix.
> 
> Yep, one size fits all is the liberal, authoritarian way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liberal and authoritarian are opposites.
> 
> What distinguishes liberalism from conservatism is solutions vs stasis. Action vs inaction.  Building the future rather than longing for the past.
> 
> The reason that you don't know that is that you are a willing political puppet.
> 
> You'll accept anything that makes you feel informed,  rather than take action to become informed.
> 
> The perfect stooge for those desperate for power that they lost due to incompetence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am sorry you can't accept responsibility for your own stupid posts and feel the need the deflect when caught in your own bullshyt.
> 
> I am much more informed than you could ever hope to be.
> 
> You and your one size fits all thinking....now that is liberal...and action we don't need...or want.
> 
> BTW...the GOP owns the house and it's looking even better.  So your wet dream of a disappearing GOP (the same one Chris Matthews had in 2008) will need to be washed from your underwear.
Click to expand...


"I am much more informed than you could ever hope to be."

But what you are much more informed about is not the truth, but propaganda. It's been issued to you for a reason. Political power. In the hope that you will accept what you wish to be true rather than challenge it and think critically about it.

You are the perfect victim.


----------



## Listening

PMZ said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberal and authoritarian are opposites.
> 
> What distinguishes liberalism from conservatism is solutions vs stasis. Action vs inaction.  Building the future rather than longing for the past.
> 
> The reason that you don't know that is that you are a willing political puppet.
> 
> You'll accept anything that makes you feel informed,  rather than take action to become informed.
> 
> The perfect stooge for those desperate for power that they lost due to incompetence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am sorry you can't accept responsibility for your own stupid posts and feel the need the deflect when caught in your own bullshyt.
> 
> I am much more informed than you could ever hope to be.
> 
> You and your one size fits all thinking....now that is liberal...and action we don't need...or want.
> 
> BTW...the GOP owns the house and it's looking even better.  So your wet dream of a disappearing GOP (the same one Chris Matthews had in 2008) will need to be washed from your underwear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "I am much more informed than you could ever hope to be."
> 
> But what you are much more informed about is not the truth, but propaganda. It's been issued to you for a reason. Political power. In the hope that you will accept what you wish to be true rather than challenge it and think critically about it.
> 
> You are the perfect victim.
Click to expand...


Sorry, but propaganda to you is anything that kicks your ass in an argument.  You've been leveled by it time and time again and (I give you credit) you can put your self-esteem on the back burner and continue to carry the flag for bullshyt in spite of the fact that the path you carry it down is headed for a cliff.

The only thing critical is the low level of brain waves you emit.


----------



## PMZ

Listening said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mostly what comes across is your persistent desire to see people controlled by a central authority. You seem to have a really hard time accepting the fact that others don't necessarily see things as you do and don't share your preferences, and you seem all too eager to force your views on others through government.
> 
> Live and let live is a less predictable ethic, but it's more human. I hope some day you'll see that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I hope that some day you'll offer something tangible. * Something other than,  if mankind does nothing,  problems will go away. That all problems are the result of solutions rather than all solutions are the result of problems. If we stop solving problems,  a miracle will occur.
> 
> It's the mark of humanity to solve problems rather than hope for better without effort.
> 
> The purpose of laws is to let responsible mankind live and let live.  Laws only get in the way of the irresponsible and criminal.
> 
> Why you favor them is quite beyond me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROTFLMAO.....
> 
> You mean like your opinions...on history, no less.
> 
> Your statement about laws is laughable.  How do you have prohibition and not have prohibition...and have them both fit the same bill.  TFM.
Click to expand...


I should have published the Cliff Notes version for you. 

All laws prohibit people from imposing on others what's best for them,  but worse for the others. 

People who don't so impose are not affected by those laws. 

People who do so impose,  because of the law,  have consequences imposed by the law on them,  so often decide to change their behavior rather than suffer the legal consequences. 

Eighth grade civics.


----------



## PMZ

Listening said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is just it peanut ... I have never told you how to think ... Or suggested anyone is better than anyone else.
> If you don't like the way you come across to others when you describe what you think ... That is neither my fault nor my problem.
> 
> I find it more entertaining than a drag ... But that's just me I guess.
> If a person thinks at all ... It is independent and conscience in as no one else is in your brain ... The problem is not enough people think about what they believe and disregard introspection as an useful tool.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure,  that,  like you,  I come across differently to different people.  I don't suffer fools  gladly.  I'm sure that that comes across.  I hope so.
> 
> The brain is a terrible thing to waste and that's what dogma does. *It's one size fits all thinking.* Life is much more complex than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do suffer fools...and you are one.
> 
> The one size fits all thinking is the same bullshyt that got us us Obamacare.  How does the federal government pretend to even know how to administer a program that covers 320,000,000 people with a huge spectrum of situations....all with a convoluted 2,000 page document.
> 
> You've already wiped out the options that 5 million people were exercising.  Now, they are forced to another option many don't want.
> 
> And please, spare me the policies get cancelled all the time, horsecrap.
> 
> If that were the case, our Affirmate Action Moron would not have had to come out with his so called fix.
> 
> Yep, one size fits all is the liberal, authoritarian way.
Click to expand...


You defend your right to be ignorant intensely. 

I have to go now,  I'll address your propaganda attempt later.


----------



## Listening

PMZ said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure,  that,  like you,  I come across differently to different people.  I don't suffer fools  gladly.  I'm sure that that comes across.  I hope so.
> 
> The brain is a terrible thing to waste and that's what dogma does. *It's one size fits all thinking.* Life is much more complex than that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do suffer fools...and you are one.
> 
> The one size fits all thinking is the same bullshyt that got us us Obamacare.  How does the federal government pretend to even know how to administer a program that covers 320,000,000 people with a huge spectrum of situations....all with a convoluted 2,000 page document.
> 
> You've already wiped out the options that 5 million people were exercising.  Now, they are forced to another option many don't want.
> 
> And please, spare me the policies get cancelled all the time, horsecrap.
> 
> If that were the case, our Affirmate Action Moron would not have had to come out with his so called fix.
> 
> Yep, one size fits all is the liberal, authoritarian way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You defend your right to be ignorant intensely.
> 
> I have to go now,  I'll address your propaganda attempt later.
Click to expand...


Actually, I would prefer you not.  

I am going to put you on ignore and you can do the same for me.  In considering your contributions to threads here and other places, I find them to be a waste of time.


----------



## dblack

PMZ said:


> Liberal and authoritarian are opposites.



Yep... I couldn't agree more, historically at least. Even today, depending on who is using the term and what they mean by it. All of the core value of my political ideology have a liberal basis.


----------



## PMZ

Listening said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do suffer fools...and you are one.
> 
> The one size fits all thinking is the same bullshyt that got us us Obamacare.  How does the federal government pretend to even know how to administer a program that covers 320,000,000 people with a huge spectrum of situations....all with a convoluted 2,000 page document.
> 
> You've already wiped out the options that 5 million people were exercising.  Now, they are forced to another option many don't want.
> 
> And please, spare me the policies get cancelled all the time, horsecrap.
> 
> If that were the case, our Affirmate Action Moron would not have had to come out with his so called fix.
> 
> Yep, one size fits all is the liberal, authoritarian way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You defend your right to be ignorant intensely.
> 
> I have to go now,  I'll address your propaganda attempt later.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, I would prefer you not.
> 
> I am going to put you on ignore and you can do the same for me.  In considering your contributions to threads here and other places, I find them to be a waste of time.
Click to expand...


While I don't blame you for disengaging when faced with the inability to defend your dogma, I have no intention of doing that while you're on the run. 

See, the problem isn't your inability to defend, the problem is that conservative dogma is indefensible. It's illegitimate in that it's based on only what benefits you, while it must be defended as what's best for the country. Impossible considering the country's actual experience with it. Even if you were fooled in the beginning as to it's potential, you have to be certifiably  isolated from reality to deny its actual impact in America. We'll be paying for it for generations. 

The fashion of conservatism has, in a relatively short time, destroyed American business, government and religion. The triple crown. 

It will take our democracy a few election cycles before its hold on us is completely eradicated, but that's emanately  doable. 

Know that there is no need for you to agree or disagree with any of this. This is not a debate. Your agreement or disagreement is irrelevant. History is written by winners and you just were unable to achieve that.

Mine is a defensible prediction of the history of these times.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You defend your right to be ignorant intensely.
> 
> I have to go now,  I'll address your propaganda attempt later.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I would prefer you not.
> 
> I am going to put you on ignore and you can do the same for me.  In considering your contributions to threads here and other places, I find them to be a waste of time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While I don't blame you for disengaging when faced with the inability to defend your dogma, I have no intention of doing that while you're on the run.
> 
> See, the problem isn't your inability to defend, the problem is that conservative dogma is indefensible. It's illegitimate in that it's based on only what benefits you, while it must be defended as what's best for the country. Impossible considering the country's actual experience with it. Even if you were fooled in the beginning as to it's potential, you have to be certifiably  isolated from reality to deny its actual impact in America. We'll be paying for it for generations.
> 
> The fashion of conservatism has, in a relatively short time, destroyed American business, government and religion. The triple crown.
> 
> It will take our democracy a few election cycles before its hold on us is completely eradicated, but that's emanately  doable.
> 
> Know that there is no need for you to agree or disagree with any of this. This is not a debate. Your agreement or disagreement is irrelevant. History is written by winners and you just were unable to achieve that.
> 
> Mine is a defensible prediction of the history of these times.
Click to expand...


This from the retarded piece of shit that claims to be a republican.


----------



## dblack

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I would prefer you not.
> 
> I am going to put you on ignore and you can do the same for me.  In considering your contributions to threads here and other places, I find them to be a waste of time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While I don't blame you for disengaging when faced with the inability to defend your dogma, I have no intention of doing that while you're on the run.
> 
> See, the problem isn't your inability to defend, the problem is that conservative dogma is indefensible. It's illegitimate in that it's based on only what benefits you, while it must be defended as what's best for the country. Impossible considering the country's actual experience with it. Even if you were fooled in the beginning as to it's potential, you have to be certifiably  isolated from reality to deny its actual impact in America. We'll be paying for it for generations.
> 
> The fashion of conservatism has, in a relatively short time, destroyed American business, government and religion. The triple crown.
> 
> It will take our democracy a few election cycles before its hold on us is completely eradicated, but that's emanately  doable.
> 
> Know that there is no need for you to agree or disagree with any of this. This is not a debate. Your agreement or disagreement is irrelevant. History is written by winners and you just were unable to achieve that.
> 
> Mine is a defensible prediction of the history of these times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This from the retarded piece of shit that claims to be a republican.
Click to expand...


Starkey redux. The neo-cons aren't really conservative or liberal in any traditionally American way. They're deeply authoritarian and see government as the be-all, end-all of human society. Ultimately, all they respect and desire is coercion, and fundamentally oppose the _real_ liberal values of equality protection and individual liberty. They want government that "runs" society, much like a corporation runs a business, treating its citizens as resources and employees that must be utilized to achieve its ends.

I hope our nation wakes up to this threat before we lose control entirely.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I would prefer you not.
> 
> I am going to put you on ignore and you can do the same for me.  In considering your contributions to threads here and other places, I find them to be a waste of time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While I don't blame you for disengaging when faced with the inability to defend your dogma, I have no intention of doing that while you're on the run.
> 
> See, the problem isn't your inability to defend, the problem is that conservative dogma is indefensible. It's illegitimate in that it's based on only what benefits you, while it must be defended as what's best for the country. Impossible considering the country's actual experience with it. Even if you were fooled in the beginning as to it's potential, you have to be certifiably  isolated from reality to deny its actual impact in America. We'll be paying for it for generations.
> 
> The fashion of conservatism has, in a relatively short time, destroyed American business, government and religion. The triple crown.
> 
> It will take our democracy a few election cycles before its hold on us is completely eradicated, but that's emanately  doable.
> 
> Know that there is no need for you to agree or disagree with any of this. This is not a debate. Your agreement or disagreement is irrelevant. History is written by winners and you just were unable to achieve that.
> 
> Mine is a defensible prediction of the history of these times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This from the retarded piece of shit that claims to be a republican.
Click to expand...


Your eloquence is unparalleled.


----------



## PMZ

dblack said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> While I don't blame you for disengaging when faced with the inability to defend your dogma, I have no intention of doing that while you're on the run.
> 
> See, the problem isn't your inability to defend, the problem is that conservative dogma is indefensible. It's illegitimate in that it's based on only what benefits you, while it must be defended as what's best for the country. Impossible considering the country's actual experience with it. Even if you were fooled in the beginning as to it's potential, you have to be certifiably  isolated from reality to deny its actual impact in America. We'll be paying for it for generations.
> 
> The fashion of conservatism has, in a relatively short time, destroyed American business, government and religion. The triple crown.
> 
> It will take our democracy a few election cycles before its hold on us is completely eradicated, but that's emanately  doable.
> 
> Know that there is no need for you to agree or disagree with any of this. This is not a debate. Your agreement or disagreement is irrelevant. History is written by winners and you just were unable to achieve that.
> 
> Mine is a defensible prediction of the history of these times.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This from the retarded piece of shit that claims to be a republican.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Starkey redux. The neo-cons aren't really conservative or liberal in any traditionally American way. They're deeply authoritarian and see government as the be-all, end-all of human society. Ultimately, all they respect and desire is coercion, and fundamentally oppose the _real_ liberal values of equality protection and individual liberty. They want government that "runs" society, much like a corporation runs a business, treating its citizens as resources and employees that must be utilized to achieve its ends.
> 
> I hope our nation wakes up to this threat before we lose control entirely.
Click to expand...


It's difficult to define neo-conservatism because their words and deeds are so disparate. The only thing common is wealth redistribution up,  and,  or should I say through,  low taxes. Low spending is only popular when Democrats have power.  When Republicans have power,  massive spending comes back and massive deficits. 

I think that you are right about them favoring military/corporate authoritarian organizational  rigidity in government and society in general.  Especially those whose opinions they feel are mandated by God. 

All rationale for moving back to centrism,  the governmental style that has been proven time and time again to be most effective.


----------



## Listening

dblack said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> While I don't blame you for disengaging when faced with the inability to defend your dogma, I have no intention of doing that while you're on the run.
> 
> See, the problem isn't your inability to defend, the problem is that conservative dogma is indefensible. It's illegitimate in that it's based on only what benefits you, while it must be defended as what's best for the country. Impossible considering the country's actual experience with it. Even if you were fooled in the beginning as to it's potential, you have to be certifiably  isolated from reality to deny its actual impact in America. We'll be paying for it for generations.
> 
> The fashion of conservatism has, in a relatively short time, destroyed American business, government and religion. The triple crown.
> 
> It will take our democracy a few election cycles before its hold on us is completely eradicated, but that's emanately  doable.
> 
> Know that there is no need for you to agree or disagree with any of this. This is not a debate. Your agreement or disagreement is irrelevant. History is written by winners and you just were unable to achieve that.
> 
> Mine is a defensible prediction of the history of these times.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This from the retarded piece of shit that claims to be a republican.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Starkey redux. The neo-cons aren't really conservative or liberal in any traditionally American way. They're deeply authoritarian and see government as the be-all, end-all of human society. Ultimately, all they respect and desire is coercion, and fundamentally oppose the _real_ liberal values of equality protection and individual liberty. They want government that "runs" society, much like a corporation runs a business, treating its citizens as resources and employees that must be utilized to achieve its ends.
> 
> I hope our nation wakes up to this threat before we lose control entirely.
Click to expand...


When you say "they want government" do think it is important to consider which level of government ?

I want the fed to be a corner office building in D.C.

I want my state doing most of the heavy lifting.

I want my county government addressing many issues that I don't want the fed touching.

As I look at smaller governments coercion becomes less a concern for me.  I assume that as a local group we are all in touch with what we are doing.

While I tend to lean libertarian...I am not a total libertarian.


----------



## dblack

Listening said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> This from the retarded piece of shit that claims to be a republican.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Starkey redux. The neo-cons aren't really conservative or liberal in any traditionally American way. They're deeply authoritarian and see government as the be-all, end-all of human society. Ultimately, all they respect and desire is coercion, and fundamentally oppose the _real_ liberal values of equality protection and individual liberty. They want government that "runs" society, much like a corporation runs a business, treating its citizens as resources and employees that must be utilized to achieve its ends.
> 
> I hope our nation wakes up to this threat before we lose control entirely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you say "they want government" do think it is important to consider which level of government ?
> 
> I want the fed to be a corner office building in D.C.
> 
> I want my state doing most of the heavy lifting.
> 
> I want my county government addressing many issues that I don't want the fed touching.
> 
> As I look at smaller governments coercion becomes less a concern for me.  I assume that as a local group we are all in touch with what we are doing.
> 
> While I tend to lean libertarian...I am not a total libertarian.
Click to expand...


Total libertarian does not equal anarchist, despite the strawman that's usually built. In any case, yeah, localized government is less threatening to liberty on the whole. But I think there is place for strong federal oversight of state government by the feds - especially regarding equal protection and basic civil liberties.


----------



## PMZ

Listening said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> This from the retarded piece of shit that claims to be a republican.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Starkey redux. The neo-cons aren't really conservative or liberal in any traditionally American way. They're deeply authoritarian and see government as the be-all, end-all of human society. Ultimately, all they respect and desire is coercion, and fundamentally oppose the _real_ liberal values of equality protection and individual liberty. They want government that "runs" society, much like a corporation runs a business, treating its citizens as resources and employees that must be utilized to achieve its ends.
> 
> I hope our nation wakes up to this threat before we lose control entirely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you say "they want government" do think it is important to consider which level of government ?
> 
> I want the fed to be a corner office building in D.C.
> 
> I want my state doing most of the heavy lifting.
> 
> I want my county government addressing many issues that I don't want the fed touching.
> 
> As I look at smaller governments coercion becomes less a concern for me.  I assume that as a local group we are all in touch with what we are doing.
> 
> While I tend to lean libertarian...I am not a total libertarian.
Click to expand...


"As I look at smaller governments coercion becomes less a concern for me."

All laws, at every level of government, contain specific  specifications for coercion. What the consequences are for breaking the law. The punishment. In the absence of that, they are uninforcable. They would be powerless to change human behavior. 

Speed on an Interstate Highway or a village street, there are similar consequences. 

Most of us avoid those consequences completely by not breaking the law, because we believe that people should suffer consequences for criminal activity. All criminality imposes the criminals will on their victims. That needs to be strongly discouraged. We will only be free when there are no more victims of crime!

Why you are such an advocate for behavior defined as crime today is beyond me. 

What are you plotting?


----------



## Listening

dblack said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Starkey redux. The neo-cons aren't really conservative or liberal in any traditionally American way. They're deeply authoritarian and see government as the be-all, end-all of human society. Ultimately, all they respect and desire is coercion, and fundamentally oppose the _real_ liberal values of equality protection and individual liberty. They want government that "runs" society, much like a corporation runs a business, treating its citizens as resources and employees that must be utilized to achieve its ends.
> 
> I hope our nation wakes up to this threat before we lose control entirely.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you say "they want government" do think it is important to consider which level of government ?
> 
> I want the fed to be a corner office building in D.C.
> 
> I want my state doing most of the heavy lifting.
> 
> I want my county government addressing many issues that I don't want the fed touching.
> 
> As I look at smaller governments coercion becomes less a concern for me.  I assume that as a local group we are all in touch with what we are doing.
> 
> While I tend to lean libertarian...I am not a total libertarian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Total libertarian does not equal anarchist, despite the strawman that's usually built. In any case, yeah, localized government is less threatening to liberty on the whole. But I think there is place for strong federal oversight of state government by the feds - especially regarding equal protection and basic civil liberties.
Click to expand...


I agree.  And I don't find anarchist a dirty word....FYI.

I can't think of a time when the federal government protected "civil" liberties.  Can you provide me an example of what you are talking about.


----------



## dblack

Listening said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you say "they want government" do think it is important to consider which level of government ?
> 
> I want the fed to be a corner office building in D.C.
> 
> I want my state doing most of the heavy lifting.
> 
> I want my county government addressing many issues that I don't want the fed touching.
> 
> As I look at smaller governments coercion becomes less a concern for me.  I assume that as a local group we are all in touch with what we are doing.
> 
> While I tend to lean libertarian...I am not a total libertarian.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Total libertarian does not equal anarchist, despite the strawman that's usually built. In any case, yeah, localized government is less threatening to liberty on the whole. But I think there is place for strong federal oversight of state government by the feds - especially regarding equal protection and basic civil liberties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree.  And I don't find anarchist a dirty word....FYI.
> 
> I can't think of a time when the federal government protected "civil" liberties.  Can you provide me an example of what you are talking about.
Click to expand...


I can give you an example of something I'd _like_ to see them take a more active role in. The fourteenth amendment stipulates that the states must extend equal protection of the law to all citizens. I think that's crucial to a free society. One of the dysfunctions of the federalist system is the built in incentive for states to 'compete' for investment from large companies and wealthy interests. That's not necessarily bad thing, but it leads to indulging a practice that, to me, is an obvious violation of equal protection and largely ignored by the federal government.

I'm talking about the special deals that states and local governments cut with businesses giving them special perks - tax abatements, tax-payer financed infrastructure support, etc... This is fundamentally unfair to all businesses - whether in direct competition with the target investors or not - who don't receive these perks. 

It's now common for large businesses to 'shop' for the best deal from state and local government, essentially demanding these special perks. This creates a corrosive competition among the states, each racing to sacrifice equal protection in the name of attracting outside financial interests.

I'd like to see this, and other discriminatory tax and regulatory practices, abolished in the name of equality under the law - at all levels of government. That, to me, would be the proper use of federal power - ensuring that all the states are committed to a core cause of protecting our freedom consistently.

Another area where I think the feds productively oversee states is in protecting voter rights. In my view the political games played to manipulate voter representation (gerrymandering, voter id, etc....) are some of the ugliest and corrupt political shenanigans happening at the local level and it's proper for the feds to keep an eye on it.

There are other examples. Sadly, the federal government seems more interest in grabbing power that it can sell to corporate lobbyists.


----------



## Listening

dblack said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Total libertarian does not equal anarchist, despite the strawman that's usually built. In any case, yeah, localized government is less threatening to liberty on the whole. But I think there is place for strong federal oversight of state government by the feds - especially regarding equal protection and basic civil liberties.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree.  And I don't find anarchist a dirty word....FYI.
> 
> I can't think of a time when the federal government protected "civil" liberties.  Can you provide me an example of what you are talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can give you an example of something I'd _like_ to see them take a more active role in. The fourteenth amendment stipulates that the states must extend equal protection of the law to all citizens. I think that's crucial to a free society. One of the dysfunctions of the federalist system is the built in incentive for states to 'compete' for investment from large companies and wealthy interests. That's not necessarily bad thing, but it leads to indulging a practice that, to me, is an obvious violation of equal protection and largely ignored by the federal government.
> 
> I'm talking about the special deals that states and local governments cut with businesses giving them special perks - tax abatements, tax-payer financed infrastructure support, etc... This is fundamentally unfair to all businesses - whether in direct competition with the target investors or not - who don't receive these perks.
> 
> It's now common for large businesses to 'shop' for the best deal from state and local government, essentially demanding these special perks. This creates a corrosive competition among the states, each racing to sacrifice equal protection in the name of attracting outside financial interests.
> 
> I'd like to see this, and other discriminatory tax and regulatory practices, abolished in the name of equality under the law - at all levels of government. That, to me, would be the proper use of federal power - ensuring that all the states are committed to a core cause of protecting our freedom consistently.
> 
> Another area where I think the feds productively oversee states is in protecting voter rights. In my view the political games played to manipulate voter representation (gerrymandering, voter id, etc....) are some of the ugliest and corrupt political shenanigans happening at the local level and it's proper for the feds to keep an eye on it.
> 
> There are other examples. Sadly, the federal government seems more interest in grabbing power that it can sell to corporate lobbyists.
Click to expand...


Thanks for the examples.

I won't agree with you on tax breaks, but I will say that the issue is worth examining.

On gerrymandering....If the fed wasn't such a f**king sink hole of money and power, nobody would give  shyt about what those districts looked like anyway.  You really think the federal government, the the collection of baboons we have in there right now, would do anything different ?


----------



## PMZ

Listening said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you say "they want government" do think it is important to consider which level of government ?
> 
> I want the fed to be a corner office building in D.C.
> 
> I want my state doing most of the heavy lifting.
> 
> I want my county government addressing many issues that I don't want the fed touching.
> 
> As I look at smaller governments coercion becomes less a concern for me.  I assume that as a local group we are all in touch with what we are doing.
> 
> While I tend to lean libertarian...I am not a total libertarian.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Total libertarian does not equal anarchist, despite the strawman that's usually built. In any case, yeah, localized government is less threatening to liberty on the whole. But I think there is place for strong federal oversight of state government by the feds - especially regarding equal protection and basic civil liberties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree.  And I don't find anarchist a dirty word....FYI.
> 
> I can't think of a time when the federal government protected "civil" liberties.  Can you provide me an example of what you are talking about.
Click to expand...


Civil Rights Act of 1866, extending the rights of emancipated slaves by stating that any person born in the United States regardless of race is a U.S. citizen. Overrode a veto by President Andrew Johnson.
Civil Rights Act of 1871, also known as the Ku Klux Klan Act, prohibiting ethnic violence against blacks.
Civil Rights Act of 1875, prohibiting discrimination in "public accommodations"; found unconstitutional in 1883 as Congress could not regulate conduct of individuals.
Civil Rights Act of 1957, establishing the Civil Rights Commission.
Civil Rights Act of 1960, establishing federal inspection of local voter registration polls.
Civil Rights Act of 1964, prohibiting discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin by federal and state governments as well as some public places.
Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Civil Rights Act of 1968, also known as the Fair Housing Act, prohibiting discrimination in sale, rental, and financing of housing based on race, creed, and national origin.
Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987, sometimes known as the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1988 or the Grove City Bill, which specified that recipients of federal funds must comply with civil rights laws in all areas, not just in the particular program or activity that received federal funding. Overrode a veto by President Ronald Reagan.
Civil Rights Act of 1990, also known as the Kennedy-Hawkins Civil Rights Act, sought to protect job discrimination against minorities and women after six Supreme Court decisions the previous year made the burden of proof of discriminating hiring practices rest on the employee, not the employer. Vetoed by George H. W. Bush. Only Civil Rights Act to be successfully vetoed.
Civil Rights Act of 1991, providing the right to trial by jury on discrimination claims and introducing the possibility of emotional distress damages, while limiting the amount that a jury could award. It was a watered-down version of the Civil Rights Act of 1990.


----------



## PMZ

Listening said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree.  And I don't find anarchist a dirty word....FYI.
> 
> I can't think of a time when the federal government protected "civil" liberties.  Can you provide me an example of what you are talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can give you an example of something I'd _like_ to see them take a more active role in. The fourteenth amendment stipulates that the states must extend equal protection of the law to all citizens. I think that's crucial to a free society. One of the dysfunctions of the federalist system is the built in incentive for states to 'compete' for investment from large companies and wealthy interests. That's not necessarily bad thing, but it leads to indulging a practice that, to me, is an obvious violation of equal protection and largely ignored by the federal government.
> 
> I'm talking about the special deals that states and local governments cut with businesses giving them special perks - tax abatements, tax-payer financed infrastructure support, etc... This is fundamentally unfair to all businesses - whether in direct competition with the target investors or not - who don't receive these perks.
> 
> It's now common for large businesses to 'shop' for the best deal from state and local government, essentially demanding these special perks. This creates a corrosive competition among the states, each racing to sacrifice equal protection in the name of attracting outside financial interests.
> 
> I'd like to see this, and other discriminatory tax and regulatory practices, abolished in the name of equality under the law - at all levels of government. That, to me, would be the proper use of federal power - ensuring that all the states are committed to a core cause of protecting our freedom consistently.
> 
> Another area where I think the feds productively oversee states is in protecting voter rights. In my view the political games played to manipulate voter representation (gerrymandering, voter id, etc....) are some of the ugliest and corrupt political shenanigans happening at the local level and it's proper for the feds to keep an eye on it.
> 
> There are other examples. Sadly, the federal government seems more interest in grabbing power that it can sell to corporate lobbyists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for the examples.
> 
> I won't agree with you on tax breaks, but I will say that the issue is worth examining.
> 
> On gerrymandering....If the fed wasn't such a f**king sink hole of money and power, nobody would give  shyt about what those districts looked like anyway.  You really think the federal government, the the collection of baboons we have in there right now, would do anything different ?
Click to expand...


Clearly you have no interest in civil rights.  You are strictly a power hungry,  disappointed in being held accountable for dismal political performance,  when can we get our people back in control,  white supremacist. A left over Civil War separatist longing for control over the real world that you don't like much.


----------



## Listening

BlackSand said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure,  we'll not too,  that your opinion matters to someone.  It's not me.  If I let people like you tell me how to think,  I'd be no better than them.
> 
> What a drag.
> 
> Once you've learned to think independently and critically,  you can't go back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is just it peanut ... I have never told you how to think ... Or suggested anyone is better than anyone else.
> If you don't like the way you come across to others when you describe what you think ... That is neither my fault nor my problem.
> 
> I find it more entertaining than a drag ... But that's just me I guess.
> If a person thinks at all ... It is independent and conscience in as no one else is in your brain ... The problem is not enough people think about what they believe and disregard introspection as an useful tool.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


You'll find that some peoples definition of critical thinking is their way of thinking.

To many people are fixated on just one thing.  And it seems recently, it's all about the goodies.

To bad.  But people have a rights and you certainly want to see them exercising them.  You only hope they don't give them up by taking them for granted.

Hope you are having a good Christmas.


----------



## PMZ

Listening said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure,  we'll not too,  that your opinion matters to someone.  It's not me.  If I let people like you tell me how to think,  I'd be no better than them.
> 
> What a drag.
> 
> Once you've learned to think independently and critically,  you can't go back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is just it peanut ... I have never told you how to think ... Or suggested anyone is better than anyone else.
> If you don't like the way you come across to others when you describe what you think ... That is neither my fault nor my problem.
> 
> I find it more entertaining than a drag ... But that's just me I guess.
> If a person thinks at all ... It is independent and conscience in as no one else is in your brain ... The problem is not enough people think about what they believe and disregard introspection as an useful tool.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You'll find that some peoples definition of critical thinking is their way of thinking.
> 
> To many people are fixated on just one thing.  And it seems recently, it's all about the goodies.
> 
> To bad.  But people have a rights and you certainly want to see them exercising them.  You only hope they don't give them up by taking them for granted.
> 
> Hope you are having a good Christmas.
Click to expand...


Conservatives are fixated on the goodies.  They discovered that there is still 15%  of them possessed by the middle class. Their goal is to vacuum up all of the wealth.  Their ignorance is that if they did that there would be nobody creating wealth through work.  

The death of the golden goose.


----------



## Listening

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberal and authoritarian are opposites.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep... I couldn't agree more, historically at least. Even today, depending on who is using the term and what they mean by it. All of the core value of my political ideology have a liberal basis.
Click to expand...


That won't play out well at the national level.

Do you believe you can be a "split personality" when it comes to politics ?


----------



## dblack

Listening said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberal and authoritarian are opposites.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep... I couldn't agree more, historically at least. Even today, depending on who is using the term and what they mean by it. All of the core value of my political ideology have a liberal basis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That won't play out well at the national level.
> 
> Do you believe you can be a "split personality" when it comes to politics ?
Click to expand...


What do you mean?

I was just commenting on the word 'liberal', not so much its modern popular usage referring to Democrats.


----------



## PMZ

dblack said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep... I couldn't agree more, historically at least. Even today, depending on who is using the term and what they mean by it. All of the core value of my political ideology have a liberal basis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That won't play out well at the national level.
> 
> Do you believe you can be a "split personality" when it comes to politics ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you mean?
> 
> I was just commenting on the word 'liberal', not so much its modern popular usage referring to Democrats.
Click to expand...


What do you see different between classic and modern liberalism?


----------



## dblack

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> That won't play out well at the national level.
> 
> Do you believe you can be a "split personality" when it comes to politics ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean?
> 
> I was just commenting on the word 'liberal', not so much its modern popular usage referring to Democrats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you see different between classic and modern liberalism?
Click to expand...


'modern liberalism', as implemented by Democrats and Republicans is essentially just corporatism.


----------



## Listening

dblack said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep... I couldn't agree more, historically at least. Even today, depending on who is using the term and what they mean by it. All of the core value of my political ideology have a liberal basis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That won't play out well at the national level.
> 
> Do you believe you can be a "split personality" when it comes to politics ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you mean?
> 
> I was just commenting on the word 'liberal', not so much its modern popular usage referring to Democrats.
Click to expand...


I realize that...democrats are anything but libertarians.

What I was asking is if you see it possible to practice or emphasize one type of ideology at the federal level while practicing a different type of ideology at a more local level.  And not....feel like you've compromised yourself.


----------



## dblack

Listening said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> That won't play out well at the national level.
> 
> Do you believe you can be a "split personality" when it comes to politics ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean?
> 
> I was just commenting on the word 'liberal', not so much its modern popular usage referring to Democrats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I realize that...democrats are anything but libertarians.
> 
> What I was asking is if you see it possible to practice or emphasize one type of ideology at the federal level while practicing a different type of ideology at a more local level.  And not....feel like you've compromised yourself.
Click to expand...


I suppose it's possible. I guess I'm not sure what you're getting at. Are you saying it's a good idea? A bad idea?


----------



## Listening

dblack said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean?
> 
> I was just commenting on the word 'liberal', not so much its modern popular usage referring to Democrats.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I realize that...democrats are anything but libertarians.
> 
> What I was asking is if you see it possible to practice or emphasize one type of ideology at the federal level while practicing a different type of ideology at a more local level.  And not....feel like you've compromised yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I suppose it's possible. I guess I'm not sure what you're getting at. Are you saying it's a good idea? A bad idea?
Click to expand...


Not saying one way or the other....just asking.

I see myself as very conservative at the federal level.  I want the federal government paying attention to the few duties it has...and I want consistent performance (not a lot of changes).

At the local level, I am much more willing to experiment.


----------



## dblack

Listening said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> I realize that...democrats are anything but libertarians.
> 
> What I was asking is if you see it possible to practice or emphasize one type of ideology at the federal level while practicing a different type of ideology at a more local level.  And not....feel like you've compromised yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose it's possible. I guess I'm not sure what you're getting at. Are you saying it's a good idea? A bad idea?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not saying one way or the other....just asking.
> 
> I see myself as very conservative at the federal level.  I want the federal government paying attention to the few duties it has...and I want consistent performance (not a lot of changes).
> 
> At the local level, I am much more willing to experiment.
Click to expand...


I see. Yeah, that make a lot more sense to me than the other way around.


----------



## PMZ

Federal level influence is only for the extreme wealthy.  Local government can be bought very easily.  Thats why the lower you go the more corruption you find. 

That's the essence of states rights.  Less oversight of government that is affordable for the lower wealthy class.


----------



## dblack

PMZ said:


> Federal level influence is only for the extreme wealthy.  Local government can be bought very easily.  Thats why the lower you go the more corruption you find.
> 
> That's the essence of states rights.  Less oversight of government that is affordable for the lower wealthy class.



Right.. government should only be for sale to the elite upper class.


----------



## Listening

dblack said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose it's possible. I guess I'm not sure what you're getting at. Are you saying it's a good idea? A bad idea?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not saying one way or the other....just asking.
> 
> I see myself as very conservative at the federal level.  I want the federal government paying attention to the few duties it has...and I want consistent performance (not a lot of changes).
> 
> At the local level, I am much more willing to experiment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see. Yeah, that make a lot more sense to me than the other way around.
Click to expand...


We are discussing this (in a different form).  NO DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT is worth anything if people are not paying attention at any level.

Our history, especially as of late, shows that allowing the foxes to watch the hen house has had disasterous consequences.

You can pull all kinds of quotes from the founding fathers on this (which does not make them gospel...but if you sit and think about them..they make a lot of sense).

As you get government farther away from people, they become less interested and it grows on itself.


----------



## Listening

Enjoyed this:

Disinformation behind Obamacare runs deep - Jonah Goldberg - Page 1

"Obamacare was sold on a trinity of lies."

That ornate phrase, more suitable for the Book of Revelations or perhaps the next installment of "Game of Thrones," comes from my National Review colleague Rich Lowry. But I like it. Most people know the first deception in the triumvirate of deceit: "If you like your health insurance you can keep it, period." The second leg in the tripod of deception was "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor."

But the third plank in the triad of disinformation hasn't gotten much attention: Obamacare will save you, me and the country a lot of money. This lie took several forms.


----------



## Jackson

First, Obama promised on numerous occasions that the average family of four will save $2,500 a year in premiums. Where did that number come from? Three Harvard economists wrote a memo in 2007 in which they claimed that then-Sen. Obama's health-care plan would reduce national health-care spending by $200 billion. Then, according to the New York Times, the authors "divided [$200 billion] by the country's population, multiplied for a family of four, and rounded down slightly to a number that was easy to grasp: $2,500." 

In September, the Obama administration's Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services used far more rigorous methods to predict that Obamacare would increase national health-care spending by $621 billion. Using Obama's own math, that would mean -- according to Chris Conover, an economist at the American Enterprise Institute and Duke University -- each family of four in America will spend an additional $7,450 thanks to Obamacare. 

Of course, that methodology is still bogus. But it's probably closer to the truth.

http://townhall.com/columnists/jona...formation-behind-obamacare-runs-deep-n1762150


----------



## Soupnazi630

RDD_1210 said:


> It is sad that this has to happen.
> 
> It's also sad that the GOP has convinced people of "death panels", "losing freedom" and all the other hysterical nonsense that you sheep believe, that have actually made you think you hate a law that is a Republican idea.
> 
> So yeah, it's sad that a campaign needs to be waged to combat such blatant misinformation.



Rebublican idea?

Need to explain that one.

Death Panels were known to be made up a long time ago.

Losing freedom is not but is proven to be accurate.


----------



## Meister

RDD_1210 said:


> It is sad that this has to happen.
> 
> It's also sad that the GOP has convinced people of "death panels", "losing freedom" and all the other hysterical nonsense that you sheep believe, that have actually made you think you hate a law that is a Republican idea.
> 
> So yeah, it's sad that a campaign needs to be waged to combat such blatant misinformation.



Just ask yourself how many have and how many are going to be losing their healthcare insurance that they liked?  Then get back to me with your canned talking points.


----------



## PMZ

The real question for Obamacare is how many medical bankruptcies will be prevented and how much will be saved by more cost and health effective care for those who previously had no alternative to emergency rooms. 

Many of those costs will not show up as insurance savings,  but in other areas. 

Other than that,  Obamacare has no way to effect health care delivery or insurance costs.  If anyone disagrees, post what specific Obamacare provision has any potential to impact the total spent on insurance which,  with oop costs, is the total cost of health care.


----------



## koshergrl

Yeah huh. Whatever you say.


----------



## PMZ

koshergrl said:


> Yeah huh. Whatever you say.



I don't read any Obamacare provisions that have even the potential to impact health care insurance or delivery costs other than what I mentioned.


----------



## Rozman

What is going to happen to the people who had coverage they were fine with 
now being dropped and being forced to buy another plan with higher premiums 
with high deductibles.

They will have to pay thousands of dollars before they will get any benefit from their plan...

The response from the left seems to be... tough shit.They are only a small percentage of the population.Like 5 million or so.

But they are up in arms about the fact that 1 million people who didn't get an extension for their UE benefits...

My answer to that....

Well my friends that's only a small percentage of the population.
How do you like that Libs...


----------



## asterism

PMZ said:


> Federal level influence is only for the extreme wealthy.  Local government can be bought very easily.  That&#8217;s why the lower you go the more corruption you find.
> 
> That's the essence of states rights.  Less oversight of government that is affordable for the lower wealthy class.



The lower you go the more corruption you find?




Ok go ahead and pretend that Solyndra and the auto bailout didn't happen.  Was it necessary to screw over bondholders to give the UAW controlled entities massive ownership in GM?


----------



## asterism

PMZ said:


> The real question for Obamacare is how many medical bankruptcies will be prevented and how much will be saved by more cost and health effective care for those who previously had no alternative to emergency rooms.
> 
> Many of those costs will not show up as insurance savings,  but in other areas.
> 
> Other than that,  Obamacare has no way to effect health care delivery or insurance costs.  If anyone disagrees, post what specific Obamacare provision has any potential to impact the total spent on insurance which,  with oop costs, is the total cost of health care.



Another real question is how many medical bankruptcies are being caused specifically because of the ACA and whether that is okay with proponents.

Is it okay to you that in order to cover some, others have to lose?  If so, how does that make the system you support any better?


----------



## PMZ

Rozman said:


> What is going to happen to the people who had coverage they were fine with
> now being dropped and being forced to buy another plan with higher premiums
> with high deductibles.
> 
> They will have to pay thousands of dollars before they will get any benefit from their plan...
> 
> The response from the left seems to be... tough shit.They are only a small percentage of the population.Like 5 million or so.
> 
> But they are up in arms about the fact that 1 million people who didn't get an extension for their UE benefits...
> 
> My answer to that....
> 
> Well my friends that's only a small percentage of the population.
> How do you like that Libs...



Insurance companies are expert in assessing how much every benefit that they offer will cost over the time of their policies,  and with their particular population of insureds. The premiums that they get cover those health care costs plus their administration.  

If premiums go up,  that means what they plan on paying out,  is predicted to go up. 

So when Obamacare tells insurance companies that they have to cover pre-existing conditions,  for instance,  they add to premiums what that will cost.  That means that prior to ACA those costs were not being paid by insurance,  but left for the insureds to cover.  In some cases an acceptable alternative.  However in more cases,  that led to medical bankruptcies which left others to pay the costs. 

So,  whatever the average premium increase is due to ACA,  it's not additional health care costs,  but a switch in who pays them. 

The only exception to that are costs savings from treating the poor in the mainstream health care system rather than emergency rooms.


----------



## PMZ

asterism said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Federal level influence is only for the extreme wealthy.  Local government can be bought very easily.  Thats why the lower you go the more corruption you find.
> 
> That's the essence of states rights.  Less oversight of government that is affordable for the lower wealthy class.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The lower you go the more corruption you find?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok go ahead and pretend that Solyndra and the auto bailout didn't happen.  Was it necessary to screw over bondholders to give the UAW controlled entities massive ownership in GM?
Click to expand...


You're saying that saving General Motors and the millions of jobs that that represents was a poor investment? 

What was your plan?  Shoot the workers who would have lost their jobs?


----------



## PMZ

asterism said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> The real question for Obamacare is how many medical bankruptcies will be prevented and how much will be saved by more cost and health effective care for those who previously had no alternative to emergency rooms.
> 
> Many of those costs will not show up as insurance savings,  but in other areas.
> 
> Other than that,  Obamacare has no way to effect health care delivery or insurance costs.  If anyone disagrees, post what specific Obamacare provision has any potential to impact the total spent on insurance which,  with oop costs, is the total cost of health care.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another real question is how many medical bankruptcies are being caused specifically because of the ACA and whether that is okay with proponents.
> 
> Is it okay to you that in order to cover some, others have to lose?  If so, how does that make the system you support any better?
Click to expand...


Under what circumstances would ACA cause a medical bankruptcy?


----------



## eagle1462010

PMZ said:


> Rozman said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is going to happen to the people who had coverage they were fine with
> now being dropped and being forced to buy another plan with higher premiums
> with high deductibles.
> 
> They will have to pay thousands of dollars before they will get any benefit from their plan...
> 
> The response from the left seems to be... tough shit.They are only a small percentage of the population.Like 5 million or so.
> 
> But they are up in arms about the fact that 1 million people who didn't get an extension for their UE benefits...
> 
> My answer to that....
> 
> Well my friends that's only a small percentage of the population.
> How do you like that Libs...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Insurance companies are expert in assessing how much every benefit that they offer will cost over the time of their policies,  and with their particular population of insureds. The premiums that they get cover those health care costs plus their administration.
> 
> If premiums go up,  that means what they plan on paying out,  is predicted to go up.
> 
> So when Obamacare tells insurance companies that they have to cover pre-existing conditions,  for instance,  they add to premiums what that will cost.  That means that prior to ACA those costs were not being paid by insurance,  but left for the insureds to cover.  In some cases an acceptable alternative.  However in more cases,  that led to medical bankruptcies which left others to pay the costs.
> 
> So,  whatever the average premium increase is due to ACA,  it's not additional health care costs,  but a switch in who pays them.
> 
> The only exception to that are costs savings from treating the poor in the mainstream health care system rather than emergency rooms.
Click to expand...


Proving that it is a Re-Distribution of wealth scheme by the Libs.

Denying those who lose their coverage due to the cost increases.

Manipulating data to understate the damage.  Counting policy loses instead of the total number actually losing coverage.  In my case 3 will lose coverage.

Denying the Economic impacts of said policy.  Money circulation down, as more go into the health care system.  Impact of increased prices on everything due to the employer mandated taxes that have been DELAYED PAST ELECTIONS.  

The ACA, is mistitled.  Should have been called Re-distribution of Wealth Health Care...............It was never about AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE............It's raising the rates on those who had coverage before.  The Data Base alone has cost Health Care costs to go up as Doctors, and Hospitals have to hire new staff to enter the data into the RED TAPE MACHINE with 1,000's of new RIDICULOUS CODES.  

Your BS law, has made the cost of treatment to go up rather than down.  Fucking over those not in poverty.  Making Health Insurance more expensive.............And you SIMPLY IGNORE THE DAMAGE to promote RE-DISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH.

The Dems will NOT BE FORGIVEN for this.  But the Dems think that it will not hurt them so much as the poverty ranges are getting more free stuff.  Locking in their votes to the Machine.  

Then later as this BS law implodes, the Gov't will say we have no other choice but to TAKE OVER.............And the HOLY GRAIL of SINGLE PAYER will be the ONLY ANSWER......................Which is the plan all along.

Purposely fucking over people like me for the plan............And LYING THEIR ASSES OFF ABOUT IT.

The Dems using the ASS as their MASCOT is FITTING...........NO.............


----------



## Politico

asterism said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> The real question for Obamacare is how many medical bankruptcies will be prevented and how much will be saved by more cost and health effective care for those who previously had no alternative to emergency rooms.
> 
> Many of those costs will not show up as insurance savings,  but in other areas.
> 
> Other than that,  Obamacare has no way to effect health care delivery or insurance costs.  If anyone disagrees, post what specific Obamacare provision has any potential to impact the total spent on insurance which,  with oop costs, is the total cost of health care.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another real question is how many medical bankruptcies are being caused specifically because of the ACA and whether that is okay with proponents.
> 
> Is it okay to you that in order to cover some, others have to lose?  If so, how does that make the system you support any better?
Click to expand...


Well that's silly. There are none just because it exists. It will be some time before anyone will see the results.


----------



## Meister

Obamacare was to insure those that "weren't insured", what happened after that became an incredible disaster to obamacare.  Oh, "period".


----------



## percysunshine

Meister said:


> Obamacare was to insure those that "weren't insured", what happened after that became an incredible disaster to obamacare.  Oh, "period".



The post obamacare world will have more uninsured than the pre-obamacare world.

Shit happens.


----------



## PMZ

eagle1462010 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rozman said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is going to happen to the people who had coverage they were fine with
> now being dropped and being forced to buy another plan with higher premiums
> with high deductibles.
> 
> They will have to pay thousands of dollars before they will get any benefit from their plan...
> 
> The response from the left seems to be... tough shit.They are only a small percentage of the population.Like 5 million or so.
> 
> But they are up in arms about the fact that 1 million people who didn't get an extension for their UE benefits...
> 
> My answer to that....
> 
> Well my friends that's only a small percentage of the population.
> How do you like that Libs...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Insurance companies are expert in assessing how much every benefit that they offer will cost over the time of their policies,  and with their particular population of insureds. The premiums that they get cover those health care costs plus their administration.
> 
> If premiums go up,  that means what they plan on paying out,  is predicted to go up.
> 
> So when Obamacare tells insurance companies that they have to cover pre-existing conditions,  for instance,  they add to premiums what that will cost.  That means that prior to ACA those costs were not being paid by insurance,  but left for the insureds to cover.  In some cases an acceptable alternative.  However in more cases,  that led to medical bankruptcies which left others to pay the costs.
> 
> So,  whatever the average premium increase is due to ACA,  it's not additional health care costs,  but a switch in who pays them.
> 
> The only exception to that are costs savings from treating the poor in the mainstream health care system rather than emergency rooms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Proving that it is a Re-Distribution of wealth scheme by the Libs.
> 
> Denying those who lose their coverage due to the cost increases.
> 
> Manipulating data to understate the damage.  Counting policy loses instead of the total number actually losing coverage.  In my case 3 will lose coverage.
> 
> Denying the Economic impacts of said policy.  Money circulation down, as more go into the health care system.  Impact of increased prices on everything due to the employer mandated taxes that have been DELAYED PAST ELECTIONS.
> 
> The ACA, is mistitled.  Should have been called Re-distribution of Wealth Health Care...............It was never about AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE............It's raising the rates on those who had coverage before.  The Data Base alone has cost Health Care costs to go up as Doctors, and Hospitals have to hire new staff to enter the data into the RED TAPE MACHINE with 1,000's of new RIDICULOUS CODES.
> 
> Your BS law, has made the cost of treatment to go up rather than down.  Fucking over those not in poverty.  Making Health Insurance more expensive.............And you SIMPLY IGNORE THE DAMAGE to promote RE-DISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH.
> 
> The Dems will NOT BE FORGIVEN for this.  But the Dems think that it will not hurt them so much as the poverty ranges are getting more free stuff.  Locking in their votes to the Machine.
> 
> Then later as this BS law implodes, the Gov't will say we have no other choice but to TAKE OVER.............And the HOLY GRAIL of SINGLE PAYER will be the ONLY ANSWER......................Which is the plan all along.
> 
> Purposely fucking over people like me for the plan............And LYING THEIR ASSES OFF ABOUT IT.
> 
> The Dems using the ASS as their MASCOT is FITTING...........NO.............
Click to expand...


If you are determined enough to prove that what you fell so hard for is the truth,  it's almost always possible to dream up a rationalization. 

Republicans are counting on that now,  as they have for every minute of the last five years. 

The truth is that they hope by inflating problems and obscuring success,  suckers like you will continue with their nose stuck up the elephants ass. 

And they in no way underestimated your inability to think for yourself.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Insurance companies are expert in assessing how much every benefit that they offer will cost over the time of their policies,  and with their particular population of insureds. The premiums that they get cover those health care costs plus their administration.
> 
> If premiums go up,  that means what they plan on paying out,  is predicted to go up.
> 
> So when Obamacare tells insurance companies that they have to cover pre-existing conditions,  for instance,  they add to premiums what that will cost.  That means that prior to ACA those costs were not being paid by insurance,  but left for the insureds to cover.  In some cases an acceptable alternative.  However in more cases,  that led to medical bankruptcies which left others to pay the costs.
> 
> So,  whatever the average premium increase is due to ACA,  it's not additional health care costs,  but a switch in who pays them.
> 
> The only exception to that are costs savings from treating the poor in the mainstream health care system rather than emergency rooms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Proving that it is a Re-Distribution of wealth scheme by the Libs.
> 
> Denying those who lose their coverage due to the cost increases.
> 
> Manipulating data to understate the damage.  Counting policy loses instead of the total number actually losing coverage.  In my case 3 will lose coverage.
> 
> Denying the Economic impacts of said policy.  Money circulation down, as more go into the health care system.  Impact of increased prices on everything due to the employer mandated taxes that have been DELAYED PAST ELECTIONS.
> 
> The ACA, is mistitled.  Should have been called Re-distribution of Wealth Health Care...............It was never about AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE............It's raising the rates on those who had coverage before.  The Data Base alone has cost Health Care costs to go up as Doctors, and Hospitals have to hire new staff to enter the data into the RED TAPE MACHINE with 1,000's of new RIDICULOUS CODES.
> 
> Your BS law, has made the cost of treatment to go up rather than down.  Fucking over those not in poverty.  Making Health Insurance more expensive.............And you SIMPLY IGNORE THE DAMAGE to promote RE-DISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH.
> 
> The Dems will NOT BE FORGIVEN for this.  But the Dems think that it will not hurt them so much as the poverty ranges are getting more free stuff.  Locking in their votes to the Machine.
> 
> Then later as this BS law implodes, the Gov't will say we have no other choice but to TAKE OVER.............And the HOLY GRAIL of SINGLE PAYER will be the ONLY ANSWER......................Which is the plan all along.
> 
> Purposely fucking over people like me for the plan............And LYING THEIR ASSES OFF ABOUT IT.
> 
> The Dems using the ASS as their MASCOT is FITTING...........NO.............
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you are determined enough to prove that what you fell so hard for is the truth,  it's almost always possible to dream up a rationalization.
> 
> Republicans are counting on that now,  as they have for every minute of the last five years.
> 
> The truth is that they hope by inflating problems and obscuring success,  suckers like you will continue with their nose stuck up the elephants ass.
> 
> And they in no way underestimated your inability to think for yourself.
Click to expand...


The Retard speaks again.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Proving that it is a Re-Distribution of wealth scheme by the Libs.
> 
> Denying those who lose their coverage due to the cost increases.
> 
> Manipulating data to understate the damage.  Counting policy loses instead of the total number actually losing coverage.  In my case 3 will lose coverage.
> 
> Denying the Economic impacts of said policy.  Money circulation down, as more go into the health care system.  Impact of increased prices on everything due to the employer mandated taxes that have been DELAYED PAST ELECTIONS.
> 
> The ACA, is mistitled.  Should have been called Re-distribution of Wealth Health Care...............It was never about AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE............It's raising the rates on those who had coverage before.  The Data Base alone has cost Health Care costs to go up as Doctors, and Hospitals have to hire new staff to enter the data into the RED TAPE MACHINE with 1,000's of new RIDICULOUS CODES.
> 
> Your BS law, has made the cost of treatment to go up rather than down.  Fucking over those not in poverty.  Making Health Insurance more expensive.............And you SIMPLY IGNORE THE DAMAGE to promote RE-DISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH.
> 
> The Dems will NOT BE FORGIVEN for this.  But the Dems think that it will not hurt them so much as the poverty ranges are getting more free stuff.  Locking in their votes to the Machine.
> 
> Then later as this BS law implodes, the Gov't will say we have no other choice but to TAKE OVER.............And the HOLY GRAIL of SINGLE PAYER will be the ONLY ANSWER......................Which is the plan all along.
> 
> Purposely fucking over people like me for the plan............And LYING THEIR ASSES OFF ABOUT IT.
> 
> The Dems using the ASS as their MASCOT is FITTING...........NO.............
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you are determined enough to prove that what you fell so hard for is the truth,  it's almost always possible to dream up a rationalization.
> 
> Republicans are counting on that now,  as they have for every minute of the last five years.
> 
> The truth is that they hope by inflating problems and obscuring success,  suckers like you will continue with their nose stuck up the elephants ass.
> 
> And they in no way underestimated your inability to think for yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Retard speaks again.
Click to expand...


Ahhh,  more Texas eloquence.  

You know how to find Texas? 

Go west until you smell horseshit then south until you can't stand it. 

Where else could a horses ass be elected governor.


----------



## asterism

PMZ said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> The real question for Obamacare is how many medical bankruptcies will be prevented and how much will be saved by more cost and health effective care for those who previously had no alternative to emergency rooms.
> 
> Many of those costs will not show up as insurance savings,  but in other areas.
> 
> Other than that,  Obamacare has no way to effect health care delivery or insurance costs.  If anyone disagrees, post what specific Obamacare provision has any potential to impact the total spent on insurance which,  with oop costs, is the total cost of health care.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another real question is how many medical bankruptcies are being caused specifically because of the ACA and whether that is okay with proponents.
> 
> Is it okay to you that in order to cover some, others have to lose?  If so, how does that make the system you support any better?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Under what circumstances would ACA cause a medical bankruptcy?
Click to expand...


Someone who can't afford the high deductible and 40% of chemotherapy costs.


----------



## PMZ

asterism said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another real question is how many medical bankruptcies are being caused specifically because of the ACA and whether that is okay with proponents.
> 
> Is it okay to you that in order to cover some, others have to lose?  If so, how does that make the system you support any better?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Under what circumstances would ACA cause a medical bankruptcy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Someone who can't afford the high deductible and 40% of chemotherapy costs.
Click to expand...


If they can't afford to be in a position to be personally responsible for their own health care costs,  they will be subsidized.  

Big improvement to the Republican plan.  Throw the folks Republicans want poor to the dogs until only the wealthy are left.  

Ignore the fact that there would be nobody creating wealth then.


----------



## eagle1462010

PMZ said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Insurance companies are expert in assessing how much every benefit that they offer will cost over the time of their policies,  and with their particular population of insureds. The premiums that they get cover those health care costs plus their administration.
> 
> If premiums go up,  that means what they plan on paying out,  is predicted to go up.
> 
> So when Obamacare tells insurance companies that they have to cover pre-existing conditions,  for instance,  they add to premiums what that will cost.  That means that prior to ACA those costs were not being paid by insurance,  but left for the insureds to cover.  In some cases an acceptable alternative.  However in more cases,  that led to medical bankruptcies which left others to pay the costs.
> 
> So,  whatever the average premium increase is due to ACA,  it's not additional health care costs,  but a switch in who pays them.
> 
> The only exception to that are costs savings from treating the poor in the mainstream health care system rather than emergency rooms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Proving that it is a Re-Distribution of wealth scheme by the Libs.
> 
> Denying those who lose their coverage due to the cost increases.
> 
> Manipulating data to understate the damage.  Counting policy loses instead of the total number actually losing coverage.  In my case 3 will lose coverage.
> 
> Denying the Economic impacts of said policy.  Money circulation down, as more go into the health care system.  Impact of increased prices on everything due to the employer mandated taxes that have been DELAYED PAST ELECTIONS.
> 
> The ACA, is mistitled.  Should have been called Re-distribution of Wealth Health Care...............It was never about AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE............It's raising the rates on those who had coverage before.  The Data Base alone has cost Health Care costs to go up as Doctors, and Hospitals have to hire new staff to enter the data into the RED TAPE MACHINE with 1,000's of new RIDICULOUS CODES.
> 
> Your BS law, has made the cost of treatment to go up rather than down.  Fucking over those not in poverty.  Making Health Insurance more expensive.............And you SIMPLY IGNORE THE DAMAGE to promote RE-DISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH.
> 
> The Dems will NOT BE FORGIVEN for this.  But the Dems think that it will not hurt them so much as the poverty ranges are getting more free stuff.  Locking in their votes to the Machine.
> 
> Then later as this BS law implodes, the Gov't will say we have no other choice but to TAKE OVER.............And the HOLY GRAIL of SINGLE PAYER will be the ONLY ANSWER......................Which is the plan all along.
> 
> Purposely fucking over people like me for the plan............And LYING THEIR ASSES OFF ABOUT IT.
> 
> The Dems using the ASS as their MASCOT is FITTING...........NO.............
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you are determined enough to prove that what you fell so hard for is the truth,  it's almost always possible to dream up a rationalization.
> 
> Republicans are counting on that now,  as they have for every minute of the last five years.
> 
> The truth is that they hope by inflating problems and obscuring success,  suckers like you will continue with their nose stuck up the elephants ass.
> 
> And they in no way underestimated your inability to think for yourself.
Click to expand...


Which part of increased cost to my insurance don't you understand...........

Millions like me who are getting hosed...............

But that's ok to you.


----------



## PMZ

eagle1462010 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Proving that it is a Re-Distribution of wealth scheme by the Libs.
> 
> Denying those who lose their coverage due to the cost increases.
> 
> Manipulating data to understate the damage.  Counting policy loses instead of the total number actually losing coverage.  In my case 3 will lose coverage.
> 
> Denying the Economic impacts of said policy.  Money circulation down, as more go into the health care system.  Impact of increased prices on everything due to the employer mandated taxes that have been DELAYED PAST ELECTIONS.
> 
> The ACA, is mistitled.  Should have been called Re-distribution of Wealth Health Care...............It was never about AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE............It's raising the rates on those who had coverage before.  The Data Base alone has cost Health Care costs to go up as Doctors, and Hospitals have to hire new staff to enter the data into the RED TAPE MACHINE with 1,000's of new RIDICULOUS CODES.
> 
> Your BS law, has made the cost of treatment to go up rather than down.  Fucking over those not in poverty.  Making Health Insurance more expensive.............And you SIMPLY IGNORE THE DAMAGE to promote RE-DISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH.
> 
> The Dems will NOT BE FORGIVEN for this.  But the Dems think that it will not hurt them so much as the poverty ranges are getting more free stuff.  Locking in their votes to the Machine.
> 
> Then later as this BS law implodes, the Gov't will say we have no other choice but to TAKE OVER.............And the HOLY GRAIL of SINGLE PAYER will be the ONLY ANSWER......................Which is the plan all along.
> 
> Purposely fucking over people like me for the plan............And LYING THEIR ASSES OFF ABOUT IT.
> 
> The Dems using the ASS as their MASCOT is FITTING...........NO.............
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you are determined enough to prove that what you fell so hard for is the truth,  it's almost always possible to dream up a rationalization.
> 
> Republicans are counting on that now,  as they have for every minute of the last five years.
> 
> The truth is that they hope by inflating problems and obscuring success,  suckers like you will continue with their nose stuck up the elephants ass.
> 
> And they in no way underestimated your inability to think for yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which part of increased cost to my insurance don't you understand...........
> 
> Millions like me who are getting hosed...............
> 
> But that's ok to you.
Click to expand...


It's not OK with me.  I'm just not willing to throw millions under the bus again for you. Or to pay your health care costs because you don't want to pay for adequate coverage.


----------



## Politico

percysunshine said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obamacare was to insure those that "weren't insured", what happened after that became an incredible disaster to obamacare.  Oh, "period".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The post obamacare world will have more uninsured than the pre-obamacare world.
> 
> Shit happens.
Click to expand...


Well as the Administration has said. Just take one for the team and deal with it.


----------



## PMZ

Politico said:


> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obamacare was to insure those that "weren't insured", what happened after that became an incredible disaster to obamacare.  Oh, "period".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The post obamacare world will have more uninsured than the pre-obamacare world.
> 
> Shit happens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well as the Administration has said. Just take one for the team and deal with it.
Click to expand...


That's what Americans have always done.  That's what conservatives never do.


----------



## percysunshine

Politico said:


> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obamacare was to insure those that "weren't insured", what happened after that became an incredible disaster to obamacare.  Oh, "period".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The post obamacare world will have more uninsured than the pre-obamacare world.
> 
> Shit happens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well as the Administration has said. Just take one for the team and deal with it.
Click to expand...


'Embrace the Suck'

Nancy Pelosi better copyright that before everyone else on the planet uses it.


----------



## PMZ

percysunshine said:


> Politico said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> The post obamacare world will have more uninsured than the pre-obamacare world.
> 
> Shit happens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well as the Administration has said. Just take one for the team and deal with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 'Embrace the Suck'
> 
> Nancy Pelosi better copyright that before everyone else on the planet uses it.
Click to expand...


Conservatives are completely focused on the 15% of the country's wealth not in the hands of the wealthy but in the hands of their enemy,  the middle class.  

How did that happen despite the best efforts of business keeping unemployment high,  wages and benefits dropping,  jobs shipped overseas,  and their relentless atack on drying up government?  What's an aristocrat to do when workers demand a share in the wealth that they create? 

This crap about the land of the free,  the home of the brave has to stop and people have to accept the land of the royal,  the home of their slaves.


----------



## Geaux4it

Obama is such a dufus. A moron could do a better job. 

What an asshat

-Geaux


----------



## PMZ

Geaux4it said:


> Obama is such a dufus. A moron could do a better job.
> 
> What an asshat
> 
> -Geaux



Nice Fox recital.  You are declared fully brain washed.  Your head is completely clear of original thought.


----------



## Meister

I wasn't going to, but I just had to put PMZ on the "Full Retard List".

I read his posts and I just have to shake my head.


----------



## PMZ

Meister said:


> I wasn't going to, but I just had to put PMZ on the "Full Retard List".
> 
> I read his posts and I just have to shake my head.



Thank you.  I will continue to point out what you are wrong about.  I hope in the end you hate me passionately.  

We've tried running the country on idiocy.  We'll be generations paying for it.  Time to return to sensible, American, responsible, middle of the road politics that built the successful country that you'd like to destroy. 

You will fail at that.


----------



## eagle1462010

PMZ said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Insurance companies are expert in assessing how much every benefit that they offer will cost over the time of their policies,  and with their particular population of insureds. The premiums that they get cover those health care costs plus their administration.
> 
> If premiums go up,  that means what they plan on paying out,  is predicted to go up.
> 
> So when Obamacare tells insurance companies that they have to cover pre-existing conditions,  for instance,  they add to premiums what that will cost.  That means that prior to ACA those costs were not being paid by insurance,  but left for the insureds to cover.  In some cases an acceptable alternative.  However in more cases,  that led to medical bankruptcies which left others to pay the costs.
> 
> So,  whatever the average premium increase is due to ACA,  it's not additional health care costs,  but a switch in who pays them.
> 
> The only exception to that are costs savings from treating the poor in the mainstream health care system rather than emergency rooms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Proving that it is a Re-Distribution of wealth scheme by the Libs.
> 
> Denying those who lose their coverage due to the cost increases.
> 
> Manipulating data to understate the damage.  Counting policy loses instead of the total number actually losing coverage.  In my case 3 will lose coverage.
> 
> Denying the Economic impacts of said policy.  Money circulation down, as more go into the health care system.  Impact of increased prices on everything due to the employer mandated taxes that have been DELAYED PAST ELECTIONS.
> 
> The ACA, is mistitled.  Should have been called Re-distribution of Wealth Health Care...............It was never about AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE............It's raising the rates on those who had coverage before.  The Data Base alone has cost Health Care costs to go up as Doctors, and Hospitals have to hire new staff to enter the data into the RED TAPE MACHINE with 1,000's of new RIDICULOUS CODES.
> 
> Your BS law, has made the cost of treatment to go up rather than down.  Fucking over those not in poverty.  Making Health Insurance more expensive.............And you SIMPLY IGNORE THE DAMAGE to promote RE-DISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH.
> 
> The Dems will NOT BE FORGIVEN for this.  But the Dems think that it will not hurt them so much as the poverty ranges are getting more free stuff.  Locking in their votes to the Machine.
> 
> Then later as this BS law implodes, the Gov't will say we have no other choice but to TAKE OVER.............And the HOLY GRAIL of SINGLE PAYER will be the ONLY ANSWER......................Which is the plan all along.
> 
> Purposely fucking over people like me for the plan............And LYING THEIR ASSES OFF ABOUT IT.
> 
> The Dems using the ASS as their MASCOT is FITTING...........NO.............
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you are determined enough to prove that what you fell so hard for is the truth,  it's almost always possible to dream up a rationalization.
> 
> Republicans are counting on that now,  as they have for every minute of the last five years.
> 
> The truth is that they hope by inflating problems and obscuring success,  suckers like you will continue with their nose stuck up the elephants ass.
> 
> And they in no way underestimated your inability to think for yourself.
Click to expand...


So emotional.  Telling me to drink the Liberal BS.  That is because you are a STATIST Lib.............

Gov't good.  Private Bad...............

You post on emotion and not facts and figures.  That's simply what you people do.  You see MILLIONS lose their insurance.  And go OH WELL, it's for the better good.

You see money taken out of our pockets.  And go Oh Well, you should be glad to do it.  Always saying Your Vision for America is better than ours..............Then you tag us with the Straw Man Argument.

Your policies are destructive to the economy.  Your spending policies destroy the value of the dollar, as does the big spending Republicans.  This lowers the standard of living for ALL AMERICANS.

Your back door REGULATIONS on industry.  Cap N Trade by the back door CIRCUMVENTS the Constitution.  Allows new laws to be created without Congressional Support.  The EPA is now forcing the Coal Industry to either go under, adapt, or pay penalties.  These penalties are being passed on to the consumer in the form of Rate hikes.  Kemper Power Plant being a prime example as one of the first plants to be built forcing emissions into the earth.  Cost overruns are now at over a BILLION DOLLARS.............

The cost to the local population is now going to be a 22% increase in Utility Rates............Thus Damaging the Pocket books of those you profess to be TRYING TO SAVE...........

The Road to Hell is paved with good intentions................And your side is paving us down that road.

Liberalism is a Psychology.


----------



## jon_berzerk

sometimes the road to hell is simply paved 

i m not sure as to any "good intentions" behind it


----------



## beagle9

eagle1462010 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Proving that it is a Re-Distribution of wealth scheme by the Libs.
> 
> Denying those who lose their coverage due to the cost increases.
> 
> Manipulating data to understate the damage.  Counting policy loses instead of the total number actually losing coverage.  In my case 3 will lose coverage.
> 
> Denying the Economic impacts of said policy.  Money circulation down, as more go into the health care system.  Impact of increased prices on everything due to the employer mandated taxes that have been DELAYED PAST ELECTIONS.
> 
> The ACA, is mistitled.  Should have been called Re-distribution of Wealth Health Care...............It was never about AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE............It's raising the rates on those who had coverage before.  The Data Base alone has cost Health Care costs to go up as Doctors, and Hospitals have to hire new staff to enter the data into the RED TAPE MACHINE with 1,000's of new RIDICULOUS CODES.
> 
> Your BS law, has made the cost of treatment to go up rather than down.  Fucking over those not in poverty.  Making Health Insurance more expensive.............And you SIMPLY IGNORE THE DAMAGE to promote RE-DISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH.
> 
> The Dems will NOT BE FORGIVEN for this.  But the Dems think that it will not hurt them so much as the poverty ranges are getting more free stuff.  Locking in their votes to the Machine.
> 
> Then later as this BS law implodes, the Gov't will say we have no other choice but to TAKE OVER.............And the HOLY GRAIL of SINGLE PAYER will be the ONLY ANSWER......................Which is the plan all along.
> 
> Purposely fucking over people like me for the plan............And LYING THEIR ASSES OFF ABOUT IT.
> 
> The Dems using the ASS as their MASCOT is FITTING...........NO.............
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you are determined enough to prove that what you fell so hard for is the truth,  it's almost always possible to dream up a rationalization.
> 
> Republicans are counting on that now,  as they have for every minute of the last five years.
> 
> The truth is that they hope by inflating problems and obscuring success,  suckers like you will continue with their nose stuck up the elephants ass.
> 
> And they in no way underestimated your inability to think for yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So emotional.  Telling me to drink the Liberal BS.  That is because you are a STATIST Lib.............
> 
> Gov't good.  Private Bad...............
> 
> You post on emotion and not facts and figures.  That's simply what you people do.  You see MILLIONS lose their insurance.  And go OH WELL, it's for the better good.
> 
> You see money taken out of our pockets.  And go Oh Well, you should be glad to do it.  Always saying Your Vision for America is better than ours..............Then you tag us with the Straw Man Argument.
> 
> Your policies are destructive to the economy.  Your spending policies destroy the value of the dollar, as does the big spending Republicans.  This lowers the standard of living for ALL AMERICANS.
> 
> Your back door REGULATIONS on industry.  Cap N Trade by the back door CIRCUMVENTS the Constitution.  Allows new laws to be created without Congressional Support.  The EPA is now forcing the Coal Industry to either go under, adapt, or pay penalties.  These penalties are being passed on to the consumer in the form of Rate hikes.  Kemper Power Plant being a prime example as one of the first plants to be built forcing emissions into the earth.  Cost overruns are now at over a BILLION DOLLARS.............
> 
> The cost to the local population is now going to be a 22% increase in Utility Rates............Thus Damaging the Pocket books of those you profess to be TRYING TO SAVE...........
> 
> The Road to Hell is paved with good intentions................And your side is paving us down that road.
> 
> Liberalism is a Psychology.
Click to expand...

The road to HELL is always paved by bad intentions of those doing the paving, and the thing people have got to get through their heads finally, is that the paving crew is made up of both parties. It's just that some want to drive the machine while the other is shoveling the ((*asphalt*)) around or vice versa. Here is the kicker - We are the asphalt.


----------



## PMZ

It's amazing to me how quickly propaganda erases memory.  

Remember 2007, 2008, and 2009? Remember even before when Bush was told that he could be the administration to pay off the National debt?  What did he do instead.  He declared holy war on Islam and stopped taxing wealthy friends and family.  Then he tried to pay the mounting bills with a housing boom. Then the whole house of cards collapsed. 

$17T in debt people,  left in his wake. 

Then the Republican plan.  Ignore the biggest factor in our inability to compete in international business,  health care.  Instead send millions of jobs overseas.  Ignore AGW and our future of fossil fuels in the decline.  Ignore education,  the only path back to prosperity.  Ignore the 80% fighting over 15% of the wealth and cater to the 20% with 85% of the wealth. Fuel unemployment so that business can hire for peanuts and cancel the benefits systems that they invented. 

Trash the country and the American Dream. 

That's the promise of conservatism.


----------



## beagle9

PMZ said:


> It's amazing to me how quickly propaganda erases memory.
> 
> Remember 2007, 2008, and 2009? Remember even before when Bush was told that he could be the administration to pay off the National debt?  What did he do instead.  *1. He declared holy war on Islam* and stopped taxing wealthy friends and family.  *2. Then he tried to pay the mounting bills with a housing boom.* Then the whole house of cards collapsed.
> 
> $17T in debt people,  left in his wake.
> 
> Then the Republican plan.  Ignore the biggest factor in our inability to compete in international business,  health care.  Instead send millions of jobs overseas.  Ignore AGW and our future of fossil fuels in the decline.  Ignore education,  the only path back to prosperity.  Ignore the 80% fighting over 15% of the wealth and cater to the 20% with 85% of the wealth. Fuel unemployment so that business can hire for peanuts and cancel the benefits systems that they invented.
> 
> Trash the country and the American Dream.
> 
> That's the promise of conservatism.



Now you see, your propaganda machine is just as bad as the ones you accuse of this also.

Lets take #1. above - Now who declared war on who when reviewing the history of it all now ? I thought some Islamist named Bin Laden and his gang knocked our trade towers down, and before that they tried to bomb it from below on Clintons watch. Now who (?) bombed the Marine barracks in Lebanon, and how about the U.S.S. Cole or the hostages in Iran that opened up our eyes to these dangers years and years ago ? Who was Saehan, Saehan that shot Bobby Kennedy, and How about Fort Hood and etc.. (or) am I just wrong about all of these acts of* "workplace violence" *that keeps going on around here and elsewhere in the world in which we live and work in daily ? Now how about #2. So who started that housing bubble ? Wasn't it those super good hearted Democrats that wanted everyone to own their own house, and this whether they could ever afford one or not ? How many places became baby making factories under these programs, and how much did it swell the poverty levels up in this nation all because of these government funded roofs that resided over these baby making machines heads ? Then of course they needed all that welfare and food stamps in so that they could take care of it all right ? The rich just lined up to take advantage of the governments getting over on the working men and women in this nation the way that it was doing, and so it's hard to find a company not wanting to get in line for the money in which the government foolishly was throwing away like it was doing in the past.


----------



## Meister

PMZ said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't going to, but I just had to put PMZ on the "Full Retard List".
> 
> I read his posts and I just have to shake my head.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you.  I will continue to point out what you are wrong about.  I hope in the end you hate me passionately.
> 
> We've tried running the country on idiocy.  We'll be generations paying for it.  Time to return to sensible, American, responsible, middle of the road politics that built the successful country that you'd like to destroy.
> 
> You will fail at that.
Click to expand...

Sorry to disappoint, first, you have shown me nothing that I'm wrong about.  Second, I don't "hate you passionately".  I think that you're a full retard, nothing more, nothing less.


----------



## Listening

Meister said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't going to, but I just had to put PMZ on the "Full Retard List".
> 
> I read his posts and I just have to shake my head.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you.  I will continue to point out what you are wrong about.  I hope in the end you hate me passionately.
> 
> We've tried running the country on idiocy.  We'll be generations paying for it.  Time to return to sensible, American, responsible, middle of the road politics that built the successful country that you'd like to destroy.
> 
> You will fail at that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry to disappoint, first, you have shown me nothing that I'm wrong about.  Second, I don't "hate you passionately".  I think that you're a full retard, nothing more, nothing less.
Click to expand...


I see you've run into the resident troll on these threads.

I finally put her on ignore.

She never addresses any of the key points in a thread....all it is left-wing pontification followed by...

Fox News
Fox News
Fox News
Blah
Blah
Blah..................................


----------



## dblack

Resident trolls aside, does anyone here really believe the Republicans will make any substantial changes to the policies foisted on us by Obamacare?

I don't see it happening. Their latest suggestion for a replacement doesn't change much at all. It renames the 'mandate' to 'tax-incentive' and 'subsidies' to 'tax-credits'. It keeps the ban on pre-existing condition exclusions and sets up an 'exchange'. WTF??

Repeal and replace, my ass. This is what I've been saying all along. Republicans aren't going to turn down the power grab. It just isn't going to happen.


----------



## PMZ

Meister said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't going to, but I just had to put PMZ on the "Full Retard List".
> 
> I read his posts and I just have to shake my head.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you.  I will continue to point out what you are wrong about.  I hope in the end you hate me passionately.
> 
> We've tried running the country on idiocy.  We'll be generations paying for it.  Time to return to sensible, American, responsible, middle of the road politics that built the successful country that you'd like to destroy.
> 
> You will fail at that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry to disappoint, first, you have shown me nothing that I'm wrong about.  Second, I don't "hate you passionately".  I think that you're a full retard, nothing more, nothing less.
Click to expand...


You will hate me passionately by the time I get done with you.  Why?  Because as a propaganda addict you can't defend what you've been told that you believe. Common ailment and the main motivation to think for yourself if you are able.


----------



## PMZ

Listening said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you.  I will continue to point out what you are wrong about.  I hope in the end you hate me passionately.
> 
> We've tried running the country on idiocy.  We'll be generations paying for it.  Time to return to sensible, American, responsible, middle of the road politics that built the successful country that you'd like to destroy.
> 
> You will fail at that.
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry to disappoint, first, you have shown me nothing that I'm wrong about.  Second, I don't "hate you passionately".  I think that you're a full retard, nothing more, nothing less.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see you've run into the resident troll on these threads.
> 
> I finally put her on ignore.
> 
> She never addresses any of the key points in a thread....all it is left-wing pontification followed by...
> 
> Fox News
> Fox News
> Fox News
> Blah
> Blah
> Blah..................................
Click to expand...


Here's a fine example of what one is left with when unable to think for herself.


----------



## RKMBrown

dblack said:


> Resident trolls aside, does anyone here really believe the Republicans will make any substantial changes to the policies foisted on us by Obamacare?
> 
> I don't see it happening. Their latest suggestion for a replacement doesn't change much at all. It renames the 'mandate' to 'tax-incentive' and 'subsidies' to 'tax-credits'. It keeps the ban on pre-existing condition exclusions and sets up an 'exchange'. WTF??
> 
> Repeal and replace, my ass. This is what I've been saying all along. Republicans aren't going to turn down the power grab. It just isn't going to happen.


There are at least two camps of republicans, those for complete repeal and those for applying more lube to obama care so it doesn't hurt so bad.


----------



## PMZ

dblack said:


> Resident trolls aside, does anyone here really believe the Republicans will make any substantial changes to the policies foisted on us by Obamacare?
> 
> I don't see it happening. Their latest suggestion for a replacement doesn't change much at all. It renames the 'mandate' to 'tax-incentive' and 'subsidies' to 'tax-credits'. It keeps the ban on pre-existing condition exclusions and sets up an 'exchange'. WTF??
> 
> Repeal and replace, my ass. This is what I've been saying all along. Republicans aren't going to turn down the power grab. It just isn't going to happen.



Republicans realize that there is absolutely no reason to change Obamacare.  As the source of their propaganda,  they know that it's all lies and half-truths and exaggerations.  They'd get killed at the polls if they touched it. 

It's the law of the land now.  By the time that 2016 rolls around it will be as comfortable as an old shirt and just as serviceable. 

They will try to make it an issue but it will fall as flat as all of their other bogiemen. 

Republicans have only one path to redemption.  Loudly and caustically and publically denounce conservatism.


----------



## Mr. H.

Boskin: ObamaCare's Troubles Are Only Beginning - WSJ.com

_The "sticker shock" that many buyers of new, ACA-compliant health plans have experiencedwith premiums 30% higher, or more, than their previous coveragehas only begun. The costs borne by individuals will be even more obvious next year as more people start having to pay higher deductibles and copays. _


----------



## PMZ

Mr. H. said:


> Boskin: ObamaCare's Troubles Are Only Beginning - WSJ.com
> 
> _The "sticker shock" that many buyers of new, ACA-compliant health plans have experiencedwith premiums 30% higher, or more, than their previous coveragehas only begun. The costs borne by individuals will be even more obvious next year as more people start having to pay higher deductibles and copays. _



There is only one Obamacare reason for significantly higher premiums.  The "invincibles" haven't,  in the past, been paying the real cost of their health insurance.  They've been subsidized by the over 50 under 65 crowd. That has been corrected. 

But the Republican propaganda machine reports that, implying that huge increases and canceled insurance is pervasive. 

And the Party faithful lap it up just like it's truth.


----------



## Mr. H.

PMZ said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Boskin: ObamaCare's Troubles Are Only Beginning - WSJ.com
> 
> _The "sticker shock" that many buyers of new, ACA-compliant health plans have experiencedwith premiums 30% higher, or more, than their previous coveragehas only begun. The costs borne by individuals will be even more obvious next year as more people start having to pay higher deductibles and copays. _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is only one Obamacare reason for significantly higher premiums.  The "invincibles" haven't,  in the past, been paying the real cost of their health insurance.  They've been subsidized by the over 50 under 65 crowd. That has been corrected.
> 
> But the Republican propaganda machine reports that, implying that huge increases and canceled insurance is pervasive.
> 
> And the Party faithful lap it up just like it's truth.
Click to expand...


----------



## dblack

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Resident trolls aside, does anyone here really believe the Republicans will make any substantial changes to the policies foisted on us by Obamacare?
> 
> I don't see it happening. Their latest suggestion for a replacement doesn't change much at all. It renames the 'mandate' to 'tax-incentive' and 'subsidies' to 'tax-credits'. It keeps the ban on pre-existing condition exclusions and sets up an 'exchange'. WTF??
> 
> Repeal and replace, my ass. This is what I've been saying all along. Republicans aren't going to turn down the power grab. It just isn't going to happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans realize that there is absolutely no reason to change Obamacare.  As the source of their propaganda,  they know that it's all lies and half-truths and exaggerations.  They'd get killed at the polls if they touched it.
> 
> It's the law of the land now.  By the time that 2016 rolls around it will be as comfortable as an old shirt and just as serviceable.
> 
> They will try to make it an issue but it will fall as flat as all of their other bogiemen.
> 
> Republicans have only one path to redemption.  Loudly and caustically and publically denounce conservatism.
Click to expand...


LOL.... not exactly. It's just that most Republicans in Congress are as deeply in bed with the insurance industry as the Democrats. Our only hope for positive changes it to vote them all out of office.


----------



## dblack

RKMBrown said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Resident trolls aside, does anyone here really believe the Republicans will make any substantial changes to the policies foisted on us by Obamacare?
> 
> I don't see it happening. Their latest suggestion for a replacement doesn't change much at all. It renames the 'mandate' to 'tax-incentive' and 'subsidies' to 'tax-credits'. It keeps the ban on pre-existing condition exclusions and sets up an 'exchange'. WTF??
> 
> Repeal and replace, my ass. This is what I've been saying all along. Republicans aren't going to turn down the power grab. It just isn't going to happen.
> 
> 
> 
> There are at least two camps of republicans, those for complete repeal and those for applying more lube to obama care so it doesn't hurt so bad.
Click to expand...


Well, the bill I was looking at proposed 'complete repeal', but then went on to completely replace it with the functional equivalent.


----------



## PMZ

dblack said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Resident trolls aside, does anyone here really believe the Republicans will make any substantial changes to the policies foisted on us by Obamacare?
> 
> I don't see it happening. Their latest suggestion for a replacement doesn't change much at all. It renames the 'mandate' to 'tax-incentive' and 'subsidies' to 'tax-credits'. It keeps the ban on pre-existing condition exclusions and sets up an 'exchange'. WTF??
> 
> Repeal and replace, my ass. This is what I've been saying all along. Republicans aren't going to turn down the power grab. It just isn't going to happen.
> 
> 
> 
> There are at least two camps of republicans, those for complete repeal and those for applying more lube to obama care so it doesn't hurt so bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, the bill I was looking at proposed 'complete repeal', but then went on to completely replace it with the functional equivalent.
Click to expand...


All Republicans want is what they threw away.  Credit for achieving what they are against. 

Progress.


----------



## Listening

dblack said:


> Resident trolls aside, does anyone here really believe the Republicans will make any substantial changes to the policies foisted on us by Obamacare?
> 
> I don't see it happening. Their latest suggestion for a replacement doesn't change much at all. It renames the 'mandate' to 'tax-incentive' and 'subsidies' to 'tax-credits'. It keeps the ban on pre-existing condition exclusions and sets up an 'exchange'. WTF??
> 
> Repeal and replace, my ass. This is what I've been saying all along. Republicans aren't going to turn down the power grab. It just isn't going to happen.



If you mean, House and Senate Republicans...as a group...?  The answer is absolutely not.

They had ample opportunity (since the Hillarycare scare) to do something to address the issues with Health Insurance delivery (and not necessarily with federal legislation that would impose anything...really more to remove barriers to a better market.

You bet...when I first heard "replace", I knew it was all bull.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are at least two camps of republicans, those for complete repeal and those for applying more lube to obama care so it doesn't hurt so bad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the bill I was looking at proposed 'complete repeal', but then went on to completely replace it with the functional equivalent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All Republicans want is what they threw away.  Credit for achieving what they are against.
> 
> Progress.
Click to expand...


Says the ex-republican.  You are the type of ass hole that wants a government that benefits you by screwing people over.  When you had income you wanted low taxes and low entitlements, now that you are retired you want high taxes and high entitlements.  You are a hypocrite, a piece of shit.


----------



## Meister

PMZ said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you.  I will continue to point out what you are wrong about.  I hope in the end you hate me passionately.
> 
> We've tried running the country on idiocy.  We'll be generations paying for it.  Time to return to sensible, American, responsible, middle of the road politics that built the successful country that you'd like to destroy.
> 
> You will fail at that.
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry to disappoint, first, you have shown me nothing that I'm wrong about.  Second, I don't "hate you passionately".  I think that you're a full retard, nothing more, nothing less.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You will hate me passionately by the time I get done with you.  Why?  Because as a propaganda addict you can't defend what you've been told that you believe. Common ailment and the main motivation to think for yourself if you are able.
Click to expand...


I could never hate any retard.....just sayin....


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the bill I was looking at proposed 'complete repeal', but then went on to completely replace it with the functional equivalent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All Republicans want is what they threw away.  Credit for achieving what they are against.
> 
> Progress.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says the ex-republican.  You are the type of ass hole that wants a government that benefits you by screwing people over.  When you had income you wanted low taxes and low entitlements, now that you are retired you want high taxes and high entitlements.  You are a hypocrite, a piece of shit.
Click to expand...


Typical Republican propaganda scapegoating.  You're a lemming following lemmings off of the cliff and you have no idea. 

You are looking jealously at the 15% of the wealth that the creators of all wealth have to settle for nowadays and obsessing over it.  It bugs the shit out of you that you can't have it all. 

Tough.  Move.


----------



## PMZ

Meister said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry to disappoint, first, you have shown me nothing that I'm wrong about.  Second, I don't "hate you passionately".  I think that you're a full retard, nothing more, nothing less.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You will hate me passionately by the time I get done with you.  Why?  Because as a propaganda addict you can't defend what you've been told that you believe. Common ailment and the main motivation to think for yourself if you are able.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I could never hate any retard.....just sayin....
Click to expand...


It's revealing that conservatives call everyone on earth that doesn't agree with them "retards". 

Why?  That rings so close to home for them that being called that by other conservatives probably was what made them sign up for the propaganda treatment in the beginning.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> All Republicans want is what they threw away.  Credit for achieving what they are against.
> 
> Progress.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Says the ex-republican.  You are the type of ass hole that wants a government that benefits you by screwing people over.  When you had income you wanted low taxes and low entitlements, now that you are retired you want high taxes and high entitlements.  You are a hypocrite, a piece of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Typical Republican propaganda scapegoating.  You're a lemming following lemmings off of the cliff and you have no idea.
> 
> You are looking jealously at the 15% of the wealth that the creators of all wealth have to settle for nowadays and obsessing over it.  It bugs the shit out of you that you can't have it all.
> 
> Tough.  Move.
Click to expand...


Why don't you come make me move retard.  I don't want anyone else's wealth, you are projecting again you lying piece of shit.


----------



## RKMBrown

Meister said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry to disappoint, first, you have shown me nothing that I'm wrong about.  Second, I don't "hate you passionately".  I think that you're a full retard, nothing more, nothing less.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You will hate me passionately by the time I get done with you.  Why?  Because as a propaganda addict you can't defend what you've been told that you believe. Common ailment and the main motivation to think for yourself if you are able.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I could never hate any retard.....just sayin....
Click to expand...


Two types of retards... those it's ok to hate, like PMZ who are retarded by their actions.  And retards that it's not ok to hate, who are retarded by no fault of their own.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Says the ex-republican.  You are the type of ass hole that wants a government that benefits you by screwing people over.  When you had income you wanted low taxes and low entitlements, now that you are retired you want high taxes and high entitlements.  You are a hypocrite, a piece of shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Typical Republican propaganda scapegoating.  You're a lemming following lemmings off of the cliff and you have no idea.
> 
> You are looking jealously at the 15% of the wealth that the creators of all wealth have to settle for nowadays and obsessing over it.  It bugs the shit out of you that you can't have it all.
> 
> Tough.  Move.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't you come make me move retard.  I don't want anyone else's wealth, you are projecting again you lying piece of shit.
Click to expand...


Ahhh,  the poster boy for conservatism,  demonstrating the intellectual basis for it.  

The perfect demonstration of the shit head population that have stolen 85% of the wealth that the middle class created.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You will hate me passionately by the time I get done with you.  Why?  Because as a propaganda addict you can't defend what you've been told that you believe. Common ailment and the main motivation to think for yourself if you are able.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I could never hate any retard.....just sayin....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Two types of retards... those it's ok to hate, like PMZ who are retarded by their actions.  And retards that it's not ok to hate, who are retarded by no fault of their own.
Click to expand...


Brownie,  with his obviously double digit IQ,  trying to rise above his competition. 

And failing to.


----------



## Katzndogz

If obamacare wasn't such a catastrophic failure, why would democrats want to hand out free pot to everyone who signs up?


----------



## asterism

PMZ said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Under what circumstances would ACA cause a medical bankruptcy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Someone who can't afford the high deductible and 40% of chemotherapy costs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If they can't afford to be in a position to be personally responsible for their own health care costs,  they will be subsidized.
> 
> Big improvement to the Republican plan.  Throw the folks Republicans want poor to the dogs until only the wealthy are left.
> 
> Ignore the fact that there would be nobody creating wealth then.
Click to expand...


It appears you don't know much about the policies you support.  Show me how someone will be subsidized if they can't afford 40% of the cost for chemotherapy under their ACA compliant Bronze Plan.


----------



## PMZ

Katzndogz said:


> If obamacare wasn't such a catastrophic failure, why would democrats want to hand out free pot to everyone who signs up?



Obamacare is only a catastrophe on Fox News.  They declared it such well before it became the law of the land,  and have never relented.  

Thats why real America is tuning them out and relying on news shows to learn what's really going on in the world.


----------



## Katzndogz

PMZ said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> If obamacare wasn't such a catastrophic failure, why would democrats want to hand out free pot to everyone who signs up?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obamacare is only a catastrophe on Fox News.  They declared it such well before it became the law of the land,  and have never relented.
> 
> Thats why real America is tuning them out and relying on news shows to learn what's really going on in the world.
Click to expand...


Of course they are.  That's why CNN and MSNBC have such massive ratings.


----------



## beagle9

Mr. H. said:


> Boskin: ObamaCare's Troubles Are Only Beginning - WSJ.com
> 
> _The "sticker shock" that many buyers of new, ACA-compliant health plans have experienced&#8212;with premiums 30% higher, or more, than their previous coverage&#8212;has only begun. The costs borne by individuals will be even more obvious next year as more people start having to pay higher deductibles and copays. _


The corporate insurance industry is lining up to kill the government it appears.. I mean wow what a set up!  Now look at the extreme profits it will be making off of the government now, and it will be doing this because of the government taking on most of the peoples care now, in which they can't believe has actually come true for them. 

Now the government will be paying out in all these subsidies to the insurance industry, in which they (the corps) are going to be smiling all the way to their banks afterwards right ? Talk about sitting back and waiting for the clumsy bear to just walk right up and say shoot me at close range, I mean hec it can't get no better for the insurance carriers than this right ? 

They were killing us with extreme rate hikes early on (going higher and higher), and that has in turn caused the government to jump in with both feet for all of us who were getting murdered in such a market place that was being set up. Now it appears to me that they (the corps), has coaxed the government into doing this, and now it is clear how they did it. 

You see it was all due to the instability that was coming from it all, and now they (the corps) have once again trapped the government into paying big bucks, and all because they know that the government controls the printing presses, and that it can't stand many waves or troubles to arise while always in campaign mode these days.  So here we have government that is coerced into paying out of compassion and their fear of instability, and they knew that the government will be responsible for all that they have decided to be responsible for, and this to avoid any potential collapse that is designed against them by corporations who have learned this weakness about the government now. 

Now these things will come at one hell of a price when all is said and done, and guess who will be looked at to pay for it all by both of them when looking down from their places on high ? We will be looked at to carry the load for it all by new or higher taxes on us. 

Wow, it is really amazing how we as citizens (who are trying to make it), are caught between the government and corporate America who is trying to kill the government and us for profits, where as the government just fires back at us with higher taxes in the end as if that solves these issues. Like I said before, we can't stand anymore out here, but maybe the government is figuring that they will force the re-balancing in it all, by holding us hostage against the corporations, because they know the corps need is to be healthy and work ready, and if we are struggling so hard in life, then they will have to pay more to us, and that will pay the government back in the high taxes they will be using on us to pay for it all. It's a circle, and we are stuck in the middle of a game that is played by these two giants on us "Corporate America" & the "U.S. Government."


----------



## dblack

beagle9 said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Boskin: ObamaCare's Troubles Are Only Beginning - WSJ.com
> 
> _The "sticker shock" that many buyers of new, ACA-compliant health plans have experiencedwith premiums 30% higher, or more, than their previous coveragehas only begun. The costs borne by individuals will be even more obvious next year as more people start having to pay higher deductibles and copays. _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The corporate insurance industry is lining up to kill the government it appears.. I mean wow what a set up!  Now look at the extreme profits it will be making off of the government now, and it will be doing this because of the government taking on most of the peoples care now, in which they can't believe has actually come true for them.
> 
> Now the government will be paying out in all these subsidies to the insurance industry, in which they (the corps) are going to be smiling all the way to their banks afterwards right ? Talk about sitting back and waiting for the clumsy bear to just walk right up and say shoot me at close range, I mean hec it can't get no better for the insurance carriers than this right ?
> 
> They were killing us with extreme rate hikes early on (going higher and higher), and that has in turn caused the government to jump in with both feet for all of us who were getting murdered in such a market place that was being set up. Now it appears to me that they (the corps), has coaxed the government into doing this, and now it is clear how they did it.
> 
> You see it was all due to the instability that was coming from it all, and now they (the corps) have once again trapped the government into paying big bucks, and all because they know that the government controls the printing presses, and that it can't stand many waves or troubles to arise while always in campaign mode these days.  So here we have government that is coerced into paying out of compassion and their fear of instability, and they knew that the government will be responsible for all that they have decided to be responsible for, and this to avoid any potential collapse that is designed against them by corporations who have learned this weakness about the government now.
> 
> Now these things will come at one hell of a price when all is said and done, and guess who will be looked at to pay for it all by both of them when looking down from their places in high ? We will be looked at to carry the load for it all by new or higher taxes on us.
> 
> Wow, it is really amazing how we as citizens (who are trying to make it), are caught between the government and corporate America who is trying to kill the government and us for profits, where as the government just fires back at us with higher taxes in the end as if that solves these issues. Like I said before, we can't stand anymore out here, but maybe the government is figuring that they will force the re-balancing in it all, by holding us hostage against the corporations, because they know the corps need is to be healthy and work ready, and if we are struggling so hard in life, then they will have to pay more to us, and that will pay the government back in the high taxes they will be using on us to pay for it all. It's a circle, and we are stuck in the middle of a game that is played by these two giants on us "Corporate America" & the "U.S. Government."
Click to expand...


It's insane alright. But it's getting harder and harder to view the corporations and government in opposition. Frauds like ACA show they can 'work together' quite effectively when their common goal is manipulating the public.


----------



## Vox

asterism said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> Someone who can't afford the high deductible and 40% of chemotherapy costs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If they can't afford to be in a position to be personally responsible for their own health care costs,  they will be subsidized.
> 
> Big improvement to the Republican plan.  Throw the folks Republicans want poor to the dogs until only the wealthy are left.
> 
> Ignore the fact that there would be nobody creating wealth then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It appears you don't know much about the policies you support.  Show me how someone will be subsidized if they can't afford 40% of the cost for chemotherapy under their ACA compliant Bronze Plan.
Click to expand...


or pay the maximum out of the pocket annual 12.500 ( for the out of the network services) before ANY insurance benefits kick in - under obamacare compliant silver plan.


----------



## Listening

At last check:

RCP shows that approval of the ACA is about 37%.

Disapproval is at about 53%.  

10% of the population is stoned.


----------



## PMZ

Katzndogz said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> If obamacare wasn't such a catastrophic failure, why would democrats want to hand out free pot to everyone who signs up?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obamacare is only a catastrophe on Fox News.  They declared it such well before it became the law of the land,  and have never relented.
> 
> Thats why real America is tuning them out and relying on news shows to learn what's really going on in the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course they are.  That's why CNN and MSNBC have such massive ratings.
Click to expand...


Along with ABC,  CBS,  NBC,  and PBS.


----------



## PMZ

beagle9 said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Boskin: ObamaCare's Troubles Are Only Beginning - WSJ.com
> 
> _The "sticker shock" that many buyers of new, ACA-compliant health plans have experiencedwith premiums 30% higher, or more, than their previous coveragehas only begun. The costs borne by individuals will be even more obvious next year as more people start having to pay higher deductibles and copays. _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The corporate insurance industry is lining up to kill the government it appears.. I mean wow what a set up!  Now look at the extreme profits it will be making off of the government now, and it will be doing this because of the government taking on most of the peoples care now, in which they can't believe has actually come true for them.
> 
> Now the government will be paying out in all these subsidies to the insurance industry, in which they (the corps) are going to be smiling all the way to their banks afterwards right ? Talk about sitting back and waiting for the clumsy bear to just walk right up and say shoot me at close range, I mean hec it can't get no better for the insurance carriers than this right ?
> 
> They were killing us with extreme rate hikes early on (going higher and higher), and that has in turn caused the government to jump in with both feet for all of us who were getting murdered in such a market place that was being set up. Now it appears to me that they (the corps), has coaxed the government into doing this, and now it is clear how they did it.
> 
> You see it was all due to the instability that was coming from it all, and now they (the corps) have once again trapped the government into paying big bucks, and all because they know that the government controls the printing presses, and that it can't stand many waves or troubles to arise while always in campaign mode these days.  So here we have government that is coerced into paying out of compassion and their fear of instability, and they knew that the government will be responsible for all that they have decided to be responsible for, and this to avoid any potential collapse that is designed against them by corporations who have learned this weakness about the government now.
> 
> Now these things will come at one hell of a price when all is said and done, and guess who will be looked at to pay for it all by both of them when looking down from their places on high ? We will be looked at to carry the load for it all by new or higher taxes on us.
> 
> Wow, it is really amazing how we as citizens (who are trying to make it), are caught between the government and corporate America who is trying to kill the government and us for profits, where as the government just fires back at us with higher taxes in the end as if that solves these issues. Like I said before, we can't stand anymore out here, but maybe the government is figuring that they will force the re-balancing in it all, by holding us hostage against the corporations, because they know the corps need is to be healthy and work ready, and if we are struggling so hard in life, then they will have to pay more to us, and that will pay the government back in the high taxes they will be using on us to pay for it all. It's a circle, and we are stuck in the middle of a game that is played by these two giants on us "Corporate America" & the "U.S. Government."
Click to expand...


So,  you're saying that the high and growing faster than inflation cost of health care is just insurance companies profits?


----------



## PMZ

Vox said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> If they can't afford to be in a position to be personally responsible for their own health care costs,  they will be subsidized.
> 
> Big improvement to the Republican plan.  Throw the folks Republicans want poor to the dogs until only the wealthy are left.
> 
> Ignore the fact that there would be nobody creating wealth then.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It appears you don't know much about the policies you support.  Show me how someone will be subsidized if they can't afford 40% of the cost for chemotherapy under their ACA compliant Bronze Plan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> or pay the maximum out of the pocket annual 12.500 ( for the out of the network services) before ANY insurance benefits kick in - under obamacare compliant silver plan.
Click to expand...


Why would someone worried about cost go out of network?


----------



## Vox

PMZ said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> It appears you don't know much about the policies you support.  Show me how someone will be subsidized if they can't afford 40% of the cost for chemotherapy under their ACA compliant Bronze Plan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> or pay the maximum out of the pocket annual 12.500 ( for the out of the network services) before ANY insurance benefits kick in - under obamacare compliant silver plan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would someone worried about cost go out of network?
Click to expand...


because someone might actually need MEDICAL CARE not that crap which is covered under obamacare.

and the REAL medical care will be OUT of the crappy obamacare network ( as nobody REAL will take the crap)


----------



## dblack

PMZ said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Boskin: ObamaCare's Troubles Are Only Beginning - WSJ.com
> 
> _The "sticker shock" that many buyers of new, ACA-compliant health plans have experiencedwith premiums 30% higher, or more, than their previous coveragehas only begun. The costs borne by individuals will be even more obvious next year as more people start having to pay higher deductibles and copays. _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The corporate insurance industry is lining up to kill the government it appears.. I mean wow what a set up!  Now look at the extreme profits it will be making off of the government now, and it will be doing this because of the government taking on most of the peoples care now, in which they can't believe has actually come true for them.
> 
> Now the government will be paying out in all these subsidies to the insurance industry, in which they (the corps) are going to be smiling all the way to their banks afterwards right ? Talk about sitting back and waiting for the clumsy bear to just walk right up and say shoot me at close range, I mean hec it can't get no better for the insurance carriers than this right ?
> 
> They were killing us with extreme rate hikes early on (going higher and higher), and that has in turn caused the government to jump in with both feet for all of us who were getting murdered in such a market place that was being set up. Now it appears to me that they (the corps), has coaxed the government into doing this, and now it is clear how they did it.
> 
> You see it was all due to the instability that was coming from it all, and now they (the corps) have once again trapped the government into paying big bucks, and all because they know that the government controls the printing presses, and that it can't stand many waves or troubles to arise while always in campaign mode these days.  So here we have government that is coerced into paying out of compassion and their fear of instability, and they knew that the government will be responsible for all that they have decided to be responsible for, and this to avoid any potential collapse that is designed against them by corporations who have learned this weakness about the government now.
> 
> Now these things will come at one hell of a price when all is said and done, and guess who will be looked at to pay for it all by both of them when looking down from their places on high ? We will be looked at to carry the load for it all by new or higher taxes on us.
> 
> Wow, it is really amazing how we as citizens (who are trying to make it), are caught between the government and corporate America who is trying to kill the government and us for profits, where as the government just fires back at us with higher taxes in the end as if that solves these issues. Like I said before, we can't stand anymore out here, but maybe the government is figuring that they will force the re-balancing in it all, by holding us hostage against the corporations, because they know the corps need is to be healthy and work ready, and if we are struggling so hard in life, then they will have to pay more to us, and that will pay the government back in the high taxes they will be using on us to pay for it all. It's a circle, and we are stuck in the middle of a game that is played by these two giants on us "Corporate America" & the "U.S. Government."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So,  you're saying that the high and growing faster than inflation cost of health care is just insurance companies profits?
Click to expand...


Nope. You have to actually read the posts to understand what the poster is 'saying'. Keep trying, you'll get it eventually.


----------



## PMZ

Vox said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vox said:
> 
> 
> 
> or pay the maximum out of the pocket annual 12.500 ( for the out of the network services) before ANY insurance benefits kick in - under obamacare compliant silver plan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would someone worried about cost go out of network?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> because someone might actually need MEDICAL CARE not that crap which is covered under obamacare.
> 
> and the REAL medical care will be OUT of the crappy obamacare network ( as nobody REAL will take the crap)
Click to expand...


Everyone is free to use medicine men, but when they discover that they aren't getting cured they'll need real health care insurance to make sure that they are personally responsible for their real health care.


----------



## oreo

PMZ said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> If obamacare wasn't such a catastrophic failure, why would democrats want to hand out free pot to everyone who signs up?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obamacare is only a catastrophe on Fox News.  They declared it such well before it became the law of the land,  and have never relented.
> 
> Thats why real America is tuning them out and relying on news shows to learn what's really going on in the world.
Click to expand...



The Kelly file on Fox news--who's ratings right now--do better than MSNBC and CNN combined--tells the story.

Obamacare is a disaster--and it only gets worse day by day.  People are NOT pushing the buy button on these exchanges--and December 23 (only a few days away) is the deadline.  Last count only 365,000 people have purchased insurance on the Obamacare exchanges.

Due the Obamacare mandates--5.5 million policies were cancelled after being promised by Obama and Democrats over 40 times that people could keep the policies they liked.  *THEY LIED.*  When you add in the spouses and children covered under these policies it was another 12 million added to the uninsured in this country.

*PURPOSE OF OBAMACARE: * to insure the uninsured   * EFFECT OF OBAMACARE: * uninsuring the insured.








*Welcome to your hope and change
*


----------



## PMZ

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The corporate insurance industry is lining up to kill the government it appears.. I mean wow what a set up!  Now look at the extreme profits it will be making off of the government now, and it will be doing this because of the government taking on most of the peoples care now, in which they can't believe has actually come true for them.
> 
> Now the government will be paying out in all these subsidies to the insurance industry, in which they (the corps) are going to be smiling all the way to their banks afterwards right ? Talk about sitting back and waiting for the clumsy bear to just walk right up and say shoot me at close range, I mean hec it can't get no better for the insurance carriers than this right ?
> 
> They were killing us with extreme rate hikes early on (going higher and higher), and that has in turn caused the government to jump in with both feet for all of us who were getting murdered in such a market place that was being set up. Now it appears to me that they (the corps), has coaxed the government into doing this, and now it is clear how they did it.
> 
> You see it was all due to the instability that was coming from it all, and now they (the corps) have once again trapped the government into paying big bucks, and all because they know that the government controls the printing presses, and that it can't stand many waves or troubles to arise while always in campaign mode these days.  So here we have government that is coerced into paying out of compassion and their fear of instability, and they knew that the government will be responsible for all that they have decided to be responsible for, and this to avoid any potential collapse that is designed against them by corporations who have learned this weakness about the government now.
> 
> Now these things will come at one hell of a price when all is said and done, and guess who will be looked at to pay for it all by both of them when looking down from their places on high ? We will be looked at to carry the load for it all by new or higher taxes on us.
> 
> Wow, it is really amazing how we as citizens (who are trying to make it), are caught between the government and corporate America who is trying to kill the government and us for profits, where as the government just fires back at us with higher taxes in the end as if that solves these issues. Like I said before, we can't stand anymore out here, but maybe the government is figuring that they will force the re-balancing in it all, by holding us hostage against the corporations, because they know the corps need is to be healthy and work ready, and if we are struggling so hard in life, then they will have to pay more to us, and that will pay the government back in the high taxes they will be using on us to pay for it all. It's a circle, and we are stuck in the middle of a game that is played by these two giants on us "Corporate America" & the "U.S. Government."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So,  you're saying that the high and growing faster than inflation cost of health care is just insurance companies profits?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. You have to actually read the posts to understand what the poster is 'saying'. Keep trying, you'll get it eventually.
Click to expand...


I do. And then I think about them and determine their logical conclusion.  Try it next time.


----------



## dblack

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> So,  you're saying that the high and growing faster than inflation cost of health care is just insurance companies profits?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. You have to actually read the posts to understand what the poster is 'saying'. Keep trying, you'll get it eventually.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do. And then I think about them and determine their logical conclusion.  Try it next time.
Click to expand...


Yes, I'm familiar with your use of the phrase 'logical conclusion', which for you is apparently a euphemism for 'building a strawman'. You simply don't want to face the fact that your precious health care 'reform' was converted, by lobbyists and willing dupes in Congress, into an insurance industry bailout. If you're not a paid shill, then you really need to look again at what you're defending. It's not what you think.


----------



## itfitzme

Vox said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vox said:
> 
> 
> 
> or pay the maximum out of the pocket annual 12.500 ( for the out of the network services) before ANY insurance benefits kick in - under obamacare compliant silver plan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would someone worried about cost go out of network?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> because someone might actually need MEDICAL CARE not that crap which is covered under obamacare.
> 
> and the REAL medical care will be OUT of the crappy obamacare network ( as nobody REAL will take the crap)
Click to expand...


Dude, the PPACA isn't an insurance plan or a medical care provider.  You have to go to an insurance company, like Blue Cross/Blue Shield or Kaiser, to get medical coverage.

So what are you talking about?  Cuz apparently you don't know what the PPACA is or what medical insurance is.


----------



## itfitzme

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The corporate insurance industry is lining up to kill the government it appears.. I mean wow what a set up!  Now look at the extreme profits it will be making off of the government now, and it will be doing this because of the government taking on most of the peoples care now, in which they can't believe has actually come true for them.
> 
> Now the government will be paying out in all these subsidies to the insurance industry, in which they (the corps) are going to be smiling all the way to their banks afterwards right ? Talk about sitting back and waiting for the clumsy bear to just walk right up and say shoot me at close range, I mean hec it can't get no better for the insurance carriers than this right ?
> 
> They were killing us with extreme rate hikes early on (going higher and higher), and that has in turn caused the government to jump in with both feet for all of us who were getting murdered in such a market place that was being set up. Now it appears to me that they (the corps), has coaxed the government into doing this, and now it is clear how they did it.
> 
> You see it was all due to the instability that was coming from it all, and now they (the corps) have once again trapped the government into paying big bucks, and all because they know that the government controls the printing presses, and that it can't stand many waves or troubles to arise while always in campaign mode these days.  So here we have government that is coerced into paying out of compassion and their fear of instability, and they knew that the government will be responsible for all that they have decided to be responsible for, and this to avoid any potential collapse that is designed against them by corporations who have learned this weakness about the government now.
> 
> Now these things will come at one hell of a price when all is said and done, and guess who will be looked at to pay for it all by both of them when looking down from their places on high ? We will be looked at to carry the load for it all by new or higher taxes on us.
> 
> Wow, it is really amazing how we as citizens (who are trying to make it), are caught between the government and corporate America who is trying to kill the government and us for profits, where as the government just fires back at us with higher taxes in the end as if that solves these issues. Like I said before, we can't stand anymore out here, but maybe the government is figuring that they will force the re-balancing in it all, by holding us hostage against the corporations, because they know the corps need is to be healthy and work ready, and if we are struggling so hard in life, then they will have to pay more to us, and that will pay the government back in the high taxes they will be using on us to pay for it all. It's a circle, and we are stuck in the middle of a game that is played by these two giants on us "Corporate America" & the "U.S. Government."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So,  you're saying that the high and growing faster than inflation cost of health care is just insurance companies profits?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. You have to actually read the posts to understand what the poster is 'saying'. Keep trying, you'll get it eventually.
Click to expand...


It is a perfectly good question because your diatribe does state that the government has helped insurance companies hike rates.

"*They were killing us with extreme rate hikes* early on (going higher and higher), and that has in turn caused the government to jump in with both feet for all of us who were getting murdered in such a market place that was being set up. Now it appears to me that *they (the corps), has coaxed the government into doing this, and now it is clear how they did it.* "

So, as apparently you don't know what you are talking about, you might take advantage of a question that clarifies your ramblings.


----------



## Vox

PMZ said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would someone worried about cost go out of network?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> because someone might actually need MEDICAL CARE not that crap which is covered under obamacare.
> 
> and the REAL medical care will be OUT of the crappy obamacare network ( as nobody REAL will take the crap)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everyone is free to use medicine men, but when they discover that they aren't getting cured they'll need real health care insurance to make sure that they are personally responsible for their real health care.
Click to expand...


what does this idiocy have to do with the need for real medical treatment, like a complicated surgery, for example? and which will be out of the possibility for somebody insured under this crap obamacare?


----------



## Vox

itfitzme said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would someone worried about cost go out of network?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> because someone might actually need MEDICAL CARE not that crap which is covered under obamacare.
> 
> and the REAL medical care will be OUT of the crappy obamacare network ( as nobody REAL will take the crap)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude, the PPACA isn't an insurance plan or a medical care provider.  You have to go to an insurance company, like Blue Cross/Blue Shield or Kaiser, to get medical coverage.
> 
> So what are you talking about?  Cuz apparently you don't know what the PPACA is or what medical insurance is.
Click to expand...


piss off, uneducated idiot


----------



## dblack

itfitzme said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> So,  you're saying that the high and growing faster than inflation cost of health care is just insurance companies profits?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. You have to actually read the posts to understand what the poster is 'saying'. Keep trying, you'll get it eventually.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is a perfectly good question because your diatribe does state that the government has helped insurance companies hike rates.
> 
> "*They were killing us with extreme rate hikes* early on (going higher and higher), and that has in turn caused the government to jump in with both feet for all of us who were getting murdered in such a market place that was being set up. Now it appears to me that *they (the corps), has coaxed the government into doing this, and now it is clear how they did it.* "
> 
> So, as apparently you don't know what you are talking about, you might take advantage of a question that clarifies your ramblings.
Click to expand...


Well, they weren't my 'ramblings', but I thought the poster made some good points, points that had nothing at all to do with PMZ's misinterpretation. Beagle9 is merely pointing out the 'briar patch' nature of the insurance lobby's approach to reform. The insurance companies are hardly the hapless victims of ACA. I believe they've pursued it as a calculated effort to avoid the impending collapse of their industry - by cementing themselves into the system via federal regulation. Essentially they're converting the failing health insurance market into a public utility (for very 'private' profit), financed by taxpayers and unwilling "mandated" customers.


----------



## carnac

That is not remotely accurate. The only reason that Fox news sounds harsh sometimes is because they usually tell the truth and don't have as much left-wing claptrap


----------



## PMZ

oreo said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> If obamacare wasn't such a catastrophic failure, why would democrats want to hand out free pot to everyone who signs up?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obamacare is only a catastrophe on Fox News.  They declared it such well before it became the law of the land,  and have never relented.
> 
> Thats why real America is tuning them out and relying on news shows to learn what's really going on in the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Kelly file on Fox news--who's ratings right now--do better than MSNBC and CNN combined--tells the story.
> 
> Obamacare is a disaster--and it only gets worse day by day.  People are NOT pushing the buy button on these exchanges--and December 23 (only a few days away) is the deadline.  Last count only 365,000 people have purchased insurance on the Obamacare exchanges.
> 
> Due the Obamacare mandates--5.5 million policies were cancelled after being promised by Obama and Democrats over 40 times that people could keep the policies they liked.  *THEY LIED.*  When you add in the spouses and children covered under these policies it was another 12 million added to the uninsured in this country.
> 
> *PURPOSE OF OBAMACARE: * to insure the uninsured   * EFFECT OF OBAMACARE: * uninsuring the insured.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Welcome to your hope and change
> *
Click to expand...


Thank you for sharing your dreams and aspirations.  They align perfectly with those of Fox News so I'm sure that you and they will have a strong relationship telling each other that you're right.


----------



## PMZ

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. You have to actually read the posts to understand what the poster is 'saying'. Keep trying, you'll get it eventually.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do. And then I think about them and determine their logical conclusion.  Try it next time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I'm familiar with your use of the phrase 'logical conclusion', which for you is apparently a euphemism for 'building a strawman'. You simply don't want to face the fact that your precious health care 'reform' was converted, by lobbyists and willing dupes in Congress, into an insurance industry bailout. If you're not a paid shill, then you really need to look again at what you're defending. It's not what you think.
Click to expand...


The health insurance industry never needed a bailout as its a product that is essential in today's world for everyone.  

That point was made decades ago by business using it as hiring and loyalty bait.  As the unemployment that those businesses created in order to shift compensation from those who create value to those who create chaos and waste,  that bait has been rendered no longer necessary,  thus creating the need for ACA.


----------



## itfitzme

Vox said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vox said:
> 
> 
> 
> because someone might actually need MEDICAL CARE not that crap which is covered under obamacare.
> 
> and the REAL medical care will be OUT of the crappy obamacare network ( as nobody REAL will take the crap)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, the PPACA isn't an insurance plan or a medical care provider.  You have to go to an insurance company, like Blue Cross/Blue Shield or Kaiser, to get medical coverage.
> 
> So what are you talking about?  Cuz apparently you don't know what the PPACA is or what medical insurance is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> piss off, uneducated idiot
Click to expand...


So, you didn't know that the PPACA is not an insurance plan?

Got anything to back up any of your statements?  Any text from PPACA?  Any examples of insurance that doesn't provide what you say they don't provide?

Sounds to me like you are an uneducated idiot with nothing but unfounded opinions you pulled out of your ass.

Got any proof I didn't get an education?  Cuz, last I checked, my transcripts are still available.


----------



## Vox

itfitzme said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, the PPACA isn't an insurance plan or a medical care provider.  You have to go to an insurance company, like Blue Cross/Blue Shield or Kaiser, to get medical coverage.
> 
> So what are you talking about?  Cuz apparently you don't know what the PPACA is or what medical insurance is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> piss off, uneducated idiot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you didn't know that the PPACA is not an insurance plan?
> 
> Got anything to back up any of your statements?  Any text from PPACA?  Any examples of insurance that doesn't provide what you say they don't provide?
> 
> Sounds to me like you are an uneducated idiot with nothing but unfounded opinions you pulled out of your ass.
> 
> Got any proof I didn't get an education?  Cuz, last I checked, my transcripts are still available.
Click to expand...


learn to read and comrehend the written text FIRST, if you want to be taken seriously.
next


----------



## itfitzme

dblack said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. You have to actually read the posts to understand what the poster is 'saying'. Keep trying, you'll get it eventually.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is a perfectly good question because your diatribe does state that the government has helped insurance companies hike rates.
> 
> "*They were killing us with extreme rate hikes* early on (going higher and higher), and that has in turn caused the government to jump in with both feet for all of us who were getting murdered in such a market place that was being set up. Now it appears to me that *they (the corps), has coaxed the government into doing this, and now it is clear how they did it.* "
> 
> So, as apparently you don't know what you are talking about, you might take advantage of a question that clarifies your ramblings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, they weren't my 'ramblings', but I thought the poster made some good points, points that had nothing at all to do with PMZ's misinterpretation. Beagle9 is merely pointing out the 'briar patch' nature of the insurance lobby's approach to reform. The insurance companies are hardly the hapless victims of ACA. I believe they've pursued it as a calculated effort to avoid the impending collapse of their industry - by cementing themselves into the system via federal regulation. Essentially they're converting the failing health insurance market into a public utility (for very 'private' profit), financed by taxpayers and unwilling "mandated" customers.
Click to expand...


Oops, my bad.

Never the less, you are wrong as the poster did say exactly what what asked about in the clarifying question.

And, while you are right that insurance companies and the entirety of the major players in the health care reform were involved in it's drafting, the question is, so what?  Why shouldn't the players in the free market put in their two cents when it comes to major legislation that affects those markets?  We don't live in an aristocracy.

Never the less, the rambiling conclusions are pure bs.  Like "health insurance market into a public utility".  Prove that one because last I looked, there is Aetna, Kaiser, BlueCross/BlueShield, and numerous other insurance companies.  That is called a free market which has always been subject to regulations because markets have inefficiencies, are not perfect.  

All in all, none of what you are saying has any basis in actual measurable reality.

No, the poster made no good points.  It was all a meaningless diatribe driven by some life long accumulation of bullshit driven by a paranoid delusion.  Even if he does, indeed, have a couple of points interspersing the rest of the crap, they aren't worth anything because they are part of the context of the rest of it.

We can go, sentence by sentence, down the diatribe, and demonstrate that 99% of it has no basis.


----------



## itfitzme

Vox said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vox said:
> 
> 
> 
> piss off, uneducated idiot
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, you didn't know that the PPACA is not an insurance plan?
> 
> Got anything to back up any of your statements?  Any text from PPACA?  Any examples of insurance that doesn't provide what you say they don't provide?
> 
> Sounds to me like you are an uneducated idiot with nothing but unfounded opinions you pulled out of your ass.
> 
> Got any proof I didn't get an education?  Cuz, last I checked, my transcripts are still available.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> learn to read and comrehend the written text FIRST, if you want to be taken seriously.
> next
Click to expand...


I do and can.  That you can't write is your problem

Still haven't actually read the PPACA, have you?  Talk about "uneducated".

But that is the way with idiots, learn nothing, make up unsupported bs, then claim everyone else is "uneducated".


----------



## itfitzme

Vox said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vox said:
> 
> 
> 
> piss off, uneducated idiot
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, you didn't know that the PPACA is not an insurance plan?
> 
> Got anything to back up any of your statements?  Any text from PPACA?  Any examples of insurance that doesn't provide what you say they don't provide?
> 
> Sounds to me like you are an uneducated idiot with nothing but unfounded opinions you pulled out of your ass.
> 
> Got any proof I didn't get an education?  Cuz, last I checked, my transcripts are still available.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> learn to read and comrehend the written text FIRST, if you want to be taken seriously.
> next
Click to expand...


Here is an education for you.

Personal Expenditures on Health Care services since 1950







Now, where is this so called need for a bailout?

Close up, right through the recession.


----------



## itfitzme

Vox said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vox said:
> 
> 
> 
> piss off, uneducated idiot
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, you didn't know that the PPACA is not an insurance plan?
> 
> Got anything to back up any of your statements?  Any text from PPACA?  Any examples of insurance that doesn't provide what you say they don't provide?
> 
> Sounds to me like you are an uneducated idiot with nothing but unfounded opinions you pulled out of your ass.
> 
> Got any proof I didn't get an education?  Cuz, last I checked, my transcripts are still available.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> learn to read and comrehend the written text FIRST, if you want to be taken seriously.
> next
Click to expand...


Oh, shit dude, here is the auto industry which did take a bailiout.






So, what is the educated evidence you base your bullshit on?


----------



## Vox

itfitzme said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, you didn't know that the PPACA is not an insurance plan?
> 
> Got anything to back up any of your statements?  Any text from PPACA?  Any examples of insurance that doesn't provide what you say they don't provide?
> 
> Sounds to me like you are an uneducated idiot with nothing but unfounded opinions you pulled out of your ass.
> 
> Got any proof I didn't get an education?  Cuz, last I checked, my transcripts are still available.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> learn to read and comrehend the written text FIRST, if you want to be taken seriously.
> next
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do and can.  That you can't write is your problem
> 
> Still haven't actually read the PPACA, have you?  Talk about "uneducated".
> 
> But that is the way with idiots, learn nothing, make up unsupported bs, then claim everyone else is "uneducated".
Click to expand...


piss off, uneducated idiot.


----------



## Meister

itfitzme said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, the PPACA isn't an insurance plan or a medical care provider.  You have to go to an insurance company, like Blue Cross/Blue Shield or Kaiser, to get medical coverage.
> 
> So what are you talking about?  Cuz apparently you don't know what the PPACA is or what medical insurance is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> piss off, uneducated idiot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you didn't know that the PPACA is not an insurance plan?
> 
> Got anything to back up any of your statements?  Any text from PPACA?  Any examples of insurance that doesn't provide what you say they don't provide?
> 
> Sounds to me like you are an uneducated idiot with nothing but unfounded opinions you pulled out of your ass.
> 
> *Got any proof I didn't get an education?  Cuz, last I checked, my transcripts are still available*.
Click to expand...

GED's don't count


----------



## itfitzme

Vox said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vox said:
> 
> 
> 
> learn to read and comrehend the written text FIRST, if you want to be taken seriously.
> next
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do and can.  That you can't write is your problem
> 
> Still haven't actually read the PPACA, have you?  Talk about "uneducated".
> 
> But that is the way with idiots, learn nothing, make up unsupported bs, then claim everyone else is "uneducated".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> piss off, uneducated idiot.
Click to expand...


So, you have nothing....


----------



## itfitzme

Meister said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vox said:
> 
> 
> 
> piss off, uneducated idiot
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, you didn't know that the PPACA is not an insurance plan?
> 
> Got anything to back up any of your statements?  Any text from PPACA?  Any examples of insurance that doesn't provide what you say they don't provide?
> 
> Sounds to me like you are an uneducated idiot with nothing but unfounded opinions you pulled out of your ass.
> 
> *Got any proof I didn't get an education?  Cuz, last I checked, my transcripts are still available*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> GED's don't count
Click to expand...


You're way off base.

Want to discuss electrical and electonic engineering?  Physics?  Business? Finance?  Statistics?  Economics?

Oh, how would you know what was right and wrong?  You haven't studies any of them.


----------



## dblack

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do. And then I think about them and determine their logical conclusion.  Try it next time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I'm familiar with your use of the phrase 'logical conclusion', which for you is apparently a euphemism for 'building a strawman'. You simply don't want to face the fact that your precious health care 'reform' was converted, by lobbyists and willing dupes in Congress, into an insurance industry bailout. If you're not a paid shill, then you really need to look again at what you're defending. It's not what you think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The health insurance industry never needed a bailout as its a product that is essential in today's world for everyone.
Click to expand...


Heh... right. You sure you're not an insurance salesman? How much are they paying you?


----------



## RKMBrown

itfitzme said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, you didn't know that the PPACA is not an insurance plan?
> 
> Got anything to back up any of your statements?  Any text from PPACA?  Any examples of insurance that doesn't provide what you say they don't provide?
> 
> Sounds to me like you are an uneducated idiot with nothing but unfounded opinions you pulled out of your ass.
> 
> *Got any proof I didn't get an education?  Cuz, last I checked, my transcripts are still available*.
> 
> 
> 
> GED's don't count
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're way off base.
> 
> Want to discuss electrical and electonic engineering?  Physics?  Business? Finance?  Statistics?  Economics?
> 
> Oh, how would you know what was right and wrong?  You haven't studies any of them.
Click to expand...


What is electonic engineering? That something to do with elections?

Looks to me like he's not only on base, he took the corner and headed home with it.


----------



## dblack

itfitzme said:


> ... last I looked, there is Aetna, Kaiser, BlueCross/BlueShield, and numerous other insurance companies.  That is called a free market which has always been subject to regulations because markets have inefficiencies, are not perfect.



You're confusing the presence of privately held corporations with a free market. There's nothing remotely 'free' about the 'market' created by ACA. It's a virtual cartel of insurance corporations granted by Congress, complete with involuntary customers. It's fucking insane.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> I could never hate any retard.....just sayin....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two types of retards... those it's ok to hate, like PMZ who are retarded by their actions.  And retards that it's not ok to hate, who are retarded by no fault of their own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Brownie,  with his obviously double digit IQ,  trying to rise above his competition.
> 
> And failing to.
Click to expand...


Competition?  You?  ROFL my dog has a higher IQ than you.


----------



## P@triot

Uh-oh  [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION]...more evidence that you're a moron who supports policies that are collapsing this nation...

With Affordable Care Act, Canceled Policies For New York Professionals
"Cultural elite" that supported Obamacare are now being dropped 

Many in New York's professional and cultural elite have long supported President Obama's health care plan. But now, to their surprise, thousands of writers, opera singers, music teachers, photographers, doctors, lawyers and others are learning that their health insurance plans are being canceled and they may have to pay more to get comparable coverage, _if_ they can find it.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/12/1...eled-policies-for-new-york-professionals.html


----------



## Meister

itfitzme said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, you didn't know that the PPACA is not an insurance plan?
> 
> Got anything to back up any of your statements?  Any text from PPACA?  Any examples of insurance that doesn't provide what you say they don't provide?
> 
> Sounds to me like you are an uneducated idiot with nothing but unfounded opinions you pulled out of your ass.
> 
> *Got any proof I didn't get an education?  Cuz, last I checked, my transcripts are still available*.
> 
> 
> 
> GED's don't count
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're way off base.
> 
> Want to discuss electrical and electonic engineering?  Physics?  Business? Finance?  Statistics?  Economics?
> 
> Oh, how would you know what was right and wrong?  You haven't studies any of them.
Click to expand...


I'm a brain surgeon...what's your point?


----------



## Vox

Meister said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> GED's don't count
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're way off base.
> 
> Want to discuss electrical and electonic engineering?  Physics?  Business? Finance?  Statistics?  Economics?
> 
> Oh, how would you know what was right and wrong?  You haven't studies any of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm a brain surgeon...what's your point?
Click to expand...


he doesn't have a point. he has dyslexia - difficulty understanding the written text and at the page 70 of the discussion professes a revelation that "obamacare is not an insurance" 

then - waits for an applause.


----------



## Listening

dblack said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... last I looked, there is Aetna, Kaiser, BlueCross/BlueShield, and numerous other insurance companies.  That is called a free market which has always been subject to regulations because markets have inefficiencies, are not perfect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're confusing the presence of privately held corporations with a free market. There's nothing remotely 'free' about the 'market' created by ACA. It's a virtual cartel of insurance corporations granted by Congress, complete with involuntary customers. It's fucking insane.
Click to expand...


Good Freaking Grief and AMEN !!!

I know people who've looked into starting insurance companies.

They were told that just the legal fees to get something set up would be in the millions.


----------



## PMZ

dblack said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. You have to actually read the posts to understand what the poster is 'saying'. Keep trying, you'll get it eventually.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is a perfectly good question because your diatribe does state that the government has helped insurance companies hike rates.
> 
> "*They were killing us with extreme rate hikes* early on (going higher and higher), and that has in turn caused the government to jump in with both feet for all of us who were getting murdered in such a market place that was being set up. Now it appears to me that *they (the corps), has coaxed the government into doing this, and now it is clear how they did it.* "
> 
> So, as apparently you don't know what you are talking about, you might take advantage of a question that clarifies your ramblings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, they weren't my 'ramblings', but I thought the poster made some good points, points that had nothing at all to do with PMZ's misinterpretation. Beagle9 is merely pointing out the 'briar patch' nature of the insurance lobby's approach to reform. The insurance companies are hardly the hapless victims of ACA. I believe they've pursued it as a calculated effort to avoid the impending collapse of their industry - by cementing themselves into the system via federal regulation. Essentially they're converting the failing health insurance market into a public utility (for very 'private' profit), financed by taxpayers and unwilling "mandated" customers.
Click to expand...


Tell us the evidence that the health insurance market was ever failing.


----------



## PMZ

carnac said:


> That is not remotely accurate. The only reason that Fox news sounds harsh sometimes is because they usually tell the truth and don't have as much left-wing claptrap



They are the conduit for Republican propaganda.  Nothing more,  nothing less.


----------



## PMZ

dblack said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... last I looked, there is Aetna, Kaiser, BlueCross/BlueShield, and numerous other insurance companies.  That is called a free market which has always been subject to regulations because markets have inefficiencies, are not perfect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're confusing the presence of privately held corporations with a free market. There's nothing remotely 'free' about the 'market' created by ACA. It's a virtual cartel of insurance corporations granted by Congress, complete with involuntary customers. It's fucking insane.
Click to expand...


ACA did not create the healthcare insurance market.  It's been around for 100 years. It was grown essentially by business looking for bait to attract and maintain loyal employees.  ACA had nothing to do with it except to allow everyone access to it.


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> Uh-oh  [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION]...more evidence that you're a moron who supports policies that are collapsing this nation...
> 
> With Affordable Care Act, Canceled Policies For New York Professionals
> "Cultural elite" that supported Obamacare are now being dropped
> 
> Many in New York's professional and cultural elite have long supported President Obama's health care plan. But now, to their surprise, thousands of writers, opera singers, music teachers, photographers, doctors, lawyers and others are learning that their health insurance plans are being canceled and they may have to pay more to get comparable coverage, _if_ they can find it.
> 
> http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/12/1...eled-policies-for-new-york-professionals.html



People have more choice in health care companies and policies than ever before.


----------



## PMZ

Listening said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... last I looked, there is Aetna, Kaiser, BlueCross/BlueShield, and numerous other insurance companies.  That is called a free market which has always been subject to regulations because markets have inefficiencies, are not perfect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're confusing the presence of privately held corporations with a free market. There's nothing remotely 'free' about the 'market' created by ACA. It's a virtual cartel of insurance corporations granted by Congress, complete with involuntary customers. It's fucking insane.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good Freaking Grief and AMEN !!!
> 
> I know people who've looked into starting insurance companies.
> 
> They were told that just the legal fees to get something set up would be in the millions.
Click to expand...


Good news.  The last thing that we need are shysters peddling health insurance without reserves adequate to cover their benefits.


----------



## Vox

PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uh-oh  [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION]...more evidence that you're a moron who supports policies that are collapsing this nation...
> 
> With Affordable Care Act, Canceled Policies For New York Professionals
> "Cultural elite" that supported Obamacare are now being dropped
> 
> Many in New York's professional and cultural elite have long supported President Obama's health care plan. But now, to their surprise, thousands of writers, opera singers, music teachers, photographers, doctors, lawyers and others are learning that their health insurance plans are being canceled and they may have to pay more to get comparable coverage, _if_ they can find it.
> 
> http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/12/1...eled-policies-for-new-york-professionals.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People have more choice in health care companies and policies than ever before.
Click to expand...


and more coverage, yes?
LOL

you leftard shills are incredible in your brainwashed idiocy

sadly, not only leftards


----------



## PMZ

Vox said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uh-oh  [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION]...more evidence that you're a moron who supports policies that are collapsing this nation...
> 
> With Affordable Care Act, Canceled Policies For New York Professionals
> "Cultural elite" that supported Obamacare are now being dropped
> 
> Many in New York's professional and cultural elite have long supported President Obama's health care plan. But now, to their surprise, thousands of writers, opera singers, music teachers, photographers, doctors, lawyers and others are learning that their health insurance plans are being canceled and they may have to pay more to get comparable coverage, _if_ they can find it.
> 
> http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/12/1...eled-policies-for-new-york-professionals.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People have more choice in health care companies and policies than ever before.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and more coverage, yes?
> LOL
> 
> you leftard shills are incredible in your brainwashed idiocy
> 
> sadly, not only leftards
Click to expand...


Yes,  better coverage.  No more inadequate coverage policies.


----------



## dblack

PMZ said:


> ACA did not create the healthcare insurance market.


Exactly. That's why I put used quotes. What ACA creates is nothing at all like a free market.



> ACA had nothing to do with it except to allow everyone access to it.



Your euphemisms grow more outrageous with every post. How does 'force everyone to participate' translate to 'allow everyone access'? That's some kind of twisted wordplay you've got going on there.


----------



## PMZ

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> ACA did not create the healthcare insurance market.
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. That's why I put used quotes. What ACA creates is nothing at all like a free market.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ACA had nothing to do with it except to allow everyone access to it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your euphemisms grow more outrageous with every post. How does 'force everyone to participate' translate to 'allow everyone access'? That's some kind of twisted wordplay you've got going on there.
Click to expand...


There are very few people in the country who are personally responsible for all of their health care costs that don't cover that risk with insurance.

There were many before ACA who wanted health care insurance but had no access to the market because their employers chose not to pay them enough to afford it. Because of ACA they now have access.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> ACA did not create the healthcare insurance market.
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. That's why I put used quotes. What ACA creates is nothing at all like a free market.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ACA had nothing to do with it except to allow everyone access to it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your euphemisms grow more outrageous with every post. How does 'force everyone to participate' translate to 'allow everyone access'? That's some kind of twisted wordplay you've got going on there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are very few people in the country who are personally responsible for all of their health care costs that don't cover that risk with insurance.
> 
> There were many before ACA who wanted health care insurance but had no access to the market because their employers chose not to pay them enough to afford it. Because of ACA they now have access.
Click to expand...


Retard.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. That's why I put used quotes. What ACA creates is nothing at all like a free market.
> 
> 
> 
> Your euphemisms grow more outrageous with every post. How does 'force everyone to participate' translate to 'allow everyone access'? That's some kind of twisted wordplay you've got going on there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are very few people in the country who are personally responsible for all of their health care costs that don't cover that risk with insurance.
> 
> There were many before ACA who wanted health care insurance but had no access to the market because their employers chose not to pay them enough to afford it. Because of ACA they now have access.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Retard.
Click to expand...

Again, Brownie tries for another world record in understated eloquence demonstrating the depth of conservative intellect.


----------



## dblack

PMZ said:


> There were many before ACA who wanted health care insurance but had no access to the market because their employers chose not to pay them enough to afford it. Because of ACA they now have access.



There were many before ACA who responsibly paid for their own health care, saving thousands of dollars yearly by carrying only limited insurance coverage. Because of ACA they are now forced to pay for shitty insurance coverage they neither want nor need, merely to keep your pals in the insurance industry in tall cotton.


----------



## PMZ

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> There were many before ACA who wanted health care insurance but had no access to the market because their employers chose not to pay them enough to afford it. Because of ACA they now have access.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There were many before ACA who responsibly paid for their own health care, saving thousands of dollars yearly by carrying only limited insurance coverage. Because of ACA they are now forced to pay for shitty insurance coverage they neither want nor need, merely to keep your pals in the insurance industry in tall cotton.
Click to expand...


In most of those cases those playing that game were doing so because they knew that the worst consequence was to declare medical bankruptcy pushing their bills off to others.

We insist on personal responsibility now.


----------



## oreo

PMZ said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> People have more choice in health care companies and policies than ever before.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and more coverage, yes?
> LOL
> 
> you leftard shills are incredible in your brainwashed idiocy
> 
> sadly, not only leftards
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes,  better coverage.  No more inadequate coverage policies.
Click to expand...



*At 3 times the premiums.*  IOW--we have no choices now.  _We all are required to pay for pre-natal regardless of age or gender.  If you've already had your kids and want no more--you are required to pay for it anyway.  If you're not mentally ill, you are required to pay for it.  If you're not addicted to drugs, you are required to pay for it._

This is Obamacare--and nation wide group health insurance policy with NO choices except to opt for large deductibles and co-pays. 

NOW you liberals ask yourself something. * If Obamacare was such a GREAT deal with lower premiums and better value--why haven't the 5.5 million policies with an estimated 12 million covered under those policies-- who just lost the insurance they liked gone running to the Obamacare exchanges to buy another policy? * _If it were the case that Obamacare was as promised--lower premiums better value--he would be a hero right now, instead his approval have fallen below G.W. Bush's._  And the Obamacare mandates haven't even moved into the employer mandate as yet--which it's estimated that another 120 million policies will be cancelled.  Democrats postponed that until AFTER the mid-term elections in 2014 for very good reason.




> Sen. Dianne Feinstein on Tuesday joined the ranks of worried Democrats demanding that President Obama allow people to keep their current insurance policies. Feinstein&#8217;s move is bad news for an administration desperate for good news following the roll-out debacle of the Affordable Care Act&#8217;s health insurance exchange on Oct. 1, which has been plagued by technical problems.
> 
> &#8220;Since the beginning of September, I have received *30,842 calls*, emails and letters from Californians, many of whom are very distressed by cancellations of their insurance policies and who are facing increased out-of-pocket costs.
> 
> &#8220;For example, a father from Rancho Mirage called and said: &#8216;I work three jobs to pay the bills for my wife and daughter. I got a letter that my plan is going from $420 to $943. I went to HealthCare.Gov, then Covered California. I researched my premiums. A policy almost identical to my old one is being offered for $863. I&#8217;m now being forced to come up with over $400 a month with 30 days&#8217; notice. Let me spell it out: I do not have the income to afford this.&#8217;


Dianne Feinstein joins effort to change Affordable Care Act - Politics Blog

_Obama had to CRUSH the individual market--in order for these people to pay higher premiums-on the Obamacare exchanges--so Obamacare would float._  Barack Obama *LIED* to these people over 40 times about them being able to keep the policies and the doctors they liked.  _They won't be able to do any of that now._

*PURPOSE OF OBAMACARE*:  to insure the unisured   * EFFECT OF OBAMACARE:*  uninsuring the insured







*Welcome to your hope and change*


----------



## asterism

PMZ said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> It appears you don't know much about the policies you support.  Show me how someone will be subsidized if they can't afford 40% of the cost for chemotherapy under their ACA compliant Bronze Plan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> or pay the maximum out of the pocket annual 12.500 ( for the out of the network services) before ANY insurance benefits kick in - under obamacare compliant silver plan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would someone worried about cost go out of network?
Click to expand...


You haven't been able to find how someone will be subsidized if they can't afford 40% of the cost for chemotherapy under their ACA Bronze Plan have you?

Here's a hint - there is no subsidy for that situation.  Someone only qualifies for subsidies if they have a low income.  They don't qualify for subsidies if they have a medium income and high medical costs.


----------



## Listening

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> There were many before ACA who wanted health care insurance but had no access to the market because their employers chose not to pay them enough to afford it. Because of ACA they now have access.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There were many before ACA who responsibly paid for their own health care, saving thousands of dollars yearly by carrying only limited insurance coverage. Because of ACA they are now forced to pay for shitty insurance coverage they neither want nor need, merely to keep your pals in the insurance industry in tall cotton.
Click to expand...


What you'll get is some dickhead response that says people are now personally responsible.

Which is nicer way of saying that you'll be paying for their insurance via subsidies and told that this is a better way.

Somehow they think that will keep ER visits down.


----------



## asterism

PMZ said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> People have more choice in health care companies and policies than ever before.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and more coverage, yes?
> LOL
> 
> you leftard shills are incredible in your brainwashed idiocy
> 
> sadly, not only leftards
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes,  better coverage.  No more inadequate coverage policies.
Click to expand...


The Bronze Plans are inadequate for most people who get cancer.

http://www.acscan.org/pdf/healthcar...round/PlanLevelsStandardizationofCoverage.pdf


----------



## Listening

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> There were many before ACA who wanted health care insurance but had no access to the market because their employers chose not to pay them enough to afford it. Because of ACA they now have access.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There were many before ACA who responsibly paid for their own health care, saving thousands of dollars yearly by carrying only limited insurance coverage. Because of ACA they are now forced to pay for shitty insurance coverage they neither want nor need, merely to keep your pals in the insurance industry in tall cotton.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In most of those cases those playing that game were doing so because they knew that the worst consequence was to declare medical bankruptcy pushing their bills off to others.
> 
> We insist on personal responsibility now.
Click to expand...


Please tell me what you would say to this father.  I figured you must have missed the post or you would have responded (probably by telling the poor bastard to find a fourth job so he can feel good about his being (more) personally responsible (probably by being forced to carry insurance against AIDS or something like that).  Looking forward to your (em)pathetic words.......

Sen. Dianne Feinstein on Tuesday joined the ranks of worried Democrats demanding that President Obama allow people to keep their current insurance policies. Feinstein&#8217;s move is bad news for an administration desperate for good news following the roll-out debacle of the Affordable Care Act&#8217;s health insurance exchange on Oct. 1, which has been plagued by technical problems.

&#8220;Since the beginning of September, I have received 30,842 calls, emails and letters from Californians, many of whom are very distressed by cancellations of their insurance policies and who are facing increased out-of-pocket costs.

*&#8220;For example, a father from Rancho Mirage called and said: &#8216;I work three jobs to pay the bills for my wife and daughter. I got a letter that my plan is going from $420 to $943. I went to HealthCare.Gov, then Covered California. I researched my premiums. A policy almost identical to my old one is being offered for $863. I&#8217;m now being forced to come up with over $400 a month with 30 days&#8217; notice. Let me spell it out: I do not have the income to afford this.&#8217;*


----------



## dblack

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> There were many before ACA who wanted health care insurance but had no access to the market because their employers chose not to pay them enough to afford it. Because of ACA they now have access.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There were many before ACA who responsibly paid for their own health care, saving thousands of dollars yearly by carrying only limited insurance coverage. Because of ACA they are now forced to pay for shitty insurance coverage they neither want nor need, merely to keep your pals in the insurance industry in tall cotton.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In most of those cases those playing that game were doing so because they knew that the worst consequence was to declare medical bankruptcy pushing their bills off to others.
> 
> We insist on personal responsibility now.
Click to expand...


Yes more of the ever-popular guilty-until-proven-innocence premise at the heart of the statist mentality. Deal with the people who do wrong with proper legal remedies, and leave everyone else out of your fascist nonsense.


----------



## Listening

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> There were many before ACA who responsibly paid for their own health care, saving thousands of dollars yearly by carrying only limited insurance coverage. Because of ACA they are now forced to pay for shitty insurance coverage they neither want nor need, merely to keep your pals in the insurance industry in tall cotton.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In most of those cases those playing that game were doing so because they knew that the worst consequence was to declare medical bankruptcy pushing their bills off to others.
> 
> We insist on personal responsibility now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes more of the ever-popular guilty-until-proven-innocence premise at the heart of the statist mentality. Deal with the people who do wrong with proper legal remedies, and leave everyone else out of your fascist nonsense.
Click to expand...


I guess the question is how subsidizing these people isn't "pushing their bills off to others".


----------



## oreo

Listening said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> In most of those cases those playing that game were doing so because they knew that the worst consequence was to declare medical bankruptcy pushing their bills off to others.
> 
> We insist on personal responsibility now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes more of the ever-popular guilty-until-proven-innocence premise at the heart of the statist mentality. Deal with the people who do wrong with proper legal remedies, and leave everyone else out of your fascist nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess the question is how subsidizing these people isn't "pushing their bills off to others".
Click to expand...


Now, now someone went bankrupt over some medical bills--either because they did not have medical insurance (most likely) and or their personal choice in their deductible was too high.  So EVERYONE in this country is now responsible for this personal bankruptcy and need to pay higher premiums for coverage they don't need to prevent this from ever happening again---  As if that would fix the bankruptcy problem in this country anyway--LOL

This is the way a lil Einstein Liberal thinks.  We can protect everyone in this country by everyone paying more for medical insurance aka Obamacare. Taxpayer subsidies just "grows on trees" to a liberal mind.  Those dollars just come out of the air and not someone else's pocket.

NOTE--_that they are not at all concerned about the 5.5 million insurance policies that were just cancelled--with an estimated 12 million more that today are uninsured because of Obamacare.  _  Nosirree--it'a all about that poor sole that went bankrupt over medical bills--because that's what Obama told them.

*The 5 best sentences:*



> 1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.
> 
> 2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.
> 
> 3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.
> 
> 4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!
> 
> 5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.



_Something a Liberal could never possibly understand_


----------



## oreo

AETNA--the 3rd largest insurance agency in the nation just announced it has REJECTED Obama's "fix" or request to renew policies that were cancelled--because of the Obamacare mandates.  Also insurers have REJECTED the buy now pay later as requested by Sebelious last week.

Aetna Rejects Obama?s Fix for Canceled Health Care Plans | Fox News Insider


----------



## AquaAthena

Rottweiler said:


> Uh-oh  [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION]...more evidence that you're a moron who supports policies that are collapsing this nation...
> 
> With Affordable Care Act, Canceled Policies For New York Professionals
> "Cultural elite" that supported Obamacare are now being dropped
> 
> Many in New York's professional and cultural elite have long supported President Obama's health care plan. But now, to their surprise, thousands of writers, opera singers, music teachers, photographers, doctors, lawyers and others are learning that their health insurance plans are being canceled and they may have to pay more to get comparable coverage, _if_ they can find it.
> 
> http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/12/1...eled-policies-for-new-york-professionals.html



Sadly, they reelected a boy, would be king, and throw them under the bus, because he could.


----------



## AquaAthena

oreo said:


> AETNA--the 3rd largest insurance agency in the nation just announced it has REJECTED Obama's "fix" or request to renew policies that were cancelled--because of the Obamacare mandates.  Also insurers have REJECTED the buy now pay later as requested by Sebelious last week.
> 
> Aetna Rejects Obama?s Fix for Canceled Health Care Plans | Fox News Insider



 Yes, and others will do the same. They have no confidence in the president's plans and who would.


----------



## PMZ

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> There were many before ACA who wanted health care insurance but had no access to the market because their employers chose not to pay them enough to afford it. Because of ACA they now have access.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There were many before ACA who responsibly paid for their own health care, saving thousands of dollars yearly by carrying only limited insurance coverage. Because of ACA they are now forced to pay for shitty insurance coverage they neither want nor need, merely to keep your pals in the insurance industry in tall cotton.
Click to expand...


I'm sure that we all would like free health care.  But,  reality is,  somebody has to pay for all of that technology and training and work.  

We could have everybody in a position to pay their own but business would rather pay executives lavishly and workers who create all wealth a pitenence.  Logical?  No,  but the executives are making the decisions without accountability so it is what it is. 

So,  that's what we have to work with.  The only choice left,  if we want to be competitive with global business, is to use government to move back some of the wealth that capitalism moves up.


----------



## dblack

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> There were many before ACA who wanted health care insurance but had no access to the market because their employers chose not to pay them enough to afford it. Because of ACA they now have access.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There were many before ACA who responsibly paid for their own health care, saving thousands of dollars yearly by carrying only limited insurance coverage. Because of ACA they are now forced to pay for shitty insurance coverage they neither want nor need, merely to keep your pals in the insurance industry in tall cotton.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sure that we all would like free health care.  But,  reality is,  somebody has to pay for all of that technology and training and work.
> 
> We could have everybody in a position to pay their own but business would rather pay executives lavishly and workers who create all wealth a pitenence.  Logical?  No,  but the executives are making the decisions without accountability so it is what it is.
> 
> So,  that's what we have to work with.  The only choice left,  if we want to be competitive with global business, is to use government to move back some of the wealth that capitalism moves up.
Click to expand...


I've learned, rightfully I think, to be deeply wary of anyone telling me that some shitty option is 'the only choice left'. And I don't particularly care about being 'competitive with global business'. So, suck corporate cock all you want, leave the rest of us out of your 5-year plans.


----------



## Listening

Vox said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uh-oh  [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION]...more evidence that you're a moron who supports policies that are collapsing this nation...
> 
> With Affordable Care Act, Canceled Policies For New York Professionals
> "Cultural elite" that supported Obamacare are now being dropped
> 
> Many in New York's professional and cultural elite have long supported President Obama's health care plan. But now, to their surprise, thousands of writers, opera singers, music teachers, photographers, doctors, lawyers and others are learning that their health insurance plans are being canceled and they may have to pay more to get comparable coverage, _if_ they can find it.
> 
> http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/12/1...eled-policies-for-new-york-professionals.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People have more choice in health care companies and policies than ever before.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and more coverage, yes?
> LOL
> 
> you leftard shills are incredible in your brainwashed idiocy
> 
> sadly, not only leftards
Click to expand...


To be brainwashed you need a brain.

The cancelled policies happen every year.  I can recall that at the end of 2010, 2011, and 2012, there were five million people telling us that their policies were cancelled.  Oh, wait....that wasn't the case.

But it's still common or a "normal occurance".

Like I said...to be brainwashed....


----------



## Meister

I prefer the word "indoctrinated", it's what our public schools do these days.


----------



## itfitzme

Listening said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> People have more choice in health care companies and policies than ever before.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and more coverage, yes?
> LOL
> 
> you leftard shills are incredible in your brainwashed idiocy
> 
> sadly, not only leftards
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To be brainwashed you need a brain.
> 
> The cancelled policies happen every year.  I can recall that at the end of 2010, 2011, and 2012, there were five million people telling us that their policies were cancelled.  Oh, wait....that wasn't the case.
> 
> But it's still common or a "normal occurance".
> 
> Like I said...to be brainwashed....
Click to expand...


Check this out.

March 28, 2006

Former Members Sue Blue Cross

"The state's largest health insurer systematically -- and illegally -- *cancels coverage* retroactively for people who need expensive care, 10 former Blue Cross members claimed in lawsuits filed Monday"


More insurance rescission coverage - latimes.com

July 3, 2007

"BC Life & Health revoked 1,880 individual health insurance policies in California in 2004 and 2005, and a state agency that examined a sampling says it found that more than half the cases it reviewed were improperly handled"

Insurer cited in policy rescissions - latimes.com

Hmm..... do you suppose that the problem is you weren't counting until 2013?


----------



## itfitzme

This is interesting;

"At issue is a so-called &#8220;grandfather&#8221; clause in the law stating that consumers would have the option of keeping policies in effect as of March 23, 2010,  even if they didn&#8217;t meet requirements of the new health care law. But the Department of Health and Human Services then wrote regulations that narrowed that provision, saying that if any part of a policy was significantly changed after that date &#8212; the deductible, co-pay, or benefits, for example &#8212; the policy would not be grandfathered"

Insurers, state officials say cancellation of health care policies just as they predicted - Investigations

So the policies changed after March 23rd, upgraded benefits, as the "Department of Health and Human Services then wrote regulations that narrowed that provision"...  Well that bites. Shame they have to get better insurance.  No one likes that....


----------



## PMZ

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> There were many before ACA who responsibly paid for their own health care, saving thousands of dollars yearly by carrying only limited insurance coverage. Because of ACA they are now forced to pay for shitty insurance coverage they neither want nor need, merely to keep your pals in the insurance industry in tall cotton.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure that we all would like free health care.  But,  reality is,  somebody has to pay for all of that technology and training and work.
> 
> We could have everybody in a position to pay their own but business would rather pay executives lavishly and workers who create all wealth a pitenence.  Logical?  No,  but the executives are making the decisions without accountability so it is what it is.
> 
> So,  that's what we have to work with.  The only choice left,  if we want to be competitive with global business, is to use government to move back some of the wealth that capitalism moves up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've learned, rightfully I think, to be deeply wary of anyone telling me that some shitty option is 'the only choice left'. And I don't particularly care about being 'competitive with global business'. So, suck corporate cock all you want, leave the rest of us out of your 5-year plans.
Click to expand...


"So, suck corporate cock all you want, leave the rest of us out of your 5-year plans." 

I can't tell how impressed I am with your rational,  clear eyed,  and realistic logic applied to macroeconomics. 

Wharton PhD?


----------



## PMZ

Listening said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> People have more choice in health care companies and policies than ever before.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and more coverage, yes?
> LOL
> 
> you leftard shills are incredible in your brainwashed idiocy
> 
> sadly, not only leftards
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To be brainwashed you need a brain.
> 
> The cancelled policies happen every year.  I can recall that at the end of 2010, 2011, and 2012, there were five million people telling us that their policies were cancelled.  Oh, wait....that wasn't the case.
> 
> But it's still common or a "normal occurance".
> 
> Like I said...to be brainwashed....
Click to expand...


Tell us where you got your multi year policies.  I've never seen one.


----------



## PMZ

Meister said:


> I prefer the word "indoctrinated", it's what our public schools do these days.



It's a good thing that you stayed away from them.


----------



## itfitzme

Listening said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> People have more choice in health care companies and policies than ever before.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and more coverage, yes?
> LOL
> 
> you leftard shills are incredible in your brainwashed idiocy
> 
> sadly, not only leftards
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To be brainwashed you need a brain.
> 
> The cancelled policies happen every year.  *I can recall that at the end of 2010, 2011, and 2012, there were five million people telling us that their policies were cancelled.  Oh, wait....that wasn't the case.*
> 
> But it's still common or a "normal occurance".
> 
> Like I said...to be brainwashed....
Click to expand...


Well, that is just a tough one.  No one was counting the number of people who had their plans cancelled before 2013.   Perhaps you have a source?  Cuz I don't see any evidence to support of deny your position.  You simply were not paying attention.  That would be why you don't recall.

Page 20 of a google search and it is all after 2012.  No one was counting before 2013.


----------



## eagle1462010

Yawn.............12 million losing insurance............I'm now one of them.............

My increase was 61% increase................Oh well, say's the libs, it must suck to be you and just ignore we are getting screwed over...................

Affordable Care Act.......................Wrong name..................It sure as hell isn't Affordable to Millions anymore...............But hey, if you are in the lower wage's they say it's great..................................................

Damaging those not damaged before the law, and still trying to Justify their BS.


----------



## PMZ

eagle1462010 said:


> Yawn.............12 million losing insurance............I'm now one of them.............
> 
> My increase was 61% increase................Oh well, say's the libs, it must suck to be you and just ignore we are getting screwed over...................
> 
> Affordable Care Act.......................Wrong name..................It sure as hell isn't Affordable to Millions anymore...............But hey, if you are in the lower wage's they say it's great..................................................
> 
> Damaging those not damaged before the law, and still trying to Justify their BS.



Are you in a responsible State with an exchange?  Did you take advantage of it,  or the Federal exchange?  Was the 61% increase the least expensive option there?  Did you ask your former insurer what their increase is attributed to? Were there other benefit changes than those required by ACA? Did you have other changes that increased the insurance companies risk?


----------



## PMZ

Good info on ACA increases.


----------



## dblack

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure that we all would like free health care.  But,  reality is,  somebody has to pay for all of that technology and training and work.
> 
> We could have everybody in a position to pay their own but business would rather pay executives lavishly and workers who create all wealth a pitenence.  Logical?  No,  but the executives are making the decisions without accountability so it is what it is.
> 
> So,  that's what we have to work with.  The only choice left,  if we want to be competitive with global business, is to use government to move back some of the wealth that capitalism moves up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've learned, rightfully I think, to be deeply wary of anyone telling me that some shitty option is 'the only choice left'. And I don't particularly care about being 'competitive with global business'. So, suck corporate cock all you want, leave the rest of us out of your 5-year plans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "So, suck corporate cock all you want, leave the rest of us out of your 5-year plans."
> 
> I can't tell how impressed I am with your rational,  clear eyed,  and realistic logic applied to macroeconomics.
> 
> Wharton PhD?
Click to expand...


So, you got nuthin? You come in here and shill your ass off for corporate welfare and try to pretend you're standing up for democracy? You're selling out our nation for a pat on the head.


----------



## PMZ

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've learned, rightfully I think, to be deeply wary of anyone telling me that some shitty option is 'the only choice left'. And I don't particularly care about being 'competitive with global business'. So, suck corporate cock all you want, leave the rest of us out of your 5-year plans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "So, suck corporate cock all you want, leave the rest of us out of your 5-year plans."
> 
> I can't tell how impressed I am with your rational,  clear eyed,  and realistic logic applied to macroeconomics.
> 
> Wharton PhD?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you got nuthin? You come in here and shill your ass off for corporate welfare and try to pretend you're standing up for democracy? You're selling out our nation for a pat on the head.
Click to expand...


"You come in here and shill your ass off for corporate welfare and try to pretend you're standing up for democracy".

If you mean my support for saving all of the GM jobs, guilty as charged. If you mean big oil subsidies, I'm dead set against them. 

I tend to ignore dogma and stick to informed rationale.


----------



## dblack

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> "So, suck corporate cock all you want, leave the rest of us out of your 5-year plans."
> 
> I can't tell how impressed I am with your rational,  clear eyed,  and realistic logic applied to macroeconomics.
> 
> Wharton PhD?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, you got nuthin? You come in here and shill your ass off for corporate welfare and try to pretend you're standing up for democracy? You're selling out our nation for a pat on the head.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "You come in here and shill your ass off for corporate welfare and try to pretend you're standing up for democracy".
> 
> If you mean my support for saving all of the GM jobs, guilty as charged. If you mean big oil subsidies, I'm dead set against them.
> 
> I tend to ignore dogma and stick to informed rationale.
Click to expand...


You also tend to shill for ACA - persistently and without any reasoned argument. You're a corporatist neo-con with no respect for the traditional American values of equal protection, individual liberty and rule of law.


----------



## PMZ

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, you got nuthin? You come in here and shill your ass off for corporate welfare and try to pretend you're standing up for democracy? You're selling out our nation for a pat on the head.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "You come in here and shill your ass off for corporate welfare and try to pretend you're standing up for democracy".
> 
> If you mean my support for saving all of the GM jobs, guilty as charged. If you mean big oil subsidies, I'm dead set against them.
> 
> I tend to ignore dogma and stick to informed rationale.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You also tend to shill for ACA - persistently and without any reasoned argument. You're a corporatist neo-con with no respect for the traditional American values of equal protection, individual liberty and rule of law.
Click to expand...


I do shill for ACA and Medicare and Social Security as  programs that solve huge problems. My arguments are very reasoned and that's what upsets you.

Your scotoma is "respect for the traditional American values of equal protection, individual liberty and rule of law" which haven't changed one iota for 230+ years. You use them as the bogieman to pursue lower taxes even in the face of facts that America is very competitive compared to any other country in value received and total tax rate.

You and I are among the most free of any humans who have walked the planet.


----------



## Listening

itfitzme said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vox said:
> 
> 
> 
> and more coverage, yes?
> LOL
> 
> you leftard shills are incredible in your brainwashed idiocy
> 
> sadly, not only leftards
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To be brainwashed you need a brain.
> 
> The cancelled policies happen every year.  I can recall that at the end of 2010, 2011, and 2012, there were five million people telling us that their policies were cancelled.  Oh, wait....that wasn't the case.
> 
> But it's still common or a "normal occurance".
> 
> Like I said...to be brainwashed....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Check this out.
> 
> March 28, 2006
> 
> Former Members Sue Blue Cross
> 
> "The state's largest health insurer systematically -- and illegally -- *cancels coverage* retroactively for people who need expensive care, 10 former Blue Cross members claimed in lawsuits filed Monday"
> 
> 
> More insurance rescission coverage - latimes.com
> 
> July 3, 2007
> 
> "BC Life & Health revoked 1,880 individual health insurance policies in California in 2004 and 2005, and a state agency that examined a sampling says it found that more than half the cases it reviewed were improperly handled"
> 
> Insurer cited in policy rescissions - latimes.com
> 
> Hmm..... do you suppose that the problem is you weren't counting until 2013?
Click to expand...


Is this supposed to be a legitimate question ?  Really.  five and nineteen hundred versus five million.  Really.


----------



## PMZ

Listening said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> To be brainwashed you need a brain.
> 
> The cancelled policies happen every year.  I can recall that at the end of 2010, 2011, and 2012, there were five million people telling us that their policies were cancelled.  Oh, wait....that wasn't the case.
> 
> But it's still common or a "normal occurance".
> 
> Like I said...to be brainwashed....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Check this out.
> 
> March 28, 2006
> 
> Former Members Sue Blue Cross
> 
> "The state's largest health insurer systematically -- and illegally -- *cancels coverage* retroactively for people who need expensive care, 10 former Blue Cross members claimed in lawsuits filed Monday"
> 
> 
> More insurance rescission coverage - latimes.com
> 
> July 3, 2007
> 
> "BC Life & Health revoked 1,880 individual health insurance policies in California in 2004 and 2005, and a state agency that examined a sampling says it found that more than half the cases it reviewed were improperly handled"
> 
> Insurer cited in policy rescissions - latimes.com
> 
> Hmm..... do you suppose that the problem is you weren't counting until 2013?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is this supposed to be a legitimate question ?  Really.  five and nineteen hundred versus five million.  Really.
Click to expand...


All semantics. Canceled? How about replaced. 

What is it when an insurance company says you can't have what you had last year because we don't offer it next year. Next year it will cost more. Next year the benefits and co-pays, and OOP and deductions will be different. 

That's happened every year that I have had health insurance.


----------



## Listening

eagle1462010 said:


> Yawn.............12 million losing insurance............I'm now one of them.............
> 
> My increase was 61% increase................Oh well, say's the libs, it must suck to be you and just ignore we are getting screwed over...................
> 
> Affordable Care Act.......................Wrong name..................It sure as hell isn't Affordable to Millions anymore...............But hey, if you are in the lower wage's they say it's great..................................................
> 
> Damaging those not damaged before the law, and still trying to Justify their BS.



Sorry to hear that.  You just got your policy "replaced".  Isn't that a nice way to t ell you to bend over and take the 61% increase ?


----------



## Indeependent

eagle1462010 said:


> Yawn.............12 million losing insurance............I'm now one of them.............
> 
> My increase was 61% increase................Oh well, say's the libs, it must suck to be you and just ignore we are getting screwed over...................
> 
> Affordable Care Act.......................Wrong name..................It sure as hell isn't Affordable to Millions anymore...............But hey, if you are in the lower wage's they say it's great..................................................
> 
> Damaging those not damaged before the law, and still trying to Justify their BS.



How many in your family and from what amount to what amount?

There have been a few good examples where middle class wage earners have gotten $500.00 or more a month increases; that's NOT affordable.


----------



## PMZ

Listening said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yawn.............12 million losing insurance............I'm now one of them.............
> 
> My increase was 61% increase................Oh well, say's the libs, it must suck to be you and just ignore we are getting screwed over...................
> 
> Affordable Care Act.......................Wrong name..................It sure as hell isn't Affordable to Millions anymore...............But hey, if you are in the lower wage's they say it's great..................................................
> 
> Damaging those not damaged before the law, and still trying to Justify their BS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry to hear that.  You just got your policy "replaced".  Isn't that a nice way to t ell you to bend over and take the 61% increase ?
Click to expand...


Write a letter to his insurance company who chose his rates. Or to his state government if he's in one of the states where regulation has been so lax that medical bankruptcies are commonplace. Or if the state failed its citizens by not establishing an exchange.


----------



## oreo

PMZ said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yawn.............12 million losing insurance............I'm now one of them.............
> 
> My increase was 61% increase................Oh well, say's the libs, it must suck to be you and just ignore we are getting screwed over...................
> 
> Affordable Care Act.......................Wrong name..................It sure as hell isn't Affordable to Millions anymore...............But hey, if you are in the lower wage's they say it's great..................................................
> 
> Damaging those not damaged before the law, and still trying to Justify their BS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you in a responsible State with an exchange?  Did you take advantage of it,  or the Federal exchange?  Was the 61% increase the least expensive option there?  Did you ask your former insurer what their increase is attributed to? Were there other benefit changes than those required by ACA? Did you have other changes that increased the insurance companies risk?
Click to expand...



What's up with you?  EVERYONE is complaining about the monthly premium cost of Obamacare--regardless if they're getting it on the state exchanges or the federal exchange.

I am another Coloradoan out of *250,000 of us* that are getting the policies we liked CANCELLED.  I was paying $238.00 per month for insurance.  I am 60 years old and healthy, choose a 10K deductible to keep my premiums low.  I don't paying for my own doctor's visits, or prescription medicine.  I have a $2500.00 coverage for emergency room visits--and my physicals each year are paid for by the insurer.  This is the Plan I liked and one that I could afford.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...-lose-health-insurance-plans-under-obamacare/

I went to my state Obamacare site--and my next choice is $495.00 per month with a 6K deductible.

So that's more than twice the premium that I was paying.  _The deductible at 6K is still too high for what I am paying in a monthly premium._

*This is NOTHING NEW--it's just that Americans are slowly finding out that the cough-cough Affordable Health care act is really NOT Affordable.
*



> Many Americans browsing the Obamacare exchanges are finding the Affordable Care Act isn't living up to its name.
> 
> It's not just premiums that are bringing up the costs.  Consumers are finding high deductibles, co-payments and other expenses that make the Obamacare policies seem more like catastrophic plans than comprehensive insurance.
> 
> Those picking a bronze plan, which carry the lowest monthly rates, may have to spend $5,000 or more before the insurance kicks in. The next highest level of coverage, the silver tier, can carry $2,000 deductibles. And once they hit their deductibles, policy holders still have to pay for doctor visits, lab tests and medication.


Are Obamacare plans affordable? - Nov. 21, 2013

_Now there is absolutely no problem with you--yourself getting on either your state exchange or the federal exchange to browse around for insurance coverage.  They'll probably count you in as an enrollee in the stats.  But if you see something that looks "affordable" let us know--_-


----------



## Listening

I was just in Manitou Spings this last weekend.  Can't get enough of that place.

Love it !


----------



## Listening

oreo said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yawn.............12 million losing insurance............I'm now one of them.............
> 
> My increase was 61% increase................Oh well, say's the libs, it must suck to be you and just ignore we are getting screwed over...................
> 
> Affordable Care Act.......................Wrong name..................It sure as hell isn't Affordable to Millions anymore...............But hey, if you are in the lower wage's they say it's great..................................................
> 
> Damaging those not damaged before the law, and still trying to Justify their BS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you in a responsible State with an exchange?  Did you take advantage of it,  or the Federal exchange?  Was the 61% increase the least expensive option there?  Did you ask your former insurer what their increase is attributed to? Were there other benefit changes than those required by ACA? Did you have other changes that increased the insurance companies risk?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What's up with you?  EVERYONE is complaining about the monthly premium cost of Obamacare--regardless if they're getting it on the state exchanges or the federal exchange.
> 
> I am another Coloradoan out of *250,000 of us* that are getting the policies we liked CANCELLED.  I was paying $238.00 per month for insurance.  I am 60 years old and healthy, choose a 10K deductible to keep my premiums low.  I don't paying for my own doctor's visits, or prescription medicine.  I have a $2500.00 coverage for emergency room visits--and my physicals each year are paid for by the insurer.  This is the Plan I liked and one that I could afford.
> Almost 250,000 Colo. residents lose health plans under ObamaCare | Fox News
> 
> I went to my state Obamacare site--and my next choice is $495.00 per month with a 6K deductible.
> 
> So that's more than twice the premium that I was paying.  _The deductible at 6K is still too high for what I am paying in a monthly premium._
> 
> *This is NOTHING NEW--it's just that Americans are slowly finding out that the cough-cough Affordable Health care act is really NOT Affordable.
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Many Americans browsing the Obamacare exchanges are finding the Affordable Care Act isn't living up to its name.
> 
> It's not just premiums that are bringing up the costs.  Consumers are finding high deductibles, co-payments and other expenses that make the Obamacare policies seem more like catastrophic plans than comprehensive insurance.
> 
> Those picking a bronze plan, which carry the lowest monthly rates, may have to spend $5,000 or more before the insurance kicks in. The next highest level of coverage, the silver tier, can carry $2,000 deductibles. And once they hit their deductibles, policy holders still have to pay for doctor visits, lab tests and medication.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are Obamacare plans affordable? - Nov. 21, 2013
> 
> _Now there is absolutely no problem with you--yourself getting on either your state exchange or the federal exchange to browse around for insurance coverage.  They'll probably count you in as an enrollee in the stats.  But if you see something that looks "affordable" let us know--_-
Click to expand...


It's all semantics.

You weren't cancelled.

You were f**ked.  It's not the same thing.


----------



## RKMBrown

Listening said:


> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you in a responsible State with an exchange?  Did you take advantage of it,  or the Federal exchange?  Was the 61% increase the least expensive option there?  Did you ask your former insurer what their increase is attributed to? Were there other benefit changes than those required by ACA? Did you have other changes that increased the insurance companies risk?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong the policies are being cancelled. Yes they by law now have to offer
> What's up with you?  EVERYONE is complaining about the monthly premium cost of Obamacare--regardless if they're getting it on the state exchanges or the federal exchange.
> 
> I am another Coloradoan out of *250,000 of us* that are getting the policies we liked CANCELLED.  I was paying $238.00 per month for insurance.  I am 60 years old and healthy, choose a 10K deductible to keep my premiums low.  I don't paying for my own doctor's visits, or prescription medicine.  I have a $2500.00 coverage for emergency room visits--and my physicals each year are paid for by the insurer.  This is the Plan I liked and one that I could afford.
> Almost 250,000 Colo. residents lose health plans under ObamaCare | Fox News
> 
> I went to my state Obamacare site--and my next choice is $495.00 per month with a 6K deductible.
> 
> So that's more than twice the premium that I was paying.  _The deductible at 6K is still too high for what I am paying in a monthly premium._
> 
> *This is NOTHING NEW--it's just that Americans are slowly finding out that the cough-cough Affordable Health care act is really NOT Affordable.
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Many Americans browsing the Obamacare exchanges are finding the Affordable Care Act isn't living up to its name.
> 
> It's not just premiums that are bringing up the costs.  Consumers are finding high deductibles, co-payments and other expenses that make the Obamacare policies seem more like catastrophic plans than comprehensive insurance.
> 
> Those picking a bronze plan, which carry the lowest monthly rates, may have to spend $5,000 or more before the insurance kicks in. The next highest level of coverage, the silver tier, can carry $2,000 deductibles. And once they hit their deductibles, policy holders still have to pay for doctor visits, lab tests and medication.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are Obamacare plans affordable? - Nov. 21, 2013
> 
> _Now there is absolutely no problem with you--yourself getting on either your state exchange or the federal exchange to browse around for insurance coverage.  They'll probably count you in as an enrollee in the stats.  But if you see something that looks "affordable" let us know--_-
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's all semantics.
> 
> You weren't cancelled.
> 
> You were f**ked.  It's not the same thing.
Click to expand...


People's policies are being cancelled because Obama made the policies they liked "illegal."  Additionally when they try to get a legal policy they are getting tied down and f**ked in the ass by the Obama machine.  The only reason it's just 5million getting screwed is because the rest of the people have exemptions from the democrat Rape on our society.


----------



## PMZ

oreo said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yawn.............12 million losing insurance............I'm now one of them.............
> 
> My increase was 61% increase................Oh well, say's the libs, it must suck to be you and just ignore we are getting screwed over...................
> 
> Affordable Care Act.......................Wrong name..................It sure as hell isn't Affordable to Millions anymore...............But hey, if you are in the lower wage's they say it's great..................................................
> 
> Damaging those not damaged before the law, and still trying to Justify their BS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you in a responsible State with an exchange?  Did you take advantage of it,  or the Federal exchange?  Was the 61% increase the least expensive option there?  Did you ask your former insurer what their increase is attributed to? Were there other benefit changes than those required by ACA? Did you have other changes that increased the insurance companies risk?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What's up with you?  EVERYONE is complaining about the monthly premium cost of Obamacare--regardless if they're getting it on the state exchanges or the federal exchange.
> 
> I am another Coloradoan out of *250,000 of us* that are getting the policies we liked CANCELLED.  I was paying $238.00 per month for insurance.  I am 60 years old and healthy, choose a 10K deductible to keep my premiums low.  I don't paying for my own doctor's visits, or prescription medicine.  I have a $2500.00 coverage for emergency room visits--and my physicals each year are paid for by the insurer.  This is the Plan I liked and one that I could afford.
> http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...-lose-health-insurance-plans-under-obamacare/
> 
> I went to my state Obamacare site--and my next choice is $495.00 per month with a 6K deductible.
> 
> So that's more than twice the premium that I was paying.  _The deductible at 6K is still too high for what I am paying in a monthly premium._
> 
> *This is NOTHING NEW--it's just that Americans are slowly finding out that the cough-cough Affordable Health care act is really NOT Affordable.
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Many Americans browsing the Obamacare exchanges are finding the Affordable Care Act isn't living up to its name.
> 
> It's not just premiums that are bringing up the costs.  Consumers are finding high deductibles, co-payments and other expenses that make the Obamacare policies seem more like catastrophic plans than comprehensive insurance.
> 
> Those picking a bronze plan, which carry the lowest monthly rates, may have to spend $5,000 or more before the insurance kicks in. The next highest level of coverage, the silver tier, can carry $2,000 deductibles. And once they hit their deductibles, policy holders still have to pay for doctor visits, lab tests and medication.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are Obamacare plans affordable? - Nov. 21, 2013
> 
> _Now there is absolutely no problem with you--yourself getting on either your state exchange or the federal exchange to browse around for insurance coverage.  They'll probably count you in as an enrollee in the stats.  But if you see something that looks "affordable" let us know--_-
Click to expand...


What you are ignoring is that there is simply no way that increases like that are attributable to ACA. Even though nothing would make you happier. 

Why don't you investigate rather than just falling for what Republican propaganda wants you to believe?


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong the policies are being cancelled. Yes they by law now have to offer
> What's up with you?  EVERYONE is complaining about the monthly premium cost of Obamacare--regardless if they're getting it on the state exchanges or the federal exchange.
> 
> I am another Coloradoan out of *250,000 of us* that are getting the policies we liked CANCELLED.  I was paying $238.00 per month for insurance.  I am 60 years old and healthy, choose a 10K deductible to keep my premiums low.  I don't paying for my own doctor's visits, or prescription medicine.  I have a $2500.00 coverage for emergency room visits--and my physicals each year are paid for by the insurer.  This is the Plan I liked and one that I could afford.
> Almost 250,000 Colo. residents lose health plans under ObamaCare | Fox News
> 
> I went to my state Obamacare site--and my next choice is $495.00 per month with a 6K deductible.
> 
> So that's more than twice the premium that I was paying.  _The deductible at 6K is still too high for what I am paying in a monthly premium._
> 
> *This is NOTHING NEW--it's just that Americans are slowly finding out that the cough-cough Affordable Health care act is really NOT Affordable.
> *
> 
> 
> Are Obamacare plans affordable? - Nov. 21, 2013
> 
> _Now there is absolutely no problem with you--yourself getting on either your state exchange or the federal exchange to browse around for insurance coverage.  They'll probably count you in as an enrollee in the stats.  But if you see something that looks "affordable" let us know--_-
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's all semantics.
> 
> You weren't cancelled.
> 
> You were f**ked.  It's not the same thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People's policies are being cancelled because Obama made the policies they liked "illegal."  Additionally when they try to get a legal policy they are getting tied down and f**ked in the ass by the Obama machine.  The only reason it's just 5million getting screwed is because the rest of the people have exemptions from the democrat Rape on our society.
Click to expand...


Everybody addicted to conservative media believes what you say. Nobody who keeps up with the news does. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## GHook93

RDD_1210 said:


> It is sad that this has to happen.
> 
> It's also sad that the GOP has convinced people of "death panels", "losing freedom" and all the other hysterical nonsense that you sheep believe, that have actually made you think you hate a law that is a Republican idea.
> 
> So yeah, it's sad that a campaign needs to be waged to combat such blatant misinformation.



What a weal argument. First, most the GOP silenced Palin wen she talked about the death panels, but you know what SHE WAS RIGHT! But that isn't even the big issue at the moment.

Second, the issues is more people are losing insurance than gaining it. People are losing their doctors. And of course premiums and deductibles are skyrocketing now going down. Obama sold this on keeping your insurance, keeping your doctor and reducing your premiums and deductibles. People are finding out first hand that it's not true. The incompetent roll out was icing on the cake!


----------



## PMZ

GHook93 said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is sad that this has to happen.
> 
> It's also sad that the GOP has convinced people of "death panels", "losing freedom" and all the other hysterical nonsense that you sheep believe, that have actually made you think you hate a law that is a Republican idea.
> 
> So yeah, it's sad that a campaign needs to be waged to combat such blatant misinformation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a weal argument. First, most the GOP silenced Palin wen she talked about the death panels, but you know what SHE WAS RIGHT! But that isn't even the big issue at the moment.
> 
> Second, the issues is more people are losing insurance than gaining it. People are losing their doctors. And of course premiums and deductibles are skyrocketing now going down. Obama sold this on keeping your insurance, keeping your doctor and reducing your premiums and deductibles. People are finding out first hand that it's not true. The incompetent roll out was icing on the cake!
Click to expand...


What Republicans wish was true. How come none of this trauma is being reported on the news?


----------



## dblack

PMZ said:


> Your scotoma is "respect for the traditional American values of equal protection, individual liberty and rule of law" which haven't changed one iota for 230+ years. *You use them as the bogieman to pursue lower taxes even in the face of facts that America is very competitive compared to any other country in value received and total tax rate.*
> 
> You and I are among the most free of any humans who have walked the planet.



WTF??? Where did I argue for lower taxes? I actually think we should raise taxes, across the board, for everyone equally, until the fucking budget is balanced. Then we can have an honest discussion about how much government we want, and how much we want to pay for it. Until we do that, we're simply living a lie.

You don't have the slightest idea what I want because you're preoccupied with a strawman tailored for your idiotic talking points. But I ain't him. I stand up for real liberal values in the face of the corporatism whores like you are cheering for.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's all semantics.
> 
> You weren't cancelled.
> 
> You were f**ked.  It's not the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People's policies are being cancelled because Obama made the policies they liked "illegal."  Additionally when they try to get a legal policy they are getting tied down and f**ked in the ass by the Obama machine.  The only reason it's just 5million getting screwed is because the rest of the people have exemptions from the democrat Rape on our society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everybody addicted to conservative media believes what you say. Nobody who keeps up with the news does.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
Click to expand...


Retarded piece of shit.


----------



## dblack




----------



## BDBoop

.


----------



## jy_piper

why pay all this money to be misdiagnosed by an inept doctor? do people realize the difference between theory and practice? implementation without motivation will insure quality responds in a negative way.  and about choices, i had choices of only four insurers.  since i assume they have contacts with each other, ill also assume they colluded to keep prices in line with each other while setting policies.  add in an inept government (which it is especially where i live in greater illinois) and i"ll will have a system in stagnation at best.   i live in area with a massive superfund site due to mineral extraction.  its been this way for fifty years in limbo, so long that anyone tied to doing anything about the cleaning up this toxic material that we all breath and drink inevitably has long ago been silenced by time.   a facility i worked at and was OSHA approved  every year was done so by a man who would be wined and dined and i saw a only a few times, all the while working with irritant chemicals that were sprayed in the air and i was required to apply without a face mask or even rubber gloves. so pardon me when i scoff at the hippocratic notions of helping my health, while in all reality might be only prolonging my suffering.  Great way to lower cost would be by getting rid of the best we can these negative factors to our health. Before someone bashes me let me say that i am as poor(monetarily strictly) as you you can be and by all accounts could get free care if i chose to.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> People's policies are being cancelled because Obama made the policies they liked "illegal."  Additionally when they try to get a legal policy they are getting tied down and f**ked in the ass by the Obama machine.  The only reason it's just 5million getting screwed is because the rest of the people have exemptions from the democrat Rape on our society.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everybody addicted to conservative media believes what you say. Nobody who keeps up with the news does.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Retarded piece of shit.
Click to expand...


I always so look forward to Brownies quote of the day.  Delightful wit and wisdom.


----------



## PMZ

jy_piper said:


> why pay all this money to be misdiagnosed by an inept doctor? do people realize the difference between theory and practice? implementation without motivation will insure quality responds in a negative way.  and about choices, i had choices of only four insurers.  since i assume they have contacts with each other, ill also assume they colluded to keep prices in line with each other while setting policies.  add in an inept government (which it is especially where i live in greater illinois) and i"ll will have a system in stagnation at best.   i live in area with a massive superfund site due to mineral extraction.  its been this way for fifty years in limbo, so long that anyone tied to doing anything about the cleaning up this toxic material that we all breath and drink inevitably has long ago been silenced by time.   a facility i worked at and was OSHA approved  every year was done so by a man who would be wined and dined and i saw a only a few times, all the while working with irritant chemicals that were sprayed in the air and i was required to apply without a face mask or even rubber gloves. so pardon me when i scoff at the hippocratic notions of helping my health, while in all reality might be only prolonging my suffering.  Great way to lower cost would be by getting rid of the best we can these negative factors to our health. Before someone bashes me let me say that i am as poor(monetarily strictly) as you you can be and by all accounts could get free care if i chose to.



As you've found, we each are ultimately responsible for our own health. When the limitation to our ability to do that, is what value other people put on hard work, society is willing to help. At least some are. Others are not willing but can be persuaded.


----------



## Listening

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> People's policies are being cancelled because Obama made the policies they liked "illegal."  Additionally when they try to get a legal policy they are getting tied down and f**ked in the ass by the Obama machine.  The only reason it's just 5million getting screwed is because the rest of the people have exemptions from the democrat Rape on our society.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everybody addicted to conservative media believes what you say. Nobody who keeps up with the news does.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Retarded piece of shit.
Click to expand...


I found this news to be interesting....

Reports: Obamacare Sticker Shock to Slam Families, Small Businesses - Guy Benson

The Associated Press' latest poll shows nearly half of all insured Americans reporting that Obamacare has already impacted their 2014 coverage. Within this group, nearly seven in ten point to rising premiums, and* nearly eight in ten place blame squarely on the new law.*

Now, I am sure we will hear the same refrain...

Fox News...
Fox News...
Fox News...

But this appears to be an AP poll.  And if the survey was done right (notice I can say "if"...unlike the left which will latch their lips onto anything they think will help their cause and suck on it till it does what they hope for), then some of those eight are liberals and democrats.

But it's all semantics.....


----------



## Listening

PMZ said:


> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you in a responsible State with an exchange?  Did you take advantage of it,  or the Federal exchange?  Was the 61% increase the least expensive option there?  Did you ask your former insurer what their increase is attributed to? Were there other benefit changes than those required by ACA? Did you have other changes that increased the insurance companies risk?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's up with you?  EVERYONE is complaining about the monthly premium cost of Obamacare--regardless if they're getting it on the state exchanges or the federal exchange.
> 
> I am another Coloradoan out of *250,000 of us* that are getting the policies we liked CANCELLED.  I was paying $238.00 per month for insurance.  I am 60 years old and healthy, choose a 10K deductible to keep my premiums low.  I don't paying for my own doctor's visits, or prescription medicine.  I have a $2500.00 coverage for emergency room visits--and my physicals each year are paid for by the insurer.  This is the Plan I liked and one that I could afford.
> Almost 250,000 Colo. residents lose health plans under ObamaCare | Fox News
> 
> I went to my state Obamacare site--and my next choice is $495.00 per month with a 6K deductible.
> 
> So that's more than twice the premium that I was paying.  _The deductible at 6K is still too high for what I am paying in a monthly premium._
> 
> *This is NOTHING NEW--it's just that Americans are slowly finding out that the cough-cough Affordable Health care act is really NOT Affordable.
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Many Americans browsing the Obamacare exchanges are finding the Affordable Care Act isn't living up to its name.
> 
> It's not just premiums that are bringing up the costs.  Consumers are finding high deductibles, co-payments and other expenses that make the Obamacare policies seem more like catastrophic plans than comprehensive insurance.
> 
> Those picking a bronze plan, which carry the lowest monthly rates, may have to spend $5,000 or more before the insurance kicks in. The next highest level of coverage, the silver tier, can carry $2,000 deductibles. And once they hit their deductibles, policy holders still have to pay for doctor visits, lab tests and medication.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are Obamacare plans affordable? - Nov. 21, 2013
> 
> _Now there is absolutely no problem with you--yourself getting on either your state exchange or the federal exchange to browse around for insurance coverage.  They'll probably count you in as an enrollee in the stats.  But if you see something that looks "affordable" let us know--_-
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you are ignoring is that there is simply no way that increases like that are attributable to ACA. Even though nothing would make you happier.
> 
> Why don't you investigate rather than just falling for what Republican propaganda wants you to believe?
Click to expand...


While I have you on ignore...I can still see you dumbass posts through quotes.

This one is beyond stupid......

You said "What you are ignoring is that there is simply no way that increases like that are attributable to ACA."

And here is someone's story (which is being repeated about a million times).

Sue Walker received the bad news in September from the insurer who handled her medical coverage in Jacksonville, Ill. She was told that to meet the requirements of the Affordable Care Act, her premium would go from $513 a month to $890. She also would be required to purchase insurance that included maternity benefits, even though Walker is 64 years old.​
I think you've got a Kool-Aid I.V.

Nobody cares what you post.  You've shown yourself to be meaningless as a thinker.


----------



## PMZ

Listening said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everybody addicted to conservative media believes what you say. Nobody who keeps up with the news does.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Retarded piece of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I found this news to be interesting....
> 
> Reports: Obamacare Sticker Shock to Slam Families, Small Businesses - Guy Benson
> 
> The Associated Press' latest poll shows nearly half of all insured Americans reporting that Obamacare has already impacted their 2014 coverage. Within this group, nearly seven in ten point to rising premiums, and* nearly eight in ten place blame squarely on the new law.*
> 
> Now, I am sure we will hear the same refrain...
> 
> Fox News...
> Fox News...
> Fox News...
> 
> But this appears to be an AP poll.  And if the survey was done right (notice I can say "if"...unlike the left which will latch their lips onto anything they think will help their cause and suck on it till it does what they hope for), then some of those eight are liberals and democrats.
> 
> But it's all semantics.....
Click to expand...


People complaining about health care costs as they renew their insurance is new this year how?

Oh yeah, the Republican appointed scapegoat that they've whined about for four years now. 

Same ol', same ol'.


----------



## PMZ

Listening said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's up with you?  EVERYONE is complaining about the monthly premium cost of Obamacare--regardless if they're getting it on the state exchanges or the federal exchange.
> 
> I am another Coloradoan out of *250,000 of us* that are getting the policies we liked CANCELLED.  I was paying $238.00 per month for insurance.  I am 60 years old and healthy, choose a 10K deductible to keep my premiums low.  I don't paying for my own doctor's visits, or prescription medicine.  I have a $2500.00 coverage for emergency room visits--and my physicals each year are paid for by the insurer.  This is the Plan I liked and one that I could afford.
> Almost 250,000 Colo. residents lose health plans under ObamaCare | Fox News
> 
> I went to my state Obamacare site--and my next choice is $495.00 per month with a 6K deductible.
> 
> So that's more than twice the premium that I was paying.  _The deductible at 6K is still too high for what I am paying in a monthly premium._
> 
> *This is NOTHING NEW--it's just that Americans are slowly finding out that the cough-cough Affordable Health care act is really NOT Affordable.
> *
> 
> 
> Are Obamacare plans affordable? - Nov. 21, 2013
> 
> _Now there is absolutely no problem with you--yourself getting on either your state exchange or the federal exchange to browse around for insurance coverage.  They'll probably count you in as an enrollee in the stats.  But if you see something that looks "affordable" let us know--_-
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you are ignoring is that there is simply no way that increases like that are attributable to ACA. Even though nothing would make you happier.
> 
> Why don't you investigate rather than just falling for what Republican propaganda wants you to believe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While I have you on ignore...I can still see you dumbass posts through quotes.
> 
> This one is beyond stupid......
> 
> You said "What you are ignoring is that there is simply no way that increases like that are attributable to ACA."
> 
> And here is someone's story (which is being repeated about a million times).
> 
> Sue Walker received the bad news in September from the insurer who handled her medical coverage in Jacksonville, Ill. She was told that to meet the requirements of the Affordable Care Act, her premium would go from $513 a month to $890. She also would be required to purchase insurance that included maternity benefits, even though Walker is 64 years old.​
> I think you've got a Kool-Aid I.V.
> 
> Nobody cares what you post.  You've shown yourself to be meaningless as a thinker.
Click to expand...


I speak for myself. You speak for Fox and Republican dogma. 

When, not if, they return to country over party, perhaps there will be a time when our views will coincide. In fact, I'm pretty sure that people like Boehner are waking up to the cost in elections of throwing the country under the bus to please their financial backers. 

It's a matter of time. Time that I plan to spend specifically not ignoring you and other propaganda peddlers.


----------



## Listening

PMZ said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Retarded piece of shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I found this news to be interesting....
> 
> Reports: Obamacare Sticker Shock to Slam Families, Small Businesses - Guy Benson
> 
> The Associated Press' latest poll shows nearly half of all insured Americans reporting that Obamacare has already impacted their 2014 coverage. Within this group, nearly seven in ten point to rising premiums, and* nearly eight in ten place blame squarely on the new law.*
> 
> Now, I am sure we will hear the same refrain...
> 
> Fox News...
> Fox News...
> Fox News...
> 
> But this appears to be an AP poll.  And if the survey was done right (notice I can say "if"...unlike the left which will latch their lips onto anything they think will help their cause and suck on it till it does what they hope for), then some of those eight are liberals and democrats.
> 
> But it's all semantics.....
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People complaining about health care costs as they renew their insurance is new this year how?
> 
> Oh yeah, the Republican appointed scapegoat that they've whined about for four years now.
> 
> Same ol', same ol'.
Click to expand...


I'll take that to mean you can't deny your bullshyt claim.

Back to ignoring you.

Missed that part where 8 in ten of those impacted blame Obamacare.....

How many people actually watch Fox News...... :Lol:


----------



## PMZ

Listening said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> I found this news to be interesting....
> 
> Reports: Obamacare Sticker Shock to Slam Families, Small Businesses - Guy Benson
> 
> The Associated Press' latest poll shows nearly half of all insured Americans reporting that Obamacare has already impacted their 2014 coverage. Within this group, nearly seven in ten point to rising premiums, and* nearly eight in ten place blame squarely on the new law.*
> 
> Now, I am sure we will hear the same refrain...
> 
> Fox News...
> Fox News...
> Fox News...
> 
> But this appears to be an AP poll.  And if the survey was done right (notice I can say "if"...unlike the left which will latch their lips onto anything they think will help their cause and suck on it till it does what they hope for), then some of those eight are liberals and democrats.
> 
> But it's all semantics.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People complaining about health care costs as they renew their insurance is new this year how?
> 
> Oh yeah, the Republican appointed scapegoat that they've whined about for four years now.
> 
> Same ol', same ol'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll take that to mean you can't deny your bullshyt claim.
> 
> Back to ignoring your sorry ass.
Click to expand...


My claim that people whine every year when they renew their health insurance and are confronted by the unaffordable cost of health care?

You're a beaut.


----------



## midcan5

Reality has escaped the minds of Americans today, they have lost their sense of country purpose and their humanity. 

'If Nikki White had been a resident of any other rich country, she would be alive today.' 

"Around the time she graduated from college, Monique A. "Nikki" White contracted systemic lupus erythematosus; that's a serious disease, but one that modern medicine knows how to manage. If this bright, feisty, dazzling young woman had lived in, say, Japan-the world's second-richest nation-or Germany (third richest), or Britain, France, Italy, Spain, Canada, Sweden, etc., the health care systems there would have given her the standard treatment for lupus, and she could have lived a normal life span. But Nikki White was a citizen of the world's richest country, the United States of America. Once she was sick, she couldn't get health insurance. Like tens of millions of her fellow Americans, she had too much money to qualify for health care under welfare, but too little money to pay for the drugs and doctors she needed to stay alive. She spent the last months of her life frantically writing letters and filling out forms, pleading for help. When she died, Nikki White was thirty-two years old."  from  'Prologue: A Moral Question,' The Healing of America, T.R. Reid


----------



## Listening

midcan5 said:


> Reality has escaped the minds of Americans today, they have lost their sense of country purpose and their humanity.
> 
> 'If Nikki White had been a resident of any other rich country, she would be alive today.'
> 
> "Around the time she graduated from college, Monique A. "Nikki" White contracted systemic lupus erythematosus; that's a serious disease, but one that modern medicine knows how to manage. If this bright, feisty, dazzling young woman had lived in, say, Japan-the world's second-richest nation-or Germany (third richest), or Britain, France, Italy, Spain, Canada, Sweden, etc., the health care systems there would have given her the standard treatment for lupus, and she could have lived a normal life span. But Nikki White was a citizen of the world's richest country, the United States of America. Once she was sick, she couldn't get health insurance. Like tens of millions of her fellow Americans, she had too much money to qualify for health care under welfare, but too little money to pay for the drugs and doctors she needed to stay alive. She spent the last months of her life frantically writing letters and filling out forms, pleading for help. When she died, Nikki White was thirty-two years old."  from  'Prologue: A Moral Question,' The Healing of America, T.R. Reid



Humanity wasn't written into the Constitution.

Sorry.


----------



## PMZ

Listening said:


> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reality has escaped the minds of Americans today, they have lost their sense of country purpose and their humanity.
> 
> 'If Nikki White had been a resident of any other rich country, she would be alive today.'
> 
> "Around the time she graduated from college, Monique A. "Nikki" White contracted systemic lupus erythematosus; that's a serious disease, but one that modern medicine knows how to manage. If this bright, feisty, dazzling young woman had lived in, say, Japan-the world's second-richest nation-or Germany (third richest), or Britain, France, Italy, Spain, Canada, Sweden, etc., the health care systems there would have given her the standard treatment for lupus, and she could have lived a normal life span. But Nikki White was a citizen of the world's richest country, the United States of America. Once she was sick, she couldn't get health insurance. Like tens of millions of her fellow Americans, she had too much money to qualify for health care under welfare, but too little money to pay for the drugs and doctors she needed to stay alive. She spent the last months of her life frantically writing letters and filling out forms, pleading for help. When she died, Nikki White was thirty-two years old."  from  'Prologue: A Moral Question,' The Healing of America, T.R. Reid
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humanity wasn't written into the Constitution.
> 
> Sorry.
Click to expand...


Apparently, it was written into the hearts of mankind. Most, anyway.


----------



## Listening

The next big challenge for the nation's health care law may be sticker shock, when consumers find they're still paying high medical bills after buying low-cost insurance for the first time...With a Dec. 23 deadline looming for anyone who wants health insurance by Jan. 1, people may hurry to choose plans with cheap monthly payments on a new insurance marketplace. But they may be surprised, especially if they've never had coverage before, to find they're still on the hook for thousands of dollars in out-of-pocket "deductibles," a standard part of most insurance policies. Many will find they must pay costs up to $6,350 -- on top of their monthly premiums -- before their insurance pays anything for actual medical care. If they have a family, they may have to pay nearly $13,000 in an out-of-pocket "deductible" before insurance starts paying.

Reports: Obamacare Sticker Shock to Slam Families, Small Businesses - Guy Benson


----------



## PMZ

The job for the people at the Republican propaganda factory now is to pull from those in their army who might have been better off with the Republican do nothing plan,  and portray them as a majority.  Pretty ordinary propaganda kind of stuff.  

In this particular story,  the victim is someone who's a healthcare insurance neophyte,  who refuses all help,  goes for the cheapest plan,  gets expensively I'll,  and is surprised to find that his only option is the same only option as before ACA.  Medical bankruptcy. 

Proving beyond doubt that the Democrat solution is not perfect,  just better than the Republican none solution.


----------



## PMZ

PMZ said:


> The job for the people at the Republican propaganda factory now is to pull from those in their army who might have been better off with the Republican do nothing plan,  and portray them as a majority.  Pretty ordinary propaganda kind of stuff.
> 
> In this particular story,  the victim is someone who's a healthcare insurance neophyte,  who refuses all help,  goes for the cheapest plan,  gets expensively ill,  and is surprised to find that his only option is the same only option as before ACA.  Medical bankruptcy.
> 
> Proving beyond doubt that the Democrat solution is not perfect,  just better than the Republican none solution.


----------



## Listening

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6LZm0wcHxCA]NJTV: New Jersey Residents Upset They Can't Keep Their Health Plans Because Of ObamaCare - YouTube[/ame]

And yet more of the millions of examples of people who's choices have been slashed by Obamacare.

The Associated Press' latest poll shows nearly half of all insured Americans reporting that Obamacare has already impacted their 2014 coverage. Within this group, nearly seven in ten point to rising premiums, and nearly eight in ten place blame squarely on the new law. As HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius finally admits that Obamacare will increase costs for "some" consumers, middle class families are girding their loins for the year to come. Democrats will eagerly point to a handful of success stories, wherein people managed to enroll in better coverage for less money. But the law was sold as a boon to all Americans -- a coruscating lie that has betrayed millions.

Reports: Obamacare Sticker Shock to Slam Families, Small Businesses - Guy Benson

Is someone going to say only republicans were hurt by this.  Don't think so.  

Just wait till the big one hits.

Think the canceled health policies hurt the Obamacare cause? There&#8217;s another political time bomb lurking that could explode not too long before next year&#8217;s elections: rate hikes for small businesses. Like the canceled individual health plans, it&#8217;s another example of a tradeoff that health care experts have long known about, as the new rules for health insurance prices create winners and losers. But most Americans won&#8217;t become aware of it until some small business employees learn that their premiums are going up because of a law called &#8212; oops &#8212; the Affordable Care Act...And the timing will be terrible for Democrats: A lot of those small businesses will have to start dealing with their new prices in October &#8212; just in time for Republicans to make it an issue in their mid-term election campaigns.

Obamacare...the gift that keeps on giving.

Maternity Insurance for a 64 year old woman.


----------



## PMZ

Listening said:


> NJTV: New Jersey Residents Upset They Can't Keep Their Health Plans Because Of ObamaCare - YouTube
> 
> And yet more of the millions of examples of people who's choices have been slashed by Obamacare.
> 
> The Associated Press' latest poll shows nearly half of all insured Americans reporting that Obamacare has already impacted their 2014 coverage. Within this group, nearly seven in ten point to rising premiums, and nearly eight in ten place blame squarely on the new law. As HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius finally admits that Obamacare will increase costs for "some" consumers, middle class families are girding their loins for the year to come. Democrats will eagerly point to a handful of success stories, wherein people managed to enroll in better coverage for less money. But the law was sold as a boon to all Americans -- a coruscating lie that has betrayed millions.
> 
> Reports: Obamacare Sticker Shock to Slam Families, Small Businesses - Guy Benson
> 
> Is someone going to say only republicans were hurt by this.  Don't think so.
> 
> Just wait till the big one hits.
> 
> Think the canceled health policies hurt the Obamacare cause? Theres another political time bomb lurking that could explode not too long before next years elections: rate hikes for small businesses. Like the canceled individual health plans, its another example of a tradeoff that health care experts have long known about, as the new rules for health insurance prices create winners and losers. But most Americans wont become aware of it until some small business employees learn that their premiums are going up because of a law called  oops  the Affordable Care Act...And the timing will be terrible for Democrats: A lot of those small businesses will have to start dealing with their new prices in October  just in time for Republicans to make it an issue in their mid-term election campaigns.
> 
> Obamacare...the gift that keeps on giving.
> 
> Maternity Insurance for a 64 year old woman.



Keep yelling  "FIRE" as you have continuously for five years.  Some day,  if you keep it up,  by chance,  there may be one.


----------



## Listening

Some frustrated consumers are sending premium payments to insurers who have never heard of them. Others say they will pass up federal subsidies and pay full price through insurers, while still others have given up altogether on the promise of health insurance by Jan. 1. Consternation and confusion over applications sent through the federal HealthCare.gov website continue into the last seven days before the Dec. 23 enrollment deadline. Consumers with health issues are particularly nervous about the prospect of not having insurance at the start of the new year. Federal assurances last week about a "special enrollment period" for people whose applications have been hung up on the site are little comfort as neither insurers nor consumers have any idea how this will work and who will qualify...While HHS said the number of errors in information forms sent to insurers are now close to zero, insurers say they continue to find errors, especially duplicate enrollments and cancellations from the same consumer with the same time stamp.

USA Today: On Obamacare, 'Consternation and Confusion' Still Reigns - Guy Benson


----------



## Listening

Obamacare Navigator Hasn't Signed Up Anyone Because It's Too Expensive | The Weekly Standard

"So far, no one," says the Obamacare navigator. "Thus far everybody has taken a look at the rates and they've walked out the door. There's sticker shock. They just can't afford it."


----------



## PMZ

Chicken Little has spoken.  The sky will fall.  Details at 11.


----------



## eagle1462010

PMZ said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yawn.............12 million losing insurance............I'm now one of them.............
> 
> My increase was 61% increase................Oh well, say's the libs, it must suck to be you and just ignore we are getting screwed over...................
> 
> Affordable Care Act.......................Wrong name..................It sure as hell isn't Affordable to Millions anymore...............But hey, if you are in the lower wage's they say it's great..................................................
> 
> Damaging those not damaged before the law, and still trying to Justify their BS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you in a responsible State with an exchange?  Did you take advantage of it,  or the Federal exchange?  Was the 61% increase the least expensive option there?  Did you ask your former insurer what their increase is attributed to? Were there other benefit changes than those required by ACA? Did you have other changes that increased the insurance companies risk?
Click to expand...


All States have exchanges............I'm not ready to give it my dang information until they get their stupid heads out of their asses on it.  I'm not giving out my personal data to them on web site that they are having bugs out the ass with.............

As far as the increase, I've posted the letter as received and it was due to the ACA..............

Give me a break Lib.  You KNOW DAMN GOOD AND WELL these increases are due to the new law.  It's all over the Damn news unless you have your head up Obama's butt.  And as stated my dang insurance was better than the gold plan as listed on the ACA.  Your Bronze and Silver plans are BS HIGH DEDUCT PLANS at a higher fucking price.

Stop BOOT licking the damn Law that you know causes damage.  Or go get your head surgically removed from Obama's Ass.


----------



## eagle1462010

Indeependent said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yawn.............12 million losing insurance............I'm now one of them.............
> 
> My increase was 61% increase................Oh well, say's the libs, it must suck to be you and just ignore we are getting screwed over...................
> 
> Affordable Care Act.......................Wrong name..................It sure as hell isn't Affordable to Millions anymore...............But hey, if you are in the lower wage's they say it's great..................................................
> 
> Damaging those not damaged before the law, and still trying to Justify their BS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many in your family and from what amount to what amount?
> 
> There have been a few good examples where middle class wage earners have gotten $500.00 or more a month increases; that's NOT affordable.
Click to expand...


Family of 3, Blue Cross Blue Shield.  Put the letter up a long while back in the thread.


----------



## Listening

eagle1462010 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yawn.............12 million losing insurance............I'm now one of them.............
> 
> My increase was 61% increase................Oh well, say's the libs, it must suck to be you and just ignore we are getting screwed over...................
> 
> Affordable Care Act.......................Wrong name..................It sure as hell isn't Affordable to Millions anymore...............But hey, if you are in the lower wage's they say it's great..................................................
> 
> Damaging those not damaged before the law, and still trying to Justify their BS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you in a responsible State with an exchange?  Did you take advantage of it,  or the Federal exchange?  Was the 61% increase the least expensive option there?  Did you ask your former insurer what their increase is attributed to? Were there other benefit changes than those required by ACA? Did you have other changes that increased the insurance companies risk?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All States have exchanges............I'm not ready to give it my dang information until they get their stupid heads out of their asses on it.  I'm not giving out my personal data to them on web site that they are having bugs out the ass with.............
> 
> As far as the increase, I've posted the letter as received and it was due to the ACA..............
> 
> Give me a break Lib.  You KNOW DAMN GOOD AND WELL these increases are due to the new law.  It's all over the Damn news unless you have your head up Obama's butt.  And as stated my dang insurance was better than the gold plan as listed on the ACA.  Your Bronze and Silver plans are BS HIGH DEDUCT PLANS at a higher fucking price.
> 
> Stop BOOT licking the damn Law that you know causes damage.  Or go get your head surgically removed from Obama's Ass.
Click to expand...


He's a dick and someone I am certain has grown old living off of others.

He talks about personal responsibility, but what he means is your personal responsibility to help him and his ilk so the welfare keeps on coming.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> Chicken Little has spoken.  The sky will fall.  Details at 11.



Retard piece of shit is stinking up the house again.


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vox said:
> 
> 
> 
> and more coverage, yes?
> LOL
> 
> you leftard shills are incredible in your brainwashed idiocy
> 
> sadly, not only leftards
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To be brainwashed you need a brain.
> 
> The cancelled policies happen every year.  I can recall that at the end of 2010, 2011, and 2012, there were five million people telling us that their policies were cancelled.  Oh, wait....that wasn't the case.
> 
> But it's still common or a "normal occurance".
> 
> Like I said...to be brainwashed....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell us where you got your multi year policies.  I've never seen one.
Click to expand...


As I keep explaining to this lying asshole [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION], there has *never* been a policy in world history that "cancels" after 1 year.

Why would a company want to lose your business after 1 year?!?!? 

Every single insurance policy in world history has been perpetual. You keep paying your premium, the coverage continues uninterrupted after each year. It's just a simple fact and this lying piece of shit believed he can convince the world otherwise by simply telling the same lie over and over.


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uh-oh  [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION]...more evidence that you're a moron who supports policies that are collapsing this nation...
> 
> With Affordable Care Act, Canceled Policies For New York Professionals
> "Cultural elite" that supported Obamacare are now being dropped
> 
> Many in New York's professional and cultural elite have long supported President Obama's health care plan. But now, to their surprise, thousands of writers, opera singers, music teachers, photographers, doctors, lawyers and others are learning that their health insurance plans are being canceled and they may have to pay more to get comparable coverage, _if_ they can find it.
> 
> http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/12/1...eled-policies-for-new-york-professionals.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People have more choice in health care companies and policies than ever before.
Click to expand...


And yet they are having their plans cancelled on them (after having the same plans for decades without any problems) and are having to pay a lot more for a new plan.

Didn't you Dumbocrats promise that Obamacare would bring *down* the cost of healthcare? Oh wait, that's right, you also promised "if you like your healthcare plan, you can keep your healthcare plan"


----------



## P@triot

"Idealism is fine, but as it approaches reality, the costs become prohibitive." -William F. Buckley


----------



## P@triot

Since the passage of Obamacare in 2010, many of the Presidents famous promises have been routinely broken. As he so ironically threatened in 2009, If you misrepresent whats in this plan, we will call you out. To that end, here are 10 promises of Obamacare that have already been broken.

*1. If you like your health care plan, youll be able to keep your health care plan, period.*

Reality:

Millions of Americans have lost and will lose their current coverage due to Obamacare.


4.7 million reported health insurance cancellations or changes of existing policies in 32 states.
*2. That means that no matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise to the American people: If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period.*

Reality:

Many Americans might not be able to keep their current doctor without paying extra.


Many plans offered on Obamacares exchanges have very limited provider networks.
*3. In an Obama administration, well lower premiums by up to $2,500 for a typical family per year.*

Reality:

Premiums for people purchasing coverage in the individual market have significantly _increased_ in a majority of states.


Family premiums for those with employer-based coverage have _increased_ by an average of $2,976 from 2009 to 2013.
*4. For the 85% and 90% of Americans who already have health insurance, this things already happened. And their only impact is that their insurance is stronger, better and more secure than it was before. Full stop. Thats it. They dont have to worry about anything else.*

Reality:

Obamacare imposes new benefit mandates on those with employer-sponsored coveragea majority of Americans.


Coverage mandates are leading to higher premiums and companies changing their plans to adapt to them.
*5. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase.*

Reality:

Obamacare contains 18 separate tax hikes, fees, and penalties, many of which heavily impact the middle class.


Among the taxes that will hit the middle class are the individual mandate tax, the medical device tax, and new penalties and limits on health savings accounts and flexible spending accounts.
*6. I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficitseither now or in the future.*

Reality: 

Obamacares new spending is unsustainable.


The GAO found that Obamacare would increase cost $6.2 trillion over the next 75 years.
*7. Whatever ideas exist in terms of bending the cost curve and starting to reduce costs for families, businesses, and government, those elements are in this bill.*

Reality: 


Health spending is still rising and is projected to grow at an average rate of 5.8% from 2012 to 2022.


Obamacares new entitlements will help drive greater health spending in 2014 and beyond.
*8. I will protect Medicare.*

Reality: 

Obamacare cuts Medicare spending.


Obamacare makes unprecedented and unrealistic payment reductions to Medicare providers and Medicare Advantage plans in order to finance the new spending in the law. The cuts amount to over $700 billion from 2013 to 2022.
*9. I will sign a universal health care bill into law by the end of my first term as president that will cover every American.*

Reality: 

Millions of Americans will remain uninsured.


Despite spending nearly $1.8 trillion in new spending from 2014 to 2023, the law falls far short of universal coverage. Indeed, Obamacare is projected by the CBO to leave 31 million uninsured after a decade of full implementation.
*10. So this law means more choice, more competition, lower costs for millions of Americans."*

Reality: 


Obamacare has not increased insurer competition or consumer choice. In the vast majority of states, the number of insurers competing in the states exchange is actually _less_ than the number of carriers that previously sold individual market policies in the state.


At the local level, for 35% of the nations counties, exchange enrollees will have a choice of plans from only two insurersa duopoly. In 17% of counties, consumers will have no choicea monopolyas only one carrier is offering coverage in the exchange.

Top 10 Broken Obamacare Promises


----------



## Meister

PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uh-oh  [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION]...more evidence that you're a moron who supports policies that are collapsing this nation...
> 
> With Affordable Care Act, Canceled Policies For New York Professionals
> "Cultural elite" that supported Obamacare are now being dropped
> 
> Many in New York's professional and cultural elite have long supported President Obama's health care plan. But now, to their surprise, thousands of writers, opera singers, music teachers, photographers, doctors, lawyers and others are learning that their health insurance plans are being canceled and they may have to pay more to get comparable coverage, _if_ they can find it.
> 
> http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/12/1...eled-policies-for-new-york-professionals.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People have more choice in health care companies and policies than ever before.
Click to expand...


Yet the choices of doctors and hospitals are limited under your messiah's care.

Obama promised people could keep their doctors. But in many states the new plans appear to offer a narrow choice of hospitals and doctors. Overall, it's shaping up as less choice than what people get through Medicare or employer-based coverage. Also, it can get complicated tracking down which medical providers are in what plans.
Limited patient choice next health overhaul issue


----------



## PMZ

Gee,  Republicans whining about Obamacare.  There is nothing new in the world.  Same ol', same ol'. 

When your only political friend is the bogieman,  I guess that you do what you have to do. 

I still wonder why I was never offered one of these multi year contracts that Rotweiner got all of the time.  He must be still paying 1970s rates.


----------



## Meister

PMZ said:


> Gee,  Republicans whining about Obamacare.  There is nothing new in the world.  Same ol', same ol'.
> 
> When your only political friend is the bogieman,  I guess that you do what you have to do.
> 
> I still wonder why I was never offered one of these multi year contracts that Rotweiner got all of the time.  He must be still paying 1970s rates.



Actually, if you were an honest troll (which you're not), you would have posted, "Gee,  Republicans and democrats whining about Obamacare."
You are the outlier and not mainstream.


----------



## PMZ

Meister said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gee,  Republicans whining about Obamacare.  There is nothing new in the world.  Same ol', same ol'.
> 
> When your only political friend is the bogieman,  I guess that you do what you have to do.
> 
> I still wonder why I was never offered one of these multi year contracts that Rotweiner got all of the time.  He must be still paying 1970s rates.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, if you were an honest troll (which you're not), you would have posted, "Gee,  Republicans and democrats whining about Obamacare."
> You are the outlier and not mainstream.
Click to expand...


It's close.  If Republicans relied on facts rather than propaganda,  it would not even be in the news.


----------



## Meister

PMZ said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gee,  Republicans whining about Obamacare.  There is nothing new in the world.  Same ol', same ol'.
> 
> When your only political friend is the bogieman,  I guess that you do what you have to do.
> 
> I still wonder why I was never offered one of these multi year contracts that Rotweiner got all of the time.  He must be still paying 1970s rates.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, if you were an honest troll (which you're not), you would have posted, "Gee,  Republicans and democrats whining about Obamacare."
> You are the outlier and not mainstream.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's close.  If Republicans relied on facts rather than propaganda,  it would not even be in the news.
Click to expand...

This post is an example on why people consider you no more than a board troll.  You ignore the facts and just continue on with your personal talking points.


----------



## PMZ

Meister said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, if you were an honest troll (which you're not), you would have posted, "Gee,  Republicans and democrats whining about Obamacare."
> You are the outlier and not mainstream.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's close.  If Republicans relied on facts rather than propaganda,  it would not even be in the news.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This post is an example on why people consider you no more than a board troll.  You ignore the facts and just continue on with your personal talking points.
Click to expand...


Apparently somebody appointed you keeper of truth? 

I missed that vote.


----------



## oreo

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> To be brainwashed you need a brain.
> 
> The cancelled policies happen every year.  I can recall that at the end of 2010, 2011, and 2012, there were five million people telling us that their policies were cancelled.  Oh, wait....that wasn't the case.
> 
> But it's still common or a "normal occurance".
> 
> Like I said...to be brainwashed....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell us where you got your multi year policies.  I've never seen one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I keep explaining to this lying asshole [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION], there has *never* been a policy in world history that "cancels" after 1 year.
> 
> Why would a company want to lose your business after 1 year?!?!?
> 
> Every single insurance policy in world history has been perpetual. You keep paying your premium, the coverage continues uninterrupted after each year. It's just a simple fact and this lying piece of shit believed he can convince the world otherwise by simply telling the same lie over and over.
Click to expand...


Da--Duh--they're not making any money at it- is the answer to your question.  People who are in business HAVE to make money to stay in business.  And IF Americans do not sign up in MASS for Obamacare--especially the 18-34 age group--insurers have already notified us that they won't be making any money.  Therefore next year, they will be forced to raise premiums making it un-affordable to about everyone.


----------



## PMZ

Here's the real world,  rather than the Republican world,  reporting on ACA. 

http://nyti.ms/1fnQGwg


----------



## Dante

Harp all they want, rightwingers have latched on to another Ben Ghazzi.  LOL

Administration: Obamacare Site Running Smoothly | FOX8.com


----------



## PMZ

Dante said:


> Harp all they want, rightwingers have latched on to another Ben Ghazzi.  LOL
> 
> Administration: Obamacare Site Running Smoothly | FOX8.com



It's been so long since they've made any point that stuck,  they're getting really frustrated.  But they tell each other that they're winning the hearts and minds of those that they've pledged to hate. 

It is the most bizarre chapter of American politics.


----------



## Dante

PMZ said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> Harp all they want, rightwingers have latched on to another Ben Ghazzi.  LOL
> 
> Administration: Obamacare Site Running Smoothly | FOX8.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's been so long since they've made any point that stuck,  they're getting really frustrated.  But they tell each other that they're winning the hearts and minds of those that they've pledged to hate.
> 
> It is the most bizarre chapter of American politics.
Click to expand...


Truly a "most bizarre chapter of American politics"  and I thank the gods everyday that I get to witness it first hand


----------



## oreo

Dante said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> Harp all they want, rightwingers have latched on to another Ben Ghazzi.  LOL
> 
> Administration: Obamacare Site Running Smoothly | FOX8.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's been so long since they've made any point that stuck,  they're getting really frustrated.  But they tell each other that they're winning the hearts and minds of those that they've pledged to hate.
> 
> It is the most bizarre chapter of American politics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Truly a "most bizarre chapter of American politics"  and I thank the gods everyday that I get to witness it first hand
Click to expand...



Well, I am not stupid enough to believe an administration--with the person at the helm--Obama who has already *lied* to the American public over 40 times--to actually believe what they say now.

But you Lil Einstein's--go right ahead--and drink your Obama kool aid until it fries what brain you have left.-







*Welcome to your hope and change*


----------



## PMZ

oreo said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's been so long since they've made any point that stuck,  they're getting really frustrated.  But they tell each other that they're winning the hearts and minds of those that they've pledged to hate.
> 
> It is the most bizarre chapter of American politics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truly a "most bizarre chapter of American politics"  and I thank the gods everyday that I get to witness it first hand
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I am not stupid enough to believe an administration--with the person at the helm--Obama who has already *lied* to the American public over 40 times--to actually believe what they say now.
> 
> But you Lil Einstein's--go right ahead--and drink your Obama kool aid until it fries what brain you have left.-
Click to expand...


You are apparently stupid enough to believe the boobs and boobies reciting Republican propaganda on Fox.


----------



## dblack

PMZ said:


> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> Truly a "most bizarre chapter of American politics"  and I thank the gods everyday that I get to witness it first hand
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I am not stupid enough to believe an administration--with the person at the helm--Obama who has already *lied* to the American public over 40 times--to actually believe what they say now.
> 
> But you Lil Einstein's--go right ahead--and drink your Obama kool aid until it fries what brain you have left.-
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are apparently stupid enough to believe the boobs and boobies reciting Republican propaganda on Fox.
Click to expand...


What??? Hold on now. Are you saying Fox news isn't 'fair and balanced'?


----------



## PMZ

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I am not stupid enough to believe an administration--with the person at the helm--Obama who has already *lied* to the American public over 40 times--to actually believe what they say now.
> 
> But you Lil Einstein's--go right ahead--and drink your Obama kool aid until it fries what brain you have left.-
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are apparently stupid enough to believe the boobs and boobies reciting Republican propaganda on Fox.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What??? Hold on now. Are you saying Fox news isn't 'fair and balanced'?
Click to expand...


Like all entertainment,  they play to their audience.  

Their audience is not fair and balanced. 

Ergo...............


----------



## dblack

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are apparently stupid enough to believe the boobs and boobies reciting Republican propaganda on Fox.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What??? Hold on now. Are you saying Fox news isn't 'fair and balanced'?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like all entertainment,  they play to their audience.
> 
> Their audience is not fair and balanced.
> 
> Ergo...............
Click to expand...


That's conveniently circular.


----------



## oreo

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are apparently stupid enough to believe the boobs and boobies reciting Republican propaganda on Fox.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What??? Hold on now. Are you saying Fox news isn't 'fair and balanced'?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like all entertainment,  they play to their audience.
> 
> Their audience is not fair and balanced.
> 
> Ergo...............
Click to expand...


Well it doesn't all come from Fox News--does it?--   And that's why Obama's approval rating is in the toilet.  CNN and all of the major networks have been discussing the Obama LIE.  Apparently they have woken up from their 6 year Obama coma.  Unfortunately--you haven't yet.



> Sen. Dianne Feinstein on Tuesday joined the ranks of worried Democrats demanding that President Obama allow people to keep their current insurance policies. Feinstein&#8217;s move is bad news for an administration desperate for good news following the roll-out debacle of the Affordable Care Act&#8217;s health insurance exchange on Oct. 1, which has been plagued by technical problems.
> 
> In addition to the website snarl, thousands of individual policies have been cancelled by insurance companies to meet minimum coverage standards under Obama&#8217;s signature health care law.
> 
> The California Democrat is a political heavyweight, given her Senate seniority and reputation for working across the aisle. She won re-election in 2012 to a new six-year term, and so does not share the political fears of Democrats up for re-election in 2014 such as Sen. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, whose bill Feinstein will co-sponsor. Feinstein is the first blue-state Democrat to join the effort.
> 
> &#8220;Since the beginning of September, *I have received 30,842 calls, emails and letters from Californians, *many of whom are very distressed by cancellations of their insurance policies and who are *facing increased out-of-pocket costs.
> *
> &#8220;For example, a father from Rancho Mirage called and said: &#8216;I work three jobs to pay the bills for my wife and daughter. I got a letter that my plan is going from $420 to $943. I went to HealthCare.Gov, then Covered California. I researched my premiums. A policy almost identical to my old one is being offered for $863. I&#8217;m now being forced to come up with over $400 a month with 30 days&#8217; notice. Let me spell it out: I do not have the income to afford this.&#8217;


Dianne Feinstein joins effort to change Affordable Care Act - Politics Blog

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9yVy-RXhxQ]Bill Clinton: Obama Should Honor His Keep Your Plan Promise - YouTube[/ame]


*And the Lie of the Year award goes to Barack Obama*--reported by the Washington Post
Politifact awards ?Lie of the Year? to Obama

*PURPOSE OF OBAMACARE:*  to insure the unisured    *EFFECT OF OBAMACARE:*  uninsuring the insured

What was that again about Fox News---


----------



## PMZ

oreo said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> What??? Hold on now. Are you saying Fox news isn't 'fair and balanced'?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like all entertainment,  they play to their audience.
> 
> Their audience is not fair and balanced.
> 
> Ergo...............
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well it doesn't all come from Fox News--does it?--   And that's why Obama's approval rating is in the toilet.  CNN and all of the major networks have been discussing the Obama LIE.  Apparently they have woken up from their 6 year Obama coma.  Unfortunately--you haven't yet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sen. Dianne Feinstein on Tuesday joined the ranks of worried Democrats demanding that President Obama allow people to keep their current insurance policies. Feinsteins move is bad news for an administration desperate for good news following the roll-out debacle of the Affordable Care Acts health insurance exchange on Oct. 1, which has been plagued by technical problems.
> 
> In addition to the website snarl, thousands of individual policies have been cancelled by insurance companies to meet minimum coverage standards under Obamas signature health care law.
> 
> The California Democrat is a political heavyweight, given her Senate seniority and reputation for working across the aisle. She won re-election in 2012 to a new six-year term, and so does not share the political fears of Democrats up for re-election in 2014 such as Sen. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, whose bill Feinstein will co-sponsor. Feinstein is the first blue-state Democrat to join the effort.
> 
> Since the beginning of September, *I have received 30,842 calls, emails and letters from Californians, *many of whom are very distressed by cancellations of their insurance policies and who are *facing increased out-of-pocket costs.
> *
> For example, a father from Rancho Mirage called and said: I work three jobs to pay the bills for my wife and daughter. I got a letter that my plan is going from $420 to $943. I went to HealthCare.Gov, then Covered California. I researched my premiums. A policy almost identical to my old one is being offered for $863. Im now being forced to come up with over $400 a month with 30 days notice. Let me spell it out: I do not have the income to afford this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dianne Feinstein joins effort to change Affordable Care Act - Politics Blog
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9yVy-RXhxQ]Bill Clinton: Obama Should Honor His Keep Your Plan Promise - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> 
> *And the Lie of the Year award goes to Barack Obama*--reported by the Washington Post
> Politifact awards ?Lie of the Year? to Obama
> 
> *PURPOSE OF OBAMACARE:*  to insure the unisured    *EFFECT OF OBAMACARE:*  uninsuring the insured
> 
> What was that again about Fox News---
Click to expand...


He did what government could to accomplish what he promised.  Private insurance companies chose a different direction.  Apparently that was enough to fool Republicans.


----------



## asterism

BDBoop said:


> .



Or perhaps the states weren't gullible enough to believe this administrations promises for federal money.

The Obameter: Double funding for Federal Charter School Program and require more accountability | PolitiFact

The Obameter: Double federal funding for cancer research | PolitiFact

The Obameter: Fully fund the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) | PolitiFact

The Obameter: Provide a $1.5 billion fund to help states launch programs for paid family and medical leave | PolitiFact

The Obameter: Double funding for afterschool programs | PolitiFact


----------



## asterism

PMZ said:


> The job for the people at the Republican propaganda factory now is to pull from those in their army who might have been better off with the Republican do nothing plan,  and portray them as a majority.  Pretty ordinary propaganda kind of stuff.
> 
> In this particular story,  the victim is someone who's a healthcare insurance neophyte,  who refuses all help,  goes for the cheapest plan,  gets expensively I'll,  and is surprised to find that his only option is the same only option as before ACA.  Medical bankruptcy.
> 
> Proving beyond doubt that the Democrat solution is not perfect,  just better than the Republican none solution.



Except there is a Republican solution - actually a few of them:

The American Health Care Reform Act | Republican Study Committee (RSC)

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr2300

All these were presented by Republicans before Obama was even elected:

10 Steps to Transform Health Care - Issue Statements - United States Senator Mike Enzi

Dr. Coburn, colleagues introduce "Every American Insured Health Act" - Press Releases - Tom Coburn, M.D., United States Senator from Oklahoma

Bill Summary & Status - 111th Congress (2009 - 2010) - S.391 - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

http://www.coburn.senate.gov/public...&File_id=d2f94455-368c-45b5-8d56-fc195a833884

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr2300


----------



## asterism

Dante said:


> Harp all they want, rightwingers have latched on to another Ben Ghazzi.  LOL
> 
> Administration: Obamacare Site Running Smoothly | FOX8.com



Sure the Administration says it's running smoothly.  They said it was ready in September.  They said it was performing optimally in October - until the reports of all the problems came in.

It was down today when I was at a Humana seminar instructing insurance agents on the places to enter their NPN.  The healthcare.gov connection the insurance companies' portals  was down too.


----------



## asterism

PMZ said:


> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like all entertainment,  they play to their audience.
> 
> Their audience is not fair and balanced.
> 
> Ergo...............
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well it doesn't all come from Fox News--does it?--   And that's why Obama's approval rating is in the toilet.  CNN and all of the major networks have been discussing the Obama LIE.  Apparently they have woken up from their 6 year Obama coma.  Unfortunately--you haven't yet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sen. Dianne Feinstein on Tuesday joined the ranks of worried Democrats demanding that President Obama allow people to keep their current insurance policies. Feinsteins move is bad news for an administration desperate for good news following the roll-out debacle of the Affordable Care Acts health insurance exchange on Oct. 1, which has been plagued by technical problems.
> 
> In addition to the website snarl, thousands of individual policies have been cancelled by insurance companies to meet minimum coverage standards under Obamas signature health care law.
> 
> The California Democrat is a political heavyweight, given her Senate seniority and reputation for working across the aisle. She won re-election in 2012 to a new six-year term, and so does not share the political fears of Democrats up for re-election in 2014 such as Sen. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, whose bill Feinstein will co-sponsor. Feinstein is the first blue-state Democrat to join the effort.
> 
> Since the beginning of September, *I have received 30,842 calls, emails and letters from Californians, *many of whom are very distressed by cancellations of their insurance policies and who are *facing increased out-of-pocket costs.
> *
> For example, a father from Rancho Mirage called and said: I work three jobs to pay the bills for my wife and daughter. I got a letter that my plan is going from $420 to $943. I went to HealthCare.Gov, then Covered California. I researched my premiums. A policy almost identical to my old one is being offered for $863. Im now being forced to come up with over $400 a month with 30 days notice. Let me spell it out: I do not have the income to afford this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dianne Feinstein joins effort to change Affordable Care Act - Politics Blog
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9yVy-RXhxQ]Bill Clinton: Obama Should Honor His Keep Your Plan Promise - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> 
> *And the Lie of the Year award goes to Barack Obama*--reported by the Washington Post
> Politifact awards ?Lie of the Year? to Obama
> 
> *PURPOSE OF OBAMACARE:*  to insure the unisured    *EFFECT OF OBAMACARE:*  uninsuring the insured
> 
> What was that again about Fox News---
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He did what government could to accomplish what he promised.  Private insurance companies chose a different direction.  Apparently that was enough to fool Republicans.
Click to expand...


You may be correct that this is the best the government can do.

Run with that and enjoy your private Medicare Advantage plan.  It's good to note that you aren't choosing the "public option" you have and limiting yourself to Original Medicare.  Smart choice for you.


----------



## beagle9

Good stuff, now that's what I call slinging it with the truth in your hands...Get-r-done..


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like all entertainment,  they play to their audience.
> 
> Their audience is not fair and balanced.
> 
> Ergo...............
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well it doesn't all come from Fox News--does it?--   And that's why Obama's approval rating is in the toilet.  CNN and all of the major networks have been discussing the Obama LIE.  Apparently they have woken up from their 6 year Obama coma.  Unfortunately--you haven't yet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sen. Dianne Feinstein on Tuesday joined the ranks of worried Democrats demanding that President Obama allow people to keep their current insurance policies. Feinsteins move is bad news for an administration desperate for good news following the roll-out debacle of the Affordable Care Acts health insurance exchange on Oct. 1, which has been plagued by technical problems.
> 
> In addition to the website snarl, thousands of individual policies have been cancelled by insurance companies to meet minimum coverage standards under Obamas signature health care law.
> 
> The California Democrat is a political heavyweight, given her Senate seniority and reputation for working across the aisle. She won re-election in 2012 to a new six-year term, and so does not share the political fears of Democrats up for re-election in 2014 such as Sen. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, whose bill Feinstein will co-sponsor. Feinstein is the first blue-state Democrat to join the effort.
> 
> Since the beginning of September, *I have received 30,842 calls, emails and letters from Californians, *many of whom are very distressed by cancellations of their insurance policies and who are *facing increased out-of-pocket costs.
> *
> For example, a father from Rancho Mirage called and said: I work three jobs to pay the bills for my wife and daughter. I got a letter that my plan is going from $420 to $943. I went to HealthCare.Gov, then Covered California. I researched my premiums. A policy almost identical to my old one is being offered for $863. Im now being forced to come up with over $400 a month with 30 days notice. Let me spell it out: I do not have the income to afford this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dianne Feinstein joins effort to change Affordable Care Act - Politics Blog
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9yVy-RXhxQ]Bill Clinton: Obama Should Honor His Keep Your Plan Promise - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> 
> *And the Lie of the Year award goes to Barack Obama*--reported by the Washington Post
> Politifact awards ?Lie of the Year? to Obama
> 
> *PURPOSE OF OBAMACARE:*  to insure the unisured    *EFFECT OF OBAMACARE:*  uninsuring the insured
> 
> What was that again about Fox News---
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He did what government could to accomplish what he promised.  Private insurance companies chose a different direction.  Apparently that was enough to fool Republicans.
Click to expand...


My God do you love the taste of Obama's cock. It is remarkable sitting here watching you rub your nipples as you fellate this man who has lied to you over and over and over. He laughs his ass off at what a useful little idiot you are as you swallow his load. But at the end of the day, I guess parasites like you are just looking for freebies and could care less about anything else.


----------



## P@triot

*Taxpayers Shell Out $14,000 per Obamacare Enrollee*
Wednesday, December 11, 2013 5:12 PM | John Kartch

$5.2 billion for just 364,682 enrollees

In her testimony before Congress today, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius provided an updated dollar amount for the cost of HealthCare.gov: $677 million. In addition to the $677 million spent on the federal Obamacare website, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has shoveled $4.5 billion of taxpayer money to promote Obamacare on the state level.

HHS also released updated enrollment figures for Obamacare. According to the agency 364,682 people have selected a plan  the equivalent of putting an item in your online shopping cart and leaving it there.

That means the taxpayer cost per enrollee is over $14,000.

($4.5 billion + $677 million = $5,177,000,000 ÷ 364,682 = $14,196)

ATR Mobile: Taxpayers Shell Out $14,000 per Obamacare Enrollee


----------



## P@triot

Dante said:


> Truly a "most bizarre chapter of American politics"  and I thank the gods everyday that I get to witness it first hand



And Obama thanks God everyday that he has parasites like you who are also useful idiots. Truly a rare breed (it's astounding what ignorant, brain washed little MSNBC bitches you two are - all alone on a board getting your asses handed to you on a 50:2 ratio). 

But, deep down, you _both_ know you're wrong. When you've been smacked in the face so hard with an avalanche of facts that you can no longer make an intelligent argument, and instead are relegated to barking "Fox! Fox! Fox!" like someone suffering from Tourette's Syndrome, it's pretty obvious you've been defeated and you know it.


----------



## Geaux4it

And the band continues to play...

White House broadens Obamacare exemptions - Jennifer Haberkorn and Carrie Budoff Brown - POLITICO.com

White House broadens Obamacare exemptions

Millions of Americans who had their health plans cancelled will be exempt from the Obamacare individual mandate, the administration said Thursday &#8212; a surprise move that comes just before Monday&#8217;s deadline to sign up for coverage starting Jan. 1.
The administration also said people who had their plans cancelled could get a scaled-back catastrophic plan, which has more limited benefits than those included in other Obamacare health plans.

The move prompted sharp criticism from Republicans and concern from the insurance industry that another last-minute change would disrupt coverage and lead to tumult in the new marketplaces.

(Also on POLITICO: For Obamacare boosters, all memes are good memes)
&#8220;This latest rule change could cause significant instability in the marketplace and lead to further confusion and disruption for consumers,&#8221; said Karen Ignagni, president of America&#8217;s Health Insurance Plans, an industry trade group.


----------



## P@triot

Katzndogz said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> If obamacare wasn't such a catastrophic failure, why would democrats want to hand out free pot to everyone who signs up?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obamacare is only a catastrophe on Fox News.  They declared it such well before it became the law of the land,  and have never relented.
> 
> Thats why real America is tuning them out and relying on news shows to learn what's really going on in the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course they are.  That's why CNN and MSNBC have such massive ratings.
Click to expand...


Literally 3 out of every 4 posts [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] makes his only response is "this is Fox News's fault". What does that tell you?

He's so brainwashed by MSNBC, he has no facts, no information, no reality. And he can't accept them either. We have filled this thread with a mountain of evidence - link after link after link - to news sources all over the world. He has yet to provide even one. And in the face of all of the facts, his only response has been "Fox! Fox! Fox!".


----------



## P@triot

Geaux4it said:


> And the band continues to play...
> 
> White House broadens Obamacare exemptions - Jennifer Haberkorn and Carrie Budoff Brown - POLITICO.com
> 
> White House broadens Obamacare exemptions
> 
> Millions of Americans who had their health plans cancelled will be exempt from the Obamacare individual mandate, the administration said Thursday  a surprise move that comes just before Mondays deadline to sign up for coverage starting Jan. 1.
> The administration also said people who had their plans cancelled could get a scaled-back catastrophic plan, which has more limited benefits than those included in other Obamacare health plans.
> 
> The move prompted sharp criticism from Republicans and concern from the insurance industry that another last-minute change would disrupt coverage and lead to tumult in the new marketplaces.
> 
> (Also on POLITICO: For Obamacare boosters, all memes are good memes)
> This latest rule change could cause significant instability in the marketplace and lead to further confusion and disruption for consumers, said Karen Ignagni, president of Americas Health Insurance Plans, an industry trade group.



And even though this link is not from Fox, I can already tell you what PMZ's response is going to be:

PMZ: "Fox! Fox! Fox!"


----------



## P@triot

On page 196 here, we already have two more links (*neither* from Fox News) than PMZ has provided to back up his ignorant opinions in this entire thread.

And he will humiliate himself once again by yelling "Fox! Fox! Fox!"


----------



## Meister

Rottweiler said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obamacare is only a catastrophe on Fox News.  They declared it such well before it became the law of the land,  and have never relented.
> 
> That&#8217;s why real America is tuning them out and relying on news shows to learn what's really going on in the world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they are.  That's why CNN and MSNBC have such massive ratings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Literally 3 out of every 4 posts [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] makes his only response is "this is Fox News's fault". What does that tell you?
> 
> He's so brainwashed by MSNBC, he has no facts, no information, no reality. And he can't accept them either. We have filled this thread with a mountain of evidence - link after link after link - to news sources all over the world. He has yet to provide even one. And in the face of all of the facts, his only response has been "Fox! Fox! Fox!".
Click to expand...

PMZ is the board troll, the posts he/she/it delivers are no more than a child with a lame answer/excuse and when caught with facts ignores them or cries "FOX NEWS" 
I'm surprised that so many banter back and forth with him.
Troll may be exchanged with chew toy, I suppose.


----------



## PMZ

One thing is obvious.  Those nursed on Republican propaganda know exactly what they're getting but it tastes so good and nourishes their demanding control freak egos so they can't stop. 

They know that it's all bullshit but it feels so good to hear that,  despite your hatred for most of the rest of the world,  the Fox boobs and boobies love you and tell you that you're sooo smart. 

Nobody admits to their Fox or Limbaugh addiction. But the chorus singing in goose stepping harmony is indisputable evidence of their atrophied brains being on the feeding tube. 

The giant flushing sound that you hear is their movement swirling the bowl.


----------



## asterism

PMZ said:


> One thing is obvious.  Those nursed on Republican propaganda know exactly what they're getting but it tastes so good and nourishes their demanding control freak egos so they can't stop.
> 
> They know that it's all bullshit but it feels so good to hear that,  despite your hatred for most of the rest of the world,  the Fox boobs and boobies love you and tell you that you're sooo smart.
> 
> Nobody admits to their Fox or Limbaugh addiction. But the chorus singing in goose stepping harmony is indisputable evidence of their atrophied brains being on the feeding tube.
> 
> The giant flushing sound that you hear is their movement swirling the bowl.



Are you sure it's not the obvious display of big government incompetence?

Lookee here, Obama just granted exactly what the Republicans wanted during the shutdown:

The individual mandate no longer applies to people whose plans were canceled


----------



## PMZ

asterism said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> One thing is obvious.  Those nursed on Republican propaganda know exactly what they're getting but it tastes so good and nourishes their demanding control freak egos so they can't stop.
> 
> They know that it's all bullshit but it feels so good to hear that,  despite your hatred for most of the rest of the world,  the Fox boobs and boobies love you and tell you that you're sooo smart.
> 
> Nobody admits to their Fox or Limbaugh addiction. But the chorus singing in goose stepping harmony is indisputable evidence of their atrophied brains being on the feeding tube.
> 
> The giant flushing sound that you hear is their movement swirling the bowl.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you sure it's not the obvious display of big government incompetence?
> 
> Lookee here, Obama just granted exactly what the Republicans wanted during the shutdown:
> 
> The individual mandate no longer applies to people whose plans were canceled
Click to expand...


I read that it's nothing new.  Those provisions have always been part of ACA.  Just like the grandfathering provision.


----------



## Listening

The ACA is really in the tank.

It is beyond the rational mind that people are still saying "things are fine".


----------



## Bern80

PMZ said:


> One thing is obvious.  Those nursed on Republican propaganda know exactly what they're getting but it tastes so good and nourishes their demanding control freak egos so they can't stop.
> 
> They know that it's all bullshit but it feels so good to hear that,  despite your hatred for most of the rest of the world,  the Fox boobs and boobies love you and tell you that you're sooo smart.
> 
> Nobody admits to their Fox or Limbaugh addiction. But the chorus singing in goose stepping harmony is indisputable evidence of their atrophied brains being on the feeding tube.
> 
> The giant flushing sound that you hear is their movement swirling the bowl.



You just proved Rotweiler's point. You can't defend the policy itself. Even if you argue it's okay for the young and healthy to subsidize the old, sick and poor you still have the minisucle benefit provided to those people overshadowed by a mountain of negatives that have come with it. You can keep barking Fox news and Limbaugh until you're blue in the face. The fact is I don't have the time personally to watch or listen to either of them. One doesn't need to listen to either of them or right wing pundit or right wing news source to see the obvious problems with Obamacare. Until you can show that you can make a credible argument that despite what is in front of our faces, Obamacare is largely a success, instead of vomiting 'you're a Fox news parrot' endlessly, no one is going to take you seriously.


----------



## Listening

asterism said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> One thing is obvious.  Those nursed on Republican propaganda know exactly what they're getting but it tastes so good and nourishes their demanding control freak egos so they can't stop.
> 
> They know that it's all bullshit but it feels so good to hear that,  despite your hatred for most of the rest of the world,  the Fox boobs and boobies love you and tell you that you're sooo smart.
> 
> Nobody admits to their Fox or Limbaugh addiction. But the chorus singing in goose stepping harmony is indisputable evidence of their atrophied brains being on the feeding tube.
> 
> The giant flushing sound that you hear is their movement swirling the bowl.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you sure it's not the obvious display of big government incompetence?
> 
> Lookee here, Obama just granted exactly what the Republicans wanted during the shutdown:
> 
> The individual mandate no longer applies to people whose plans were canceled
Click to expand...


If you were a stockholder in a company and they screwed up a rollout the way Sebelius has, you'd sack the whole management team...if you even still have a company.

And yet she still motors on at the mouth while her brain is somewhere else.


----------



## asterism

PMZ said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> One thing is obvious.  Those nursed on Republican propaganda know exactly what they're getting but it tastes so good and nourishes their demanding control freak egos so they can't stop.
> 
> They know that it's all bullshit but it feels so good to hear that,  despite your hatred for most of the rest of the world,  the Fox boobs and boobies love you and tell you that you're sooo smart.
> 
> Nobody admits to their Fox or Limbaugh addiction. But the chorus singing in goose stepping harmony is indisputable evidence of their atrophied brains being on the feeding tube.
> 
> The giant flushing sound that you hear is their movement swirling the bowl.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you sure it's not the obvious display of big government incompetence?
> 
> Lookee here, Obama just granted exactly what the Republicans wanted during the shutdown:
> 
> The individual mandate no longer applies to people whose plans were canceled
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I read that it's nothing new.  Those provisions have always been part of ACA.  Just like the grandfathering provision.
Click to expand...


It appears you are ignorant about that which you support.  This is a new decision, hence the press release from HHS that actually communicates the policy that didn't exist before.

And it would have prevented the shutdown if done just 11 weeks ago.


----------



## PMZ

Bern80 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> One thing is obvious.  Those nursed on Republican propaganda know exactly what they're getting but it tastes so good and nourishes their demanding control freak egos so they can't stop.
> 
> They know that it's all bullshit but it feels so good to hear that,  despite your hatred for most of the rest of the world,  the Fox boobs and boobies love you and tell you that you're sooo smart.
> 
> Nobody admits to their Fox or Limbaugh addiction. But the chorus singing in goose stepping harmony is indisputable evidence of their atrophied brains being on the feeding tube.
> 
> The giant flushing sound that you hear is their movement swirling the bowl.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You just proved Rotweiler's point. You can't defend the policy itself. Even if you argue it's okay for the young and healthy to subsidize the old, sick and poor you still have the minisucle benefit provided to those people overshadowed by a mountain of negatives that have come with it. You can keep barking Fox news and Limbaugh until your blue in the face. The fact is I don't have the time personally to watch or listen to either of them. One doesn't need to listen to either of them or right wing pundit or right wing news source to see the obvious problems with Obamacare. Until you can show that you can make a credible argument that despite what is in front of our faces, Obamacare is largely a success, instead of vomiting 'you're a Fox news parrot' endlessly, no one is going to take you seriously.
Click to expand...


Obamacare is largely a success compared to doing nothing about the twice as expensive,  half as effective American health care non system.


----------



## PMZ

People are programmed to forget that when Republicans had power last,  they almost sunk the country.  We'll be paying their bills for many,  many,  many generations 

Despite that,  they like to pretend that the proper comparison is not between Democrat and Republican results,  but between Democrat results and imaginary perfection.  And they get away with that by doing nothing so there are no real alternatives to compare to. 

And the minions lap it up like mothers milk.


----------



## Ernie S.

The country was just fine until Reid/Pelosi


----------



## dblack

PMZ said:


> People are programmed to forget that when Republicans had power last,  they almost sunk the country.  We'll be paying their bills for many,  many,  many generations
> 
> Despite that,  they like to pretend that the proper comparison is not between Democrat and Republican results,  but between Democrat results and imaginary perfection.  And they get away with that by doing nothing so there are no real alternatives to compare to.
> 
> And the minions lap it up like mothers milk.



Yep. The same people are running both parties. Time to wake up.


----------



## PMZ

Ernie S. said:


> The country was just fine until Reid/Pelosi



World class delusion.  Any thinking person has to ask where does this level of denial come from?


----------



## Ernie S.

PMZ said:


> People are programmed to forget that when Republicans had power last,  they almost sunk the country.  We'll be paying their bills for many,  many,  many generations
> 
> Despite that,  they like to pretend that the proper comparison is not between Democrat and Republican results,  but between Democrat results and imaginary perfection.  And they get away with that by doing nothing so there are no real alternatives to compare to.
> 
> And the minions lap it up like mothers milk.



How does it feel to be the USMB member with the lowest reputation?


----------



## PMZ

Ernie S. said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> People are programmed to forget that when Republicans had power last,  they almost sunk the country.  We'll be paying their bills for many,  many,  many generations
> 
> Despite that,  they like to pretend that the proper comparison is not between Democrat and Republican results,  but between Democrat results and imaginary perfection.  And they get away with that by doing nothing so there are no real alternatives to compare to.
> 
> And the minions lap it up like mothers milk.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How does it feel to be the USMB member with the lowest reputation?
Click to expand...


Great.  Every neg rep is an accomplishment.  A truth revealed and confronted.  

I have no intention ever of playing nice to the enemies of my country.


----------



## Bern80

PMZ said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> One thing is obvious.  Those nursed on Republican propaganda know exactly what they're getting but it tastes so good and nourishes their demanding control freak egos so they can't stop.
> 
> They know that it's all bullshit but it feels so good to hear that,  despite your hatred for most of the rest of the world,  the Fox boobs and boobies love you and tell you that you're sooo smart.
> 
> Nobody admits to their Fox or Limbaugh addiction. But the chorus singing in goose stepping harmony is indisputable evidence of their atrophied brains being on the feeding tube.
> 
> The giant flushing sound that you hear is their movement swirling the bowl.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You just proved Rotweiler's point. You can't defend the policy itself. Even if you argue it's okay for the young and healthy to subsidize the old, sick and poor you still have the minisucle benefit provided to those people overshadowed by a mountain of negatives that have come with it. You can keep barking Fox news and Limbaugh until your blue in the face. The fact is I don't have the time personally to watch or listen to either of them. One doesn't need to listen to either of them or right wing pundit or right wing news source to see the obvious problems with Obamacare. Until you can show that you can make a credible argument that despite what is in front of our faces, Obamacare is largely a success, instead of vomiting 'you're a Fox news parrot' endlessly, no one is going to take you seriously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obamacare is largely a success compared to doing nothing about the twice as expensive,  half as effective American health care non system.
Click to expand...


So you're contention is that Obamacare has cut people's health care expenses in half? Are the millions of Americans complaining about their premiums and deductibles going up just lieing?


----------



## Bern80

PMZ said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> People are programmed to forget that when Republicans had power last,  they almost sunk the country.  We'll be paying their bills for many,  many,  many generations
> 
> Despite that,  they like to pretend that the proper comparison is not between Democrat and Republican results,  but between Democrat results and imaginary perfection.  And they get away with that by doing nothing so there are no real alternatives to compare to.
> 
> And the minions lap it up like mothers milk.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How does it feel to be the USMB member with the lowest reputation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Great.  Every neg rep is an accomplishment.  A truth revealed and confronted.
> 
> I have no intention ever of playing nice to the enemies of my country.
Click to expand...


YOU are the enemy of this contry and what it stands for PMZ. This country was NOT created so that some could obligate others to their needs. That is exactly what Obamacare does. It makes the young, healthy and middle class responsible for the health care costs of the sick and poor.


----------



## PMZ

Bern80 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You just proved Rotweiler's point. You can't defend the policy itself. Even if you argue it's okay for the young and healthy to subsidize the old, sick and poor you still have the minisucle benefit provided to those people overshadowed by a mountain of negatives that have come with it. You can keep barking Fox news and Limbaugh until your blue in the face. The fact is I don't have the time personally to watch or listen to either of them. One doesn't need to listen to either of them or right wing pundit or right wing news source to see the obvious problems with Obamacare. Until you can show that you can make a credible argument that despite what is in front of our faces, Obamacare is largely a success, instead of vomiting 'you're a Fox news parrot' endlessly, no one is going to take you seriously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obamacare is largely a success compared to doing nothing about the twice as expensive,  half as effective American health care non system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you're contention is that Obamacare has cut people's health care expenses in half? Are the millions of Americans complaining about their premiums and deductibles going up just lieing?
Click to expand...


It's a long way from a full solution. But covering those that we choose not to pay enough to access cost and cure effective health care should give us a big boost on the results side of the ledger. 

Maybe if and when the GOP becomes relevant enough again to win some elections,  they will lead the cost saving solutions.  

Do you think that's possible?


----------



## Bern80

PMZ said:


> People are programmed to forget that when Republicans had power last,  they almost sunk the country.  We'll be paying their bills for many,  many,  many generations
> 
> Despite that,  they like to pretend that the proper comparison is not between Democrat and Republican results,  but between Democrat results and imaginary perfection.  And they get away with that by doing nothing so there are no real alternatives to compare to.
> 
> And the minions lap it up like mothers milk.



I don't disagree Republicans did a lot to get us into the level of debt we're in. That doesn't make it okay for your boy Obama to be the single largest contributor to the that debt, EVER!


----------



## asterism

PMZ said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obamacare is largely a success compared to doing nothing about the twice as expensive,  half as effective American health care non system.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you're contention is that Obamacare has cut people's health care expenses in half? Are the millions of Americans complaining about their premiums and deductibles going up just lieing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a long way from a full solution. But covering those that we choose not to pay enough to access cost and cure effective health care should give us a big boost on the results side of the ledger.
> 
> Maybe if and when the GOP becomes relevant enough again to win some elections,  they will lead the cost saving solutions.
> 
> Do you think that's possible?
Click to expand...


How's your private insurance plan working for you?  Why aren't you choosing the "public option?"


----------



## Bern80

PMZ said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obamacare is largely a success compared to doing nothing about the twice as expensive,  half as effective American health care non system.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you're contention is that Obamacare has cut people's health care expenses in half? Are the millions of Americans complaining about their premiums and deductibles going up just lieing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a long way from a full solution. But covering those that we choose not to pay enough to access cost and cure effective health care should give us a big boost on the results side of the ledger.
> 
> Maybe if and when the GOP becomes relevant enough again to win some elections,  they will lead the cost saving solutions.
> 
> Do you think that's possible?
Click to expand...


No I really don't. Because in this country's political climate and the 'goodies' hole that politicians have dug themselves over the years, no politician can afford to take anything away from anyone.

Now you can say some solution isn't true. And we're actually seeing that now. This Obamacare solution is making the healthcare costs of millions of Americans go up significantly. And it isn't actually reducing the cost of health care either. That some people have to pay less for it because they're being subsidized is not the same thing as reducing the cost of health care.


----------



## PMZ

Bern80 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does it feel to be the USMB member with the lowest reputation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great.  Every neg rep is an accomplishment.  A truth revealed and confronted.
> 
> I have no intention ever of playing nice to the enemies of my country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YOU are the enemy of this contry and what it stands for PMZ. This country was NOT created so that some could obligate others to their needs. That is exactly what Obamacare does. It makes the young, healthy and middle class responsible for the health care costs of the sick and poor.
Click to expand...


We are the only developed country in the world that believes that ill health is an economic advantage.  

The evidence all points to that being wrong. 

ACA is no different than every other law on the books in that it prescribes negative consequences for irresponsible behavior.  You can recite all of the propaganda that you've been fed, 'till the cows come home,  but that irrefutable fact remains.  

If you really are compelled to irresponsibility,  the world is a tough place to live in.  

Prisons are full of people learning that lesson.


----------



## PMZ

Bern80 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> People are programmed to forget that when Republicans had power last,  they almost sunk the country.  We'll be paying their bills for many,  many,  many generations
> 
> Despite that,  they like to pretend that the proper comparison is not between Democrat and Republican results,  but between Democrat results and imaginary perfection.  And they get away with that by doing nothing so there are no real alternatives to compare to.
> 
> And the minions lap it up like mothers milk.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't disagree Republicans did a lot to get us into the level of debt we're in. That doesn't make it okay for your boy Obama to be the single largest contributor to the that debt, EVER!
Click to expand...


You'd be right on if debt was caused by dates.


----------



## PMZ

Bern80 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does it feel to be the USMB member with the lowest reputation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great.  Every neg rep is an accomplishment.  A truth revealed and confronted.
> 
> I have no intention ever of playing nice to the enemies of my country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YOU are the enemy of this contry and what it stands for PMZ. This country was NOT created so that some could obligate others to their needs. That is exactly what Obamacare does. It makes the young, healthy and middle class responsible for the health care costs of the sick and poor.
Click to expand...


"This country was NOT created so that some could obligate others to their needs." 

BTW,  I agree with this.  

That's why for everyone who's able to,  paying for their own health care, is so important. Perhaps some day business will go back to liberal growth and have an adequate job for everyone.  Then we can all be completely on our own rather than needing help.  But until then we can require personal responsibility for health care from those who can.


----------



## Bern80

PMZ said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Great.  Every neg rep is an accomplishment.  A truth revealed and confronted.
> 
> I have no intention ever of playing nice to the enemies of my country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOU are the enemy of this contry and what it stands for PMZ. This country was NOT created so that some could obligate others to their needs. That is exactly what Obamacare does. It makes the young, healthy and middle class responsible for the health care costs of the sick and poor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "This country was NOT created so that some could obligate others to their needs."
> 
> BTW,  I agree with this.
> 
> That's why for everyone who's able to,  paying for their own health care, is so important. Perhaps some day business will go back to liberal growth and have an adequate job for everyone.  Then we can all be completely on our own rather than needing help.  But until then we can require personal responsibility for health care from those who can.
Click to expand...


Except Obamacare doesn't do that. It make OTHER people responsible for someone who chooses not to take responsibility for themselves. You're refering to the individual mandate as making people take responsibility. The typical rebuttal to this is either, that's what people were doing before the mandate. We were still paying for those that couldn't. That begs the question why is this way of other people paying better than the old way of other people pay for people? The other rebuttal is, do we just let people die on the streets. The answer to that is, YES!. You make taking repsonsibility for yourself a necessity, not by making it law, but requiring it for survival. Coupled with that you make policy that actually reduces the cost of what health care services cost, instead of the stupid Obamacare solution, 'let's just get everyone covered by insurance and that will fix everything'. Clearly that isn't the case. It has had one positive impact: It has reduced the cost of insurance for those that couldn't afford it. Unfortunately that was to the detriment of almost everyone else and every other component of the system. And the right hates to say I told you so, but we told you so. Of course the costs for the sick and poor would go down. We knew that because the mechanism was there. We also knew what the reaction of the insurance industry was going to be as a result of those mechanisms. Costs for the middle class and healthy go up. Low and behold that's EXACTLY what happened. The only reason it happened anyway was because Obama had to lie. He couldn't just say 'My goal is to subsidize the health care costs elderly, sick and poor. To do that I'm going to have to put in some mechanisms that will raise the cost insurance and health care for everyone else.' Obviously Obamacare would have never passed if Obama was honest about it up front.


----------



## PMZ

asterism said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you're contention is that Obamacare has cut people's health care expenses in half? Are the millions of Americans complaining about their premiums and deductibles going up just lieing?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a long way from a full solution. But covering those that we choose not to pay enough to access cost and cure effective health care should give us a big boost on the results side of the ledger.
> 
> Maybe if and when the GOP becomes relevant enough again to win some elections,  they will lead the cost saving solutions.
> 
> Do you think that's possible?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How's your private insurance plan working for you?  Why aren't you choosing the "public option?"
Click to expand...


I shop on Medicare.gov and take the best deal.  I would think everyone would.  

I also don't believe for a second that private insurance would voluntarily offer what Medicare requires them to. 

I don't think that I've run into any dissatisfaction with Medicare except for young people who've fallen for Republican propaganda that it won't be there for them. 

I did however have to fend off a private company who signed me up without my permission.  It's a good thing that Medicare has rules against such shenanigans as people who aren't able to keep track of things could really get screwed by such crooks.


----------



## PMZ

Bern80 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you're contention is that Obamacare has cut people's health care expenses in half? Are the millions of Americans complaining about their premiums and deductibles going up just lieing?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a long way from a full solution. But covering those that we choose not to pay enough to access cost and cure effective health care should give us a big boost on the results side of the ledger.
> 
> Maybe if and when the GOP becomes relevant enough again to win some elections,  they will lead the cost saving solutions.
> 
> Do you think that's possible?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I really don't. Because in this country's political climate and the 'goodies' hole that politicians have dug themselves over the years, no politician can afford to take anything away from anyone.
> 
> Now you can say some solution isn't true. And we're actually seeing that now. This Obamacare solution is making the healthcare costs of millions of Americans go up significantly. And it isn't actually reducing the cost of health care either. That some people have to pay less for it because they're being subsidized is not the same thing as reducing the cost of health care.
Click to expand...


The cost of health care has changed as it does every year.  

The insurance to cover those costs has changed for many reasons. 

I don't see how it's possible,  when things stabilize, for there not to be a reduction in two significant costs. 

Medical bankruptcies because ACA requires coverage for the main causes of them. 

And emergency room care for non emergencies. 

The only cost increase possibility is from subsidies which I agree with as I believe that health is as close to a right as one can get. 

Others are welcome to other opinions but I feel if we are going to pay full time workers inadequate wages we have to make it up somehow.


----------



## PMZ

It used to be quite common to put workers in situations where their health,  or even life,  was put at risk by their work. We found that technology and regulations eliminated virtually all of that barbaric practice (except for the military although it's greatly improved there too). 

If we ask people to work at wages that make health care unaffordable for them,  aren't we recreating what we left behind decades ago?


----------



## asterism

PMZ said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a long way from a full solution. But covering those that we choose not to pay enough to access cost and cure effective health care should give us a big boost on the results side of the ledger.
> 
> Maybe if and when the GOP becomes relevant enough again to win some elections,  they will lead the cost saving solutions.
> 
> Do you think that's possible?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How's your private insurance plan working for you?  Why aren't you choosing the "public option?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I shop on Medicare.gov and take the best deal.  I would think everyone would.
> 
> I also don't believe for a second that private insurance would voluntarily offer what Medicare requires them to.
> 
> I don't think that I've run into any dissatisfaction with Medicare except for young people who've fallen for Republican propaganda that it won't be there for them.
> 
> I did however have to fend off a private company who signed me up without my permission.  It's a good thing that Medicare has rules against such shenanigans as people who aren't able to keep track of things could really get screwed by such crooks.
Click to expand...


You are again ignorant about that which you support.  Medicare Advantage plans were created specifically to provide a private alternative to Original Medicare.  Sure there are rules, just like any other business.

Glad to see you prefer the private sector for yourself.  I wish you'd just let others have the same choice.


----------



## asterism

PMZ said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a long way from a full solution. But covering those that we choose not to pay enough to access cost and cure effective health care should give us a big boost on the results side of the ledger.
> 
> Maybe if and when the GOP becomes relevant enough again to win some elections,  they will lead the cost saving solutions.
> 
> Do you think that's possible?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No I really don't. Because in this country's political climate and the 'goodies' hole that politicians have dug themselves over the years, no politician can afford to take anything away from anyone.
> 
> Now you can say some solution isn't true. And we're actually seeing that now. This Obamacare solution is making the healthcare costs of millions of Americans go up significantly. And it isn't actually reducing the cost of health care either. That some people have to pay less for it because they're being subsidized is not the same thing as reducing the cost of health care.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The cost of health care has changed as it does every year.
> 
> The insurance to cover those costs has changed for many reasons.
> 
> I don't see how it's possible,  when things stabilize, for there not to be a reduction in two significant costs.
> 
> Medical bankruptcies because ACA requires coverage for the main causes of them.
> 
> And emergency room care for non emergencies.
> 
> The only cost increase possibility is from subsidies which I agree with as I believe that health is as close to a right as one can get.
> 
> Others are welcome to other opinions but I feel if we are going to pay full time workers inadequate wages we have to make it up somehow.
Click to expand...


Do you honestly not see how a new federal entitlement program could become even more expensive?  Name one federal program that has reduced expenses.  This ought to be good.


----------



## PMZ

asterism said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> How's your private insurance plan working for you?  Why aren't you choosing the "public option?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I shop on Medicare.gov and take the best deal.  I would think everyone would.
> 
> I also don't believe for a second that private insurance would voluntarily offer what Medicare requires them to.
> 
> I don't think that I've run into any dissatisfaction with Medicare except for young people who've fallen for Republican propaganda that it won't be there for them.
> 
> I did however have to fend off a private company who signed me up without my permission.  It's a good thing that Medicare has rules against such shenanigans as people who aren't able to keep track of things could really get screwed by such crooks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are again ignorant about that which you support.  Medicare Advantage plans were created specifically to provide a private alternative to Original Medicare.  Sure there are rules, just like any other business.
> 
> Glad to see you prefer the private sector for yourself.  I wish you'd just let others have the same choice.
Click to expand...


People under 65 (except military) have no choice but the private sector for insurance. 

The government pays private insurance companies about a 15% premium for offering Medicare Advantage plans,  over what I currently pay into Medicare,  because they take over administration costs. 

Private companies share that 15% with policy holders in terms of some minor increased benefits.


----------



## PMZ

asterism said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No I really don't. Because in this country's political climate and the 'goodies' hole that politicians have dug themselves over the years, no politician can afford to take anything away from anyone.
> 
> Now you can say some solution isn't true. And we're actually seeing that now. This Obamacare solution is making the healthcare costs of millions of Americans go up significantly. And it isn't actually reducing the cost of health care either. That some people have to pay less for it because they're being subsidized is not the same thing as reducing the cost of health care.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The cost of health care has changed as it does every year.
> 
> The insurance to cover those costs has changed for many reasons.
> 
> I don't see how it's possible,  when things stabilize, for there not to be a reduction in two significant costs.
> 
> Medical bankruptcies because ACA requires coverage for the main causes of them.
> 
> And emergency room care for non emergencies.
> 
> The only cost increase possibility is from subsidies which I agree with as I believe that health is as close to a right as one can get.
> 
> Others are welcome to other opinions but I feel if we are going to pay full time workers inadequate wages we have to make it up somehow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you honestly not see how a new federal entitlement program could become even more expensive?  Name one federal program that has reduced expenses.  This ought to be good.
Click to expand...


Name one Federal program that private companies offer an alternative to.


----------



## asterism

PMZ said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I shop on Medicare.gov and take the best deal.  I would think everyone would.
> 
> I also don't believe for a second that private insurance would voluntarily offer what Medicare requires them to.
> 
> I don't think that I've run into any dissatisfaction with Medicare except for young people who've fallen for Republican propaganda that it won't be there for them.
> 
> I did however have to fend off a private company who signed me up without my permission.  It's a good thing that Medicare has rules against such shenanigans as people who aren't able to keep track of things could really get screwed by such crooks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are again ignorant about that which you support.  Medicare Advantage plans were created specifically to provide a private alternative to Original Medicare.  Sure there are rules, just like any other business.
> 
> Glad to see you prefer the private sector for yourself.  I wish you'd just let others have the same choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People under 65 (except military) have no choice but the private sector for insurance.
> 
> The government pays private insurance companies about a 15% premium for offering Medicare Advantage plans,  over what I currently pay into Medicare,  because they take over administration costs.
> 
> Private companies share that 15% with policy holders in terms of some minor increased benefits.
Click to expand...


More ignorance from you.

First, a history of Medicare Advantage.

An Economic History of Medicare Part C

Second, the policy holders receive all of their Medicare-covered healthcare from providers that are paid by the plan, not just some minor increased benefits:

What Medicare health plans cover | Medicare.gov

Third, here is a detailed explanation of revenue received by Medicare Advantage Plans (way way over and above 15% of the $104.90 you pay for Part B).

http://www.medpac.gov/documents/MedPAC_Payment_Basics_07_MA.pdf

http://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Health-Plans/MedicareAdvtgSpecRateStats/downloads/Advance2014.pdf

It averages about $830 plus incentives and adjustments.

How much will Medicare pay Medicare Advantage Plans in 2013?


----------



## asterism

PMZ said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> The cost of health care has changed as it does every year.
> 
> The insurance to cover those costs has changed for many reasons.
> 
> I don't see how it's possible,  when things stabilize, for there not to be a reduction in two significant costs.
> 
> Medical bankruptcies because ACA requires coverage for the main causes of them.
> 
> And emergency room care for non emergencies.
> 
> The only cost increase possibility is from subsidies which I agree with as I believe that health is as close to a right as one can get.
> 
> Others are welcome to other opinions but I feel if we are going to pay full time workers inadequate wages we have to make it up somehow.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you honestly not see how a new federal entitlement program could become even more expensive?  Name one federal program that has reduced expenses.  This ought to be good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Name one Federal program that private companies offer an alternative to.
Click to expand...


Original Medicare with the $1216 deductible, 20% co-insurance, and no out of pocket maximum.


----------



## Listening

asterism said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you honestly not see how a new federal entitlement program could become even more expensive?  Name one federal program that has reduced expenses.  This ought to be good.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Name one Federal program that private companies offer an alternative to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Original Medicare with the $1216 deductible, 20% co-insurance, and no out of pocket maximum.
Click to expand...


How about the speedy mail service ?  Postal Service is in deep financial doo-doo.


----------



## asterism

Listening said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Name one Federal program that private companies offer an alternative to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Original Medicare with the $1216 deductible, 20% co-insurance, and no out of pocket maximum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How about the speedy mail service ?  Postal Service is in deep financial doo-doo.
Click to expand...


Good point, I was getting there.

I'm currently waiting to his response to actual facts about Medicare Advantage in direct contrast to the fiction he posted.

15% premium over what he currently pays into Medicare?  Where did he get that fabrication?  Did he just make it up?  I can't find any reference to it anywhere.

But then again he seems to be a self-anointed expert in this while I'm a licensed and federally credentialed expert.


----------



## Listening

asterism said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No I really don't. Because in this country's political climate and the 'goodies' hole that politicians have dug themselves over the years, no politician can afford to take anything away from anyone.
> 
> Now you can say some solution isn't true. And we're actually seeing that now. This Obamacare solution is making the healthcare costs of millions of Americans go up significantly. And it isn't actually reducing the cost of health care either. That some people have to pay less for it because they're being subsidized is not the same thing as reducing the cost of health care.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The cost of health care has changed as it does every year.
> 
> The insurance to cover those costs has changed for many reasons.
> 
> I don't see how it's possible,  when things stabilize, for there not to be a reduction in two significant costs.
> 
> Medical bankruptcies because ACA requires coverage for the main causes of them.
> 
> And emergency room care for non emergencies.
> 
> The only cost increase possibility is from subsidies which I agree with as I believe that health is as close to a right as one can get.
> 
> Others are welcome to other opinions but I feel if we are going to pay full time workers inadequate wages we have to make it up somehow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you honestly not see how a new federal entitlement program could become even more expensive?  Name one federal program that has reduced expenses.  This ought to be good.
Click to expand...


I scrolled through the bottom and looked at his ignored posts to see if she would respond.  As usual, there was a deflection.

PMZ is an asshole that has no real argument of her own.  She simply parrots the drivel that falls out the asshole of the DailyKos.  She laps it up and proudly wears it on her forehead with such clarity that people can clearly see one word that sums it up...."IDIOT".

These are supposed to be debates.  She never debates.  These are supposed to be places that information is shared.  The only information we get from PMZ is that she has her head up her fat ass (which makes the fact she can type pretty remarkable....maybe her para helps her...don't know).

So good luck.  I'd prefer she not post to threads where people are trying to carry on conversations.  The bandwidth she takes up is appalling.

There is solace to know that once she dies, her remains will be composted to some garden where she will make vegetables more tasty.  Everyone has a contribution to make.


----------



## PMZ

asterism said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are again ignorant about that which you support.  Medicare Advantage plans were created specifically to provide a private alternative to Original Medicare.  Sure there are rules, just like any other business.
> 
> Glad to see you prefer the private sector for yourself.  I wish you'd just let others have the same choice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People under 65 (except military) have no choice but the private sector for insurance.
> 
> The government pays private insurance companies about a 15% premium for offering Medicare Advantage plans,  over what I currently pay into Medicare,  because they take over administration costs.
> 
> Private companies share that 15% with policy holders in terms of some minor increased benefits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More ignorance from you.
> 
> First, a history of Medicare Advantage.
> 
> An Economic History of Medicare Part C
> 
> Second, the policy holders receive all of their Medicare-covered healthcare from providers that are paid by the plan, not just some minor increased benefits:
> 
> What Medicare health plans cover | Medicare.gov
> 
> Third, here is a detailed explanation of revenue received by Medicare Advantage Plans (way way over and above 15% of the $104.90 you pay for Part B).
> 
> http://www.medpac.gov/documents/MedPAC_Payment_Basics_07_MA.pdf
> 
> http://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Health-Plans/MedicareAdvtgSpecRateStats/downloads/Advance2014.pdf
> 
> It averages about $830 plus incentives and adjustments.
> 
> How much will Medicare pay Medicare Advantage Plans in 2013?
Click to expand...


It depends completely on the county and the experience with regular Medicare covered recipients in that County. Just like all private insurance does. 

Florida and California counties are the most advantageous for Advantage plans.  Many counties offer no advantage.  

It's a complicated formula but one that all parties, the insured,  Medicare,  and private insurers benefit from.  Otherwise it wouldn't exist.


----------



## PMZ

asterism said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you honestly not see how a new federal entitlement program could become even more expensive?  Name one federal program that has reduced expenses.  This ought to be good.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Name one Federal program that private companies offer an alternative to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Original Medicare with the $1216 deductible, 20% co-insurance, and no out of pocket maximum.
Click to expand...


I don't know what original Medicare is. 

I do know that many more people choose Medicare over Medicare Advantage.  Some use private  Medicare Supplemental Insurance and Medicare.


----------



## PMZ

Listening said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Name one Federal program that private companies offer an alternative to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Original Medicare with the $1216 deductible, 20% co-insurance, and no out of pocket maximum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How about the speedy mail service ?  Postal Service is in deep financial doo-doo.
Click to expand...


Anybody required to deliver what and when they are would have similar problems.  That's why private companies take on only the profitable stuff.


----------



## Bern80

PMZ said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a long way from a full solution. But covering those that we choose not to pay enough to access cost and cure effective health care should give us a big boost on the results side of the ledger.
> 
> Maybe if and when the GOP becomes relevant enough again to win some elections,  they will lead the cost saving solutions.
> 
> Do you think that's possible?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No I really don't. Because in this country's political climate and the 'goodies' hole that politicians have dug themselves over the years, no politician can afford to take anything away from anyone.
> 
> Now you can say some solution isn't true. And we're actually seeing that now. This Obamacare solution is making the healthcare costs of millions of Americans go up significantly. And it isn't actually reducing the cost of health care either. That some people have to pay less for it because they're being subsidized is not the same thing as reducing the cost of health care.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The cost of health care has changed as it does every year.
> 
> The insurance to cover those costs has changed for many reasons.
> 
> I don't see how it's possible,  when things stabilize, for there not to be a reduction in two significant costs.
> 
> Medical bankruptcies because ACA requires coverage for the main causes of them.
> 
> And emergency room care for non emergencies.
> 
> The only cost increase possibility is from subsidies which I agree with as I believe that health is as close to a right as one can get.
> 
> Others are welcome to other opinions but I feel if we are going to pay full time workers inadequate wages we have to make it up somehow.
Click to expand...


If you look at the economic mechanisms in place, you should be asking yourself why _wouldn't_ prices go up? Not whether they'll go down. There are two fundamental aspects of the law that drive the cost of premiums up? The new coverage mandates telling insurance companies what they must cover. With added value comes added cost. Simple as that. The second part is the mandate on how insurance companies must perform their community ratings. No longer can they formulate this based on risk. The law requires them to take all of the people with the same plan in a given area and average out the cost of the premium for that plan. Obviously when averaged against the cost of sick people the premium costs of healthy people are going to go up. Next the pre-existing condition and no cancellation mandate. Insurance companies can't deny on that basis nor can they drop you if you get sick. While that might seem the right and compassionate thing to do, the reality is inescapable that it means now insurance companies have to actually pay for sick people. An expense for them that will go up meaning premium rates have to go up to cover it. 

So you all of these drivers in the law that make costs go up. With none that make them come down. Obama needs young, healthy people to sign up before he has a mutiny on his hands and gets exposed for lie number two. Not only did he tell is if you liked your plan you could keep your plan, we were told the whoel point was to make health care cost less. When you have all of these drivers that cause prices to go up what exactly is going to counteract that enough to make them come down? Forget about premium prices coming down. He needs enough young healthy people to sign up just to back to break even from the damage all of those other mandates have caused.


----------



## asterism

PMZ said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> People under 65 (except military) have no choice but the private sector for insurance.
> 
> The government pays private insurance companies about a 15% premium for offering Medicare Advantage plans,  over what I currently pay into Medicare,  because they take over administration costs.
> 
> Private companies share that 15% with policy holders in terms of some minor increased benefits.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More ignorance from you.
> 
> First, a history of Medicare Advantage.
> 
> An Economic History of Medicare Part C
> 
> Second, the policy holders receive all of their Medicare-covered healthcare from providers that are paid by the plan, not just some minor increased benefits:
> 
> What Medicare health plans cover | Medicare.gov
> 
> Third, here is a detailed explanation of revenue received by Medicare Advantage Plans (way way over and above 15% of the $104.90 you pay for Part B).
> 
> http://www.medpac.gov/documents/MedPAC_Payment_Basics_07_MA.pdf
> 
> http://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Health-Plans/MedicareAdvtgSpecRateStats/downloads/Advance2014.pdf
> 
> It averages about $830 plus incentives and adjustments.
> 
> How much will Medicare pay Medicare Advantage Plans in 2013?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It depends completely on the county and the experience with regular Medicare covered recipients in that County. Just like all private insurance does.
> 
> Florida and California counties are the most advantageous for Advantage plans.  Many counties offer no advantage.
> 
> It's a complicated formula but one that all parties, the insured,  Medicare,  and private insurers benefit from.  Otherwise it wouldn't exist.
Click to expand...


Correct.

It's a private alternative to the federal program and the average payment is around $830 per month per beneficiary.

I'd link to my federal exams on Medicare for you but that's not allowed.


----------



## asterism

PMZ said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Name one Federal program that private companies offer an alternative to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Original Medicare with the $1216 deductible, 20% co-insurance, and no out of pocket maximum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know what original Medicare is.
> 
> I do know that many more people choose Medicare over Medicare Advantage.  Some use private  Medicare Supplemental Insurance and Medicare.
Click to expand...


Well at least you admit that you're ignorant and uneducated on this topic so that's a start.

Perhaps you should argue from a position of informed knowledge instead of just making things up.


----------



## Bern80

PMZ said:


> It used to be quite common to put workers in situations where their health,  or even life,  was put at risk by their work. We found that technology and regulations eliminated virtually all of that barbaric practice (except for the military although it's greatly improved there too).
> 
> If we ask people to work at wages that make health care unaffordable for them,  aren't we recreating what we left behind decades ago?



You're arguing like it's a once sided scenario though. 'Well this what company x pays so I guess that's all I can ever get.' That's simply not true and for some people the risk is acceptable. Basically what you have here is scenario where an employer and worker come together and agree on compensation for work, whatever the conditions of that job may be. Then you, a third party step in and say well I don't think those terms are fair to the worker. What business is it of yours what working conditions someone else finds acceptable?

Further you just agreed with me that no man has the right to obligate another to their needs. Well that's exactly what you're doing when you insist government is supposed to pick up the tab for your health care. That's why is YOUR job to figure out how to earn whatever you need to earn to manage your life's expenses.


----------



## PMZ

I said that I believe that health care is a right.  If business chooses to provide for that,  that's great.  In fact that was the direction that the country was going until business decided to create unemployment to reduce labor costs. They dropped the ball.  

The only one left standing is government.  I hope that you're happy with that when it comes. 

Tell me this though.  Who benefits from a country with sub-optimal health.  Companies?  Families?  Communities?  Schools?  The wealthy?  The poor?    

Who?


----------



## Listening

Bern80 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> It used to be quite common to put workers in situations where their health,  or even life,  was put at risk by their work. We found that technology and regulations eliminated virtually all of that barbaric practice (except for the military although it's greatly improved there too).
> 
> If we ask people to work at wages that make health care unaffordable for them,  aren't we recreating what we left behind decades ago?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're arguing like it's a once sided scenario though. 'Well this what company x pays so I guess that's all I can ever get.' That's simply not true and for some people the risk is acceptable. Basically what you have here is scenario where an employer and worker come together and agree on compensation for work, whatever the conditions of that job may be. Then you, a third party step in and say well I don't think those terms are fair to the worker. What business is it of yours what working conditions someone else finds acceptable?
> 
> Further you just agreed with me that no man has the right to obligate another to their needs. Well that's exactly what you're doing when you insist government is supposed to pick up the tab for your health care. That's why is YOUR job to figure out how to earn whatever you need to earn to manage your life's expenses.
Click to expand...


We keep coming back to....who gets to set the standards.

The whole Junk Plan bullshyt was nothing more than an effort to cover up the BIG LIE.

This president is as arrogant as they come.  WTF does he think he is...telling us what is good and what isn't.  

If they want to claim it is in the public good.....outlaw cigarettes...then I'll believe that is what they want.  Then raise the drinking age to 25 and enforce it.

This is all nothing but collectivism in it's worst form.

This country will be in open revolt pretty soon.  It is unfortunate that those on the left don't realize they are going to wind up on the wrong end of bad situation (which starts with a loud bang) because they failed to realize that many in this country are not like the Europeans who just roll over and suck on whatever the government says.


----------



## Ernie S.

PMZ said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> People are programmed to forget that when Republicans had power last,  they almost sunk the country.  We'll be paying their bills for many,  many,  many generations
> 
> Despite that,  they like to pretend that the proper comparison is not between Democrat and Republican results,  but between Democrat results and imaginary perfection.  And they get away with that by doing nothing so there are no real alternatives to compare to.
> 
> And the minions lap it up like mothers milk.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How does it feel to be the USMB member with the lowest reputation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Great.  Every neg rep is an accomplishment.  A truth revealed and confronted.
> 
> I have no intention ever of playing nice to the enemies of my country.
Click to expand...


But you voted for obama twice? Liar!


----------



## Ernie S.

PMZ said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Great.  Every neg rep is an accomplishment.  A truth revealed and confronted.
> 
> I have no intention ever of playing nice to the enemies of my country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOU are the enemy of this contry and what it stands for PMZ. This country was NOT created so that some could obligate others to their needs. That is exactly what Obamacare does. It makes the young, healthy and middle class responsible for the health care costs of the sick and poor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "This country was NOT created so that some could obligate others to their needs."
> 
> BTW,  I agree with this.
> 
> *That's why for everyone who's able to,  paying for their own health care, is so important.* Perhaps some day business will go back to liberal growth and have an adequate job for everyone.  Then we can all be completely on our own rather than needing help.  But until then we can require personal responsibility for health care from those who can.
Click to expand...


There ya go. That's not what obamacare asks. You want young people to pay more so that you have coverage for preexisting conditions, so Mary Brown has maternity coverage, so the obese guy down the street can get the extra treatments he needs due to his sedentary life style, on the backs of the young and healthy.
It's another wealth redistribution scheme.
A single 25 year old guy needs only catastrophic coverage at maybe $50/month, but obamacare forces him to pay for the fat diabetic 60 year old who has smoked for 45 years and the woman to pops out a baby every year.


----------



## Listening

Chris Matthews: The Political Loser of the Year is... - Daniel Doherty

Chris Matthews seems a bit unnerved at the way things are going.

Good.  I hope he chokes on his Eggnog.


----------



## BlackSand

PMZ said:


> I have no intention ever of playing nice to the enemies of my country.



In light of the comment quoted ...

Did you know that masturbation as a form of self abuse is a sign of PTSD or Childhood Sexual Abuse? 
Where it may be none of my business that you have no intention of playing nicely with yourself ... Please seek immediate help.

.


----------



## Listening

BlackSand said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no intention ever of playing nice to the enemies of my country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In light of the comment quoted ...
> 
> Did you know that masturbation as a form of self abuse is a sign of PTSD or Childhood Sexual Abuse?
> Where it may be none of my business that you have no intention of playing nicely with yourself ... Please seek immediate help.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


ROTFLMAO......

That was funny

WAAT....really.  Good one.


----------



## P@triot

Bern80 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> One thing is obvious.  Those nursed on Republican propaganda know exactly what they're getting but it tastes so good and nourishes their demanding control freak egos so they can't stop.
> 
> They know that it's all bullshit but it feels so good to hear that,  despite your hatred for most of the rest of the world,  the Fox boobs and boobies love you and tell you that you're sooo smart.
> 
> Nobody admits to their Fox or Limbaugh addiction. But the chorus singing in goose stepping harmony is indisputable evidence of their atrophied brains being on the feeding tube.
> 
> The giant flushing sound that you hear is their movement swirling the bowl.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You just proved Rotweiler's point. You can't defend the policy itself. Even if you argue it's okay for the young and healthy to subsidize the old, sick and poor you still have the minisucle benefit provided to those people overshadowed by a mountain of negatives that have come with it. You can keep barking Fox news and Limbaugh until you're blue in the face. The fact is I don't have the time personally to watch or listen to either of them. One doesn't need to listen to either of them or right wing pundit or right wing news source to see the obvious problems with Obamacare. Until you can show that you can make a credible argument that despite what is in front of our faces, Obamacare is largely a success, instead of vomiting 'you're a Fox news parrot' endlessly, no one is going to take you seriously.
Click to expand...


----------



## P@triot

Bern80 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you're contention is that Obamacare has cut people's health care expenses in half? Are the millions of Americans complaining about their premiums and deductibles going up just lieing?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a long way from a full solution. But covering those that we choose not to pay enough to access cost and cure effective health care should give us a big boost on the results side of the ledger.
> 
> Maybe if and when the GOP becomes relevant enough again to win some elections,  they will lead the cost saving solutions.
> 
> Do you think that's possible?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I really don't. Because in this country's political climate and the 'goodies' hole that politicians have dug themselves over the years, no politician can afford to take anything away from anyone.
> 
> Now you can say some solution isn't true. And we're actually seeing that now. This Obamacare solution is making the healthcare costs of millions of Americans go up significantly. And it isn't actually reducing the cost of health care either. *That some people have to pay less for it because they're being subsidized is not the same thing as reducing the cost of health care*.
Click to expand...


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> People are programmed to forget that when Republicans had power last,  they almost sunk the country.  We'll be paying their bills for many,  many,  many generations
> 
> Despite that,  they like to pretend that the proper comparison is not between Democrat and Republican results,  but between Democrat results and imaginary perfection.  And they get away with that by doing nothing so there are no real alternatives to compare to.
> 
> And the minions lap it up like mothers milk.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How does it feel to be the USMB member with the lowest reputation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Great.  Every neg rep is an accomplishment.  A truth revealed and confronted.
> 
> I have no intention ever of playing nice to the enemies of my country.
Click to expand...


The sad truth is though, [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] considers the Constitution, freedom, and Americans "enemies".

He considers European socialism, control, and propaganda "allies".


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Great.  Every neg rep is an accomplishment.  A truth revealed and confronted.
> 
> I have no intention ever of playing nice to the enemies of my country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOU are the enemy of this contry and what it stands for PMZ. This country was NOT created so that some could obligate others to their needs. That is exactly what Obamacare does. It makes the young, healthy and middle class responsible for the health care costs of the sick and poor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "This country was NOT created so that some could obligate others to their needs."
> 
> BTW,  I agree with this.
> 
> That's why for everyone who's able to,  paying for their own health care, is so important. Perhaps some day business will go back to liberal growth and have an adequate job for everyone.  Then we can all be completely on our own rather than needing help.  But until then we can require personal responsibility for health care from those who can.
Click to expand...


And this goes right back to the first question I asked when you joined this thread - why do you refuse to create the very jobs you demand from others?!?

(Answer: because you're a greedy, lazy, asshole and a parasite - you never create, only consume and demand)


----------



## P@triot

Bern80 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> YOU are the enemy of this contry and what it stands for PMZ. This country was NOT created so that some could obligate others to their needs. That is exactly what Obamacare does. It makes the young, healthy and middle class responsible for the health care costs of the sick and poor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "This country was NOT created so that some could obligate others to their needs."
> 
> BTW,  I agree with this.
> 
> That's why for everyone who's able to,  paying for their own health care, is so important. Perhaps some day business will go back to liberal growth and have an adequate job for everyone.  Then we can all be completely on our own rather than needing help.  But until then we can require personal responsibility for health care from those who can.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except Obamacare doesn't do that. It make OTHER people responsible for someone who chooses not to take responsibility for themselves. You're refering to the individual mandate as making people take responsibility. The typical rebuttal to this is either, that's what people were doing before the mandate. We were still paying for those that couldn't. That begs the question why is this way of other people paying better than the old way of other people pay for people? The other rebuttal is, do we just let people die on the streets. The answer to that is, YES!. *You make taking repsonsibility for yourself a necessity, not by making it law, but requiring it for survival*. Coupled with that you make policy that actually reduces the cost of what health care services cost, instead of the stupid Obamacare solution, 'let's just get everyone covered by insurance and that will fix everything'. Clearly that isn't the case. It has had one positive impact: It has reduced the cost of insurance for those that couldn't afford it. Unfortunately that was to the detriment of almost everyone else and every other component of the system. And the right hates to say I told you so, but we told you so. Of course the costs for the sick and poor would go down. We knew that because the mechanism was there. We also knew what the reaction of the insurance industry was going to be as a result of those mechanisms. Costs for the middle class and healthy go up. Low and behold that's EXACTLY what happened. The only reason it happened anyway was because Obama had to lie. He couldn't just say 'My goal is to subsidize the health care costs elderly, sick and poor. To do that I'm going to have to put in some mechanisms that will raise the cost insurance and health care for everyone else.' Obviously Obamacare would have never passed if Obama was honest about it up front.
Click to expand...


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a long way from a full solution. But covering those that we choose not to pay enough to access cost and cure effective health care should give us a big boost on the results side of the ledger.
> 
> Maybe if and when the GOP becomes relevant enough again to win some elections,  they will lead the cost saving solutions.
> 
> Do you think that's possible?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How's your private insurance plan working for you?  Why aren't you choosing the "public option?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I shop on Medicare.gov and take the best deal.  I would think everyone would.
> 
> I also don't believe for a second that private insurance would voluntarily offer what Medicare requires them to.
> 
> I don't think that I've run into any dissatisfaction with *Medicare except for young people who've fallen for Republican propaganda that it won't be there for them*.
> 
> I did however have to fend off a private company who signed me up without my permission.  It's a good thing that Medicare has rules against such shenanigans as people who aren't able to keep track of things could really get screwed by such crooks.
Click to expand...


   

[ame=http://youtu.be/5XyK5dYNI_s]FLASHBACK 2010: President Obama Agrees with Rep Paul Ryan on Medicare Reform. - YouTube[/ame]

*Barack Obama: "Medicare - massive problem down the road - that's what our children need to worry about"* (0:49 into the video).

*Indisputable proof that @PMZ is the biggest bitch and dumbest fuck'n moron on USMB!!!!!*


----------



## P@triot

asterism said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are again ignorant about that which you support.  Medicare Advantage plans were created specifically to provide a private alternative to Original Medicare.  Sure there are rules, just like any other business.
> 
> Glad to see you prefer the private sector for yourself.  I wish you'd just let others have the same choice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People under 65 (except military) have no choice but the private sector for insurance.
> 
> The government pays private insurance companies about a 15% premium for offering Medicare Advantage plans,  over what I currently pay into Medicare,  because they take over administration costs.
> 
> Private companies share that 15% with policy holders in terms of some minor increased benefits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More ignorance from you.
> 
> First, a history of Medicare Advantage.
> 
> An Economic History of Medicare Part C
> 
> Second, the policy holders receive all of their Medicare-covered healthcare from providers that are paid by the plan, not just some minor increased benefits:
> 
> What Medicare health plans cover | Medicare.gov
> 
> Third, here is a detailed explanation of revenue received by Medicare Advantage Plans (way way over and above 15% of the $104.90 you pay for Part B).
> 
> http://www.medpac.gov/documents/MedPAC_Payment_Basics_07_MA.pdf
> 
> http://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Health-Plans/MedicareAdvtgSpecRateStats/downloads/Advance2014.pdf
> 
> It averages about $830 plus incentives and adjustments.
> 
> How much will Medicare pay Medicare Advantage Plans in 2013?
Click to expand...


Get ready [MENTION=24388]asterism[/MENTION] - any time somebody smacks [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] upside is stupid fuck'n head with facts (like you just did), he freaks out and yells "Fox! Fox! Fox!" like someone suffering from Tourette's...


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> I said that I believe that health care is a right.  If business chooses to provide for that,  that's great.



First of all, you don't get to believe what is a right. Rights are spelled out in the U.S. Constitution. If you and you're left-wing loons want healthcare to be a right, then properly and legally _amend_ the U.S. Constitution.



PMZ said:


> In fact that was the direction that the country was going until business decided to create unemployment to reduce labor costs. They dropped the ball.



Actually, the Dumbocrats decided to create unemployment when they taxed, regulated, and unionized companies out of business or overseas. If a business can't make money, they can't stay in business. It's a basic, fundamental reality that the average Dumbocrat is too dumb to comprehend.



PMZ said:


> The only one left standing is government.  I hope that you're happy with that when it comes.



Exactly. Dumbocrats collapsed the free market (and in the process, America) so that "the only one left standing is government". It's a sad reality.



PMZ said:


> Tell me this though.  Who benefits from a country with sub-optimal health.  Companies?  Families?  Communities?  Schools?  The wealthy?  The poor? Who?



No one. Which begs the question: why did Dumbicrats insist on destroying the greatest healthcare system in the world so that they could create a country with sub-optimal health? (Hint: we already covered the answer above)


----------



## PMZ

Bern80 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No I really don't. Because in this country's political climate and the 'goodies' hole that politicians have dug themselves over the years, no politician can afford to take anything away from anyone.
> 
> Now you can say some solution isn't true. And we're actually seeing that now. This Obamacare solution is making the healthcare costs of millions of Americans go up significantly. And it isn't actually reducing the cost of health care either. That some people have to pay less for it because they're being subsidized is not the same thing as reducing the cost of health care.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The cost of health care has changed as it does every year.
> 
> The insurance to cover those costs has changed for many reasons.
> 
> I don't see how it's possible,  when things stabilize, for there not to be a reduction in two significant costs.
> 
> Medical bankruptcies because ACA requires coverage for the main causes of them.
> 
> And emergency room care for non emergencies.
> 
> The only cost increase possibility is from subsidies which I agree with as I believe that health is as close to a right as one can get.
> 
> Others are welcome to other opinions but I feel if we are going to pay full time workers inadequate wages we have to make it up somehow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you look at the economic mechanisms in place, you should be asking yourself why _wouldn't_ prices go up? Not whether they'll go down. There are two fundamental aspects of the law that drive the cost of premiums up? The new coverage mandates telling insurance companies what they must cover. With added value comes added cost. Simple as that. The second part is the mandate on how insurance companies must perform their community ratings. No longer can they formulate this based on risk. The law requires them to take all of the people with the same plan in a given area and average out the cost of the premium for that plan. Obviously when averaged against the cost of sick people the premium costs of healthy people are going to go up. Next the pre-existing condition and no cancellation mandate. Insurance companies can't deny on that basis nor can they drop you if you get sick. While that might seem the right and compassionate thing to do, the reality is inescapable that it means now insurance companies have to actually pay for sick people. An expense for them that will go up meaning premium rates have to go up to cover it.
> 
> So you all of these drivers in the law that make costs go up. With none that make them come down. Obama needs young, healthy people to sign up before he has a mutiny on his hands and gets exposed for lie number two. Not only did he tell is if you liked your plan you could keep your plan, we were told the whoel point was to make health care cost less. When you have all of these drivers that cause prices to go up what exactly is going to counteract that enough to make them come down? Forget about premium prices coming down. He needs enough young healthy people to sign up just to back to break even from the damage all of those other mandates have caused.
Click to expand...


Keep in mind that ACA effects only two aspects of health care.  

It moves poor people from expensive,  ineffective emergency room care to mainstream PCPs.  

It reduces medical bankruptcies by requiring that insurance cover the conditions that typically  cause them. 

So health care insurance may go up from that coverage but it's offset by the cost of the bankruptcies.  Different accounts,  perhaps accrued to different people,  but savings nonetheless. 

Insurance is designed to cover those costs plus some administration fees. 

So where do health insurance premium increases come from?  

No more health care is being practiced.  The only change is that it's being done more cost effectively by mainstream PCPs.  And there are fewer medical bankruptcies causing uncollectable medical bills. 

You are assuming that insurance companies charge whatever they want to,  not what they anticipate paying out,  plus administration.


----------



## PMZ

asterism said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> More ignorance from you.
> 
> First, a history of Medicare Advantage.
> 
> An Economic History of Medicare Part C
> 
> Second, the policy holders receive all of their Medicare-covered healthcare from providers that are paid by the plan, not just some minor increased benefits:
> 
> What Medicare health plans cover | Medicare.gov
> 
> Third, here is a detailed explanation of revenue received by Medicare Advantage Plans (way way over and above 15% of the $104.90 you pay for Part B).
> 
> http://www.medpac.gov/documents/MedPAC_Payment_Basics_07_MA.pdf
> 
> http://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Health-Plans/MedicareAdvtgSpecRateStats/downloads/Advance2014.pdf
> 
> It averages about $830 plus incentives and adjustments.
> 
> How much will Medicare pay Medicare Advantage Plans in 2013?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It depends completely on the county and the experience with regular Medicare covered recipients in that County. Just like all private insurance does.
> 
> Florida and California counties are the most advantageous for Advantage plans.  Many counties offer no advantage.
> 
> It's a complicated formula but one that all parties, the insured,  Medicare,  and private insurers benefit from.  Otherwise it wouldn't exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correct.
> 
> It's a private alternative to the federal program and the average payment is around $830 per month per beneficiary.
> 
> I'd link to my federal exams on Medicare for you but that's not allowed.
Click to expand...


Why would Medicare allow Advantage programs if they were not saving money by allowing that alternative?


----------



## PMZ

asterism said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> Original Medicare with the $1216 deductible, 20% co-insurance, and no out of pocket maximum.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know what original Medicare is.
> 
> I do know that many more people choose Medicare over Medicare Advantage.  Some use private  Medicare Supplemental Insurance and Medicare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well at least you admit that you're ignorant and uneducated on this topic so that's a start.
> 
> Perhaps you should argue from a position of informed knowledge instead of just making things up.
Click to expand...


You conclude this because you make up a term and others don't know what you mean? 

Very bizarre.


----------



## PMZ

BlackSand said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no intention ever of playing nice to the enemies of my country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In light of the comment quoted ...
> 
> Did you know that masturbation as a form of self abuse is a sign of PTSD or Childhood Sexual Abuse?
> Where it may be none of my business that you have no intention of playing nicely with yourself ... Please seek immediate help.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Wierd post of the day completely disconnected from any topic posted here.


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> YOU are the enemy of this contry and what it stands for PMZ. This country was NOT created so that some could obligate others to their needs. That is exactly what Obamacare does. It makes the young, healthy and middle class responsible for the health care costs of the sick and poor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "This country was NOT created so that some could obligate others to their needs."
> 
> BTW,  I agree with this.
> 
> That's why for everyone who's able to,  paying for their own health care, is so important. Perhaps some day business will go back to liberal growth and have an adequate job for everyone.  Then we can all be completely on our own rather than needing help.  But until then we can require personal responsibility for health care from those who can.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And this goes right back to the first question I asked when you joined this thread - why do you refuse to create the very jobs you demand from others?!?
> 
> (Answer: because you're a greedy, lazy, asshole and a parasite - you never create, only consume and demand)
Click to expand...


Why don't you?  

Because you're a greedy, lazy, asshole and a parasite - you never create, only consume and demand?


----------



## Listening

PMZ said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no intention ever of playing nice to the enemies of my country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In light of the comment quoted ...
> 
> Did you know that masturbation as a form of self abuse is a sign of PTSD or Childhood Sexual Abuse?
> Where it may be none of my business that you have no intention of playing nicely with yourself ... Please seek immediate help.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wierd post of the day completely disconnected from any topic posted here.
Click to expand...


You should have no problem understanding it then.

I am sure there is clinic you can contact for help.

Just don't use sandpaper.


----------



## Listening

PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> "This country was NOT created so that some could obligate others to their needs."
> 
> BTW,  I agree with this.
> 
> That's why for everyone who's able to,  paying for their own health care, is so important. Perhaps some day business will go back to liberal growth and have an adequate job for everyone.  Then we can all be completely on our own rather than needing help.  But until then we can require personal responsibility for health care from those who can.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And this goes right back to the first question I asked when you joined this thread - why do you refuse to create the very jobs you demand from others?!?
> 
> (Answer: because you're a greedy, lazy, asshole and a parasite - you never create, only consume and demand)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't you?
> 
> Because you're a greedy, lazy, asshole and a parasite - you never create, only consume and demand?
Click to expand...


2nd grader bullshit.

You are one sad asswipe.


----------



## PMZ

Listening said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> In light of the comment quoted ...
> 
> Did you know that masturbation as a form of self abuse is a sign of PTSD or Childhood Sexual Abuse?
> Where it may be none of my business that you have no intention of playing nicely with yourself ... Please seek immediate help.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wierd post of the day completely disconnected from any topic posted here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should have no problem understanding it then.
> 
> I am sure there is clinic you can contact for help.
> 
> Just don't use sandpaper.
Click to expand...


The next time that you have nothing to say,  try saying nothing.


----------



## PMZ

Listening said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> And this goes right back to the first question I asked when you joined this thread - why do you refuse to create the very jobs you demand from others?!?
> 
> (Answer: because you're a greedy, lazy, asshole and a parasite - you never create, only consume and demand)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you?
> 
> Because you're a greedy, lazy, asshole and a parasite - you never create, only consume and demand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 2nd grader bullshit.
> 
> You are one sad asswipe.
Click to expand...


As compared to this example of advanced cognition that epitomizes the intellectual basis of conservatism.


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> "This country was NOT created so that some could obligate others to their needs."
> 
> BTW,  I agree with this.
> 
> That's why for everyone who's able to,  paying for their own health care, is so important. Perhaps some day business will go back to liberal growth and have an adequate job for everyone.  Then we can all be completely on our own rather than needing help.  But until then we can require personal responsibility for health care from those who can.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And this goes right back to the first question I asked when you joined this thread - why do you refuse to create the very jobs you demand from others?!?
> 
> (Answer: because you're a greedy, lazy, asshole and a parasite - you never create, only consume and demand)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't you?
> 
> Because you're a greedy, lazy, asshole and a parasite - you never create, only consume and demand?
Click to expand...


I'm not the one demanding "adequate jobs for everyone". Only an asshole (_you_) demands of others what you yourself are not willing to do.

If you want something done, you do it. You're the one who wants "adequate jobs for everyone", so you provide those "adequate jobs".

But like all Dumbocrats, you're too lazy to do what you want done. You want to demand others do it for you.


----------



## P@triot

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> How's your private insurance plan working for you?  Why aren't you choosing the "public option?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I shop on Medicare.gov and take the best deal.  I would think everyone would.
> 
> I also don't believe for a second that private insurance would voluntarily offer what Medicare requires them to.
> 
> I don't think that I've run into any dissatisfaction with *Medicare except for young people who've fallen for Republican propaganda that it won't be there for them*.
> 
> I did however have to fend off a private company who signed me up without my permission.  It's a good thing that Medicare has rules against such shenanigans as people who aren't able to keep track of things could really get screwed by such crooks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [ame=http://youtu.be/5XyK5dYNI_s]FLASHBACK 2010: President Obama Agrees with Rep Paul Ryan on Medicare Reform. - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> *Barack Obama: "Medicare - massive problem down the road - that's what our children need to worry about"* (0:49 into the video).
> 
> *Indisputable proof that @PMZ is the biggest bitch and dumbest fuck'n moron on USMB!!!!!*
Click to expand...


Hey @PMZ - I noticed you didn't address this post....


----------



## P@triot

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> How's your private insurance plan working for you?  Why aren't you choosing the "public option?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I shop on Medicare.gov and take the best deal.  I would think everyone would.
> 
> I also don't believe for a second that private insurance would voluntarily offer what Medicare requires them to.
> 
> I don't think that I've run into any dissatisfaction with *Medicare except for young people who've fallen for Republican propaganda that it won't be there for them*.
> 
> I did however have to fend off a private company who signed me up without my permission.  It's a good thing that Medicare has rules against such shenanigans as people who aren't able to keep track of things could really get screwed by such crooks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [ame=http://youtu.be/5XyK5dYNI_s]FLASHBACK 2010: President Obama Agrees with Rep Paul Ryan on Medicare Reform. - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> *Barack Obama: "Medicare - massive problem down the road - that's what our children need to worry about"* (0:49 into the video).
> 
> *Indisputable proof that @PMZ is the biggest bitch and dumbest fuck'n moron on USMB!!!!!*
Click to expand...


It's tough to go full on Tourette's mode and scream "Fox! Fox! Fox!" when the president (whose ass you can't lick enough) is on national television telling young people that Medicare won't be there for them.

How does it feel realizing you're an ignorant parasite who completely swallowed the Dumbocrat propaganda? How does it feel to realize "Fox! Fox! Fox!" has been telling the truth all along?


----------



## asterism

PMZ said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> The cost of health care has changed as it does every year.
> 
> The insurance to cover those costs has changed for many reasons.
> 
> I don't see how it's possible,  when things stabilize, for there not to be a reduction in two significant costs.
> 
> Medical bankruptcies because ACA requires coverage for the main causes of them.
> 
> And emergency room care for non emergencies.
> 
> The only cost increase possibility is from subsidies which I agree with as I believe that health is as close to a right as one can get.
> 
> Others are welcome to other opinions but I feel if we are going to pay full time workers inadequate wages we have to make it up somehow.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you look at the economic mechanisms in place, you should be asking yourself why _wouldn't_ prices go up? Not whether they'll go down. There are two fundamental aspects of the law that drive the cost of premiums up? The new coverage mandates telling insurance companies what they must cover. With added value comes added cost. Simple as that. The second part is the mandate on how insurance companies must perform their community ratings. No longer can they formulate this based on risk. The law requires them to take all of the people with the same plan in a given area and average out the cost of the premium for that plan. Obviously when averaged against the cost of sick people the premium costs of healthy people are going to go up. Next the pre-existing condition and no cancellation mandate. Insurance companies can't deny on that basis nor can they drop you if you get sick. While that might seem the right and compassionate thing to do, the reality is inescapable that it means now insurance companies have to actually pay for sick people. An expense for them that will go up meaning premium rates have to go up to cover it.
> 
> So you all of these drivers in the law that make costs go up. With none that make them come down. Obama needs young, healthy people to sign up before he has a mutiny on his hands and gets exposed for lie number two. Not only did he tell is if you liked your plan you could keep your plan, we were told the whoel point was to make health care cost less. When you have all of these drivers that cause prices to go up what exactly is going to counteract that enough to make them come down? Forget about premium prices coming down. He needs enough young healthy people to sign up just to back to break even from the damage all of those other mandates have caused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Keep in mind that ACA effects only two aspects of health care.
> 
> It moves poor people from expensive,  ineffective emergency room care to mainstream PCPs.
> 
> It reduces medical bankruptcies by requiring that insurance cover the conditions that typically  cause them.
> 
> So health care insurance may go up from that coverage but it's offset by the cost of the bankruptcies.  Different accounts,  perhaps accrued to different people,  but savings nonetheless.
> 
> Insurance is designed to cover those costs plus some administration fees.
> 
> So where do health insurance premium increases come from?
> 
> No more health care is being practiced.  The only change is that it's being done more cost effectively by mainstream PCPs.  And there are fewer medical bankruptcies causing uncollectable medical bills.
> 
> You are assuming that insurance companies charge whatever they want to,  not what they anticipate paying out,  plus administration.
Click to expand...


You have no evidence demonstrating that the ACA is reducing bankruptcies.  That's just another campaign promise.

You are also ignorant about what the ACA does - it's way more than just those two "key aspects."  It creates an arbitrary minimum for basic care (that is far from basic) and then forces everyone to be covered for those services even if they will never use it.  It removes risk based on health conditions from the actuarial metrics and instead only uses age.  It actually disincentivizes PCP usage by those less well off because in subsidized plans there is  co-payment to see a Physician but no co-payment for ER care.

Many people and I have been saying for years that the problem with the ACA isn't the goals as stated, it's the corrupt and unworkable implementation.

The ACA is likely to increase medical bankruptcies because only those with significant assets to protect would file for bankruptcy in the first place and that's not the poor, it's the middle class - the same middle class that now has much higher premiums, deductibles, and co-insurance.


----------



## asterism

PMZ said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> It depends completely on the county and the experience with regular Medicare covered recipients in that County. Just like all private insurance does.
> 
> Florida and California counties are the most advantageous for Advantage plans.  Many counties offer no advantage.
> 
> It's a complicated formula but one that all parties, the insured,  Medicare,  and private insurers benefit from.  Otherwise it wouldn't exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correct.
> 
> It's a private alternative to the federal program and the average payment is around $830 per month per beneficiary.
> 
> I'd link to my federal exams on Medicare for you but that's not allowed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would Medicare allow Advantage programs if they were not saving money by allowing that alternative?
Click to expand...


Because they do save money by removing the administrative burden for claims from Medicare and shouldering the risk.  Instead of a single entity bearing the entire risk for the country, individual companies operate thousands of plans in smaller areas and compete with each other.  Plans have to start out with adequate reserves to cover any unforeseen costs and if the finances don't work that one plan is phased out.  Reserves are used to pay for the overage the other plans in the area absorb the beneficiaries.


----------



## asterism

PMZ said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know what original Medicare is.
> 
> I do know that many more people choose Medicare over Medicare Advantage.  Some use private  Medicare Supplemental Insurance and Medicare.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well at least you admit that you're ignorant and uneducated on this topic so that's a start.
> 
> Perhaps you should argue from a position of informed knowledge instead of just making things up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You conclude this because you make up a term and others don't know what you mean?
> 
> Very bizarre.
Click to expand...


I didn't make up that term, it's a whole section in your Medicare & You handbook.  Start at Page 61:

http://www.medicare.gov/Pubs/pdf/10050.pdf

Here's the web version of that book:

Medicare & You | Medicare.gov

and here is the section of Medicare's site that explains Original Medicare:

How Original Medicare works | Medicare.gov


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I shop on Medicare.gov and take the best deal.  I would think everyone would.
> 
> I also don't believe for a second that private insurance would voluntarily offer what Medicare requires them to.
> 
> I don't think that I've run into any dissatisfaction with *Medicare except for young people who've fallen for Republican propaganda that it won't be there for them*.
> 
> I did however have to fend off a private company who signed me up without my permission.  It's a good thing that Medicare has rules against such shenanigans as people who aren't able to keep track of things could really get screwed by such crooks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [ame=http://youtu.be/5XyK5dYNI_s]FLASHBACK 2010: President Obama Agrees with Rep Paul Ryan on Medicare Reform. - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> *Barack Obama: "Medicare - massive problem down the road - that's what our children need to worry about"* (0:49 into the video).
> 
> *Indisputable proof that @PMZ is the biggest bitch and dumbest fuck'n moron on USMB!!!!!*
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's tough to go full on Tourette's mode and scream "Fox! Fox! Fox!" when the president (whose ass you can't lick enough) is on national television telling young people that Medicare won't be there for them.
> 
> How does it feel realizing you're an ignorant parasite who completely swallowed the Dumbocrat propaganda? How does it feel to realize "Fox! Fox! Fox!" has been telling the truth all along?
Click to expand...


Your disconnect with reality blinds you to the obvious point of that video.  Obama eviscerated Ryan in public for his purely political Medicare fraud that was based on when Democrats say X,  it's blasphemy,  when Republicans say  the same,  it's manna from heaven. 

Conservatives just can't imagine fixing problems.  They have two approaches for every one. 

Do nothing. 

Create richer rich and poorer poor. 

The fact that the electorate understands is evident in their voting. 

Tell you what.  If Democrats keep doing what they're doing,  and Republicans keep doing what they're doing,  the electorate will keep the middle class free,  and solving problems.


----------



## Listening

PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FLASHBACK 2010: President Obama Agrees with Rep Paul Ryan on Medicare Reform. - YouTube
> 
> *Barack Obama: "Medicare - massive problem down the road - that's what our children need to worry about"* (0:49 into the video).
> 
> *Indisputable proof that @PMZ is the biggest bitch and dumbest fuck'n moron on USMB!!!!!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's tough to go full on Tourette's mode and scream "Fox! Fox! Fox!" when the president (whose ass you can't lick enough) is on national television telling young people that Medicare won't be there for them.
> 
> How does it feel realizing you're an ignorant parasite who completely swallowed the Dumbocrat propaganda? How does it feel to realize "Fox! Fox! Fox!" has been telling the truth all along?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your disconnect with reality blinds you to the obvious point of that video.  Obama eviscerated Ryan in public for his purely political Medicare fraud that was based on when Democrats say X,  it's blasphemy,  when Republicans say  the same,  it's manna from heaven.
> 
> *Conservatives just can't imagine fixing problems.*  They have two approaches for every one.
> 
> Do nothing.
> 
> Create richer rich and poorer poor.
> 
> The fact that the electorate understands is evident in their voting.
> 
> Tell you what.  If Democrats keep doing what they're doing,  and Republicans keep doing what they're doing,  the electorate will keep the middle class free,  and solving problems.
Click to expand...


Democrats have a hard time figuring out there is a problem and when it does finally crawlu up their asses....their first response is to try and legislate it or regulate it.

It's a sad tale of a group of morons who don't understand the first thing about markets and economics.

And in their efforts they are the ones who create the barriers to entry that allow big businesses to flourish.

Obama, Ried, Pelosi, Biden and Co. were in one large daisy-chain with the insurance companies.  And yet somehow conservatives get blamed for want to stop them from transmitting AIDS to each other.

In your case, you stick your head up your ass because you are to lazy to find a sand pit.  Then all you do is "Fox Fox Fox...Do Nothing Do Nothing Do Nothing....Conservatives Conservatives Conservatives...my reality my reality my reality.

If your day job is being a clown,  I am sure you are in high demand.


----------



## PMZ

asterism said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> Correct.
> 
> It's a private alternative to the federal program and the average payment is around $830 per month per beneficiary.
> 
> I'd link to my federal exams on Medicare for you but that's not allowed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would Medicare allow Advantage programs if they were not saving money by allowing that alternative?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because they do save money by removing the administrative burden for claims from Medicare and shouldering the risk.  Instead of a single entity bearing the entire risk for the country, individual companies operate thousands of plans in smaller areas and compete with each other.  Plans have to start out with adequate reserves to cover any unforeseen costs and if the finances don't work that one plan is phased out.  Reserves are used to pay for the overage the other plans in the area absorb the beneficiaries.
Click to expand...


Insurance companies handle risk like gambling establishments do.  They avoid it altogether.  Thats called actuarial science.


----------



## PMZ

asterism said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you look at the economic mechanisms in place, you should be asking yourself why _wouldn't_ prices go up? Not whether they'll go down. There are two fundamental aspects of the law that drive the cost of premiums up? The new coverage mandates telling insurance companies what they must cover. With added value comes added cost. Simple as that. The second part is the mandate on how insurance companies must perform their community ratings. No longer can they formulate this based on risk. The law requires them to take all of the people with the same plan in a given area and average out the cost of the premium for that plan. Obviously when averaged against the cost of sick people the premium costs of healthy people are going to go up. Next the pre-existing condition and no cancellation mandate. Insurance companies can't deny on that basis nor can they drop you if you get sick. While that might seem the right and compassionate thing to do, the reality is inescapable that it means now insurance companies have to actually pay for sick people. An expense for them that will go up meaning premium rates have to go up to cover it.
> 
> So you all of these drivers in the law that make costs go up. With none that make them come down. Obama needs young, healthy people to sign up before he has a mutiny on his hands and gets exposed for lie number two. Not only did he tell is if you liked your plan you could keep your plan, we were told the whoel point was to make health care cost less. When you have all of these drivers that cause prices to go up what exactly is going to counteract that enough to make them come down? Forget about premium prices coming down. He needs enough young healthy people to sign up just to back to break even from the damage all of those other mandates have caused.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keep in mind that ACA effects only two aspects of health care.
> 
> It moves poor people from expensive,  ineffective emergency room care to mainstream PCPs.
> 
> It reduces medical bankruptcies by requiring that insurance cover the conditions that typically  cause them.
> 
> So health care insurance may go up from that coverage but it's offset by the cost of the bankruptcies.  Different accounts,  perhaps accrued to different people,  but savings nonetheless.
> 
> Insurance is designed to cover those costs plus some administration fees.
> 
> So where do health insurance premium increases come from?
> 
> No more health care is being practiced.  The only change is that it's being done more cost effectively by mainstream PCPs.  And there are fewer medical bankruptcies causing uncollectable medical bills.
> 
> You are assuming that insurance companies charge whatever they want to,  not what they anticipate paying out,  plus administration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have no evidence demonstrating that the ACA is reducing bankruptcies.  That's just another campaign promise.
> 
> You are also ignorant about what the ACA does - it's way more than just those two "key aspects."  It creates an arbitrary minimum for basic care (that is far from basic) and then forces everyone to be covered for those services even if they will never use it.  It removes risk based on health conditions from the actuarial metrics and instead only uses age.  It actually disincentivizes PCP usage by those less well off because in subsidized plans there is  co-payment to see a Physician but no co-payment for ER care.
> 
> Many people and I have been saying for years that the problem with the ACA isn't the goals as stated, it's the corrupt and unworkable implementation.
> 
> The ACA is likely to increase medical bankruptcies because only those with significant assets to protect would file for bankruptcy in the first place and that's not the poor, it's the middle class - the same middle class that now has much higher premiums, deductibles, and co-insurance.
Click to expand...


" You have no evidence demonstrating that the ACA is reducing bankruptcies.  That's just another campaign promise."

It requires insurers to cover the main causes of medical bankruptcies.  How can that not reduce them?


----------



## Listening

PMZ said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would Medicare allow Advantage programs if they were not saving money by allowing that alternative?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because they do save money by removing the administrative burden for claims from Medicare and shouldering the risk.  Instead of a single entity bearing the entire risk for the country, individual companies operate thousands of plans in smaller areas and compete with each other.  Plans have to start out with adequate reserves to cover any unforeseen costs and if the finances don't work that one plan is phased out.  Reserves are used to pay for the overage the other plans in the area absorb the beneficiaries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Insurance companies handle risk like gambling establishments do.  They avoid it altogether.  Thats called actuarial science.
Click to expand...


They can't avoid it altogether.  That's just stupid.


----------



## PMZ

Listening said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because they do save money by removing the administrative burden for claims from Medicare and shouldering the risk.  Instead of a single entity bearing the entire risk for the country, individual companies operate thousands of plans in smaller areas and compete with each other.  Plans have to start out with adequate reserves to cover any unforeseen costs and if the finances don't work that one plan is phased out.  Reserves are used to pay for the overage the other plans in the area absorb the beneficiaries.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Insurance companies handle risk like gambling establishments do.  They avoid it altogether.  Thats called actuarial science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They can't avoid it altogether.  That's just stupid.
Click to expand...


Ask Donald Trump and Sheldon Adleson.


----------



## Listening

PMZ said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keep in mind that ACA effects only two aspects of health care.
> 
> It moves poor people from expensive,  ineffective emergency room care to mainstream PCPs.
> 
> It reduces medical bankruptcies by requiring that insurance cover the conditions that typically  cause them.
> 
> So health care insurance may go up from that coverage but it's offset by the cost of the bankruptcies.  Different accounts,  perhaps accrued to different people,  but savings nonetheless.
> 
> Insurance is designed to cover those costs plus some administration fees.
> 
> So where do health insurance premium increases come from?
> 
> No more health care is being practiced.  The only change is that it's being done more cost effectively by mainstream PCPs.  And there are fewer medical bankruptcies causing uncollectable medical bills.
> 
> You are assuming that insurance companies charge whatever they want to,  not what they anticipate paying out,  plus administration.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have no evidence demonstrating that the ACA is reducing bankruptcies.  That's just another campaign promise.
> 
> You are also ignorant about what the ACA does - it's way more than just those two "key aspects."  It creates an arbitrary minimum for basic care (that is far from basic) and then forces everyone to be covered for those services even if they will never use it.  It removes risk based on health conditions from the actuarial metrics and instead only uses age.  It actually disincentivizes PCP usage by those less well off because in subsidized plans there is  co-payment to see a Physician but no co-payment for ER care.
> 
> Many people and I have been saying for years that the problem with the ACA isn't the goals as stated, it's the corrupt and unworkable implementation.
> 
> The ACA is likely to increase medical bankruptcies because only those with significant assets to protect would file for bankruptcy in the first place and that's not the poor, it's the middle class - the same middle class that now has much higher premiums, deductibles, and co-insurance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> " You have no evidence demonstrating that the ACA is reducing bankruptcies.  That's just another campaign promise."
> 
> It requires insurers to cover the main causes of medical bankruptcies.  How can that not reduce them?
Click to expand...


Because the plans being offered under the ACA have deductables that could easly push someone into medical bankruptcy (as it has been defined).  Additionally, there is nothing preventing people from reducing the threshold of filing.  Most people file for amounts that are less than the cost of a good used mid-sized sedan.  

You have no proof and your alternate reality isn't what the 3D world experiences.  You are the reason morons like Ted Kennedy get elected.


----------



## Listening

PMZ said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Insurance companies handle risk like gambling establishments do.  They avoid it altogether.  Thats called actuarial science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They can't avoid it altogether.  That's just stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ask Donald Trump and Sheldon Adleson.
Click to expand...


Non-answer from the board moron.


----------



## PMZ

Listening said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> They can't avoid it altogether.  That's just stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ask Donald Trump and Sheldon Adleson.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Non-answer from the board moron.
Click to expand...


The next time that you have nothing to say,  try saying nothing.


----------



## Listening

PMZ said:


> The fact that the electorate understands is evident in their voting.



http://www.econ.brown.edu/econ/events/mogstad.pdf

An interesting effort which seems to have established the actual existence of intergenerational welfare dependency.

And as a significant portion of the electorate is now dependent upon the government...you can bet they are interested in voting to keep the goodies coming.


----------



## Listening

PMZ said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ask Donald Trump and Sheldon Adleson.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Non-answer from the board moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The next time that you have nothing to say,  try saying nothing.
Click to expand...


Followed by another non-answer from the board moron (well, one of the board morons).


----------



## Listening

PMZ said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ask Donald Trump and Sheldon Adleson.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Non-answer from the board moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The next time that you have nothing to say,  try saying nothing.
Click to expand...


If you followed your own council, you'd ask them to cancel your account.


----------



## PMZ

The best thing about the end of conservative extremism in America is watching you all stew in your own juices. Self inflicted irrelevance. The end of the politics of hate.

You and the Taliban.


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> The best thing about the end of conservative extremism in America is watching you all stew in your own juices. Self inflicted irrelevance. The end of the politics of hate.
> 
> You and the Taliban.



Considering conservative "extremism" never started, I don't think you have to worry about its "end".

Now tell us again how Medicare's complete and total insolvency is "Republican propaganda" as Barack Obama stands before a mic in front of the world pitching Obamacare as an urgent need due to Medicare's complete and total insolvency. And I added the video to prove what a laying, propaganda-spreading, parasite, asshole that you are.

There's a reason you're all alone here with only one idiot asshole troll (Dante) coming to your aid. Because we've stuffed this thread so full of undeniable facts regarding the failure of Obamacare, even the Dumbocrats on USMB realize it is credibility suicide to attempt to deny it.


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> The best thing about the end of conservative extremism in America is watching you all stew in your own juices. Self inflicted irrelevance. The end of the politics of hate.
> 
> You and the Taliban.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Considering conservative "extremism" never started, I don't think you have to worry about its "end".
> 
> Now tell us again how Medicare's complete and total insolvency is "Republican propaganda" as Barack Obama stands before a mic in front of the world pitching Obamacare as an urgent need due to Medicare's complete and total insolvency. And I added the video to prove what a laying, propaganda-spreading, parasite, asshole that you are.
> 
> There's a reason you're all alone here with only one idiot asshole troll (Dante) coming to your aid. Because we've stuffed this thread so full of undeniable facts regarding the failure of Obamacare, even the Dumbocrats on USMB realize it is credibility suicide to attempt to deny it.
Click to expand...


"Considering conservative "extremism" never started, I don't think you have to worry about its "end"."

How would you define extremism?

The Medicare trust fund has a surplus invested in US Treasuries for now, but it's spending more now than taking in. Something has to be done.

There are several variables that could be put into play in addressing the problem. Some are revenue solutions some are expense solutions.

The root causes of all of the problems are our population growth, our relatively poor health habits and the success of medical technology.

Despite our relatively poor health habits we are living, and living well, longer, due to more and more expensive diagnostic and treatment alternatives, and our below world standard health care delivery and insurance cost effectiveness. We are way behind the rest of the developed world in cost and benefit effectiveness for health care as evidenced by our 2X costs and 1/2Y  results compared to our global business competition. 

What don't you agree with so far?


----------



## PMZ

Some help defining extremism from    http://voluntaryist.com/articles/027a.html#.UrXeGzJ5mK0


What Is Political "Extremism"?

by Laird Wilcox
From Issue 27 - Aug. 1987

Roger Scruton, in the Dictionary Of Political Thought (Hill & Wang, New York, 1982) defines "extremism" as:

"A vague term, which can mean: 1. Taking a political idea to its limits, regardless of 'unfortunate' repercussions, impracticalities, arguments and feelings to the contrary, and with the intention not only to confront, but also to eliminate opposition. 2. Intolerance towards all views other than one's own. 3. Adoption of means to political ends which show disregard for the life, liberty, and human rights of others."
This is a very fair definition and it reflects my experience that "extremism" is essentially more an issue of style than of content. In the twenty-five years that I have been investigating political groups of the left and right, I have found that many people can hold very radical or unorthodox political views and still present them in a reasonable, rational and non-dogmatic manner. On the other hand, I have met people whose views were shrill, uncompromising and distinctly authoritarian. The latter demonstrated a starkly extremist mentality while the former demonstrated only ideological unorthodoxy, which is hardly to be feared in a free society such as our own.

I don't mean to imply that content is entirely irrelevant. People who tend to adopt the extremist style most often champion causes and adopt ideologies that are essentially "fringe" positions on the political spectrum. Advocacy of "fringe" positions, however, gives our society the variety and vitality it needs to function as an open democracy, to discuss and debate all aspects of an issue and to deal with problems we may otherwise have a tendency to ignore. I think this is the proper role of radical movements, left and right, in our system. The extremist style is another issue altogether, however, in that it seriously hampers our understanding of important issues, it muddies the waters of discourse with invective, fanaticism and hatred, and it impairs our ability to make intelligent, well-informed choices.

Another, perhaps more popular, definition of "extremism" is that it represents points of view we strongly disagree with, advocated by someone we dislike whose interests are contrary to our own!

Political ideologues often attempt definitions of extremism which specifically condemn the views of their opponents and critics while leaving their own relatively untouched, or which are otherwise biased toward certain views but not others. To be fair, a definition must be equally applicable across the entire political spectrum.

In point of fact, the terms "extremist" and "extremism" are often used thoughtlessly an epithets, "devilwords" to curse or condemn opponents and critics with! I find, however, that the extremist style is not the monopoly of any sector of the political spectrum. It is just as common on the "left" as it is on the "right," and sometimes it shows up in the political "center" as well!

In analyzing the rhetoric and literature of several hundred "fringe" and militant "special interest" groups I have identified several specific traits that tend to represent the extremist style. I would like to caution you with the admonition, however, that we are all fallible and anyone, without bad intentions, may resort to some of these devices from time to time. But with bonafide extremists these lapses are not occasional and the following traits are an habitual and established part of their repertoire. The late Robert Kennedy, in The Pursuit Of Justice (1964), said; "What is objectionable, what is dangerous about extremists is not that they are extreme, but that they are intolerant. The evil is not what they say about their cause, but what they say about their opponents."

1. Character Assassination.

Extremists often attack the character of an opponent or critic rather than deal with the facts and issues that he raises or debate the points of his arguments. They will question his motives, qualifications, past associations, values, personality, mental health and so on as a diversion from the issues under consideration.

2. Name Calling And Labeling.

Extremists are quick to resort to epithets (racist, subversive, pervert, hatemonger, nut, crackpot, degenerate, Un-American, Anti-Semite, Red, Commie, Nazi, Kook, etc.) to label and condemn an opponent in order to divert attention from his arguments and to discourage other from hearing him out.

3. Irresponsible Sweeping Generalizations.

Extremists tend to make sweeping claims or judgments on little or no evidence, and they have a tendency to confuse similarity with sameness. That is, they assume that because two (or more) things are alike in some respects they must be alike in all or most respects! Analogy is a treacherous form of logic and its potential for distortion and false conclusions even when the premises are basically correct is enormous.

4. Inadequate Proof For Assertions.

Extremists tend to be very fuzzy on what constitutes proof for their assertions. They also tend to get caught up in logical fallacies, such as post hoc ergo propter hoc (assuming that a prior event explains a subsequent occurrence simply because of their "before" and "after" relationship). They tend to project "wished for" conclusions and to exaggerate the significance of information which confirms their prejudices and to derogate or ignore information which contradicts them.

5. Advocacy Of Double Standards.

Extremists tend to judge themselves in terms of their intentions, which they tend to view generously, and others by their acts, which they tend to view very critically. They would like you to accept their assertions on faith but they demand proof for yours. They also tend to engage in "special pleading" on behalf of their group, because of some special status, past persecution or present disadvantage.

6. Extremists Tend To View Their Opponents And Critics As Essentially Evil.

Their enemies hold opposing views because they are bad people, immoral, dishonest, unscrupulous, mean-spirited, cruel, etc., and not merely because they simply disagree, see the matter differently, have competing interests of are perhaps even mistaken!

7. Extremists Tend To Have A Manichean Worldview.

That is, they tend to see the world in terms of absolutes of good and evil, for them or against them, with no middle ground or intermediate positions. All issues are ultimately moral issues of right and wrong. Their slogan tends to be "he who is not with me, is against me!"

8. Extremists Very Often Advocate Some Degree Of Censorship And Repression Of Their Opponents And Critics.

This may range from an active campaign to keep them from media access and a public hearing, as in the case of blacklisting, banning, or "quarantining" dissident spokesmen, or actually lobbying for repressive legislation against speaking, teaching or instructing the "forbidden" information. They may attempt to keep certain books out of stores or off of library shelves or card catalogs, discourage advertising with threats of reprisals, keep spokesmen for offending views off the airwaves, or certain columnists out of newspapers. In each instance the goal is some kind of information control. Extremists would prefer that you only listen to them.

9. Extremists Tend To Identify Themselves In Terms Of Who Their Enemies Are,

who they hate and who hates them! Accordingly, they often become emotionally bound to their enemies, who are often competing extremists on the opposite pole of the ideological spectrum. They tend to emulate their enemies in certain respects, adopting the same style and tactics to a certain degree. Even "anti-extremist" groups often exhibit extremist behavior in this regard!

10. Extremists Are Given To Arguments By Intimidation.

That is, they frame their arguments in such a way as to intimidate others into accepting their premises and conclusions. To disagree with them, they imply, is to ally oneself with the devil or give aid and comfort to the "bad guys." This ploy allows them to define the parameters of debate, cut off troublesome lines of argument, and keep their opponents on the defensive.

11. Wide Use Of Slogans, Buzzwords And Thought-Stopping Cliches.

For many extremists simple slogans substitute for more complex abstractions in spite of a high level of intelligence. Shortcuts in thinking and reasoning matters out seems to be necessary in order to appease their prejudices and to avoid troublesome facts and counter-arguments.

12. Doomsday Thinking.

Extremists often predict dire or catastrophic consequences from a situation or from failure to follow a specific course, and they exhibit a kind of "crisis-mindedness." It can be a Communist takeover, a Nazi revival, nuclear war, currency collapse, worldwide famine, drought, earthquakes, floods or the wrath of God. Whatever it is, it's just around the corner unless we follow their program and listen to their special insights or the wisdom that only the enlightened have access to!

13. Extremists Often Claim Some Kind Of Moral Or Other Superiority Over Others.

Most obvious are claims of general racial superiority -- a master race, for example. Less obvious are claims of ennoblement because of alleged victimhood, a special relationship with God, membership in a special "elite" or revolutionary vanguard. They also take great offense when one is "insensitive" enough to dispute these claims or challenge their authority.

14. Extremists Tend To Believe That It's OK To Do Bad Things In The Service Of A "Good" Cause.

They may deliberately lie, distort, misquote, slander or libel their opponents and critics, or advocate censorship or repression in "special cases" involving their enemies. This is done with no remorse as long as it's useful in defeating the Commies or Fascists (or whoever). Defeating an "enemy" becomes an all-encompassing goal to which other values are subordinate. With extremists, the ends often justify the means.

15. Extremists Tend To Place Great Value On Emotional Responses.

They have a reverence for propaganda, which they may call education or consciousness-raising. Consequently, they tend to drape themselves and their cause in a flag of patriotism, a banner of righteousness or a shroud of victimhood. Their crusades against "enemies" may invoke images of the swastika, the hammer and sickle or some other symbol, as the case may be. In each instance the symbol represents an extremely odious concept in terms of their ideological premises. This ploy attempts to invoke an uncritical gut-level sympathy and acceptance of their position which discourages examination of their premises or the conclusions which they claim necessarily derive from them.

16. Some Extremists, Particularly Those Involved In "Cults" Or

religious movements such as fundamental evangelical Christians, Zionists, members of the numerous new age groups and followers of certain "gurus," claim some kind of supernatural, mystical or divinely-inspired rationale for their beliefs and actions. Their willingness to force their will on others, censor and silence opponents and critics, and in some cases actively persecute certain groups, is ordained by God! This is surprisingly effective because many people, when confronted by this kind of claim, are reluctant to challenge it because it represents "religious belief" or because of the sacred cow status of some religions. Extremists traits tend to have three things in common:

The represent some attempt to distort reality for themselves and others.
They try to discourage critical examination of their beliefs, either by false logic, rhetorical trickery or some kind of intimidation.
They represent an attempt to act out private, personal grudges or rationalize the pursuit of special interests in the name of public welfare.
Remember, human beings are imperfect and fallible. Even a rational, honest, well-intentioned person may resort to some of these traits from time to time. Everyone has strong feelings about some issues and anyone can get excited and "blow off" once in awhile. We still retain our basic common sense, respect for facts and good will toward others. The difference between most of us and the bonafide extremist is that these traits are an habitual and established part of their repertoire. Extremists believe they're doing the right thing when they act this way in the service of their cause.

The truth of a proposition cannot be inferred merely from the manner in which arguments in its behalf are presented, from the fact that its advocates censor and harass their opponents, or because they commit any other act or combination of acts suggested in this essay. Ultimately, the truth of any proposition rests on the evidence for it. To impeach a proposition merely because it is advocated by obvious "extremists" is to dismiss it ad hominem, that is, because of who proposes it. The fact is that extremists are sometimes right -- sometimes very right -- because they often deal with the gut issues, the controversial issues many people choose to avoid. So, before you perfunctorily write off somebody as an "extremist" and close your eyes and ears to his message, take a look at his evidence. It just might be that he's on to something!


[Laird Wilcox is editor of The Wilcox Report Newsletter , Box 2047, Olathe, Kansas 66061. He is founder of the Wilcox Collection on Contemporary Political Movements in the Kenneth Spencer Research Library at the University of Kansas]


----------



## BlackSand

PMZ said:


> Some help defining extremism from    voluntaryist.com
> 
> 
> What Is Political "Extremism"?
> 
> by Laird Wilcox
> From Issue 27 - Aug. 1987
> 
> Roger Scruton, in the Dictionary Of Political Thought (Hill & Wang, New York, 1982) defines "extremism" as:
> 
> "A vague term, which can mean: 1. Taking a political idea to its limits, regardless of 'unfortunate' repercussions, impracticalities, arguments and feelings to the contrary, and with the intention not only to confront, but also to eliminate opposition. 2. Intolerance towards all views other than one's own. 3. Adoption of means to political ends which show disregard for the life, liberty, and human rights of others."
> This is a very fair definition and it reflects my experience that "extremism" is essentially more an issue of style than of content. In the twenty-five years that I have been investigating political groups of the left and right, I have found that many people can hold very radical or unorthodox political views and still present them in a reasonable, rational and non-dogmatic manner. On the other hand, I have met people whose views were shrill, uncompromising and distinctly authoritarian. The latter demonstrated a starkly extremist mentality while the former demonstrated only ideological unorthodoxy, which is hardly to be feared in a free society such as our own.
> 
> I don't mean to imply that content is entirely irrelevant. People who tend to adopt the extremist style most often champion causes and adopt ideologies that are essentially "fringe" positions on the political spectrum. Advocacy of "fringe" positions, however, gives our society the variety and vitality it needs to function as an open democracy, to discuss and debate all aspects of an issue and to deal with problems we may otherwise have a tendency to ignore. I think this is the proper role of radical movements, left and right, in our system. The extremist style is another issue altogether, however, in that it seriously hampers our understanding of important issues, it muddies the waters of discourse with invective, fanaticism and hatred, and it impairs our ability to make intelligent, well-informed choices.
> 
> Another, perhaps more popular, definition of "extremism" is that it represents points of view we strongly disagree with, advocated by someone we dislike whose interests are contrary to our own!
> 
> Political ideologues often attempt definitions of extremism which specifically condemn the views of their opponents and critics while leaving their own relatively untouched, or which are otherwise biased toward certain views but not others. To be fair, a definition must be equally applicable across the entire political spectrum.
> 
> In point of fact, the terms "extremist" and "extremism" are often used thoughtlessly an epithets, "devilwords" to curse or condemn opponents and critics with! I find, however, that the extremist style is not the monopoly of any sector of the political spectrum. It is just as common on the "left" as it is on the "right," and sometimes it shows up in the political "center" as well!
> 
> In analyzing the rhetoric and literature of several hundred "fringe" and militant "special interest" groups I have identified several specific traits that tend to represent the extremist style. I would like to caution you with the admonition, however, that we are all fallible and anyone, without bad intentions, may resort to some of these devices from time to time. But with bonafide extremists these lapses are not occasional and the following traits are an habitual and established part of their repertoire. The late Robert Kennedy, in The Pursuit Of Justice (1964), said; "What is objectionable, what is dangerous about extremists is not that they are extreme, but that they are intolerant. The evil is not what they say about their cause, but what they say about their opponents."
> 
> 1. Character Assassination.
> 
> Extremists often attack the character of an opponent or critic rather than deal with the facts and issues that he raises or debate the points of his arguments. They will question his motives, qualifications, past associations, values, personality, mental health and so on as a diversion from the issues under consideration.
> 
> 2. Name Calling And Labeling.
> 
> Extremists are quick to resort to epithets (racist, subversive, pervert, hatemonger, nut, crackpot, degenerate, Un-American, Anti-Semite, Red, Commie, Nazi, Kook, etc.) to label and condemn an opponent in order to divert attention from his arguments and to discourage other from hearing him out.
> 
> 3. Irresponsible Sweeping Generalizations.
> 
> Extremists tend to make sweeping claims or judgments on little or no evidence, and they have a tendency to confuse similarity with sameness. That is, they assume that because two (or more) things are alike in some respects they must be alike in all or most respects! Analogy is a treacherous form of logic and its potential for distortion and false conclusions even when the premises are basically correct is enormous.
> 
> 4. Inadequate Proof For Assertions.
> 
> Extremists tend to be very fuzzy on what constitutes proof for their assertions. They also tend to get caught up in logical fallacies, such as post hoc ergo propter hoc (assuming that a prior event explains a subsequent occurrence simply because of their "before" and "after" relationship). They tend to project "wished for" conclusions and to exaggerate the significance of information which confirms their prejudices and to derogate or ignore information which contradicts them.
> 
> 5. Advocacy Of Double Standards.
> 
> Extremists tend to judge themselves in terms of their intentions, which they tend to view generously, and others by their acts, which they tend to view very critically. They would like you to accept their assertions on faith but they demand proof for yours. They also tend to engage in "special pleading" on behalf of their group, because of some special status, past persecution or present disadvantage.
> 
> 6. Extremists Tend To View Their Opponents And Critics As Essentially Evil.
> 
> Their enemies hold opposing views because they are bad people, immoral, dishonest, unscrupulous, mean-spirited, cruel, etc., and not merely because they simply disagree, see the matter differently, have competing interests of are perhaps even mistaken!
> 
> 7. Extremists Tend To Have A Manichean Worldview.
> 
> That is, they tend to see the world in terms of absolutes of good and evil, for them or against them, with no middle ground or intermediate positions. All issues are ultimately moral issues of right and wrong. Their slogan tends to be "he who is not with me, is against me!"
> 
> 8. Extremists Very Often Advocate Some Degree Of Censorship And Repression Of Their Opponents And Critics.
> 
> This may range from an active campaign to keep them from media access and a public hearing, as in the case of blacklisting, banning, or "quarantining" dissident spokesmen, or actually lobbying for repressive legislation against speaking, teaching or instructing the "forbidden" information. They may attempt to keep certain books out of stores or off of library shelves or card catalogs, discourage advertising with threats of reprisals, keep spokesmen for offending views off the airwaves, or certain columnists out of newspapers. In each instance the goal is some kind of information control. Extremists would prefer that you only listen to them.
> 
> 9. Extremists Tend To Identify Themselves In Terms Of Who Their Enemies Are,
> 
> who they hate and who hates them! Accordingly, they often become emotionally bound to their enemies, who are often competing extremists on the opposite pole of the ideological spectrum. They tend to emulate their enemies in certain respects, adopting the same style and tactics to a certain degree. Even "anti-extremist" groups often exhibit extremist behavior in this regard!
> 
> 10. Extremists Are Given To Arguments By Intimidation.
> 
> That is, they frame their arguments in such a way as to intimidate others into accepting their premises and conclusions. To disagree with them, they imply, is to ally oneself with the devil or give aid and comfort to the "bad guys." This ploy allows them to define the parameters of debate, cut off troublesome lines of argument, and keep their opponents on the defensive.
> 
> 11. Wide Use Of Slogans, Buzzwords And Thought-Stopping Cliches.
> 
> For many extremists simple slogans substitute for more complex abstractions in spite of a high level of intelligence. Shortcuts in thinking and reasoning matters out seems to be necessary in order to appease their prejudices and to avoid troublesome facts and counter-arguments.
> 
> 12. Doomsday Thinking.
> 
> Extremists often predict dire or catastrophic consequences from a situation or from failure to follow a specific course, and they exhibit a kind of "crisis-mindedness." It can be a Communist takeover, a Nazi revival, nuclear war, currency collapse, worldwide famine, drought, earthquakes, floods or the wrath of God. Whatever it is, it's just around the corner unless we follow their program and listen to their special insights or the wisdom that only the enlightened have access to!
> 
> 13. Extremists Often Claim Some Kind Of Moral Or Other Superiority Over Others.
> 
> Most obvious are claims of general racial superiority -- a master race, for example. Less obvious are claims of ennoblement because of alleged victimhood, a special relationship with God, membership in a special "elite" or revolutionary vanguard. They also take great offense when one is "insensitive" enough to dispute these claims or challenge their authority.
> 
> 14. Extremists Tend To Believe That It's OK To Do Bad Things In The Service Of A "Good" Cause.
> 
> They may deliberately lie, distort, misquote, slander or libel their opponents and critics, or advocate censorship or repression in "special cases" involving their enemies. This is done with no remorse as long as it's useful in defeating the Commies or Fascists (or whoever). Defeating an "enemy" becomes an all-encompassing goal to which other values are subordinate. With extremists, the ends often justify the means.
> 
> 15. Extremists Tend To Place Great Value On Emotional Responses.
> 
> They have a reverence for propaganda, which they may call education or consciousness-raising. Consequently, they tend to drape themselves and their cause in a flag of patriotism, a banner of righteousness or a shroud of victimhood. Their crusades against "enemies" may invoke images of the swastika, the hammer and sickle or some other symbol, as the case may be. In each instance the symbol represents an extremely odious concept in terms of their ideological premises. This ploy attempts to invoke an uncritical gut-level sympathy and acceptance of their position which discourages examination of their premises or the conclusions which they claim necessarily derive from them.
> 
> 16. Some Extremists, Particularly Those Involved In "Cults" Or
> 
> religious movements such as fundamental evangelical Christians, Zionists, members of the numerous new age groups and followers of certain "gurus," claim some kind of supernatural, mystical or divinely-inspired rationale for their beliefs and actions. Their willingness to force their will on others, censor and silence opponents and critics, and in some cases actively persecute certain groups, is ordained by God! This is surprisingly effective because many people, when confronted by this kind of claim, are reluctant to challenge it because it represents "religious belief" or because of the sacred cow status of some religions. Extremists traits tend to have three things in common:
> 
> The represent some attempt to distort reality for themselves and others.
> They try to discourage critical examination of their beliefs, either by false logic, rhetorical trickery or some kind of intimidation.
> They represent an attempt to act out private, personal grudges or rationalize the pursuit of special interests in the name of public welfare.
> Remember, human beings are imperfect and fallible. Even a rational, honest, well-intentioned person may resort to some of these traits from time to time. Everyone has strong feelings about some issues and anyone can get excited and "blow off" once in awhile. We still retain our basic common sense, respect for facts and good will toward others. The difference between most of us and the bonafide extremist is that these traits are an habitual and established part of their repertoire. Extremists believe they're doing the right thing when they act this way in the service of their cause.
> 
> The truth of a proposition cannot be inferred merely from the manner in which arguments in its behalf are presented, from the fact that its advocates censor and harass their opponents, or because they commit any other act or combination of acts suggested in this essay. Ultimately, the truth of any proposition rests on the evidence for it. To impeach a proposition merely because it is advocated by obvious "extremists" is to dismiss it ad hominem, that is, because of who proposes it. The fact is that extremists are sometimes right -- sometimes very right -- because they often deal with the gut issues, the controversial issues many people choose to avoid. So, before you perfunctorily write off somebody as an "extremist" and close your eyes and ears to his message, take a look at his evidence. It just might be that he's on to something!
> 
> 
> [Laird Wilcox is editor of The Wilcox Report Newsletter , Box 2047, Olathe, Kansas 66061. He is founder of the Wilcox Collection on Contemporary Political Movements in the Kenneth Spencer Research Library at the University of Kansas]



What a wonderful exercise in introspection ... I am sure that if you read it every time before you post ... It will help you get a better grip on yourself and your  struggle with extremism PMZ.
Good luck in your endeavors ... And the rest of us anxiously await your return to a more civil stance on debate.

.


----------



## PMZ

BlackSand said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some help defining extremism from    voluntaryist.com
> 
> 
> What Is Political "Extremism"?
> 
> by Laird Wilcox
> From Issue 27 - Aug. 1987
> 
> Roger Scruton, in the Dictionary Of Political Thought (Hill & Wang, New York, 1982) defines "extremism" as:
> 
> "A vague term, which can mean: 1. Taking a political idea to its limits, regardless of 'unfortunate' repercussions, impracticalities, arguments and feelings to the contrary, and with the intention not only to confront, but also to eliminate opposition. 2. Intolerance towards all views other than one's own. 3. Adoption of means to political ends which show disregard for the life, liberty, and human rights of others."
> This is a very fair definition and it reflects my experience that "extremism" is essentially more an issue of style than of content. In the twenty-five years that I have been investigating political groups of the left and right, I have found that many people can hold very radical or unorthodox political views and still present them in a reasonable, rational and non-dogmatic manner. On the other hand, I have met people whose views were shrill, uncompromising and distinctly authoritarian. The latter demonstrated a starkly extremist mentality while the former demonstrated only ideological unorthodoxy, which is hardly to be feared in a free society such as our own.
> 
> I don't mean to imply that content is entirely irrelevant. People who tend to adopt the extremist style most often champion causes and adopt ideologies that are essentially "fringe" positions on the political spectrum. Advocacy of "fringe" positions, however, gives our society the variety and vitality it needs to function as an open democracy, to discuss and debate all aspects of an issue and to deal with problems we may otherwise have a tendency to ignore. I think this is the proper role of radical movements, left and right, in our system. The extremist style is another issue altogether, however, in that it seriously hampers our understanding of important issues, it muddies the waters of discourse with invective, fanaticism and hatred, and it impairs our ability to make intelligent, well-informed choices.
> 
> Another, perhaps more popular, definition of "extremism" is that it represents points of view we strongly disagree with, advocated by someone we dislike whose interests are contrary to our own!
> 
> Political ideologues often attempt definitions of extremism which specifically condemn the views of their opponents and critics while leaving their own relatively untouched, or which are otherwise biased toward certain views but not others. To be fair, a definition must be equally applicable across the entire political spectrum.
> 
> In point of fact, the terms "extremist" and "extremism" are often used thoughtlessly an epithets, "devilwords" to curse or condemn opponents and critics with! I find, however, that the extremist style is not the monopoly of any sector of the political spectrum. It is just as common on the "left" as it is on the "right," and sometimes it shows up in the political "center" as well!
> 
> In analyzing the rhetoric and literature of several hundred "fringe" and militant "special interest" groups I have identified several specific traits that tend to represent the extremist style. I would like to caution you with the admonition, however, that we are all fallible and anyone, without bad intentions, may resort to some of these devices from time to time. But with bonafide extremists these lapses are not occasional and the following traits are an habitual and established part of their repertoire. The late Robert Kennedy, in The Pursuit Of Justice (1964), said; "What is objectionable, what is dangerous about extremists is not that they are extreme, but that they are intolerant. The evil is not what they say about their cause, but what they say about their opponents."
> 
> 1. Character Assassination.
> 
> Extremists often attack the character of an opponent or critic rather than deal with the facts and issues that he raises or debate the points of his arguments. They will question his motives, qualifications, past associations, values, personality, mental health and so on as a diversion from the issues under consideration.
> 
> 2. Name Calling And Labeling.
> 
> Extremists are quick to resort to epithets (racist, subversive, pervert, hatemonger, nut, crackpot, degenerate, Un-American, Anti-Semite, Red, Commie, Nazi, Kook, etc.) to label and condemn an opponent in order to divert attention from his arguments and to discourage other from hearing him out.
> 
> 3. Irresponsible Sweeping Generalizations.
> 
> Extremists tend to make sweeping claims or judgments on little or no evidence, and they have a tendency to confuse similarity with sameness. That is, they assume that because two (or more) things are alike in some respects they must be alike in all or most respects! Analogy is a treacherous form of logic and its potential for distortion and false conclusions even when the premises are basically correct is enormous.
> 
> 4. Inadequate Proof For Assertions.
> 
> Extremists tend to be very fuzzy on what constitutes proof for their assertions. They also tend to get caught up in logical fallacies, such as post hoc ergo propter hoc (assuming that a prior event explains a subsequent occurrence simply because of their "before" and "after" relationship). They tend to project "wished for" conclusions and to exaggerate the significance of information which confirms their prejudices and to derogate or ignore information which contradicts them.
> 
> 5. Advocacy Of Double Standards.
> 
> Extremists tend to judge themselves in terms of their intentions, which they tend to view generously, and others by their acts, which they tend to view very critically. They would like you to accept their assertions on faith but they demand proof for yours. They also tend to engage in "special pleading" on behalf of their group, because of some special status, past persecution or present disadvantage.
> 
> 6. Extremists Tend To View Their Opponents And Critics As Essentially Evil.
> 
> Their enemies hold opposing views because they are bad people, immoral, dishonest, unscrupulous, mean-spirited, cruel, etc., and not merely because they simply disagree, see the matter differently, have competing interests of are perhaps even mistaken!
> 
> 7. Extremists Tend To Have A Manichean Worldview.
> 
> That is, they tend to see the world in terms of absolutes of good and evil, for them or against them, with no middle ground or intermediate positions. All issues are ultimately moral issues of right and wrong. Their slogan tends to be "he who is not with me, is against me!"
> 
> 8. Extremists Very Often Advocate Some Degree Of Censorship And Repression Of Their Opponents And Critics.
> 
> This may range from an active campaign to keep them from media access and a public hearing, as in the case of blacklisting, banning, or "quarantining" dissident spokesmen, or actually lobbying for repressive legislation against speaking, teaching or instructing the "forbidden" information. They may attempt to keep certain books out of stores or off of library shelves or card catalogs, discourage advertising with threats of reprisals, keep spokesmen for offending views off the airwaves, or certain columnists out of newspapers. In each instance the goal is some kind of information control. Extremists would prefer that you only listen to them.
> 
> 9. Extremists Tend To Identify Themselves In Terms Of Who Their Enemies Are,
> 
> who they hate and who hates them! Accordingly, they often become emotionally bound to their enemies, who are often competing extremists on the opposite pole of the ideological spectrum. They tend to emulate their enemies in certain respects, adopting the same style and tactics to a certain degree. Even "anti-extremist" groups often exhibit extremist behavior in this regard!
> 
> 10. Extremists Are Given To Arguments By Intimidation.
> 
> That is, they frame their arguments in such a way as to intimidate others into accepting their premises and conclusions. To disagree with them, they imply, is to ally oneself with the devil or give aid and comfort to the "bad guys." This ploy allows them to define the parameters of debate, cut off troublesome lines of argument, and keep their opponents on the defensive.
> 
> 11. Wide Use Of Slogans, Buzzwords And Thought-Stopping Cliches.
> 
> For many extremists simple slogans substitute for more complex abstractions in spite of a high level of intelligence. Shortcuts in thinking and reasoning matters out seems to be necessary in order to appease their prejudices and to avoid troublesome facts and counter-arguments.
> 
> 12. Doomsday Thinking.
> 
> Extremists often predict dire or catastrophic consequences from a situation or from failure to follow a specific course, and they exhibit a kind of "crisis-mindedness." It can be a Communist takeover, a Nazi revival, nuclear war, currency collapse, worldwide famine, drought, earthquakes, floods or the wrath of God. Whatever it is, it's just around the corner unless we follow their program and listen to their special insights or the wisdom that only the enlightened have access to!
> 
> 13. Extremists Often Claim Some Kind Of Moral Or Other Superiority Over Others.
> 
> Most obvious are claims of general racial superiority -- a master race, for example. Less obvious are claims of ennoblement because of alleged victimhood, a special relationship with God, membership in a special "elite" or revolutionary vanguard. They also take great offense when one is "insensitive" enough to dispute these claims or challenge their authority.
> 
> 14. Extremists Tend To Believe That It's OK To Do Bad Things In The Service Of A "Good" Cause.
> 
> They may deliberately lie, distort, misquote, slander or libel their opponents and critics, or advocate censorship or repression in "special cases" involving their enemies. This is done with no remorse as long as it's useful in defeating the Commies or Fascists (or whoever). Defeating an "enemy" becomes an all-encompassing goal to which other values are subordinate. With extremists, the ends often justify the means.
> 
> 15. Extremists Tend To Place Great Value On Emotional Responses.
> 
> They have a reverence for propaganda, which they may call education or consciousness-raising. Consequently, they tend to drape themselves and their cause in a flag of patriotism, a banner of righteousness or a shroud of victimhood. Their crusades against "enemies" may invoke images of the swastika, the hammer and sickle or some other symbol, as the case may be. In each instance the symbol represents an extremely odious concept in terms of their ideological premises. This ploy attempts to invoke an uncritical gut-level sympathy and acceptance of their position which discourages examination of their premises or the conclusions which they claim necessarily derive from them.
> 
> 16. Some Extremists, Particularly Those Involved In "Cults" Or
> 
> religious movements such as fundamental evangelical Christians, Zionists, members of the numerous new age groups and followers of certain "gurus," claim some kind of supernatural, mystical or divinely-inspired rationale for their beliefs and actions. Their willingness to force their will on others, censor and silence opponents and critics, and in some cases actively persecute certain groups, is ordained by God! This is surprisingly effective because many people, when confronted by this kind of claim, are reluctant to challenge it because it represents "religious belief" or because of the sacred cow status of some religions. Extremists traits tend to have three things in common:
> 
> The represent some attempt to distort reality for themselves and others.
> They try to discourage critical examination of their beliefs, either by false logic, rhetorical trickery or some kind of intimidation.
> They represent an attempt to act out private, personal grudges or rationalize the pursuit of special interests in the name of public welfare.
> Remember, human beings are imperfect and fallible. Even a rational, honest, well-intentioned person may resort to some of these traits from time to time. Everyone has strong feelings about some issues and anyone can get excited and "blow off" once in awhile. We still retain our basic common sense, respect for facts and good will toward others. The difference between most of us and the bonafide extremist is that these traits are an habitual and established part of their repertoire. Extremists believe they're doing the right thing when they act this way in the service of their cause.
> 
> The truth of a proposition cannot be inferred merely from the manner in which arguments in its behalf are presented, from the fact that its advocates censor and harass their opponents, or because they commit any other act or combination of acts suggested in this essay. Ultimately, the truth of any proposition rests on the evidence for it. To impeach a proposition merely because it is advocated by obvious "extremists" is to dismiss it ad hominem, that is, because of who proposes it. The fact is that extremists are sometimes right -- sometimes very right -- because they often deal with the gut issues, the controversial issues many people choose to avoid. So, before you perfunctorily write off somebody as an "extremist" and close your eyes and ears to his message, take a look at his evidence. It just might be that he's on to something!
> 
> 
> [Laird Wilcox is editor of The Wilcox Report Newsletter , Box 2047, Olathe, Kansas 66061. He is founder of the Wilcox Collection on Contemporary Political Movements in the Kenneth Spencer Research Library at the University of Kansas]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a wonderful exercise in introspection ... I am sure that if you read it every time before you post ... It will help you get a better grip on yourself and your  struggle with extremism PMZ.
> Good luck in your endeavors ... And the rest of us anxiously await your return to a more civil stance on debate.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


You really don't see yourself in those words?

You need some exercise in introspection.


----------



## Listening

PMZ said:


> The best thing about the end of conservative extremism in America is watching you all stew in your own juices. Self inflicted irrelevance. The end of the politics of hate.
> 
> You and the Taliban.



ROTFLMAO

More state houses and getting better.

You need to find out what states will survive and hope they can fund all the goodie give-aways (for a while).

Because then, you'lll need to find a job.

We are not going anywhere.


----------



## Listening

PMZ said:


> Some help defining extremism from    voluntaryist.com
> 
> 
> What Is Political "Extremism"?
> 
> by Laird Wilcox
> From Issue 27 - Aug. 1987
> 
> Roger Scruton, in the Dictionary Of Political Thought (Hill & Wang, New York, 1982) defines "extremism" as:
> 
> "A vague term, which can mean: 1. Taking a political idea to its limits, regardless of 'unfortunate' repercussions, impracticalities, arguments and feelings to the contrary, and with the intention not only to confront, but also to eliminate opposition. 2. Intolerance towards all views other than one's own. 3. Adoption of means to political ends which show disregard for the life, liberty, and human rights of others."
> This is a very fair definition and it reflects my experience that "extremism" is essentially more an issue of style than of content. In the twenty-five years that I have been investigating political groups of the left and right, I have found that many people can hold very radical or unorthodox political views and still present them in a reasonable, rational and non-dogmatic manner. On the other hand, I have met people whose views were shrill, uncompromising and distinctly authoritarian. The latter demonstrated a starkly extremist mentality while the former demonstrated only ideological unorthodoxy, which is hardly to be feared in a free society such as our own.
> 
> I don't mean to imply that content is entirely irrelevant. People who tend to adopt the extremist style most often champion causes and adopt ideologies that are essentially "fringe" positions on the political spectrum. Advocacy of "fringe" positions, however, gives our society the variety and vitality it needs to function as an open democracy, to discuss and debate all aspects of an issue and to deal with problems we may otherwise have a tendency to ignore. I think this is the proper role of radical movements, left and right, in our system. The extremist style is another issue altogether, however, in that it seriously hampers our understanding of important issues, it muddies the waters of discourse with invective, fanaticism and hatred, and it impairs our ability to make intelligent, well-informed choices.
> 
> Another, perhaps more popular, definition of "extremism" is that it represents points of view we strongly disagree with, advocated by someone we dislike whose interests are contrary to our own!
> 
> Political ideologues often attempt definitions of extremism which specifically condemn the views of their opponents and critics while leaving their own relatively untouched, or which are otherwise biased toward certain views but not others. To be fair, a definition must be equally applicable across the entire political spectrum.
> 
> In point of fact, the terms "extremist" and "extremism" are often used thoughtlessly an epithets, "devilwords" to curse or condemn opponents and critics with! I find, however, that the extremist style is not the monopoly of any sector of the political spectrum. It is just as common on the "left" as it is on the "right," and sometimes it shows up in the political "center" as well!
> 
> In analyzing the rhetoric and literature of several hundred "fringe" and militant "special interest" groups I have identified several specific traits that tend to represent the extremist style. I would like to caution you with the admonition, however, that we are all fallible and anyone, without bad intentions, may resort to some of these devices from time to time. But with bonafide extremists these lapses are not occasional and the following traits are an habitual and established part of their repertoire. The late Robert Kennedy, in The Pursuit Of Justice (1964), said; "What is objectionable, what is dangerous about extremists is not that they are extreme, but that they are intolerant. The evil is not what they say about their cause, but what they say about their opponents."
> 
> 1. Character Assassination.
> 
> Extremists often attack the character of an opponent or critic rather than deal with the facts and issues that he raises or debate the points of his arguments. They will question his motives, qualifications, past associations, values, personality, mental health and so on as a diversion from the issues under consideration.
> 
> 2. Name Calling And Labeling.
> 
> Extremists are quick to resort to epithets (racist, subversive, pervert, hatemonger, nut, crackpot, degenerate, Un-American, Anti-Semite, Red, Commie, Nazi, Kook, etc.) to label and condemn an opponent in order to divert attention from his arguments and to discourage other from hearing him out.
> 
> 3. Irresponsible Sweeping Generalizations.
> 
> Extremists tend to make sweeping claims or judgments on little or no evidence, and they have a tendency to confuse similarity with sameness. That is, they assume that because two (or more) things are alike in some respects they must be alike in all or most respects! Analogy is a treacherous form of logic and its potential for distortion and false conclusions even when the premises are basically correct is enormous.
> 
> 4. Inadequate Proof For Assertions.
> 
> Extremists tend to be very fuzzy on what constitutes proof for their assertions. They also tend to get caught up in logical fallacies, such as post hoc ergo propter hoc (assuming that a prior event explains a subsequent occurrence simply because of their "before" and "after" relationship). They tend to project "wished for" conclusions and to exaggerate the significance of information which confirms their prejudices and to derogate or ignore information which contradicts them.
> 
> 5. Advocacy Of Double Standards.
> 
> Extremists tend to judge themselves in terms of their intentions, which they tend to view generously, and others by their acts, which they tend to view very critically. They would like you to accept their assertions on faith but they demand proof for yours. They also tend to engage in "special pleading" on behalf of their group, because of some special status, past persecution or present disadvantage.
> 
> 6. Extremists Tend To View Their Opponents And Critics As Essentially Evil.
> 
> Their enemies hold opposing views because they are bad people, immoral, dishonest, unscrupulous, mean-spirited, cruel, etc., and not merely because they simply disagree, see the matter differently, have competing interests of are perhaps even mistaken!
> 
> 7. Extremists Tend To Have A Manichean Worldview.
> 
> That is, they tend to see the world in terms of absolutes of good and evil, for them or against them, with no middle ground or intermediate positions. All issues are ultimately moral issues of right and wrong. Their slogan tends to be "he who is not with me, is against me!"
> 
> 8. Extremists Very Often Advocate Some Degree Of Censorship And Repression Of Their Opponents And Critics.
> 
> This may range from an active campaign to keep them from media access and a public hearing, as in the case of blacklisting, banning, or "quarantining" dissident spokesmen, or actually lobbying for repressive legislation against speaking, teaching or instructing the "forbidden" information. They may attempt to keep certain books out of stores or off of library shelves or card catalogs, discourage advertising with threats of reprisals, keep spokesmen for offending views off the airwaves, or certain columnists out of newspapers. In each instance the goal is some kind of information control. Extremists would prefer that you only listen to them.
> 
> 9. Extremists Tend To Identify Themselves In Terms Of Who Their Enemies Are,
> 
> who they hate and who hates them! Accordingly, they often become emotionally bound to their enemies, who are often competing extremists on the opposite pole of the ideological spectrum. They tend to emulate their enemies in certain respects, adopting the same style and tactics to a certain degree. Even "anti-extremist" groups often exhibit extremist behavior in this regard!
> 
> 10. Extremists Are Given To Arguments By Intimidation.
> 
> That is, they frame their arguments in such a way as to intimidate others into accepting their premises and conclusions. To disagree with them, they imply, is to ally oneself with the devil or give aid and comfort to the "bad guys." This ploy allows them to define the parameters of debate, cut off troublesome lines of argument, and keep their opponents on the defensive.
> 
> 11. Wide Use Of Slogans, Buzzwords And Thought-Stopping Cliches.
> 
> For many extremists simple slogans substitute for more complex abstractions in spite of a high level of intelligence. Shortcuts in thinking and reasoning matters out seems to be necessary in order to appease their prejudices and to avoid troublesome facts and counter-arguments.
> 
> 12. Doomsday Thinking.
> 
> Extremists often predict dire or catastrophic consequences from a situation or from failure to follow a specific course, and they exhibit a kind of "crisis-mindedness." It can be a Communist takeover, a Nazi revival, nuclear war, currency collapse, worldwide famine, drought, earthquakes, floods or the wrath of God. Whatever it is, it's just around the corner unless we follow their program and listen to their special insights or the wisdom that only the enlightened have access to!
> 
> 13. Extremists Often Claim Some Kind Of Moral Or Other Superiority Over Others.
> 
> Most obvious are claims of general racial superiority -- a master race, for example. Less obvious are claims of ennoblement because of alleged victimhood, a special relationship with God, membership in a special "elite" or revolutionary vanguard. They also take great offense when one is "insensitive" enough to dispute these claims or challenge their authority.
> 
> 14. Extremists Tend To Believe That It's OK To Do Bad Things In The Service Of A "Good" Cause.
> 
> They may deliberately lie, distort, misquote, slander or libel their opponents and critics, or advocate censorship or repression in "special cases" involving their enemies. This is done with no remorse as long as it's useful in defeating the Commies or Fascists (or whoever). Defeating an "enemy" becomes an all-encompassing goal to which other values are subordinate. With extremists, the ends often justify the means.
> 
> 15. Extremists Tend To Place Great Value On Emotional Responses.
> 
> They have a reverence for propaganda, which they may call education or consciousness-raising. Consequently, they tend to drape themselves and their cause in a flag of patriotism, a banner of righteousness or a shroud of victimhood. Their crusades against "enemies" may invoke images of the swastika, the hammer and sickle or some other symbol, as the case may be. In each instance the symbol represents an extremely odious concept in terms of their ideological premises. This ploy attempts to invoke an uncritical gut-level sympathy and acceptance of their position which discourages examination of their premises or the conclusions which they claim necessarily derive from them.
> 
> 16. Some Extremists, Particularly Those Involved In "Cults" Or
> 
> religious movements such as fundamental evangelical Christians, Zionists, members of the numerous new age groups and followers of certain "gurus," claim some kind of supernatural, mystical or divinely-inspired rationale for their beliefs and actions. Their willingness to force their will on others, censor and silence opponents and critics, and in some cases actively persecute certain groups, is ordained by God! This is surprisingly effective because many people, when confronted by this kind of claim, are reluctant to challenge it because it represents "religious belief" or because of the sacred cow status of some religions. Extremists traits tend to have three things in common:
> 
> The represent some attempt to distort reality for themselves and others.
> They try to discourage critical examination of their beliefs, either by false logic, rhetorical trickery or some kind of intimidation.
> They represent an attempt to act out private, personal grudges or rationalize the pursuit of special interests in the name of public welfare.
> Remember, human beings are imperfect and fallible. Even a rational, honest, well-intentioned person may resort to some of these traits from time to time. Everyone has strong feelings about some issues and anyone can get excited and "blow off" once in awhile. We still retain our basic common sense, respect for facts and good will toward others. The difference between most of us and the bonafide extremist is that these traits are an habitual and established part of their repertoire. Extremists believe they're doing the right thing when they act this way in the service of their cause.
> 
> The truth of a proposition cannot be inferred merely from the manner in which arguments in its behalf are presented, from the fact that its advocates censor and harass their opponents, or because they commit any other act or combination of acts suggested in this essay. Ultimately, the truth of any proposition rests on the evidence for it. To impeach a proposition merely because it is advocated by obvious "extremists" is to dismiss it ad hominem, that is, because of who proposes it. The fact is that extremists are sometimes right -- sometimes very right -- because they often deal with the gut issues, the controversial issues many people choose to avoid. So, before you perfunctorily write off somebody as an "extremist" and close your eyes and ears to his message, take a look at his evidence. It just might be that he's on to something!
> 
> 
> [Laird Wilcox is editor of The Wilcox Report Newsletter , Box 2047, Olathe, Kansas 66061. He is founder of the Wilcox Collection on Contemporary Political Movements in the Kenneth Spencer Research Library at the University of Kansas]



Mr. Wilcox is more concerned about communists than he is worried about the Tea Party (because he is probably a member).

Dipshyt.


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> The best thing about the end of conservative extremism in America is watching you all stew in your own juices. Self inflicted irrelevance. The end of the politics of hate.
> 
> You and the Taliban.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Considering conservative "extremism" never started, I don't think you have to worry about its "end".
> 
> Now tell us again how Medicare's complete and total insolvency is "Republican propaganda" as Barack Obama stands before a mic in front of the world pitching Obamacare as an urgent need due to Medicare's complete and total insolvency. And I added the video to prove what a laying, propaganda-spreading, parasite, asshole that you are.
> 
> There's a reason you're all alone here with only one idiot asshole troll (Dante) coming to your aid. Because we've stuffed this thread so full of undeniable facts regarding the failure of Obamacare, even the Dumbocrats on USMB realize it is credibility suicide to attempt to deny it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Considering conservative "extremism" never started, I don't think you have to worry about its "end"."
> 
> How would you define extremism?
> 
> People like you who eschew facts and reality for brainwashed ideology.
Click to expand...


The Medicare trust fund has a surplus invested in US Treasuries for now, but it's spending more now than taking in. Something has to be done.

Wait a second - just a few posts ago you were claiming this very statement was "Republican propaganda". Apparently, PMZ only believes something if he sees Obama say it (man, does that explain a _lot_).



PMZ said:


> There are several variables that could be put into play in addressing the problem. Some are revenue solutions some are expense solutions.
> 
> The root causes of all of the problems are our population growth, our relatively poor health habits and the success of medical technology.



The root cause is Dumbocrat communism. The root solution is good old fashioned American free market capitalism.



PMZ said:


> Despite our relatively poor health habits we are living, and living well, longer, due to more and more expensive diagnostic and treatment alternatives, and our below world standard health care delivery and insurance cost effectiveness. We are way behind the rest of the developed world in cost and benefit effectiveness for health care as evidenced by our 2X costs and 1/2Y  results compared to our global business competition.
> 
> What don't you agree with so far?



The part where you ignorantly and wrongfully claimed that Medicare's insolvency was "Republican propaganda" and the part where you ignorantly claim we have "below world standard health care delivery" (when in fact we have the most elite health care delivery in world history), and the part where you believe "revenue solutions" would address the problem.


----------



## PMZ

Listening said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some help defining extremism from    voluntaryist.com
> 
> 
> What Is Political "Extremism"?
> 
> by Laird Wilcox
> From Issue 27 - Aug. 1987
> 
> Roger Scruton, in the Dictionary Of Political Thought (Hill & Wang, New York, 1982) defines "extremism" as:
> 
> "A vague term, which can mean: 1. Taking a political idea to its limits, regardless of 'unfortunate' repercussions, impracticalities, arguments and feelings to the contrary, and with the intention not only to confront, but also to eliminate opposition. 2. Intolerance towards all views other than one's own. 3. Adoption of means to political ends which show disregard for the life, liberty, and human rights of others."
> This is a very fair definition and it reflects my experience that "extremism" is essentially more an issue of style than of content. In the twenty-five years that I have been investigating political groups of the left and right, I have found that many people can hold very radical or unorthodox political views and still present them in a reasonable, rational and non-dogmatic manner. On the other hand, I have met people whose views were shrill, uncompromising and distinctly authoritarian. The latter demonstrated a starkly extremist mentality while the former demonstrated only ideological unorthodoxy, which is hardly to be feared in a free society such as our own.
> 
> I don't mean to imply that content is entirely irrelevant. People who tend to adopt the extremist style most often champion causes and adopt ideologies that are essentially "fringe" positions on the political spectrum. Advocacy of "fringe" positions, however, gives our society the variety and vitality it needs to function as an open democracy, to discuss and debate all aspects of an issue and to deal with problems we may otherwise have a tendency to ignore. I think this is the proper role of radical movements, left and right, in our system. The extremist style is another issue altogether, however, in that it seriously hampers our understanding of important issues, it muddies the waters of discourse with invective, fanaticism and hatred, and it impairs our ability to make intelligent, well-informed choices.
> 
> Another, perhaps more popular, definition of "extremism" is that it represents points of view we strongly disagree with, advocated by someone we dislike whose interests are contrary to our own!
> 
> Political ideologues often attempt definitions of extremism which specifically condemn the views of their opponents and critics while leaving their own relatively untouched, or which are otherwise biased toward certain views but not others. To be fair, a definition must be equally applicable across the entire political spectrum.
> 
> In point of fact, the terms "extremist" and "extremism" are often used thoughtlessly an epithets, "devilwords" to curse or condemn opponents and critics with! I find, however, that the extremist style is not the monopoly of any sector of the political spectrum. It is just as common on the "left" as it is on the "right," and sometimes it shows up in the political "center" as well!
> 
> In analyzing the rhetoric and literature of several hundred "fringe" and militant "special interest" groups I have identified several specific traits that tend to represent the extremist style. I would like to caution you with the admonition, however, that we are all fallible and anyone, without bad intentions, may resort to some of these devices from time to time. But with bonafide extremists these lapses are not occasional and the following traits are an habitual and established part of their repertoire. The late Robert Kennedy, in The Pursuit Of Justice (1964), said; "What is objectionable, what is dangerous about extremists is not that they are extreme, but that they are intolerant. The evil is not what they say about their cause, but what they say about their opponents."
> 
> 1. Character Assassination.
> 
> Extremists often attack the character of an opponent or critic rather than deal with the facts and issues that he raises or debate the points of his arguments. They will question his motives, qualifications, past associations, values, personality, mental health and so on as a diversion from the issues under consideration.
> 
> 2. Name Calling And Labeling.
> 
> Extremists are quick to resort to epithets (racist, subversive, pervert, hatemonger, nut, crackpot, degenerate, Un-American, Anti-Semite, Red, Commie, Nazi, Kook, etc.) to label and condemn an opponent in order to divert attention from his arguments and to discourage other from hearing him out.
> 
> 3. Irresponsible Sweeping Generalizations.
> 
> Extremists tend to make sweeping claims or judgments on little or no evidence, and they have a tendency to confuse similarity with sameness. That is, they assume that because two (or more) things are alike in some respects they must be alike in all or most respects! Analogy is a treacherous form of logic and its potential for distortion and false conclusions even when the premises are basically correct is enormous.
> 
> 4. Inadequate Proof For Assertions.
> 
> Extremists tend to be very fuzzy on what constitutes proof for their assertions. They also tend to get caught up in logical fallacies, such as post hoc ergo propter hoc (assuming that a prior event explains a subsequent occurrence simply because of their "before" and "after" relationship). They tend to project "wished for" conclusions and to exaggerate the significance of information which confirms their prejudices and to derogate or ignore information which contradicts them.
> 
> 5. Advocacy Of Double Standards.
> 
> Extremists tend to judge themselves in terms of their intentions, which they tend to view generously, and others by their acts, which they tend to view very critically. They would like you to accept their assertions on faith but they demand proof for yours. They also tend to engage in "special pleading" on behalf of their group, because of some special status, past persecution or present disadvantage.
> 
> 6. Extremists Tend To View Their Opponents And Critics As Essentially Evil.
> 
> Their enemies hold opposing views because they are bad people, immoral, dishonest, unscrupulous, mean-spirited, cruel, etc., and not merely because they simply disagree, see the matter differently, have competing interests of are perhaps even mistaken!
> 
> 7. Extremists Tend To Have A Manichean Worldview.
> 
> That is, they tend to see the world in terms of absolutes of good and evil, for them or against them, with no middle ground or intermediate positions. All issues are ultimately moral issues of right and wrong. Their slogan tends to be "he who is not with me, is against me!"
> 
> 8. Extremists Very Often Advocate Some Degree Of Censorship And Repression Of Their Opponents And Critics.
> 
> This may range from an active campaign to keep them from media access and a public hearing, as in the case of blacklisting, banning, or "quarantining" dissident spokesmen, or actually lobbying for repressive legislation against speaking, teaching or instructing the "forbidden" information. They may attempt to keep certain books out of stores or off of library shelves or card catalogs, discourage advertising with threats of reprisals, keep spokesmen for offending views off the airwaves, or certain columnists out of newspapers. In each instance the goal is some kind of information control. Extremists would prefer that you only listen to them.
> 
> 9. Extremists Tend To Identify Themselves In Terms Of Who Their Enemies Are,
> 
> who they hate and who hates them! Accordingly, they often become emotionally bound to their enemies, who are often competing extremists on the opposite pole of the ideological spectrum. They tend to emulate their enemies in certain respects, adopting the same style and tactics to a certain degree. Even "anti-extremist" groups often exhibit extremist behavior in this regard!
> 
> 10. Extremists Are Given To Arguments By Intimidation.
> 
> That is, they frame their arguments in such a way as to intimidate others into accepting their premises and conclusions. To disagree with them, they imply, is to ally oneself with the devil or give aid and comfort to the "bad guys." This ploy allows them to define the parameters of debate, cut off troublesome lines of argument, and keep their opponents on the defensive.
> 
> 11. Wide Use Of Slogans, Buzzwords And Thought-Stopping Cliches.
> 
> For many extremists simple slogans substitute for more complex abstractions in spite of a high level of intelligence. Shortcuts in thinking and reasoning matters out seems to be necessary in order to appease their prejudices and to avoid troublesome facts and counter-arguments.
> 
> 12. Doomsday Thinking.
> 
> Extremists often predict dire or catastrophic consequences from a situation or from failure to follow a specific course, and they exhibit a kind of "crisis-mindedness." It can be a Communist takeover, a Nazi revival, nuclear war, currency collapse, worldwide famine, drought, earthquakes, floods or the wrath of God. Whatever it is, it's just around the corner unless we follow their program and listen to their special insights or the wisdom that only the enlightened have access to!
> 
> 13. Extremists Often Claim Some Kind Of Moral Or Other Superiority Over Others.
> 
> Most obvious are claims of general racial superiority -- a master race, for example. Less obvious are claims of ennoblement because of alleged victimhood, a special relationship with God, membership in a special "elite" or revolutionary vanguard. They also take great offense when one is "insensitive" enough to dispute these claims or challenge their authority.
> 
> 14. Extremists Tend To Believe That It's OK To Do Bad Things In The Service Of A "Good" Cause.
> 
> They may deliberately lie, distort, misquote, slander or libel their opponents and critics, or advocate censorship or repression in "special cases" involving their enemies. This is done with no remorse as long as it's useful in defeating the Commies or Fascists (or whoever). Defeating an "enemy" becomes an all-encompassing goal to which other values are subordinate. With extremists, the ends often justify the means.
> 
> 15. Extremists Tend To Place Great Value On Emotional Responses.
> 
> They have a reverence for propaganda, which they may call education or consciousness-raising. Consequently, they tend to drape themselves and their cause in a flag of patriotism, a banner of righteousness or a shroud of victimhood. Their crusades against "enemies" may invoke images of the swastika, the hammer and sickle or some other symbol, as the case may be. In each instance the symbol represents an extremely odious concept in terms of their ideological premises. This ploy attempts to invoke an uncritical gut-level sympathy and acceptance of their position which discourages examination of their premises or the conclusions which they claim necessarily derive from them.
> 
> 16. Some Extremists, Particularly Those Involved In "Cults" Or
> 
> religious movements such as fundamental evangelical Christians, Zionists, members of the numerous new age groups and followers of certain "gurus," claim some kind of supernatural, mystical or divinely-inspired rationale for their beliefs and actions. Their willingness to force their will on others, censor and silence opponents and critics, and in some cases actively persecute certain groups, is ordained by God! This is surprisingly effective because many people, when confronted by this kind of claim, are reluctant to challenge it because it represents "religious belief" or because of the sacred cow status of some religions. Extremists traits tend to have three things in common:
> 
> The represent some attempt to distort reality for themselves and others.
> They try to discourage critical examination of their beliefs, either by false logic, rhetorical trickery or some kind of intimidation.
> They represent an attempt to act out private, personal grudges or rationalize the pursuit of special interests in the name of public welfare.
> Remember, human beings are imperfect and fallible. Even a rational, honest, well-intentioned person may resort to some of these traits from time to time. Everyone has strong feelings about some issues and anyone can get excited and "blow off" once in awhile. We still retain our basic common sense, respect for facts and good will toward others. The difference between most of us and the bonafide extremist is that these traits are an habitual and established part of their repertoire. Extremists believe they're doing the right thing when they act this way in the service of their cause.
> 
> The truth of a proposition cannot be inferred merely from the manner in which arguments in its behalf are presented, from the fact that its advocates censor and harass their opponents, or because they commit any other act or combination of acts suggested in this essay. Ultimately, the truth of any proposition rests on the evidence for it. To impeach a proposition merely because it is advocated by obvious "extremists" is to dismiss it ad hominem, that is, because of who proposes it. The fact is that extremists are sometimes right -- sometimes very right -- because they often deal with the gut issues, the controversial issues many people choose to avoid. So, before you perfunctorily write off somebody as an "extremist" and close your eyes and ears to his message, take a look at his evidence. It just might be that he's on to something!
> 
> 
> [Laird Wilcox is editor of The Wilcox Report Newsletter , Box 2047, Olathe, Kansas 66061. He is founder of the Wilcox Collection on Contemporary Political Movements in the Kenneth Spencer Research Library at the University of Kansas]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Wilcox is more concerned about communists than he is worried about the Tea Party (because he is probably a member).
> 
> Dipshyt.
Click to expand...


"because he is probably a (Tea Party) member".

What's the evidence of that?


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Considering conservative "extremism" never started, I don't think you have to worry about its "end".
> 
> Now tell us again how Medicare's complete and total insolvency is "Republican propaganda" as Barack Obama stands before a mic in front of the world pitching Obamacare as an urgent need due to Medicare's complete and total insolvency. And I added the video to prove what a laying, propaganda-spreading, parasite, asshole that you are.
> 
> There's a reason you're all alone here with only one idiot asshole troll (Dante) coming to your aid. Because we've stuffed this thread so full of undeniable facts regarding the failure of Obamacare, even the Dumbocrats on USMB realize it is credibility suicide to attempt to deny it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Considering conservative "extremism" never started, I don't think you have to worry about its "end"."
> 
> How would you define extremism?
> 
> People like you who eschew facts and reality for brainwashed ideology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Medicare trust fund has a surplus invested in US Treasuries for now, but it's spending more now than taking in. Something has to be done.
> 
> Wait a second - just a few posts ago you were claiming this very statement was "Republican propaganda". Apparently, PMZ only believes something if he sees Obama say it (man, does that explain a _lot_).
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are several variables that could be put into play in addressing the problem. Some are revenue solutions some are expense solutions.
> 
> The root causes of all of the problems are our population growth, our relatively poor health habits and the success of medical technology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The root cause is Dumbocrat communism. The root solution is good old fashioned American free market capitalism.
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Despite our relatively poor health habits we are living, and living well, longer, due to more and more expensive diagnostic and treatment alternatives, and our below world standard health care delivery and insurance cost effectiveness. We are way behind the rest of the developed world in cost and benefit effectiveness for health care as evidenced by our 2X costs and 1/2Y  results compared to our global business competition.
> 
> What don't you agree with so far?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The part where you ignorantly and wrongfully claimed that Medicare's insolvency was "Republican propaganda" and the part where you ignorantly claim we have "below world standard health care delivery" (when in fact we have the most elite health care delivery in world history), and the part where you believe "revenue solutions" would address the problem.
Click to expand...


Medicare is definitely not insolvent. If Republicans are claiming that it is propaganda.


----------



## Listening

PMZ said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some help defining extremism from    voluntaryist.com
> 
> 
> What Is Political "Extremism"?
> 
> by Laird Wilcox
> From Issue 27 - Aug. 1987
> 
> Roger Scruton, in the Dictionary Of Political Thought (Hill & Wang, New York, 1982) defines "extremism" as:
> 
> "A vague term, which can mean: 1. Taking a political idea to its limits, regardless of 'unfortunate' repercussions, impracticalities, arguments and feelings to the contrary, and with the intention not only to confront, but also to eliminate opposition. 2. Intolerance towards all views other than one's own. 3. Adoption of means to political ends which show disregard for the life, liberty, and human rights of others."
> This is a very fair definition and it reflects my experience that "extremism" is essentially more an issue of style than of content. In the twenty-five years that I have been investigating political groups of the left and right, I have found that many people can hold very radical or unorthodox political views and still present them in a reasonable, rational and non-dogmatic manner. On the other hand, I have met people whose views were shrill, uncompromising and distinctly authoritarian. The latter demonstrated a starkly extremist mentality while the former demonstrated only ideological unorthodoxy, which is hardly to be feared in a free society such as our own.
> 
> I don't mean to imply that content is entirely irrelevant. People who tend to adopt the extremist style most often champion causes and adopt ideologies that are essentially "fringe" positions on the political spectrum. Advocacy of "fringe" positions, however, gives our society the variety and vitality it needs to function as an open democracy, to discuss and debate all aspects of an issue and to deal with problems we may otherwise have a tendency to ignore. I think this is the proper role of radical movements, left and right, in our system. The extremist style is another issue altogether, however, in that it seriously hampers our understanding of important issues, it muddies the waters of discourse with invective, fanaticism and hatred, and it impairs our ability to make intelligent, well-informed choices.
> 
> Another, perhaps more popular, definition of "extremism" is that it represents points of view we strongly disagree with, advocated by someone we dislike whose interests are contrary to our own!
> 
> Political ideologues often attempt definitions of extremism which specifically condemn the views of their opponents and critics while leaving their own relatively untouched, or which are otherwise biased toward certain views but not others. To be fair, a definition must be equally applicable across the entire political spectrum.
> 
> In point of fact, the terms "extremist" and "extremism" are often used thoughtlessly an epithets, "devilwords" to curse or condemn opponents and critics with! I find, however, that the extremist style is not the monopoly of any sector of the political spectrum. It is just as common on the "left" as it is on the "right," and sometimes it shows up in the political "center" as well!
> 
> In analyzing the rhetoric and literature of several hundred "fringe" and militant "special interest" groups I have identified several specific traits that tend to represent the extremist style. I would like to caution you with the admonition, however, that we are all fallible and anyone, without bad intentions, may resort to some of these devices from time to time. But with bonafide extremists these lapses are not occasional and the following traits are an habitual and established part of their repertoire. The late Robert Kennedy, in The Pursuit Of Justice (1964), said; "What is objectionable, what is dangerous about extremists is not that they are extreme, but that they are intolerant. The evil is not what they say about their cause, but what they say about their opponents."
> 
> 1. Character Assassination.
> 
> Extremists often attack the character of an opponent or critic rather than deal with the facts and issues that he raises or debate the points of his arguments. They will question his motives, qualifications, past associations, values, personality, mental health and so on as a diversion from the issues under consideration.
> 
> 2. Name Calling And Labeling.
> 
> Extremists are quick to resort to epithets (racist, subversive, pervert, hatemonger, nut, crackpot, degenerate, Un-American, Anti-Semite, Red, Commie, Nazi, Kook, etc.) to label and condemn an opponent in order to divert attention from his arguments and to discourage other from hearing him out.
> 
> 3. Irresponsible Sweeping Generalizations.
> 
> Extremists tend to make sweeping claims or judgments on little or no evidence, and they have a tendency to confuse similarity with sameness. That is, they assume that because two (or more) things are alike in some respects they must be alike in all or most respects! Analogy is a treacherous form of logic and its potential for distortion and false conclusions even when the premises are basically correct is enormous.
> 
> 4. Inadequate Proof For Assertions.
> 
> Extremists tend to be very fuzzy on what constitutes proof for their assertions. They also tend to get caught up in logical fallacies, such as post hoc ergo propter hoc (assuming that a prior event explains a subsequent occurrence simply because of their "before" and "after" relationship). They tend to project "wished for" conclusions and to exaggerate the significance of information which confirms their prejudices and to derogate or ignore information which contradicts them.
> 
> 5. Advocacy Of Double Standards.
> 
> Extremists tend to judge themselves in terms of their intentions, which they tend to view generously, and others by their acts, which they tend to view very critically. They would like you to accept their assertions on faith but they demand proof for yours. They also tend to engage in "special pleading" on behalf of their group, because of some special status, past persecution or present disadvantage.
> 
> 6. Extremists Tend To View Their Opponents And Critics As Essentially Evil.
> 
> Their enemies hold opposing views because they are bad people, immoral, dishonest, unscrupulous, mean-spirited, cruel, etc., and not merely because they simply disagree, see the matter differently, have competing interests of are perhaps even mistaken!
> 
> 7. Extremists Tend To Have A Manichean Worldview.
> 
> That is, they tend to see the world in terms of absolutes of good and evil, for them or against them, with no middle ground or intermediate positions. All issues are ultimately moral issues of right and wrong. Their slogan tends to be "he who is not with me, is against me!"
> 
> 8. Extremists Very Often Advocate Some Degree Of Censorship And Repression Of Their Opponents And Critics.
> 
> This may range from an active campaign to keep them from media access and a public hearing, as in the case of blacklisting, banning, or "quarantining" dissident spokesmen, or actually lobbying for repressive legislation against speaking, teaching or instructing the "forbidden" information. They may attempt to keep certain books out of stores or off of library shelves or card catalogs, discourage advertising with threats of reprisals, keep spokesmen for offending views off the airwaves, or certain columnists out of newspapers. In each instance the goal is some kind of information control. Extremists would prefer that you only listen to them.
> 
> 9. Extremists Tend To Identify Themselves In Terms Of Who Their Enemies Are,
> 
> who they hate and who hates them! Accordingly, they often become emotionally bound to their enemies, who are often competing extremists on the opposite pole of the ideological spectrum. They tend to emulate their enemies in certain respects, adopting the same style and tactics to a certain degree. Even "anti-extremist" groups often exhibit extremist behavior in this regard!
> 
> 10. Extremists Are Given To Arguments By Intimidation.
> 
> That is, they frame their arguments in such a way as to intimidate others into accepting their premises and conclusions. To disagree with them, they imply, is to ally oneself with the devil or give aid and comfort to the "bad guys." This ploy allows them to define the parameters of debate, cut off troublesome lines of argument, and keep their opponents on the defensive.
> 
> 11. Wide Use Of Slogans, Buzzwords And Thought-Stopping Cliches.
> 
> For many extremists simple slogans substitute for more complex abstractions in spite of a high level of intelligence. Shortcuts in thinking and reasoning matters out seems to be necessary in order to appease their prejudices and to avoid troublesome facts and counter-arguments.
> 
> 12. Doomsday Thinking.
> 
> Extremists often predict dire or catastrophic consequences from a situation or from failure to follow a specific course, and they exhibit a kind of "crisis-mindedness." It can be a Communist takeover, a Nazi revival, nuclear war, currency collapse, worldwide famine, drought, earthquakes, floods or the wrath of God. Whatever it is, it's just around the corner unless we follow their program and listen to their special insights or the wisdom that only the enlightened have access to!
> 
> 13. Extremists Often Claim Some Kind Of Moral Or Other Superiority Over Others.
> 
> Most obvious are claims of general racial superiority -- a master race, for example. Less obvious are claims of ennoblement because of alleged victimhood, a special relationship with God, membership in a special "elite" or revolutionary vanguard. They also take great offense when one is "insensitive" enough to dispute these claims or challenge their authority.
> 
> 14. Extremists Tend To Believe That It's OK To Do Bad Things In The Service Of A "Good" Cause.
> 
> They may deliberately lie, distort, misquote, slander or libel their opponents and critics, or advocate censorship or repression in "special cases" involving their enemies. This is done with no remorse as long as it's useful in defeating the Commies or Fascists (or whoever). Defeating an "enemy" becomes an all-encompassing goal to which other values are subordinate. With extremists, the ends often justify the means.
> 
> 15. Extremists Tend To Place Great Value On Emotional Responses.
> 
> They have a reverence for propaganda, which they may call education or consciousness-raising. Consequently, they tend to drape themselves and their cause in a flag of patriotism, a banner of righteousness or a shroud of victimhood. Their crusades against "enemies" may invoke images of the swastika, the hammer and sickle or some other symbol, as the case may be. In each instance the symbol represents an extremely odious concept in terms of their ideological premises. This ploy attempts to invoke an uncritical gut-level sympathy and acceptance of their position which discourages examination of their premises or the conclusions which they claim necessarily derive from them.
> 
> 16. Some Extremists, Particularly Those Involved In "Cults" Or
> 
> religious movements such as fundamental evangelical Christians, Zionists, members of the numerous new age groups and followers of certain "gurus," claim some kind of supernatural, mystical or divinely-inspired rationale for their beliefs and actions. Their willingness to force their will on others, censor and silence opponents and critics, and in some cases actively persecute certain groups, is ordained by God! This is surprisingly effective because many people, when confronted by this kind of claim, are reluctant to challenge it because it represents "religious belief" or because of the sacred cow status of some religions. Extremists traits tend to have three things in common:
> 
> The represent some attempt to distort reality for themselves and others.
> They try to discourage critical examination of their beliefs, either by false logic, rhetorical trickery or some kind of intimidation.
> They represent an attempt to act out private, personal grudges or rationalize the pursuit of special interests in the name of public welfare.
> Remember, human beings are imperfect and fallible. Even a rational, honest, well-intentioned person may resort to some of these traits from time to time. Everyone has strong feelings about some issues and anyone can get excited and "blow off" once in awhile. We still retain our basic common sense, respect for facts and good will toward others. The difference between most of us and the bonafide extremist is that these traits are an habitual and established part of their repertoire. Extremists believe they're doing the right thing when they act this way in the service of their cause.
> 
> The truth of a proposition cannot be inferred merely from the manner in which arguments in its behalf are presented, from the fact that its advocates censor and harass their opponents, or because they commit any other act or combination of acts suggested in this essay. Ultimately, the truth of any proposition rests on the evidence for it. To impeach a proposition merely because it is advocated by obvious "extremists" is to dismiss it ad hominem, that is, because of who proposes it. The fact is that extremists are sometimes right -- sometimes very right -- because they often deal with the gut issues, the controversial issues many people choose to avoid. So, before you perfunctorily write off somebody as an "extremist" and close your eyes and ears to his message, take a look at his evidence. It just might be that he's on to something!
> 
> 
> [Laird Wilcox is editor of The Wilcox Report Newsletter , Box 2047, Olathe, Kansas 66061. He is founder of the Wilcox Collection on Contemporary Political Movements in the Kenneth Spencer Research Library at the University of Kansas]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Wilcox is more concerned about communists than he is worried about the Tea Party (because he is probably a member).
> 
> Dipshyt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "because he is probably a (Tea Party) member".
> 
> What's the evidence of that?
Click to expand...


Go look at his website.


----------



## PMZ

Listening said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Wilcox is more concerned about communists than he is worried about the Tea Party (because he is probably a member).
> 
> Dipshyt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "because he is probably a (Tea Party) member".
> 
> What's the evidence of that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go look at his website.
Click to expand...


http://www.lairdwilcox.com/

No evidence there.


----------



## Listening

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EPd2i4Jshs]Krugman gets p3wned on Canadian Health Care - YouTube[/ame]

Paul Krugman gets his ass handed to him on Canadian Health Care...something he crowed about.


----------



## BlackSand

PMZ said:


> You really don't see yourself in those words?
> You need some exercise in introspection.



I have no questions as to what I believe ... What I think about politics and policies ... Nor how it relates to the rest of the world.
If you think not giving a damn about your silly political stance is extreme ... Then you may want to evaluate your own understanding more appropriately.
Other than that ... You could apply most of what you posted to yourself ... Well, anyone else could and I really don't think you are capable of achieving that level of introspection, humility or relative self-awareness.

*But anyway, back on topic since any intellectual honesty on your part is a pipe dream ...*

What do you think about President Obama backtracking on yet another requirement as far as the ACA is concerned?
You know when he lied about people being able to keep their insurance ... And then acknowledged that Americans who were unable to keep their insurance as he promised would not be fined making the Individual Mandate a joke.
Or how about the fact President Obama took extra measures to ensure that affordable plans were available for purchase by offering lower cost/higher deductible Catastrophic Care Plans?
Those plans don't include the mandated requirements the President and Congress made applicable to every other insurance policy that caused people to lose the original policies they had in the first place.

How much longer do you think the Liberals like you and Democrats are going to be able to support the absolute failure the ACA is becoming?
How long are you going to support the ability of the President to change the ACA law at his own discretion with executive privilege and without Congressional oversight?
How long will people like you try to keep giving CPR to the utter failure the Democrats came up with as a solution for healthcare?

*Every week the President has to change the requirements in hopes of saving what little is left of the original law passed by Democrats in Congress ... 
And with the understanding that if it came back to a vote today ... There is no way the ACA would be passed by the House or Senate.*

.


----------



## beagle9

PMZ said:


> It used to be quite common to put workers in situations where their health,  or even life,  was put at risk by their work. We found that technology and regulations eliminated virtually all of that barbaric practice (except for the military although it's greatly improved there too).
> 
> If we ask people to work at wages that make health care unaffordable for them,  aren't we recreating what we left behind decades ago?


Yes, but does Obama-care fix all this in the same ways ? You see this is what people want you to show them that it does, but I guess you can't. 

Now if you can't show them that part of it at least, then they are on towards other solutions, and hopefully quickly if you ask me.


----------



## PMZ

BlackSand said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You really don't see yourself in those words?
> You need some exercise in introspection.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no questions as to what I believe ... What I think about politics and policies ... Nor how it relates to the rest of the world.
> If you think not giving a damn about your silly political stance is extreme ... Then you may want to evaluate your own understanding more appropriately.
> Other than that ... You could apply most of what you posted to yourself ... Well, anyone else could and I really don't think you are capable of achieving that level of introspection, humility or relative self-awareness.
> 
> *But anyway, back on topic since any intellectual honesty on your part is a pipe dream ...*
> 
> What do you think about President Obama backtracking on yet another requirement as far as the ACA is concerned?
> You know when he lied about people being able to keep their insurance ... And then acknowledged that Americans who were unable to keep their insurance as he promised would not be fined making the Individual Mandate a joke.
> Or how about the fact President Obama took extra measures to ensure that affordable plans were available for purchase by offering lower cost/higher deductible Catastrophic Care Plans?
> Those plans don't include the mandated requirements the President and Congress made applicable to every other insurance policy that caused people to lose the original policies they had in the first place.
> 
> How much longer do you think the Liberals like you and Democrats are going to be able to support the absolute failure the ACA is becoming?
> How long are you going to support the ability of the President to change the ACA law at his own discretion with executive privilege and without Congressional oversight?
> How long will people like you try to keep giving CPR to the utter failure the Democrats came up with as a solution for healthcare?
> 
> *Every week the President has to change the requirements in hopes of saving what little is left of the original law passed by Democrats in Congress ...
> And with the understanding that if it came back to a vote today ... There is no way the ACA would be passed by the House or Senate.*
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Every month of his administrations Republicans spin another monumental Obama error that will for sure do him in. Every single one of them at the end of the month have completely flopped as the public learns the truth. 

I encourage you to keep it up.


----------



## PMZ

beagle9 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> It used to be quite common to put workers in situations where their health,  or even life,  was put at risk by their work. We found that technology and regulations eliminated virtually all of that barbaric practice (except for the military although it's greatly improved there too).
> 
> If we ask people to work at wages that make health care unaffordable for them,  aren't we recreating what we left behind decades ago?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but does Obama-care fix all this in the same ways ? You see this is what people want you to show them that it does, but I guess you can't.
> 
> Now if you can't show them that part of it at least, then they are on towards other solutions, and hopefully quickly if you ask me.
Click to expand...


Only open minded people learn.


----------



## Listening

PMZ said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> It used to be quite common to put workers in situations where their health,  or even life,  was put at risk by their work. We found that technology and regulations eliminated virtually all of that barbaric practice (except for the military although it's greatly improved there too).
> 
> If we ask people to work at wages that make health care unaffordable for them,  aren't we recreating what we left behind decades ago?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but does Obama-care fix all this in the same ways ? You see this is what people want you to show them that it does, but I guess you can't.
> 
> Now if you can't show them that part of it at least, then they are on towards other solutions, and hopefully quickly if you ask me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only open minded people learn.
Click to expand...


IOW: You have nothing.


----------



## PMZ

Listening said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but does Obama-care fix all this in the same ways ? You see this is what people want you to show them that it does, but I guess you can't.
> 
> Now if you can't show them that part of it at least, then they are on towards other solutions, and hopefully quickly if you ask me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only open minded people learn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> IOW: You have nothing.
Click to expand...


Are you disagreeing with my statement?


----------



## Listening

PMZ said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only open minded people learn.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IOW: You have nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you disagreeing with my statement?
Click to expand...


Your answer is simply a deflection to his claim you can't produce (which is apparently true).


----------



## PMZ

Listening said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> IOW: You have nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you disagreeing with my statement?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your answer is simply a deflection to his claim you can't produce (which is apparently true).
Click to expand...


Are you disagreeing with my statement? Yes or no?


----------



## BlackSand

PMZ said:


> Every month of his administrations Republicans spin another monumental Obama error that will for sure do him in. Every single one of them at the end of the month have completely flopped as the public learns the truth.
> 
> I encourage you to keep it up.



*Try answering the questions ... Try to post something other than liberal robot talking points.*
You cannot blame what President Obama is continually changing in the ACA, due to its failures, on the Republicans any longer.

The Republicans cannot be blamed for the President's lie and then what he does to try and make up for it.
The Republicans cannot be blamed for the President's desire to offer substandard healthcare options to people he doesn't care about because they lost their insurance.
The Republicans haven't made the President go back on the Individual Mandate or Mandated Requirements for healthcare in the ACA ... President Obama is doing that by executive order.

I guess all the President needed was a law to work with ... Because nothing is what it was intended to be and President Obama changes the requirements weekly.
*You are the one behind my friend ... Have been ... And only someone like you is unable to accept the fact that President Obama is undoing the trash the ACA is and always has been.
*

.


----------



## Listening

PMZ said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you disagreeing with my statement?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your answer is simply a deflection to his claim you can't produce (which is apparently true).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you disagreeing with my statement? Yes or no?
Click to expand...


I am saying you are a bullshyt artist.


----------



## PMZ

BlackSand said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every month of his administrations Republicans spin another monumental Obama error that will for sure do him in. Every single one of them at the end of the month have completely flopped as the public learns the truth.
> 
> I encourage you to keep it up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Try answering the questions ... Try to post something other than liberal robot talking points.*
> You cannot blame what President Obama is continually changing in the ACA, due to its failures, on the Republicans any longer.
> 
> The Republicans cannot be blamed for the President's lie and then what he does to try and make up for it.
> The Republicans cannot be blamed for the President's desire to offer substandard healthcare options to people he doesn't care about because they lost their insurance.
> The Republicans haven't made the President go back on the Individual Mandate or Mandated Requirements for healthcare in the ACA ... President Obama is doing that by executive order.
> 
> I guess all the President needed was a law to work with ... Because nothing is what it was intended to be and President Obama changes the requirements weekly.
> *You are the one behind my friend ... Have been ... And only someone like you is unable to accept the fact that President Obama is undoing the trash the ACA is and always has been.
> *
> 
> .
Click to expand...


As I said, please don't change a thing. Keep up the hate of everyone and everything. Good politics.


----------



## PMZ

Listening said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your answer is simply a deflection to his claim you can't produce (which is apparently true).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you disagreeing with my statement? Yes or no?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am saying you are a bullshyt artist.
Click to expand...


Let me check and see if I care in any way what you think.

Nope. Not a bit.


----------



## Listening

PMZ said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you disagreeing with my statement? Yes or no?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am saying you are a bullshyt artist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me check and see if I care in any way what you think.
> 
> Nope. Not a bit.
Click to expand...


You still have nothing.  You can't show anything just like he stated.

Thanks for pointing out, yet again, that you really are a worthless schill for the pissants who pull your strings.


----------



## BlackSand

PMZ said:


> As I said, please don't change a thing. Keep up the hate of everyone and everything. Good politics.



I am not changing anything ... Why is the President changing his own signature legislation?
How does the President changing the ACA requirements equate to me hating anyone?

Maybe you can answer those questions.

.


----------



## PMZ

Listening said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am saying you are a bullshyt artist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me check and see if I care in any way what you think.
> 
> Nope. Not a bit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You still have nothing.  You can't show anything just like he stated.
> 
> Thanks for pointing out, yet again, that you really are a worthless schill for the pissants who pull your strings.
Click to expand...


You are as good an example as anyone of how closed minded extremists are, and how that prevents learning. In fact, you are so closed minded that you are unaware that you are, now and forever, stuck. No way to move on. No way to learn from conservatism's failure. 

That's what I like about you. You are even better than I am at destroying the only thing that you will ever know politically.


----------



## Listening

BlackSand said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I said, please don't change a thing. Keep up the hate of everyone and everything. Good politics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not changing anything ... Why is the President changing his own signature legislation?
> How does the President changing the ACA requirements equate to me hating anyone?
> 
> Maybe you can answer those questions.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Obama Repeals ObamaCare - WSJ.com

*It seems Nancy Pelosi was wrong when she said "we have to pass" ObamaCare to "find out what's in it." No one may ever know because the White House keeps treating the Affordable Care Act's text as a mere suggestion subject to day-to-day revision. Its latest political retrofit is the most brazen: President Obama is partly suspending the individual mandate.*

The White House argued at the Supreme Court that the insurance-purchase mandate was not only constitutional but essential to the law's success, while refusing Republican demands to delay or repeal it. But late on Thursday, with only four days to go before the December enrollment deadline, the Health and Human Services Department decreed that millions of Americans are suddenly exempt.

Individuals whose health plans were canceled will now automatically qualify for a "hardship exemption" from the mandate. If they can't or don't sign up for a new plan, they don't have to pay the tax. They can also get a special category of ObamaCare insurance designed for people under age 30.

***********************

Our turd boy emperor really has his nuts caught in a vice on this one.

Junk plans...
Junk plans...
Junk plans...

Replaced with

No plans...
No plans..
No plans...

Fox news 
Fox News
Fox News


----------



## Listening

PMZ said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me check and see if I care in any way what you think.
> 
> Nope. Not a bit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You still have nothing.  You can't show anything just like he stated.
> 
> Thanks for pointing out, yet again, that you really are a worthless schill for the pissants who pull your strings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are as good an example as anyone of how closed minded extremists are, and how that prevents learning. In fact, you are so closed minded that you are unaware that you are, now and forever, stuck. No way to move on. No way to learn from conservatism's failure.
> 
> That's what I like about you. You are even better than I am at destroying the only thing that you will ever know politically.
Click to expand...


And since you can't present anything to back up any of your assertions (and we can only assume that you do the same elsewhere),  there is a reason people don't learn from you.  You don't say anything worthwhile.  Of course, you are so stuck in your real world (somewhere on the dark side of the moon), you don't see the wave of political activity that is going to take away your goodies and send you back into the job market where you skills as a street sweeper will hopefully be in high demand.


----------



## PMZ

BlackSand said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I said, please don't change a thing. Keep up the hate of everyone and everything. Good politics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not changing anything ... Why is the President changing his own signature legislation?
> How does the President changing the ACA requirements equate to me hating anyone?
> 
> Maybe you can answer those questions.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Unlike you, liberals have no pretense of perfection. 

We see a problem, we act. If we see how to improve, we do. If someone has a better idea, we listen. We grow.

That's all foreign to conservatives. They see a problem, they do nothing. They hope that it will go away. They shut down congress. They try to stop progress. They whine and bitch and moan and blame.

They conserve the status quo. 

But, America can't afford the status quo. America can't afford conservatism. We're moving on. Your staying behind.


----------



## Listening

PMZ said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I said, please don't change a thing. Keep up the hate of everyone and everything. Good politics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not changing anything ... Why is the President changing his own signature legislation?
> How does the President changing the ACA requirements equate to me hating anyone?
> 
> Maybe you can answer those questions.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unlike you, liberals have no pretense of perfection.
> 
> We see a problem, we act. If we see how to improve, we do. If someone has a better idea, we listen. We grow.
> 
> That's all foreign to conservatives. They see a problem, they do nothing. They hope that it will go away. They shut down congress. They try to stop progress. They whine and bitch and moan and blame.
> 
> They conserve the status quo.
> 
> But, America can't afford the status quo. America can't afford conservatism. We're moving on. Your staying behind.
Click to expand...


Another non-answer.


----------



## PMZ

Listening said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not changing anything ... Why is the President changing his own signature legislation?
> How does the President changing the ACA requirements equate to me hating anyone?
> 
> Maybe you can answer those questions.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unlike you, liberals have no pretense of perfection.
> 
> We see a problem, we act. If we see how to improve, we do. If someone has a better idea, we listen. We grow.
> 
> That's all foreign to conservatives. They see a problem, they do nothing. They hope that it will go away. They shut down congress. They try to stop progress. They whine and bitch and moan and blame.
> 
> They conserve the status quo.
> 
> But, America can't afford the status quo. America can't afford conservatism. We're moving on. Your staying behind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another non-answer.
Click to expand...


As compared to this piece of work. The best that conservatism has to offer. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Listening

PMZ said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unlike you, liberals have no pretense of perfection.
> 
> We see a problem, we act. If we see how to improve, we do. If someone has a better idea, we listen. We grow.
> 
> That's all foreign to conservatives. They see a problem, they do nothing. They hope that it will go away. They shut down congress. They try to stop progress. They whine and bitch and moan and blame.
> 
> They conserve the status quo.
> 
> But, America can't afford the status quo. America can't afford conservatism. We're moving on. Your staying behind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another non-answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As compared to this piece of work. The best that conservatism has to offer.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
Click to expand...


Compared to the sun...it's still a non-answer (something you excel at).


----------



## BlackSand

PMZ said:


> Unlike you, liberals have no pretense of perfection.
> 
> We see a problem, we act. If we see how to improve, we do. If someone has a better idea, we listen. We grow.
> 
> That's all foreign to conservatives. They see a problem, they do nothing. They hope that it will go away. They shut down congress. They try to stop progress. They whine and bitch and moan and blame.
> 
> They conserve the status quo.
> 
> But, America can't afford the status quo. America can't afford conservatism. We're moving on. Your staying behind.



*Keep up peanut ... *

If you think that my idea to do something worthwhile as well as necessary is closer to perfection than anything Liberals can produce &#8230; Then I am not going to argue with that one bit.
Because Liberals think that wanting to fix a problem actually fixes the problem &#8230; Is not a Conservative shortcoming.

Conservatives fix problems all the time &#8230; But they can accomplish the fix by putting their own money and neck on the line &#8230; Instead of being foolish enough to waste someone else's money.
The reason Liberals get blamed for making a mess of things &#8230; Is because they make a mess of things and waste everybody's money buying votes while saying they are attempting to help someone.
Since the Liberal status quo at fixing any problems &#8230; Is to provide us with defective, insufficient, wasteful and harmful legislation ... That results in unfunded liabilities which cannot remain intact or solvent &#8230; Then we certainly cannot  afford it.

*Trying to fix the ACA is like trying to save a cow's life by attempting surgery on a hamburger.*

.


----------



## BlackSand

PMZ said:


> As compared to this piece of work. The best that conservatism has to offer.



*The best Liberalism has to offer completely sucks.*

You don't know what Conservatives have to offer because they don't require your help or insufficient legislation to do anything.
Conservatives are willing to do what they can without your disastrous attempts at harmful legislation that never works at fixing the problem on a scale that is worth the effort or money wasted attempting to do so.
Liberals bitch and complain about the cost of healthcare as they waste billions of dollars advertising their failure of a response in attempts to change it.

*They call that Progress ... When anyone in their right mind calls it utter stupidity.*

.


----------



## Antares

PMZ said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I said, please don't change a thing. Keep up the hate of everyone and everything. Good politics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not changing anything ... Why is the President changing his own signature legislation?
> How does the President changing the ACA requirements equate to me hating anyone?
> 
> Maybe you can answer those questions.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unlike you, liberals have no pretense of perfection.
> 
> We see a problem, we act. If we see how to improve, we do. If someone has a better idea, we listen. We grow.
> 
> That's all foreign to conservatives. They see a problem, they do nothing. They hope that it will go away. They shut down congress. They try to stop progress. They whine and bitch and moan and blame.
> 
> They conserve the status quo.
> 
> But, America can't afford the status quo. America can't afford conservatism. We're moving on. Your staying behind.
Click to expand...


*We see a problem, we act. If we see how to improve, we do. If someone has a better idea, we listen. *

Bullshit, you do the same thing time and again.....you decide to raise taxes and throw more of other people's money at it.....ALWAYS getting the same results.

Which is by definition "insane".

You people have two standard responses to EVERY problem.

1) It needs more money, and...
2)It needs new regs.


----------



## jon_berzerk

covered Oregon

if you do not hear from us by Monday 

seek coverage elsewhere 

--LOL

 Oregon&#8217;s troubled health insurance exchange began robocalling applicants Friday, warning them that if they don&#8217;t receive enrollment confirmation by Monday, they should seek coverage elsewhere for Jan. 1.

&#8220;If you haven&#8217;t heard from us by Dec. 23, it is unlikely your application will be processed for Jan. 1 insurance coverage,&#8221; a woman&#8217;s voice on the pre-recorded call from Cover Oregon says. &#8220;If you want to be sure you have insurance coverage starting Jan. 1, you have other options.&#8221;

It&#8217;s yet another sign that the health insurance exchange&#8217;s technological breakdowns will prevent some &#8212; perhaps many &#8212; Oregonians from getting subsidized coverage Jan. 1, despite Gov. John Kitzhaber&#8217;s previous assurances otherwise. Out of more than 65,000 applicants, the exchange reports enrolling nearly 30,000, but only about 11,000 of them in private insurance plans.

Cover Oregon: If you don't hear from us by Monday, seek coverage elsewhere | OregonLive.com


----------



## beagle9

BlackSand said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> As compared to this piece of work. The best that conservatism has to offer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The best Liberalism has to offer completely sucks.*
> 
> You don't know what Conservatives have to offer because they don't require your help or insufficient legislation to do anything.
> Conservatives are willing to do what they can without your disastrous attempts at harmful legislation that never works at fixing the problem on a scale that is worth the effort or money wasted attempting to do so.
> Liberals bitch and complain about the cost of healthcare as they waste billions of dollars advertising their failure of a response in attempts to change it.
> 
> *They call that Progress ... When anyone in their right mind calls it utter stupidity.*
> 
> .
Click to expand...

And now we have the pride button pushed, so there is no telling how much money will go down the drain before* single payer *will become the next move or maybe the only move left to make when all is said and done here. Trying to get Insurance carriers to do the right thing, when they were not doing so well before, is like trying to do surgery on a cow by cutting on a hamburger. The cow just walks away laughing in the end. This thing has revealed some ugly things now, and we the people should be taking notes as to all the ugly things that it has revealed to us. Then we should act in these elections more wisely. Learn and know the issues folks, but most of all know your true enemies.


----------



## PMZ

BlackSand said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unlike you, liberals have no pretense of perfection.
> 
> We see a problem, we act. If we see how to improve, we do. If someone has a better idea, we listen. We grow.
> 
> That's all foreign to conservatives. They see a problem, they do nothing. They hope that it will go away. They shut down congress. They try to stop progress. They whine and bitch and moan and blame.
> 
> They conserve the status quo.
> 
> But, America can't afford the status quo. America can't afford conservatism. We're moving on. Your staying behind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Keep up peanut ... *
> 
> If you think that my idea to do something worthwhile as well as necessary is closer to perfection than anything Liberals can produce  Then I am not going to argue with that one bit.
> Because Liberals think that wanting to fix a problem actually fixes the problem  Is not a Conservative shortcoming.
> 
> Conservatives fix problems all the time  But they can accomplish the fix by putting their own money and neck on the line  Instead of being foolish enough to waste someone else's money.
> The reason Liberals get blamed for making a mess of things  Is because they make a mess of things and waste everybody's money buying votes while saying they are attempting to help someone.
> Since the Liberal status quo at fixing any problems  Is to provide us with defective, insufficient, wasteful and harmful legislation ... That results in unfunded liabilities which cannot remain intact or solvent  Then we certainly cannot  afford it.
> 
> *Trying to fix the ACA is like trying to save a cow's life by attempting surgery on a hamburger.*
> 
> .
Click to expand...


"Conservatives fix problems all the time  But they can accomplish the fix by putting their own money and neck on the line"

As long as you believe that life is only about making more money than your neighbors, you are right. 

Liberals view life more broadly then that. And that's why so many of the most successful business people in history are liberals. And why liberals excel in most other fields as well. 

It's also why conservatives have such a God awful track record in governance. Politics requires a broad view. 

Conservative means narrow, penurious, focused on not loosing, hoarding, protective, secretive, lonely, tight, Scrooge personified;  liberal means broad, expansive, giving, open, winning, active, loving, curious. 

Nobody is surprised that you are conservative.


----------



## BlackSand

beagle9 said:


> And now we have the pride button pushed, so there is no telling how much money will go down the drain before* single payer *will become the next move or maybe the only move left to make when all is said and done here. Trying to get Insurance carriers to do the right thing, when they were not doing so well before, is like trying to do surgery on a cow by cutting on a hamburger. The cow just walks away laughing in the end. This thing has revealed some ugly things now, and we the people should be taking notes as to all the ugly things that it has revealed to us. Then we should act in these elections more wisely. Learn and know the issues folks, but most of all know your true enemies.



*I have heard a lot of different sources try to say that the total screw-up of the ACA was by design in attempts to eventually lead us to the single-payer system.*

Where I think the case could and has been made for that approach ... It doesn't seem to reason with me.
If the government cannot accomplish a simple task without major problems ... Then that shouldn't really assist anyone in trusting the government's ability to tackle an even greater responsibility and task.

I wouldn't put trust in the government to do anything beneficial as far as reorganizing healthcare in America ... If they are incompetent and unable to oversee the building and security of a website ... As well as had four years to accomplish the task.
Screw-up after screw-up ... Re-enforced and passed into legislation through the outright billing as a pack of lies ... Then requirements and mandates in the legislation are thrown out when the lies are exposed and the fall apart.

*How can anyone look at the utter failure of the ACA and actually think that any attempt at single-payer is worth the risk ... Unless of course you care more about votes than people?*

.


----------



## PMZ

beagle9 said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> As compared to this piece of work. The best that conservatism has to offer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The best Liberalism has to offer completely sucks.*
> 
> You don't know what Conservatives have to offer because they don't require your help or insufficient legislation to do anything.
> Conservatives are willing to do what they can without your disastrous attempts at harmful legislation that never works at fixing the problem on a scale that is worth the effort or money wasted attempting to do so.
> Liberals bitch and complain about the cost of healthcare as they waste billions of dollars advertising their failure of a response in attempts to change it.
> 
> *They call that Progress ... When anyone in their right mind calls it utter stupidity.*
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And now we have the pride button pushed, so there is no telling how much money will go down the drain before* single payer *will become the next move or maybe the only move left to make when all is said and done here. Trying to get Insurance carriers to do the right thing, when they were not doing so well before, is like trying to do surgery on a cow by cutting on a hamburger. The cow just walks away laughing in the end. This thing has revealed some ugly things now, and we the people should be taking notes as to all the ugly things that it has revealed to us. Then we should act in these elections more wisely. Learn and know the issues folks, but most of all know your true enemies.
Click to expand...


"Trying to get Insurance carriers to do the right thing"

You're right. Make more money regardless of the cost to others, often conflicts with doing the right thing. 

" when they were not doing so well"

Next you'll tell us that airlines aren't doing well now that they are focused on shipping people rather than travel.

" is like trying to do surgery on a cow by cutting on a hamburger. The cow just walks away laughing in the end." 

Demonstrates lack of slaughterhouse knowledge. No laughing cows, lots of hamburger.


----------



## percysunshine

BlackSand said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And now we have the pride button pushed, so there is no telling how much money will go down the drain before* single payer *will become the next move or maybe the only move left to make when all is said and done here. Trying to get Insurance carriers to do the right thing, when they were not doing so well before, is like trying to do surgery on a cow by cutting on a hamburger. The cow just walks away laughing in the end. This thing has revealed some ugly things now, and we the people should be taking notes as to all the ugly things that it has revealed to us. Then we should act in these elections more wisely. Learn and know the issues folks, but most of all know your true enemies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I have heard a lot of different sources try to say that the total screw-up of the ACA was by design in attempts to eventually lead us to the single-payer system.*
> 
> Where I think the case could and has been made for that approach ... It doesn't seem to reason with me.
> If the government cannot accomplish a simple task without major problems ... Then that shouldn't really assist anyone in trusting the government's ability to tackle an even greater responsibility and task.
> 
> I wouldn't put trust in the government to do anything beneficial as far as reorganizing healthcare in America ... If they are incompetent and unable to oversee the building and security of a website ... As well as had four years to accomplish the task.
> Screw-up after screw-up ... Re-enforced and passed into legislation through the outright billing as a pack of lies ... Then requirements and mandates in the legislation are thrown out when the lies are exposed and the fall apart.
> 
> *How can anyone look at the utter failure of the ACA and actually think that any attempt at single-payer is worth the risk ... Unless of course you care more about votes than people?*
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Obamacare has elements of failure by design embedded in it. It is becoming clear by administration reaction that reality has surpassed the original design scope.

It has become such a clusterfarknado that people are just making stuff up as it goes along.


----------



## PMZ

percysunshine said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And now we have the pride button pushed, so there is no telling how much money will go down the drain before* single payer *will become the next move or maybe the only move left to make when all is said and done here. Trying to get Insurance carriers to do the right thing, when they were not doing so well before, is like trying to do surgery on a cow by cutting on a hamburger. The cow just walks away laughing in the end. This thing has revealed some ugly things now, and we the people should be taking notes as to all the ugly things that it has revealed to us. Then we should act in these elections more wisely. Learn and know the issues folks, but most of all know your true enemies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I have heard a lot of different sources try to say that the total screw-up of the ACA was by design in attempts to eventually lead us to the single-payer system.*
> 
> Where I think the case could and has been made for that approach ... It doesn't seem to reason with me.
> If the government cannot accomplish a simple task without major problems ... Then that shouldn't really assist anyone in trusting the government's ability to tackle an even greater responsibility and task.
> 
> I wouldn't put trust in the government to do anything beneficial as far as reorganizing healthcare in America ... If they are incompetent and unable to oversee the building and security of a website ... As well as had four years to accomplish the task.
> Screw-up after screw-up ... Re-enforced and passed into legislation through the outright billing as a pack of lies ... Then requirements and mandates in the legislation are thrown out when the lies are exposed and the fall apart.
> 
> *How can anyone look at the utter failure of the ACA and actually think that any attempt at single-payer is worth the risk ... Unless of course you care more about votes than people?*
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obamacare has elements of failure by design embedded in it. It is becoming clear by administration reaction that reality has surpassed the original design scope.
> 
> It has become such a clusterfarknado that people are just making stuff up as it goes along.
Click to expand...


Republicans are just making stuff up as it goes along. Have been for four years.


----------



## percysunshine

PMZ said:


> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I have heard a lot of different sources try to say that the total screw-up of the ACA was by design in attempts to eventually lead us to the single-payer system.*
> 
> Where I think the case could and has been made for that approach ... It doesn't seem to reason with me.
> If the government cannot accomplish a simple task without major problems ... Then that shouldn't really assist anyone in trusting the government's ability to tackle an even greater responsibility and task.
> 
> I wouldn't put trust in the government to do anything beneficial as far as reorganizing healthcare in America ... If they are incompetent and unable to oversee the building and security of a website ... As well as had four years to accomplish the task.
> Screw-up after screw-up ... Re-enforced and passed into legislation through the outright billing as a pack of lies ... Then requirements and mandates in the legislation are thrown out when the lies are exposed and the fall apart.
> 
> *How can anyone look at the utter failure of the ACA and actually think that any attempt at single-payer is worth the risk ... Unless of course you care more about votes than people?*
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obamacare has elements of failure by design embedded in it. It is becoming clear by administration reaction that reality has surpassed the original design scope.
> 
> It has become such a clusterfarknado that people are just making stuff up as it goes along.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Republicans are just making stuff up as it goes along. Have been for four years.
Click to expand...


Yeah, but Republicans are harmless surrender monkeys. They don't actually do anything.


----------



## BlackSand

PMZ said:


> "Conservatives fix problems all the time  But they can accomplish the fix by putting their own money and neck on the line"
> 
> As long as you believe that life is only about making more money than your neighbors, you are right.
> 
> Liberals view life more broadly then that. And that's why so many of the most successful business people in history are liberals. And why liberals excel in most other fields as well.
> 
> It's also why conservatives have such a God awful track record in governance. Politics requires a broad view.
> 
> Conservative means narrow, penurious, focused on not loosing, hoarding, protective, secretive, lonely, tight, Scrooge personified;  liberal means broad, expansive, giving, open, winning, active, loving, curious.
> 
> Nobody is surprised that you are conservative.



So I guess you are trying to say that a Conservative making money and spending it wisely helping others ... Is worse than than a Liberal spending someone else's money foolishly and through destructive policies or legislation on utter failure.

I guess I am right and you are wrong  Again.

How Liberals view life does not equate to a pot to piss in until they do something to fix a problem.
Most successful business people in the world are successful business people and not because they are Liberal or Conservative.
Now most successful movie stars and educators are Liberals  But that is more of a case of quid pro quo.

Conservatives obviously have a bad track record in governance if a record at all  Because the whole idea of Conservatism is to take care of what you can without government  Try and keep up little one.
Politics requires a lot of unnecessary bullshit  which is primarily why it is ultimately ineffective at fixing any problem.

None of what you described is necessary to be a Conservative  And only what is necessary for you to  incorrectly identify as being Conservative so you can believe it is bad thing.
That is how you excuse your inadequacies and lack of a desire to do what you can and should be doing on your own  And why you as well as Liberalism are both failures.

.


----------



## PMZ

percysunshine said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obamacare has elements of failure by design embedded in it. It is becoming clear by administration reaction that reality has surpassed the original design scope.
> 
> It has become such a clusterfarknado that people are just making stuff up as it goes along.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans are just making stuff up as it goes along. Have been for four years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, but Republicans are harmless surrender monkeys. They don't actually do anything.
Click to expand...


That is certainly the observable result. Behind it though is a complex process.

When confronted with a problem, first blame others.

Then whine piteously about all potential solutions.

Vigorously apply massive doses of doing nothing. 

After about a month or so of politicking, redistribute wealth up.


----------



## percysunshine

PMZ said:


> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans are just making stuff up as it goes along. Have been for four years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, but Republicans are harmless surrender monkeys. They don't actually do anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is certainly the observable result. Behind it though is a complex process.
> 
> When confronted with a problem, first blame others.
> 
> Then whine piteously about all potential solutions.
> 
> Vigorously apply massive doses of doing nothing.
> 
> After about a month or so of politicking, redistribute wealth up.
Click to expand...



Egads! You do understand Obamacare.


----------



## PMZ

percysunshine said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, but Republicans are harmless surrender monkeys. They don't actually do anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is certainly the observable result. Behind it though is a complex process.
> 
> When confronted with a problem, first blame others.
> 
> Then whine piteously about all potential solutions.
> 
> Vigorously apply massive doses of doing nothing.
> 
> After about a month or so of politicking, redistribute wealth up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Egads! You do understand Obamacare.
Click to expand...


I do. And I know how personal responsibility sucks for so many. So much more convenient to have the freedom of irresponsibility. A lesson Republicans have learned from their teenagers.


----------



## BlackSand

PMZ said:


> And I know how personal responsibility sucks for so many. So much more convenient to have the freedom of irresponsibility.



See you learn a lot through introspection ... We have faith in you eventually becoming a worthwhile member of society some day.
Keep at it PMZ you are so close to catching up a little instead of rolling backwards down hill ... You can do it!

.


----------



## PMZ

BlackSand said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I know how personal responsibility sucks for so many. So much more convenient to have the freedom of irresponsibility.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See you learn a lot through introspection ... We have faith in you eventually becoming a worthwhile member of society some day.
> Keep at it PMZ you are so close to catching up a little instead of rolling backwards down hill ... You can do it!
> 
> .
Click to expand...


I think that it's past time for you to have an introspective intervention. You appear to believe that you are, somehow, useful, despite being unable to provide any supporting evidence.

You also project as delusional about knowing who I am. 

I already provided you a list of your symptoms in that article on extremism yesterday.

Perhaps an intervention could nip those potentially serious problems in the bud.


----------



## Listening

Just reading more about the Stamp Act.

It seems this is just as stupid and will face the same fate (already headed in that direction).

Which is what happens when you reach to far into people's lives.


----------



## Listening

percysunshine said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obamacare has elements of failure by design embedded in it. It is becoming clear by administration reaction that reality has surpassed the original design scope.
> 
> It has become such a clusterfarknado that people are just making stuff up as it goes along.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans are just making stuff up as it goes along. Have been for four years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, but Republicans are harmless surrender monkeys. They don't actually do anything.
Click to expand...


We make stuff up like "You can keep your insurance...if you like it."


----------



## asterism

PMZ said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would Medicare allow Advantage programs if they were not saving money by allowing that alternative?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because they do save money by removing the administrative burden for claims from Medicare and shouldering the risk.  Instead of a single entity bearing the entire risk for the country, individual companies operate thousands of plans in smaller areas and compete with each other.  Plans have to start out with adequate reserves to cover any unforeseen costs and if the finances don't work that one plan is phased out.  Reserves are used to pay for the overage the other plans in the area absorb the beneficiaries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Insurance companies handle risk like gambling establishments do.  They avoid it altogether.  Thats called actuarial science.
Click to expand...


I'm sure it feels good for your to say that but it's not really the truth.  Insurance companies manage risk, they don't avoid it.


----------



## asterism

PMZ said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keep in mind that ACA effects only two aspects of health care.
> 
> It moves poor people from expensive,  ineffective emergency room care to mainstream PCPs.
> 
> It reduces medical bankruptcies by requiring that insurance cover the conditions that typically  cause them.
> 
> So health care insurance may go up from that coverage but it's offset by the cost of the bankruptcies.  Different accounts,  perhaps accrued to different people,  but savings nonetheless.
> 
> Insurance is designed to cover those costs plus some administration fees.
> 
> So where do health insurance premium increases come from?
> 
> No more health care is being practiced.  The only change is that it's being done more cost effectively by mainstream PCPs.  And there are fewer medical bankruptcies causing uncollectable medical bills.
> 
> You are assuming that insurance companies charge whatever they want to,  not what they anticipate paying out,  plus administration.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have no evidence demonstrating that the ACA is reducing bankruptcies.  That's just another campaign promise.
> 
> You are also ignorant about what the ACA does - it's way more than just those two "key aspects."  It creates an arbitrary minimum for basic care (that is far from basic) and then forces everyone to be covered for those services even if they will never use it.  It removes risk based on health conditions from the actuarial metrics and instead only uses age.  It actually disincentivizes PCP usage by those less well off because in subsidized plans there is  co-payment to see a Physician but no co-payment for ER care.
> 
> Many people and I have been saying for years that the problem with the ACA isn't the goals as stated, it's the corrupt and unworkable implementation.
> 
> The ACA is likely to increase medical bankruptcies because only those with significant assets to protect would file for bankruptcy in the first place and that's not the poor, it's the middle class - the same middle class that now has much higher premiums, deductibles, and co-insurance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> " You have no evidence demonstrating that the ACA is reducing bankruptcies.  That's just another campaign promise."
> 
> It requires insurers to cover the main causes of medical bankruptcies.  How can that not reduce them?
Click to expand...


Because the premiums, co-insurance and maximum out of pocket limits are unaffordable for millions of people in the middle class.


----------



## Listening

asterism said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because they do save money by removing the administrative burden for claims from Medicare and shouldering the risk.  Instead of a single entity bearing the entire risk for the country, individual companies operate thousands of plans in smaller areas and compete with each other.  Plans have to start out with adequate reserves to cover any unforeseen costs and if the finances don't work that one plan is phased out.  Reserves are used to pay for the overage the other plans in the area absorb the beneficiaries.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Insurance companies handle risk like gambling establishments do.  They avoid it altogether.  Thats called actuarial science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sure it feels good for your to say that but it's not really the truth.  Insurance companies manage risk, they don't avoid it.
Click to expand...


Yeah,

If they avoided risk, they'd not be paying for things like floods and car accidents.  Hail damage in a large area can really impact their bottom line.

Avoid risk..this guy is sleeping on some book written (or farted) by Paul Krugman.


----------



## PMZ

asterism said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because they do save money by removing the administrative burden for claims from Medicare and shouldering the risk.  Instead of a single entity bearing the entire risk for the country, individual companies operate thousands of plans in smaller areas and compete with each other.  Plans have to start out with adequate reserves to cover any unforeseen costs and if the finances don't work that one plan is phased out.  Reserves are used to pay for the overage the other plans in the area absorb the beneficiaries.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Insurance companies handle risk like gambling establishments do.  They avoid it altogether.  Thats called actuarial science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sure it feels good for your to say that but it's not really the truth.  Insurance companies manage risk, they don't avoid it.
Click to expand...


What risk do they take? Only the risk that the future will be much unlike the past. Health insurance is the least risky if all insurances that way. 

When did you ever hear of any insurance company going broke due to claims? 

Not even BP could accomplish that.


----------



## PMZ

asterism said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have no evidence demonstrating that the ACA is reducing bankruptcies.  That's just another campaign promise.
> 
> You are also ignorant about what the ACA does - it's way more than just those two "key aspects."  It creates an arbitrary minimum for basic care (that is far from basic) and then forces everyone to be covered for those services even if they will never use it.  It removes risk based on health conditions from the actuarial metrics and instead only uses age.  It actually disincentivizes PCP usage by those less well off because in subsidized plans there is  co-payment to see a Physician but no co-payment for ER care.
> 
> Many people and I have been saying for years that the problem with the ACA isn't the goals as stated, it's the corrupt and unworkable implementation.
> 
> The ACA is likely to increase medical bankruptcies because only those with significant assets to protect would file for bankruptcy in the first place and that's not the poor, it's the middle class - the same middle class that now has much higher premiums, deductibles, and co-insurance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> " You have no evidence demonstrating that the ACA is reducing bankruptcies.  That's just another campaign promise."
> 
> It requires insurers to cover the main causes of medical bankruptcies.  How can that not reduce them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because the premiums, co-insurance and maximum out of pocket limits are unaffordable for millions of people in the middle class.
Click to expand...


If they are unaffordable now they were really unaffordable before ACA. When premiums go up, Rick goes down. Basic actuarial science.


----------



## PMZ

Listening said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Insurance companies handle risk like gambling establishments do.  They avoid it altogether.  Thats called actuarial science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure it feels good for your to say that but it's not really the truth.  Insurance companies manage risk, they don't avoid it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah,
> 
> If they avoided risk, they'd not be paying for things like floods and car accidents.  Hail damage in a large area can really impact their bottom line.
> 
> Avoid risk..this guy is sleeping on some book written (or farted) by Paul Krugman.
Click to expand...


"If they avoided risk, they'd not be paying for things like floods and car accidents."

They charge their customers for the risk that insurance companies are expert at evaluating. 

The only reason that they are in business is to spread the risk among their customers.


----------



## Antares

PMZ said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> " You have no evidence demonstrating that the ACA is reducing bankruptcies.  That's just another campaign promise."
> 
> It requires insurers to cover the main causes of medical bankruptcies.  How can that not reduce them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because the premiums, co-insurance and maximum out of pocket limits are unaffordable for millions of people in the middle class.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If they are unaffordable now they were really unaffordable before ACA. When premiums go up, Rick goes down. Basic actuarial science.
Click to expand...


Well except for that whole 41% on average increase that the Law caused.


----------



## Listening

Obamacare Horror Stories | RedState

I am a 62 year old woman who has an individual policy with BCBS of North Carolina.  My premiums are $249.50 per month.  I bought the policy when I retired and moved to NC to be closer to my aging parents.  The policy is a high deductible one with a $2700 deductible, $5000 out of pocket maximum.  BCBS has told me my plan is no longer offered due to Obamacare and that my new plan will cost $600.55 per month and has a required an out of pocket maximum of $6350.  I have been trying for three weeks to see what Obamacare offers without success.  I experienced the same issues most people have:

*******************

And yet another.....


----------



## PMZ

Antares said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because the premiums, co-insurance and maximum out of pocket limits are unaffordable for millions of people in the middle class.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If they are unaffordable now they were really unaffordable before ACA. When premiums go up, Rick goes down. Basic actuarial science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well except for that whole 41% on average increase that the Law caused.
Click to expand...


If those premiums (assuming that your figure is right) don't go to reducing the insured's risk, what did they go for?

BTW, the figures that I saw for state by state went from a savings to about a 30% increase.


----------



## Listening

Another Obamacare horror story debunked - Los Angeles Times

Look at this dickhead article.  The guy says he debunked her claims.

He's claiming the subsidy.  Why didn't they just subsidize her original plan ?

These guys are reaching.

This thing is swirling down the toilet.


----------



## asterism

PMZ said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> " You have no evidence demonstrating that the ACA is reducing bankruptcies.  That's just another campaign promise."
> 
> It requires insurers to cover the main causes of medical bankruptcies.  How can that not reduce them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because the premiums, co-insurance and maximum out of pocket limits are unaffordable for millions of people in the middle class.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If they are unaffordable now they were really unaffordable before ACA. When premiums go up, Rick goes down. Basic actuarial science.
Click to expand...


Then you should be able to document this with some facts.  Show me where the risk has gone down and how the new plans are more affordable than the previous plans.


----------



## asterism

PMZ said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> If they are unaffordable now they were really unaffordable before ACA. When premiums go up, Rick goes down. Basic actuarial science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well except for that whole 41% on average increase that the Law caused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If those premiums (assuming that your figure is right) don't go to reducing the insured's risk, what did they go for?
> 
> BTW, the figures that I saw for state by state went from a savings to about a 30% increase.
Click to expand...


The increase in premiums is due to the need to cover more people for more services and not charging based on health conditions using roughly the same aggregate revenue.

Relatively healthy people now pay much more.


----------



## PMZ

asterism said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because the premiums, co-insurance and maximum out of pocket limits are unaffordable for millions of people in the middle class.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If they are unaffordable now they were really unaffordable before ACA. When premiums go up, Rick goes down. Basic actuarial science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you should be able to document this with some facts.  Show me where the risk has gone down and how the new plans are more affordable than the previous plans.
Click to expand...


There is no alternative to where higher premiums go tha to lower risk thanks to ACAs 80% rule. Insurance companies must return at least 80% of the the premiums to covered medical expenses.


----------



## asterism

PMZ said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Insurance companies handle risk like gambling establishments do.  They avoid it altogether.  Thats called actuarial science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure it feels good for your to say that but it's not really the truth.  Insurance companies manage risk, they don't avoid it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What risk do they take? Only the risk that the future will be much unlike the past. Health insurance is the least risky if all insurances that way.
> 
> When did you ever hear of any insurance company going broke due to claims?
> 
> Not even BP could accomplish that.
Click to expand...


You are terribly uninformed.

Universal Health Care files for bankruptcy as state seeks takeover - Tampa Bay Business Journal

Health insurance plan's bankruptcy leaves small companies, Eastern Plains governments in lurch - The Denver Post

Caritas Health Care, Inc. - Client Home

COMPANY NEWS - MAGELLAN HEALTH CONSIDERS FILING FOR BANKRUPTCY - NYTimes.com


----------



## asterism

PMZ said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> If they are unaffordable now they were really unaffordable before ACA. When premiums go up, Rick goes down. Basic actuarial science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you should be able to document this with some facts.  Show me where the risk has gone down and how the new plans are more affordable than the previous plans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no alternative to where higher premiums go tha to lower risk thanks to ACAs 80% rule. Insurance companies must return at least 80% of the the premiums to covered medical expenses.
Click to expand...


So you cannot provide anything to back up your claim that risk goes down with higher premiums.

Why are you even debating this issue?  You clearly do not know what you are talking about.


----------



## PMZ

asterism said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you should be able to document this with some facts.  Show me where the risk has gone down and how the new plans are more affordable than the previous plans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no alternative to where higher premiums go tha to lower risk thanks to ACAs 80% rule. Insurance companies must return at least 80% of the the premiums to covered medical expenses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you cannot provide anything to back up your claim that risk goes down with higher premiums.
> 
> Why are you even debating this issue?  You clearly do not know what you are talking about.
Click to expand...


Keep that tiny mind closed up tight. Your fantasy will be true if no other place than in your head.

At least 80% of premiums must be returned to the insured in benefits. 80% of a bigger number is more than 80% of a smaller number. What gets paid by insurance benefits the insured are not at risk for.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no alternative to where higher premiums go tha to lower risk thanks to ACAs 80% rule. Insurance companies must return at least 80% of the the premiums to covered medical expenses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you cannot provide anything to back up your claim that risk goes down with higher premiums.
> 
> Why are you even debating this issue?  You clearly do not know what you are talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Keep that tiny mind closed up tight. Your fantasy will be true if no other place than in your head.
> 
> At least 80% of premiums must be returned to the insured in benefits. 80% of a bigger number is more than 80% of a smaller number. What gets paid by insurance benefits the insured are not at risk for.
Click to expand...


ROFL lol.. what freaking retard.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you cannot provide anything to back up your claim that risk goes down with higher premiums.
> 
> Why are you even debating this issue?  You clearly do not know what you are talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keep that tiny mind closed up tight. Your fantasy will be true if no other place than in your head.
> 
> At least 80% of premiums must be returned to the insured in benefits. 80% of a bigger number is more than 80% of a smaller number. What gets paid by insurance benefits the insured are not at risk for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROFL lol.. what freaking retard.
Click to expand...


More triumphant insight from he whose English words number about a dozen.


----------



## asterism

PMZ said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no alternative to where higher premiums go tha to lower risk thanks to ACAs 80% rule. Insurance companies must return at least 80% of the the premiums to covered medical expenses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you cannot provide anything to back up your claim that risk goes down with higher premiums.
> 
> Why are you even debating this issue?  You clearly do not know what you are talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Keep that tiny mind closed up tight. Your fantasy will be true if no other place than in your head.
> 
> At least 80% of premiums must be returned to the insured in benefits. 80% of a bigger number is more than 80% of a smaller number. What gets paid by insurance benefits the insured are not at risk for.
Click to expand...


Is that your way of saying that since you think something is true you don't need to back it up with any corroborating information?

On what basis do you assert that my mind is "tiny" and "closed up tight?"  I've corrected your many mistakes and provided proof to back up my information.  You've yet to acknowledge any of your outright lies, and even with sourced facts that directly refute your ignorant claims you continue to make other unsourced statements that are false.

The one with the fantasy inside one's head is you.

Medicare Advantage plans receive payments equal to 15% of the premium paid by members - FALSE

No bankruptcies among health insurance companies - FALSE

If they are unaffordable now they were really unaffordable before ACA. - FALSE

[The] ACA effects only two aspects of health care. - FALSE

[The ACA] moves poor people from expensive, ineffective emergency room care to mainstream PCPs. - FALSE

It reduces medical bankruptcies by requiring that insurance cover the conditions that typically cause them.  - FALSE


Every single one of these points was claimed by you without anything substantiating them.  The links demonstrating that your claims were completely false were supplied, and yet you believe your opinion over sourced facts.

And you claim I'm closed minded?


----------



## PMZ

asterism said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you cannot provide anything to back up your claim that risk goes down with higher premiums.
> 
> Why are you even debating this issue?  You clearly do not know what you are talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keep that tiny mind closed up tight. Your fantasy will be true if no other place than in your head.
> 
> At least 80% of premiums must be returned to the insured in benefits. 80% of a bigger number is more than 80% of a smaller number. What gets paid by insurance benefits the insured are not at risk for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that your way of saying that since you think something is true you don't need to back it up with any corroborating information?
> 
> On what basis do you assert that my mind is "tiny" and "closed up tight?"  I've corrected your many mistakes and provided proof to back up my information.  You've yet to acknowledge any of your outright lies, and even with sourced facts that directly refute your ignorant claims you continue to make other unsourced statements that are false.
> 
> The one with the fantasy inside one's head is you.
> 
> Medicare Advantage plans receive payments equal to 15% of the premium paid by members - FALSE
> 
> No bankruptcies among health insurance companies - FALSE
> 
> If they are unaffordable now they were really unaffordable before ACA. - FALSE
> 
> [The] ACA effects only two aspects of health care. - FALSE
> 
> [The ACA] moves poor people from expensive, ineffective emergency room care to mainstream PCPs. - FALSE
> 
> It reduces medical bankruptcies by requiring that insurance cover the conditions that typically cause them.  - FALSE
> 
> 
> Every single one of these points was claimed by you without anything substantiating them.  The links demonstrating that your claims were completely false were supplied, and yet you believe your opinion over sourced facts.
> 
> And you claim I'm closed minded?
Click to expand...


With certainty. 

Let's say that everything in this post is true. None of it in any way addresses your closed mind.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keep that tiny mind closed up tight. Your fantasy will be true if no other place than in your head.
> 
> At least 80% of premiums must be returned to the insured in benefits. 80% of a bigger number is more than 80% of a smaller number. What gets paid by insurance benefits the insured are not at risk for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL lol.. what freaking retard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More triumphant insight from he whose English words number about a dozen.
Click to expand...

It's called vocabulary, retard.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL lol.. what freaking retard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More triumphant insight from he whose English words number about a dozen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's called vocabulary, retard.
Click to expand...


OK, your demonstrated vocabulary is now up to 13 English words.


----------



## asterism

PMZ said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keep that tiny mind closed up tight. Your fantasy will be true if no other place than in your head.
> 
> At least 80% of premiums must be returned to the insured in benefits. 80% of a bigger number is more than 80% of a smaller number. What gets paid by insurance benefits the insured are not at risk for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that your way of saying that since you think something is true you don't need to back it up with any corroborating information?
> 
> On what basis do you assert that my mind is "tiny" and "closed up tight?"  I've corrected your many mistakes and provided proof to back up my information.  You've yet to acknowledge any of your outright lies, and even with sourced facts that directly refute your ignorant claims you continue to make other unsourced statements that are false.
> 
> The one with the fantasy inside one's head is you.
> 
> Medicare Advantage plans receive payments equal to 15% of the premium paid by members - FALSE
> 
> No bankruptcies among health insurance companies - FALSE
> 
> If they are unaffordable now they were really unaffordable before ACA. - FALSE
> 
> [The] ACA effects only two aspects of health care. - FALSE
> 
> [The ACA] moves poor people from expensive, ineffective emergency room care to mainstream PCPs. - FALSE
> 
> It reduces medical bankruptcies by requiring that insurance cover the conditions that typically cause them.  - FALSE
> 
> 
> Every single one of these points was claimed by you without anything substantiating them.  The links demonstrating that your claims were completely false were supplied, and yet you believe your opinion over sourced facts.
> 
> And you claim I'm closed minded?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> With certainty.
> 
> Let's say that everything in this post is true. None of it in any way addresses your closed mind.
Click to expand...


What about my mind is closed?


----------



## PMZ

asterism said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is that your way of saying that since you think something is true you don't need to back it up with any corroborating information?
> 
> On what basis do you assert that my mind is "tiny" and "closed up tight?"  I've corrected your many mistakes and provided proof to back up my information.  You've yet to acknowledge any of your outright lies, and even with sourced facts that directly refute your ignorant claims you continue to make other unsourced statements that are false.
> 
> The one with the fantasy inside one's head is you.
> 
> Medicare Advantage plans receive payments equal to 15% of the premium paid by members - FALSE
> 
> No bankruptcies among health insurance companies - FALSE
> 
> If they are unaffordable now they were really unaffordable before ACA. - FALSE
> 
> [The] ACA effects only two aspects of health care. - FALSE
> 
> [The ACA] moves poor people from expensive, ineffective emergency room care to mainstream PCPs. - FALSE
> 
> It reduces medical bankruptcies by requiring that insurance cover the conditions that typically cause them.  - FALSE
> 
> 
> Every single one of these points was claimed by you without anything substantiating them.  The links demonstrating that your claims were completely false were supplied, and yet you believe your opinion over sourced facts.
> 
> And you claim I'm closed minded?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With certainty.
> 
> Let's say that everything in this post is true. None of it in any way addresses your closed mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What about my mind is closed?
Click to expand...


Today, that higher health care premiums are related to lower risk.


----------



## Listening

asterism said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is that your way of saying that since you think something is true you don't need to back it up with any corroborating information?
> 
> On what basis do you assert that my mind is "tiny" and "closed up tight?"  I've corrected your many mistakes and provided proof to back up my information.  You've yet to acknowledge any of your outright lies, and even with sourced facts that directly refute your ignorant claims you continue to make other unsourced statements that are false.
> 
> The one with the fantasy inside one's head is you.
> 
> Medicare Advantage plans receive payments equal to 15% of the premium paid by members - FALSE
> 
> No bankruptcies among health insurance companies - FALSE
> 
> If they are unaffordable now they were really unaffordable before ACA. - FALSE
> 
> [The] ACA effects only two aspects of health care. - FALSE
> 
> [The ACA] moves poor people from expensive, ineffective emergency room care to mainstream PCPs. - FALSE
> 
> It reduces medical bankruptcies by requiring that insurance cover the conditions that typically cause them.  - FALSE
> 
> 
> Every single one of these points was claimed by you without anything substantiating them.  The links demonstrating that your claims were completely false were supplied, and yet you believe your opinion over sourced facts.
> 
> And you claim I'm closed minded?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With certainty.
> 
> Let's say that everything in this post is true. None of it in any way addresses your closed mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What about my mind is closed?
Click to expand...


Why would you bother to ask this moron that question ?


----------



## Listening

asterism said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure it feels good for your to say that but it's not really the truth.  Insurance companies manage risk, they don't avoid it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What risk do they take? Only the risk that the future will be much unlike the past. Health insurance is the least risky if all insurances that way.
> 
> When did you ever hear of any insurance company going broke due to claims?
> 
> Not even BP could accomplish that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are terribly uninformed.
> 
> Universal Health Care files for bankruptcy as state seeks takeover - Tampa Bay Business Journal
> 
> Health insurance plan's bankruptcy leaves small companies, Eastern Plains governments in lurch - The Denver Post
> 
> Caritas Health Care, Inc. - Client Home
> 
> COMPANY NEWS - MAGELLAN HEALTH CONSIDERS FILING FOR BANKRUPTCY - NYTimes.com
Click to expand...


Have a heart.  Don't blow his mind with facts just before Christmas.

Let's see if he can respond.


----------



## asterism

PMZ said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> With certainty.
> 
> Let's say that everything in this post is true. None of it in any way addresses your closed mind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about my mind is closed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Today, that higher health care premiums are related to lower risk.
Click to expand...


Ah.

So someone is closed minded if they disagree with you.  I'm a licensed agent, I've researched this topic extensively, have multiple certifications in health insurance, and continue to keep current on the latest changes.  You aren't interested in any discussion, you just want to post opinions and lies with no substantiation nor evidence.  I think I'll just move on.


----------



## PMZ

asterism said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> What about my mind is closed?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Today, that higher health care premiums are related to lower risk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah.
> 
> So someone is closed minded if they disagree with you.  I'm a licensed agent, I've researched this topic extensively, have multiple certifications in health insurance, and continue to keep current on the latest changes.  You aren't interested in any discussion, you just want to post opinions and lies with no substantiation nor evidence.  I think I'll just move on.
Click to expand...


All those qualifications and you tell your clients that higher premiums are unrelated to lower risk? 

Amazing.


----------



## asterism

PMZ said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Today, that higher health care premiums are related to lower risk.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah.
> 
> So someone is closed minded if they disagree with you.  I'm a licensed agent, I've researched this topic extensively, have multiple certifications in health insurance, and continue to keep current on the latest changes.  You aren't interested in any discussion, you just want to post opinions and lies with no substantiation nor evidence.  I think I'll just move on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All those qualifications and you tell your clients that higher premiums are unrelated to lower risk?
> 
> Amazing.
Click to expand...


I'm not sure how you can claim to know what I tell my clients, but since you've made up so much other stuff I guess we'll just add this to the list.


----------



## Listening

PMZ said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Today, that higher health care premiums are related to lower risk.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah.
> 
> So someone is closed minded if they disagree with you.  I'm a licensed agent, I've researched this topic extensively, have multiple certifications in health insurance, and continue to keep current on the latest changes.  You aren't interested in any discussion, you just want to post opinions and lies with no substantiation nor evidence.  I think I'll just move on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All those qualifications and you tell your clients that higher premiums are unrelated to lower risk?
> 
> Amazing.
Click to expand...


And your qualifications are ?

BTW: Did you notice that some health care companies are going bankrupt ?  How's that possible under your system ?


----------



## PMZ

asterism said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah.
> 
> So someone is closed minded if they disagree with you.  I'm a licensed agent, I've researched this topic extensively, have multiple certifications in health insurance, and continue to keep current on the latest changes.  You aren't interested in any discussion, you just want to post opinions and lies with no substantiation nor evidence.  I think I'll just move on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All those qualifications and you tell your clients that higher premiums are unrelated to lower risk?
> 
> Amazing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure how you can claim to know what I tell my clients, but since you've made up so much other stuff I guess we'll just add this to the list.
Click to expand...


If you believe what you posted here and tell your clients otherwise you are, at the very least, guilty of being disingenuous.


----------



## asterism

PMZ said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> All those qualifications and you tell your clients that higher premiums are unrelated to lower risk?
> 
> Amazing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure how you can claim to know what I tell my clients, but since you've made up so much other stuff I guess we'll just add this to the list.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you believe what you posted here and tell your clients otherwise you are, at the very least, guilty of being disingenuous.
Click to expand...


What do you think I should tell my clients, and on what resources or knowledge do you base your suggestions?


----------



## PMZ

asterism said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure how you can claim to know what I tell my clients, but since you've made up so much other stuff I guess we'll just add this to the list.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you believe what you posted here and tell your clients otherwise you are, at the very least, guilty of being disingenuous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you think I should tell my clients, and on what resources or knowledge do you base your suggestions?
Click to expand...


That insurance is a simple risk sharing process. That you buy protection from financial risk by sharing it with others through insurance policies. That as life unfolds among all of those who share specific risks under the same policy product, the unfortunate ones will experience the greatest losses but also receive the greatest part of everyone's premiums. The fortunate ones will suffer the least in claims, but lose virtually all of their premiums for the stated time period. 

The higher the risks, the greater the premiums. 

If the risks are absorbable without insurance, the odds favor those without it.


----------



## asterism

PMZ said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you believe what you posted here and tell your clients otherwise you are, at the very least, guilty of being disingenuous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you think I should tell my clients, and on what resources or knowledge do you base your suggestions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That insurance is a simple risk sharing process. That you buy protection from financial risk by sharing it with others through insurance policies. That as life unfolds among all of those who share specific risks under the same policy product, the unfortunate ones will experience the greatest losses but also receive the greatest part of everyone's premiums. The fortunate ones will suffer the least in claims, but lose virtually all of their premiums for the stated time period.
> 
> The higher the risks, the greater the premiums.
> 
> If the risks are absorbable without insurance, the odds favor those without it.
Click to expand...


On what resources or knowledge do you base your suggestions?

The second to the last sentence is inaccurate and I could be sanctioned by the state for giving false information if I said that because premiums in health insurance or not based on risk, they are based on age, geographic area and current tobacco use only.  A Downs Syndrome client pays the same premium at 27 as a personal trainer.  An overweight alcoholic with diabetes who quit smoking after 40 years pays the same premium at 62 as a man who has run marathons his entire life.

You pontificate out of ignorance and it appears your mind is closed to new information.



> Health insurance issuers in the individual and small group markets would only be allowed to vary premiums based on age (within a 3:1 ratio for adults), tobacco use (within a 1.5:1 ratio and subject to wellness program requirements in the small group market), family size, and geography.  All other factors &#8211; such as pre-existing conditions, health status, claims history, duration of coverage, gender, occupation, and small employer size and industry &#8211; would no longer be able to be used by insurance companies to increase the premiums for those seeking insurance.



ObamaCare Health Insurance Rules, Regulations and Standards


----------



## PMZ

asterism said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you think I should tell my clients, and on what resources or knowledge do you base your suggestions?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That insurance is a simple risk sharing process. That you buy protection from financial risk by sharing it with others through insurance policies. That as life unfolds among all of those who share specific risks under the same policy product, the unfortunate ones will experience the greatest losses but also receive the greatest part of everyone's premiums. The fortunate ones will suffer the least in claims, but lose virtually all of their premiums for the stated time period.
> 
> The higher the risks, the greater the premiums.
> 
> If the risks are absorbable without insurance, the odds favor those without it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On what resources or knowledge do you base your suggestions?
> 
> The second to the last sentence is inaccurate and I could be sanctioned by the state for giving false information if I said that because premiums in health insurance or not based on risk, they are based on age, geographic area and current tobacco use only.  A Downs Syndrome client pays the same premium at 27 as a personal trainer.  An overweight alcoholic with diabetes who quit smoking after 40 years pays the same premium at 62 as a man who has run marathons his entire life.
> 
> You pontificate out of ignorance and it appears your mind is closed to new information.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Health insurance issuers in the individual and small group markets would only be allowed to vary premiums based on age (within a 3:1 ratio for adults), tobacco use (within a 1.5:1 ratio and subject to wellness program requirements in the small group market), family size, and geography.  All other factors  such as pre-existing conditions, health status, claims history, duration of coverage, gender, occupation, and small employer size and industry  would no longer be able to be used by insurance companies to increase the premiums for those seeking insurance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ObamaCare Health Insurance Rules, Regulations and Standards
Click to expand...


 "premiums in health insurance or not based on risk, they are based on age, geographic area and current tobacco use only."

All risk indicators. 

However, what you mention comes from ACA's requirement prohibiting defining populations for risk assessment that exclude people who insurance companies consider high risk. Because they need to spread their risk more than anybody. Once the risk assessment population is defined though you can bet that the premium for that population comes from a great deal of actuarial risk assessment of the population. 

If you aren't telling your clients that the ACA bronze plans are cheapest because they are the highest risk for the insured, you are doing them a major disservice.


----------



## BlackSand

PMZ said:


> I think that it's past time for you to have an introspective intervention. You appear to believe that you are, somehow, useful, despite being unable to provide any supporting evidence.
> 
> You also project as delusional about knowing who I am.
> 
> I already provided you a list of your symptoms in that article on extremism yesterday.
> 
> Perhaps an intervention could nip those potentially serious problems in the bud.



Of Course you have provided the appropriate information to help identify your symptoms.
Now all you have to do is apply them to yourself ... And then you can start to make adjustments that are worthwhile towards your understanding of where the shortcomings reside.

I have faith in your abilities ... And every day you grow closer to a better understanding of your own ideas and how they lack any substance when compared to what most Conservatives accomplish.
You may one day understand that the proof is in what you do ... Not what you say or how willing others are to accept anything.
You can continue to attempt to project your lack of understanding on others ... But we all know that you are only working with what you know in your heart ... And that has nothing to do with us.

.


----------



## Listening

Like I said....nothing on the fact that insurance companies are going broke.

PMS is a moron and liar.


----------



## asterism

PMZ said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> That insurance is a simple risk sharing process. That you buy protection from financial risk by sharing it with others through insurance policies. That as life unfolds among all of those who share specific risks under the same policy product, the unfortunate ones will experience the greatest losses but also receive the greatest part of everyone's premiums. The fortunate ones will suffer the least in claims, but lose virtually all of their premiums for the stated time period.
> 
> The higher the risks, the greater the premiums.
> 
> If the risks are absorbable without insurance, the odds favor those without it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On what resources or knowledge do you base your suggestions?
> 
> The second to the last sentence is inaccurate and I could be sanctioned by the state for giving false information if I said that because premiums in health insurance or not based on risk, they are based on age, geographic area and current tobacco use only.  A Downs Syndrome client pays the same premium at 27 as a personal trainer.  An overweight alcoholic with diabetes who quit smoking after 40 years pays the same premium at 62 as a man who has run marathons his entire life.
> 
> You pontificate out of ignorance and it appears your mind is closed to new information.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Health insurance issuers in the individual and small group markets would only be allowed to vary premiums based on age (within a 3:1 ratio for adults), tobacco use (within a 1.5:1 ratio and subject to wellness program requirements in the small group market), family size, and geography.  All other factors &#8211; such as pre-existing conditions, health status, claims history, duration of coverage, gender, occupation, and small employer size and industry &#8211; would no longer be able to be used by insurance companies to increase the premiums for those seeking insurance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ObamaCare Health Insurance Rules, Regulations and Standards
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "premiums in health insurance or not based on risk, they are based on age, geographic area and current tobacco use only."
> 
> All risk indicators.
Click to expand...


Not true when compared to other more significant risk factors such as cholesterol, consumption habits, health history, and occupation.



PMZ said:


> However, what you mention comes from ACA's requirement prohibiting defining populations for risk assessment that exclude people who insurance companies consider high risk. Because they need to spread their risk more than anybody. Once the risk assessment population is defined though you can bet that the premium for that population comes from a great deal of actuarial risk assessment of the population.



If I can bet that this is so, why have you not documented your claim?  Go ahead and show us where "the premium for that population comes from a great deal of actuarial risk assessment of the population."  Just you saying so doesn't make it true.  You're speaking in broad generalizations you have gleaned from a casual look at insurance.  I'm talking about specific proven facts.



PMZ said:


> If you aren't telling your clients that the ACA bronze plans are cheapest because they are the highest risk for the insured, you are doing them a major disservice.



I tell them that the bronze plan premiums are less expensive than the sliver, gold, and platinum plan premiums because the deductibles, co-pays and maximum out of pocket limits are higher.  Describing the premiums and benefits as a function of risk would be a disservice (and against my pledge to uphold the NAIFA Code of Ethics) to my clients because it would incorrectly lead them to think that the bronze plans are best unless something unforeseen happens.  That's not always the case and there are many other variables to consider.  

You made a claim that I'm disingenuous.  Here's your exact quote:



PMZ said:


> If you believe what you posted here and tell your clients otherwise you are, at the very least, guilty of being disingenuous.



You also claimed that when premiums go up, risk goes down.  Your exact quote:



PMZ said:


> If they are unaffordable now they were really unaffordable before ACA. When premiums go up, Rick goes down. Basic actuarial science.




I have a client who has experienced a massive increase in his premium for 2014 (about 50% when it was 5-15% in years past).  His co-pays are higher, his deductible is higher.  He actually has more risk in his silver plan than he did in his previous plan.  So what do you think I should tell him?


Here's the trend as it is actually happening:







source


----------



## jon_berzerk

yikes

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kFqwfiE0Qc#t=102]CNN: New Poll Shows Obama Losing His Own Base Over ObamaCare - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## dblack

PMZ said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> That insurance is a simple risk sharing process. That you buy protection from financial risk by sharing it with others through insurance policies. That as life unfolds among all of those who share specific risks under the same policy product, the unfortunate ones will experience the greatest losses but also receive the greatest part of everyone's premiums. The fortunate ones will suffer the least in claims, but lose virtually all of their premiums for the stated time period.
> 
> The higher the risks, the greater the premiums.
> 
> If the risks are absorbable without insurance, the odds favor those without it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On what resources or knowledge do you base your suggestions?
> 
> The second to the last sentence is inaccurate and I could be sanctioned by the state for giving false information if I said that because premiums in health insurance or not based on risk, they are based on age, geographic area and current tobacco use only.  A Downs Syndrome client pays the same premium at 27 as a personal trainer.  An overweight alcoholic with diabetes who quit smoking after 40 years pays the same premium at 62 as a man who has run marathons his entire life.
> 
> You pontificate out of ignorance and it appears your mind is closed to new information.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Health insurance issuers in the individual and small group markets would only be allowed to vary premiums based on age (within a 3:1 ratio for adults), tobacco use (within a 1.5:1 ratio and subject to wellness program requirements in the small group market), family size, and geography.  All other factors  such as pre-existing conditions, health status, claims history, duration of coverage, gender, occupation, and small employer size and industry  would no longer be able to be used by insurance companies to increase the premiums for those seeking insurance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ObamaCare Health Insurance Rules, Regulations and Standards
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "premiums in health insurance or not based on risk, they are based on age, geographic area and current tobacco use only."
> 
> All risk indicators.
> 
> However, what you mention comes from ACA's requirement prohibiting defining populations for risk assessment that exclude people who insurance companies consider high risk. Because they need to spread their risk more than anybody. Once the risk assessment population is defined though you can bet that the premium for that population comes from a great deal of actuarial risk assessment of the population.
> 
> If you aren't telling your clients that the ACA bronze plans are cheapest because they are the highest risk for the insured, you are doing them a major disservice.
Click to expand...

[ame=http://youtu.be/rHJoj9IqeKg]Ding Dong The Witch is Dead - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Listening

States retaliate against ObamaCare website developers, halt payments | Fox News

Wasn't it PMS who said the state stuff was going just great guns ?

Moron.


----------



## P@triot

Since PMZ hates facts, this should make his head burst...


----------



## BlackSand

So 1.1 million of the 42 million (2.6%) it was supposed to help signed up.
More than 5 million lose their existing coverage even though President Obama said that wasn't going to happen.

There is a way the ACA can be seen as helping someone ... And still be an utter failure.

.


----------



## Listening

CNN Poll: Opposition To Obamacare Hits Record Highs, Support Crashes To New Lows | TheBlaze.com

The telephone poll, taken between December 13-19, asked 1035 adults &#8212; 950 of whom were registered voters &#8212; the following question: &#8220;As you may know, a bill that makes major changes to the country&#8217;s health care system became law in 2010. Based on what you have read or heard about that legislation, do you generally favor or generally oppose it?&#8221;

62% of those polled said they oppose the Affordable Care Act (ACA), while support for the law hit an all-time low of just 35%.

*****************888

Of course, they might support Obamacare...just not the ACA (as we've seen already).


----------



## beagle9

We are stuck between two giants fighting one another, where as one is the government fighting the insurance industry by trying to get them to help it's customers old and new, and this by offering them better plans than what they were offering them before, and also at much better rates than what they had before. 

The insurance industry is pushing back hard I think, because they don't want to offer the American public what the government is wanting them to, and they ain't waiting around to see how many of the so called forced new clients that were idle in this market place, to hopefully sign up in order to off set their fears in what they see as a huge attack on their bottom lines if it all doesn't work out like they were told it would. 

They are hoping that the government will falter now I'm guessing, upon what it has attempted in all of this that they have jumped head and feet first into, and they may be fixing to see it all come true as a catastrophic failure in which it very well could be now, and without a doubt.

Now what will happen as soon as the failure comes or is complete ? Will things get better for the people who just need to be treated fairly and with respect to their health care needs in life (all of their needs) or will things get real bad for most as the vengeance becomes the norm in the on going fight that will ensue afterwards ?


----------



## Listening

beagle9 said:


> We are stuck between two giants fighting one another, where as one is the government fighting the insurance industry by trying to get them to help it's customers old and new, and this by offering them better plans than what they were offering them before,* and also at much better rates than what they had before. *
> 
> The insurance industry is pushing back hard I think, because they don't want to offer the American public what the government is wanting them to, and they ain't waiting around to see how many of the so called forced new clients that were idle in this market place, to hopefully sign up in order to off set their fears in what they see as a huge attack on their bottom lines if it all doesn't work out like they were told it would.
> 
> They are hoping that the government will falter now I'm guessing, upon what it has attempted in all of this that they have jumped head and feet first into, and they may be fixing to see it all come true as a catastrophic failure in which it very well could be now, and without a doubt.
> 
> Now what will happen as soon as the failure comes or is complete ? Will things get better for the people who just need to be treated fairly and with respect to their health care needs in life (all of their needs) or will things get real bad for most as the vengeance becomes the norm in the on going fight that will ensue afterwards ?



100% horseshyt.


----------



## P@triot

You know it's an epic failure when even Canada is saying that Obamacare proves liberalism is a failed experiment...

Mr. Obama is in a tough spot. Its not just that he looks incompetent  its that he looks deceitful. He told people they could keep their plans, their doctors and their hospitals, and that their insurance payments wouldnt go up. That turns out not to be true for a lot of people, who feel duped. If theyd known what Obamacare would really mean, they wouldnt have supported it. And the worst isnt over. Hundreds of thousands of employers still have to make decisions about their coverage. And if the millennials dont get on board, prices will go up more.

But Obamacare is much more than a test of a presidency. Its a test of whether big government can solve big problems. And so far, the answer is very bad for the entire liberal enterprise. As venerable left-leaning pundit Thomas Edsall wrote in The New York Times, Cumulatively, recent developments surrounding the rollout of Obamacare strengthen the most *damaging conservative portrayals of liberalism and of big government  that on one hand government is too much a part of our lives, too invasive, too big, too scary, too regulatory, too in your face, and on the other hand it is incompetent, bureaucratic and expropriatory*.

Obamacare, where the liberal dream crashes and burns - The Globe and Mail


----------



## Bern80

PMZ said:


> I said that I believe that health care is a right.  If business chooses to provide for that,  that's great.  In fact that was the direction that the country was going until business decided to create unemployment to reduce labor costs. They dropped the ball.
> 
> The only one left standing is government.  I hope that you're happy with that when it comes.
> 
> Tell me this though.  Who benefits from a country with sub-optimal health.  Companies?  Families?  Communities?  Schools?  The wealthy?  The poor?
> 
> Who?



You can think it all you want. No matter how you slice it isn't a right. It meets not criteria of any other right. You're basically arguing that since a person has a right to life he has the right to the services needed to maintain that life. WRONG. You also you have the right to bare arms. That doesn't mean the government or anyone else is obligated to provide you a gun.

Businesses decided to create unemployment? You really are a collectivist aren't you. It is not the purpose of a business to employ people. It's purpose is to generate profit. How many employees that requires at any given time is always going to fluctuate. It isn't a businesses job to make sure it has x number of people working for it.

A business treating sick people is the obvious answer, but let's cut to the chase. You're basically saying since no one benefits from it, we should just provide it for people. That isn't a valid argument either. Government does not exist to alleviate your life of life's problems.


----------



## Geaux4it

PMZ said:


> I said that I believe that health care is a right.  If business chooses to provide for that,  that's great.  In fact that was the direction that the country was going until business decided to create unemployment to reduce labor costs. They dropped the ball.
> 
> The only one left standing is government.  I hope that you're happy with that when it comes.
> 
> Tell me this though.  Who benefits from a country with sub-optimal health.  Companies?  Families?  Communities?  Schools?  The wealthy?  The poor?
> 
> Who?



I disagree. Healthcare is not a right. 

Rights are equal. 

Healthcare decisions are fluid.

-Geaux


----------



## Listening

Another one bites the dust....

Awful: Disabled Family of Four Slammed By Exorbitant Obamacare Costs - Guy Benson

Target drops coverage for part-time workers.

Target Joins Other Companies in Dropping Health Coverage - Kevin Glass


----------



## P@triot

Every member in the Davert family has a medical condition requiring special care. But after losing their preferred insurance upon the enactment of the Affordable Care Act and being denied federal coverage, the Michigan family is now worried about high costs associated with their new private plan.

We have such a unique family and weve overcome many obstacles in life. And now its a shame that one of the obstacles we have to overcome is our own government to pay for health care, Ken Davert said in the video, laughing in disbelief.

Family With Rare Medical Conditions Denied Obamacare Coverage, Now Struggling With Expense Of New Plan


----------



## billyerock1991

Rottweiler said:


> As the Dumbocrats on USMB love to crow about - Obamacare was passed into law by Congress, signed into law by the president, and upheld by the Supreme Court. So _why_ exactly does the federal government have to piss away billions to *promote* an existing law?!? Has this _ever_ been done with any other law in U.S. _history_?
> 
> They begged the NBA to help promote it and the NBA said yes. They begged the NFL to help promote it, and the NFL told them to go fuck themselves (doh!). So why are they so desperate to reach people through Hollywood and sports? Because even the Dumbocrats know this is a miserable failure, and they _know_ it is going to be repealed eventually unless they can do major damage control and brainwash the masses (especially the young and impressionable - hence the NBA, NFL, etc.) that this is a "good" thing.
> 
> Super Bowl champ Baltimore Ravens getting paid $130,000 to promote Obamacare | WashingtonExaminer.com



heres the problem ... republicans are blocking information in their state to tell people how to get health care...by asking their elected official its been ban.... the majority of republicans states have blocked this ... so that they won't get hit with a tax for not signing up, the liberals/dems government officials are forced to air commercials on how to get health care its that simple moron .... we know what you're about ...


----------



## Listening

billyerock1991 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> As the Dumbocrats on USMB love to crow about - Obamacare was passed into law by Congress, signed into law by the president, and upheld by the Supreme Court. So _why_ exactly does the federal government have to piss away billions to *promote* an existing law?!? Has this _ever_ been done with any other law in U.S. _history_?
> 
> They begged the NBA to help promote it and the NBA said yes. They begged the NFL to help promote it, and the NFL told them to go fuck themselves (doh!). So why are they so desperate to reach people through Hollywood and sports? Because even the Dumbocrats know this is a miserable failure, and they _know_ it is going to be repealed eventually unless they can do major damage control and brainwash the masses (especially the young and impressionable - hence the NBA, NFL, etc.) that this is a "good" thing.
> 
> Super Bowl champ Baltimore Ravens getting paid $130,000 to promote Obamacare | WashingtonExaminer.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> heres the problem ... republicans are blocking information in their state to tell people how to get health care...by asking their elected official its been ban.... the majority of republicans states have blocked this ... so that they won't get hit with a tax for not signing up, the liberals/dems government officials are forced to air commercials on how to get health care its that simple moron .... we know what you're about ...
Click to expand...


They are elected officials.  That means they are doing the will of the majority of the people in their states.

You have a problem with that ?

And it isn't about health care you dumbass...it's about insurance.  Insurance they will sign up for, be forced to carry a bunch of stuff they don't want...and will likely get no value for.  You and your ilk that took away the so-called "junk plans" (of which I had two that were just what I wanted and were a GREAT value for what I was paying...I am not paying more for a whole lot less of what I need)....so go f**k yourself for meddling.  You are getting just what you deserve.


----------



## Antares

billyerock1991 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> As the Dumbocrats on USMB love to crow about - Obamacare was passed into law by Congress, signed into law by the president, and upheld by the Supreme Court. So _why_ exactly does the federal government have to piss away billions to *promote* an existing law?!? Has this _ever_ been done with any other law in U.S. _history_?
> 
> They begged the NBA to help promote it and the NBA said yes. They begged the NFL to help promote it, and the NFL told them to go fuck themselves (doh!). So why are they so desperate to reach people through Hollywood and sports? Because even the Dumbocrats know this is a miserable failure, and they _know_ it is going to be repealed eventually unless they can do major damage control and brainwash the masses (especially the young and impressionable - hence the NBA, NFL, etc.) that this is a "good" thing.
> 
> Super Bowl champ Baltimore Ravens getting paid $130,000 to promote Obamacare | WashingtonExaminer.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> heres the problem ... republicans are blocking information in their state to tell people how to get health care...by asking their elected official its been ban.... the majority of republicans states have blocked this ... so that they won't get hit with a tax for not signing up, the liberals/dems government officials are forced to air commercials on how to get health care its that simple moron .... we know what you're about ...
Click to expand...


Nobody is blocking anything you silly hack.


----------



## P@triot

billyerock1991 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> As the Dumbocrats on USMB love to crow about - Obamacare was passed into law by Congress, signed into law by the president, and upheld by the Supreme Court. So _why_ exactly does the federal government have to piss away billions to *promote* an existing law?!? Has this _ever_ been done with any other law in U.S. _history_?
> 
> They begged the NBA to help promote it and the NBA said yes. They begged the NFL to help promote it, and the NFL told them to go fuck themselves (doh!). So why are they so desperate to reach people through Hollywood and sports? Because even the Dumbocrats know this is a miserable failure, and they _know_ it is going to be repealed eventually unless they can do major damage control and brainwash the masses (especially the young and impressionable - hence the NBA, NFL, etc.) that this is a "good" thing.
> 
> Super Bowl champ Baltimore Ravens getting paid $130,000 to promote Obamacare | WashingtonExaminer.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> heres the problem ... *republicans are blocking information in their state to tell people how to get health care*...by asking their elected official its been ban.... the majority of republicans states have blocked this ... so that they won't get hit with a tax for not signing up, the liberals/dems government officials are forced to air commercials on how to get health care its that simple moron .... we know what you're about ...
Click to expand...


    


First of all [MENTION=36822]billyerock1991[/MENTION], I notice you don't have a single link to back up your outrageous claim


Second, how could Republican's "block" this? What are they doing, controlling the internet like China? 


Third, can't you just have an _*honest*_ discussion for once? We get it, you're an unhinged partisan hack. You're desperate for free government handouts. But can't you make a rational, _honest_ argument for those things? Is it really beyond your capability?


----------



## Listening

Obamacare?s Latest Failure - Stephanie Slade (usnews.com)

The next shoe to drop in the Obamacare debacle has already fallen &#8211; patients who enrolled in health insurance plans through the federal exchange have begun to experience disruptions in their care. As the U.K.'s Daily Mail has reported, hospital workers "are turning away sick people ... because they can't determine whether their Obamacare insurance plans are in effect."

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/op...-ed-obamacare-letter-20140106,0,5974148.story

I know The Sun will go to great lengths to spin this debacle of a law as successful, but when you look at it on just about every front, it is a total failure and will eventually ruin this country financially. Even President Barack Obama is selectively delaying certain parts that are not politically convenient for him or the political left. It would appear U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz was on to something after all.

Read more: http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/op...letter-20140106,0,5974148.story#ixzz2rG4jylCm


----------



## Listening

Aetna CEO: We May Have to Pull Out of Obamacare, or Heavily Hike Premiums.

Aetna CEO: We May Have to Pull Out of Obamacare, or Heavily Hike Premiums - Guy Benson

Aetna CEO Mark Bertolini told CNBC on Wednesday that Obamacare has failed to attract the uninsured, and he offered a scenario in which the insurance company could be forced to pull out of program. The company will be submitting Obamacare rates for 2015 on May 15. "Are they going to be double-digit [increases] or are we going to get beat up because they're double-digit or are we just going to have to pull out of the program?" Bertolini asked..."Those questions can't be answered until we see the population we have today. And we really don't have a good view on that." He said that so far, Obamacare has just shifted people who were insured in the individual market to the public exchanges where they could get a better deal on a subsidy for coverage. "We see only 11 percent of the population is actually people that were firmly uninsured that are now insured. So [it] didn't really eat into the uninsured population."

******************

I wonder if Krystal Ball sees this as the success she was predicting ?

I'd like to thank asswipes like Rightwinger (as I have Aetna) for what is about to happen.


----------



## Geaux4it

If AETNA pulls out of this 3-ring circus.... Well, warm up the fat lady.

-Geaux


----------



## Listening

Geaux4it said:


> If AETNA pulls out of this 3-ring circus.... Well, warm up the fat lady.
> 
> -Geaux



Isn't this hilarious.

The bar has been slowly lowered to the point that people don't act surprised at this.

If they had said this would be the way it would play out in 2008.....we'd be looking at President McCain.

The frog and the boiling water syndrome.


----------



## Listening

Obamacare: Workplace Disaster Ahead | The American Spectator

This one was very interesting:

http://townhall.com/columnists/scot...vives_the_court_the_health_care_law_is_doomed


----------



## beagle9

Listening said:


> Obamacare: Workplace Disaster Ahead | The American Spectator
> 
> This one was very interesting:
> 
> Even If It Survives the Court, the Health Care Law Is Doomed - Scott Rasmussen - Page 1


Question - Would someone actually want a low budget plan( poor performer) with a high deductible as a choice, or would it be the only choice available to them ? You see it's all in the wording I notice on these things. I know I can only get what my money allows me to get, but does that mean I am satisfied with that ? NOPE! When it comes to ones health, all humans should get the best services available to them that are possible, but in a profit driven industry comes the separation of the classes and the people. Is it right ? No it isn't, so what to do about it no one seems to know anymore. Having to send people to the emergency room for services, because they can't afford services any other way, is the equivalent to sending someone to the back of the bus (IMHO). There is class separation going on big time in this health care situation, and there always has been, so do you think that as right or do you think that as wrong ? Who has caused the huge gap that has formed in this arena between the classes ? Was there pure greed involved, and who are the greedy, or the culprits, and the perps being found in all of this ?


----------



## RKMBrown

beagle9 said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obamacare: Workplace Disaster Ahead | The American Spectator
> 
> This one was very interesting:
> 
> Even If It Survives the Court, the Health Care Law Is Doomed - Scott Rasmussen - Page 1
> 
> 
> 
> Question - Would someone actually want a low budget plan( poor performer) with a high deductible as a choice, or would it be the only choice available to them ? You see it's all in the wording I notice on these things. I know I can only get what my money allows me to get, but does that mean I am satisfied with that ? NOPE! When it comes to ones health, all humans should get the best services available to them that are possible, but in a profit driven industry comes the separation of the classes and the people. Is it right ? No it isn't, so what to do about it no one seems to know anymore. Having to send people to the emergency room for services, because they can't afford services any other way, is the equivalent to sending someone to the back of the bus (IMHO). There is class separation going on big time in this health care situation, and there always has been, so do you think that as right or do you think that as wrong ? Who has caused the huge gap that has formed in this arena between the classes ? Was there pure greed involved, and who are the greedy, or the culprits, and the perps being found in all of this ?
Click to expand...


The best health care plan today, IMO, are HSA plans.  Especially for healthy people. They have a very high deductible, and a low premium cost.  You put your own money in your own HSA savings account, that's your money and it's all tax deductible.  For the most part, if you ever need health care you use your money to pay for it up to the deductible.  You can earn some interest on your HSA account. 

For example, you can save on premium costs for decades, create a huge health savings account nest egg.  Then if you get some big problem(s) your nest egg covers the deductible for the year(s) you are paying for the big problem(s).

Can I afford high premium "gold" insurance .. yes.  Do I need or want to? Hell no.  I hate insurance.


----------



## beagle9

RKMBrown said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obamacare: Workplace Disaster Ahead | The American Spectator
> 
> This one was very interesting:
> 
> Even If It Survives the Court, the Health Care Law Is Doomed - Scott Rasmussen - Page 1
> 
> 
> 
> Question - Would someone actually want a low budget plan( poor performer) with a high deductible as a choice, or would it be the only choice available to them ? You see it's all in the wording I notice on these things. I know I can only get what my money allows me to get, but does that mean I am satisfied with that ? NOPE! When it comes to ones health, all humans should get the best services available to them that are possible, but in a profit driven industry comes the separation of the classes and the people. Is it right ? No it isn't, so what to do about it no one seems to know anymore. Having to send people to the emergency room for services, because they can't afford services any other way, is the equivalent to sending someone to the back of the bus (IMHO). There is class separation going on big time in this health care situation, and there always has been, so do you think that as right or do you think that as wrong ? Who has caused the huge gap that has formed in this arena between the classes ? Was there pure greed involved, and who are the greedy, or the culprits, and the perps being found in all of this ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The best health care plan today, IMO, are HSA plans.  Especially for healthy people. They have a very high deductible, and a low premium cost.  You put your own money in your own HSA savings account, that's your money and it's all tax deductible.  For the most part, if you ever need health care you use your money to pay for it up to the deductible.  You can earn some interest on your HSA account.
> 
> For example, you can save on premium costs for decades, create a huge health savings account nest egg.  Then if you get some big problem(s) your nest egg covers the deductible for the year(s) you are paying for the big problem(s).
> 
> Can I afford high premium "gold" insurance .. yes.  Do I need or want to? Hell no.  I hate insurance.
Click to expand...

The health insurance industry you would figure, well that they wouldn't want to be pricing themselves out of the business in most all cases available to them, and that they would definitely want to work with the government in order to get a consensus on how to jointly help those who need access to the same care as everyone else has. You would also figure that they would be willing to listen to what the government could do in order to help them help us through a subsidy program if they can't do it alone.  

Now the question is, what is making them do what they are doing, because that is exactly what they are doing *pricing themselves out of a potential business based upon a pool that would cover any and every issue that people could ever come up with or run up against in their lives *? 

They are alienating so many people upon denying them access due to the high cost of their product, that it has become counter intuitive for them. Simple analogy here, where as I see it just as a movie theater that has say 150 seats ok, and then they price the movie so high that only a 1/4 of the seats are used, thus not allowing them to profit enough to have even opened the theater up that day. Now if they would have dialed in on the correct price or knew that people would have the money by other means, then they would have filled all but a few seats in the theater thus making themselves profit and many others in the chain profit as well.  "Everyone wins". 

The other good thing is that the people would have had the same quality of product that the others in the theater had also (no one placed in special seats that are way up in the upper parts, and in the back all because they didn't have the same money as the next person did), so everybody wins again in that respect as well, and all due to a great theater management system of thinking going on . Now how come these concepts or thoughts aren't working anymore or have been forgotten about these days ?

Is it a political war that is causing the citizens harm in these ways now ?


----------



## Listening

beagle9 said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obamacare: Workplace Disaster Ahead | The American Spectator
> 
> This one was very interesting:
> 
> Even If It Survives the Court, the Health Care Law Is Doomed - Scott Rasmussen - Page 1
> 
> 
> 
> Question - Would someone actually want a low budget plan( poor performer) with a high deductible as a choice, or would it be the only choice available to them ? You see it's all in the wording I notice on these things. I know I can only get what my money allows me to get, but does that mean I am satisfied with that ? NOPE! When it comes to ones health, all humans should get the best services available to them that are possible, but in a profit driven industry comes the separation of the classes and the people. Is it right ? No it isn't, so what to do about it no one seems to know anymore. Having to send people to the emergency room for services, because they can't afford services any other way, is the equivalent to sending someone to the back of the bus (IMHO). There is class separation going on big time in this health care situation, and there always has been, so do you think that as right or do you think that as wrong ? Who has caused the huge gap that has formed in this arena between the classes ? Was there pure greed involved, and who are the greedy, or the culprits, and the perps being found in all of this ?
Click to expand...


I had two plans that became classified as "junk" (the term that hit when the big lie was exposed).  I was fine with them.  They did what I needed.  To replace them was more expensive and brought coverage I didn't want or need.  So Please stop with the meme.

Emergency room visits may wind up increasing.

Surprise: Obamacare may end up encouraging more emergency room visits

As to the rest of your post.....what do you want Eutopia ?  You are not going to get bright people to become doctors if you are not going to pay them.  They are not all about the money....but they expect some compensation for what they go through to get there and for what they do once they have arrived (I've called my pediatrician more than once at two in the morning).

I agree on the class separation point...but it is meaningless in this context. 

So is your comment about the best services available.  You can't define that.  Or, I should say, I'd invite you to try.  But be sure to include the costs associated with that.  Once you've opened the door.....

I've always argued that deductibles were to low.  I am now in a HD-HSA program.  I love it.


----------



## beagle9

Listening said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obamacare: Workplace Disaster Ahead | The American Spectator
> 
> This one was very interesting:
> 
> Even If It Survives the Court, the Health Care Law Is Doomed - Scott Rasmussen - Page 1
> 
> 
> 
> Question - Would someone actually want a low budget plan( poor performer) with a high deductible as a choice, or would it be the only choice available to them ? You see it's all in the wording I notice on these things. I know I can only get what my money allows me to get, but does that mean I am satisfied with that ? NOPE! When it comes to ones health, all humans should get the best services available to them that are possible, but in a profit driven industry comes the separation of the classes and the people. Is it right ? No it isn't, so what to do about it no one seems to know anymore. Having to send people to the emergency room for services, because they can't afford services any other way, is the equivalent to sending someone to the back of the bus (IMHO). There is class separation going on big time in this health care situation, and there always has been, so do you think that as right or do you think that as wrong ? Who has caused the huge gap that has formed in this arena between the classes ? Was there pure greed involved, and who are the greedy, or the culprits, and the perps being found in all of this ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I had two plans that became classified as "junk" (the term that hit when the big lie was exposed).  I was fine with them.  They did what I needed.  To replace them was more expensive and brought coverage I didn't want or need.  So Please stop with the meme.
> 
> Emergency room visits may wind up increasing.
> 
> Surprise: Obamacare may end up encouraging more emergency room visits
> 
> As to the rest of your post.....what do you want Eutopia ?  *You are not going to get bright people to become doctors if you are not going to pay them.*  They are not all about the money....but they expect some compensation for what they go through to get there and for what they do once they have arrived (I've called my pediatrician more than once at two in the morning).
> 
> I agree on the class separation point...but it is meaningless in this context.
> 
> So is your comment about the best services available.  You can't define that.  Or, I should say, I'd invite you to try.  But be sure to include the costs associated with that.  Once you've opened the door.....
> 
> I've always argued that deductibles were to low.  I am now in a HD-HSA program.  I love it.
Click to expand...


Give me a break please, no one expects people not to get paid and you know it. What people want is affordable heath care, and also they want a great plan that is just as good as anyone else's plan is. Why someone who has money in their pocket, would be denide great health care in which they are willing to pay for, but just not get killed in their wallet for, is amazing to me.. How hard is that for America to get back to or to figure out once again in this nation ?


----------



## Listening

beagle9 said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Question - Would someone actually want a low budget plan( poor performer) with a high deductible as a choice, or would it be the only choice available to them ? You see it's all in the wording I notice on these things. I know I can only get what my money allows me to get, but does that mean I am satisfied with that ? NOPE! When it comes to ones health, all humans should get the best services available to them that are possible, but in a profit driven industry comes the separation of the classes and the people. Is it right ? No it isn't, so what to do about it no one seems to know anymore. Having to send people to the emergency room for services, because they can't afford services any other way, is the equivalent to sending someone to the back of the bus (IMHO). There is class separation going on big time in this health care situation, and there always has been, so do you think that as right or do you think that as wrong ? Who has caused the huge gap that has formed in this arena between the classes ? Was there pure greed involved, and who are the greedy, or the culprits, and the perps being found in all of this ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I had two plans that became classified as "junk" (the term that hit when the big lie was exposed).  I was fine with them.  They did what I needed.  To replace them was more expensive and brought coverage I didn't want or need.  So Please stop with the meme.
> 
> Emergency room visits may wind up increasing.
> 
> Surprise: Obamacare may end up encouraging more emergency room visits
> 
> As to the rest of your post.....what do you want Eutopia ?  *You are not going to get bright people to become doctors if you are not going to pay them.*  They are not all about the money....but they expect some compensation for what they go through to get there and for what they do once they have arrived (I've called my pediatrician more than once at two in the morning).
> 
> I agree on the class separation point...but it is meaningless in this context.
> 
> So is your comment about the best services available.  You can't define that.  Or, I should say, I'd invite you to try.  But be sure to include the costs associated with that.  Once you've opened the door.....
> 
> I've always argued that deductibles were to low.  I am now in a HD-HSA program.  I love it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Give me a break please, no one expects people not to get paid and you know it. What people want is affordable heath care, and also they want a great plan that is just as good as anyone else's plan is. Why someone who has money in their pocket, would be denide great health care in which they are willing to pay for, but just not get killed in their wallet for, is amazing to me.. How hard is that for America to get back to or to figure out once again in this nation ?
Click to expand...


Please define affordable healthcare.

And what they want is a "great" plan that is just as good as everyone else's without paying for it.  Please be honest.

Why don't you state what it is that you think is happening.  You really think insurance companies are getting rich off of you ?  If they are, it is only because the government lets them do so.


----------



## P@triot

beagle9 said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Question - Would someone actually want a low budget plan( poor performer) with a high deductible as a choice, or would it be the only choice available to them ? You see it's all in the wording I notice on these things. I know I can only get what my money allows me to get, but does that mean I am satisfied with that ? NOPE! When it comes to ones health, all humans should get the best services available to them that are possible, but in a profit driven industry comes the separation of the classes and the people. Is it right ? No it isn't, so what to do about it no one seems to know anymore. Having to send people to the emergency room for services, because they can't afford services any other way, is the equivalent to sending someone to the back of the bus (IMHO). There is class separation going on big time in this health care situation, and there always has been, so do you think that as right or do you think that as wrong ? Who has caused the huge gap that has formed in this arena between the classes ? Was there pure greed involved, and who are the greedy, or the culprits, and the perps being found in all of this ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I had two plans that became classified as "junk" (the term that hit when the big lie was exposed).  I was fine with them.  They did what I needed.  To replace them was more expensive and brought coverage I didn't want or need.  So Please stop with the meme.
> 
> Emergency room visits may wind up increasing.
> 
> Surprise: Obamacare may end up encouraging more emergency room visits
> 
> As to the rest of your post.....what do you want Eutopia ?  *You are not going to get bright people to become doctors if you are not going to pay them.*  They are not all about the money....but they expect some compensation for what they go through to get there and for what they do once they have arrived (I've called my pediatrician more than once at two in the morning).
> 
> I agree on the class separation point...but it is meaningless in this context.
> 
> So is your comment about the best services available.  You can't define that.  Or, I should say, I'd invite you to try.  But be sure to include the costs associated with that.  Once you've opened the door.....
> 
> I've always argued that deductibles were to low.  I am now in a HD-HSA program.  I love it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Give me a break please, no one expects people not to get paid and you know it. *What people want is affordable heath care, and also they want a great plan that is just as good as anyone else's plan is*. Why someone who has money in their pocket, would be denide great health care in which they are willing to pay for, but just not get killed in their wallet for, is amazing to me.. How hard is that for America to get back to or to figure out once again in this nation ?
Click to expand...


And they _had_ that before Obamacare. Unfortuantely, the Dumbocrats have taken that away from everyone.

I had phenomenal healthcare - literally the best in the world. And it was very affordable. Hardly cost me a damn dime. And I am no special. I'm not some Bill Gates billionaire. I'm not some famous athlete. I'm just an ordinary American. And Obama, Pelosi, and Reid fucked us all over royally.

Ask yourself genius - if Obamacare is so great, why aren't Congress and the president enrolled in it? 'Nough said....


----------



## asterism

beagle9 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Question - Would someone actually want a low budget plan( poor performer) with a high deductible as a choice, or would it be the only choice available to them ? You see it's all in the wording I notice on these things. I know I can only get what my money allows me to get, but does that mean I am satisfied with that ? NOPE! When it comes to ones health, all humans should get the best services available to them that are possible, but in a profit driven industry comes the separation of the classes and the people. Is it right ? No it isn't, so what to do about it no one seems to know anymore. Having to send people to the emergency room for services, because they can't afford services any other way, is the equivalent to sending someone to the back of the bus (IMHO). There is class separation going on big time in this health care situation, and there always has been, so do you think that as right or do you think that as wrong ? Who has caused the huge gap that has formed in this arena between the classes ? Was there pure greed involved, and who are the greedy, or the culprits, and the perps being found in all of this ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The best health care plan today, IMO, are HSA plans.  Especially for healthy people. They have a very high deductible, and a low premium cost.  You put your own money in your own HSA savings account, that's your money and it's all tax deductible.  For the most part, if you ever need health care you use your money to pay for it up to the deductible.  You can earn some interest on your HSA account.
> 
> For example, you can save on premium costs for decades, create a huge health savings account nest egg.  Then if you get some big problem(s) your nest egg covers the deductible for the year(s) you are paying for the big problem(s).
> 
> Can I afford high premium "gold" insurance .. yes.  Do I need or want to? Hell no.  I hate insurance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The health insurance industry you would figure, well that they wouldn't want to be pricing themselves out of the business in most all cases available to them, and that they would definitely want to work with the government in order to get a consensus on how to jointly help those who need access to the same care as everyone else has. You would also figure that they would be willing to listen to what the government could do in order to help them help us through a subsidy program if they can't do it alone.
> 
> Now the question is, what is making them do what they are doing, because that is exactly what they are doing *pricing themselves out of a potential business based upon a pool that would cover any and every issue that people could ever come up with or run up against in their lives *?
> 
> They are alienating so many people upon denying them access due to the high cost of their product, that it has become counter intuitive for them. Simple analogy here, where as I see it just as a movie theater that has say 150 seats ok, and then they price the movie so high that only a 1/4 of the seats are used, thus not allowing them to profit enough to have even opened the theater up that day. Now if they would have dialed in on the correct price or knew that people would have the money by other means, then they would have filled all but a few seats in the theater thus making themselves profit and many others in the chain profit as well.  "Everyone wins".
> 
> The other good thing is that the people would have had the same quality of product that the others in the theater had also (no one placed in special seats that are way up in the upper parts, and in the back all because they didn't have the same money as the next person did), so everybody wins again in that respect as well, and all due to a great theater management system of thinking going on . Now how come these concepts or thoughts aren't working anymore or have been forgotten about these days ?
> 
> Is it a political war that is causing the citizens harm in these ways now ?
Click to expand...


Insurance companies are not pricing themselves out the market, they are charging the actuarial estimates as approved by the regulating bodies.  The high prices are due to the government mandates and subsidies.


----------



## Listening

Coverage Expansion Fail: Less Than One-Third Of Obamacare Exchange Enrollees Were Previously Uninsured - Forbes

At the end of the day, for all of the rhetoric and promises about what Obamacare would achieve, the health law&#8217;s most ardent supporters have stuck to their guns because of one thing: coverage expansion. But new data suggests that Obamacare may fail even to achieve this goal. Instead of expanding coverage to those without it, Obamacare is replacing the pre-existing market for private insurance. Surveys from insurers and other industry players indicate that as few as 11 percent of those on Obamacare&#8217;s exchanges were previously uninsured. If these trends continue, the probability increases that Obamacare will eventually get repealed.


----------



## RKMBrown

beagle9 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Question - Would someone actually want a low budget plan( poor performer) with a high deductible as a choice, or would it be the only choice available to them ? You see it's all in the wording I notice on these things. I know I can only get what my money allows me to get, but does that mean I am satisfied with that ? NOPE! When it comes to ones health, all humans should get the best services available to them that are possible, but in a profit driven industry comes the separation of the classes and the people. Is it right ? No it isn't, so what to do about it no one seems to know anymore. Having to send people to the emergency room for services, because they can't afford services any other way, is the equivalent to sending someone to the back of the bus (IMHO). There is class separation going on big time in this health care situation, and there always has been, so do you think that as right or do you think that as wrong ? Who has caused the huge gap that has formed in this arena between the classes ? Was there pure greed involved, and who are the greedy, or the culprits, and the perps being found in all of this ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The best health care plan today, IMO, are HSA plans.  Especially for healthy people. They have a very high deductible, and a low premium cost.  You put your own money in your own HSA savings account, that's your money and it's all tax deductible.  For the most part, if you ever need health care you use your money to pay for it up to the deductible.  You can earn some interest on your HSA account.
> 
> For example, you can save on premium costs for decades, create a huge health savings account nest egg.  Then if you get some big problem(s) your nest egg covers the deductible for the year(s) you are paying for the big problem(s).
> 
> Can I afford high premium "gold" insurance .. yes.  Do I need or want to? Hell no.  I hate insurance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The health insurance industry you would figure, well that they wouldn't want to be pricing themselves out of the business in most all cases available to them, and that they would definitely want to work with the government in order to get a consensus on how to jointly help those who need access to the same care as everyone else has. You would also figure that they would be willing to listen to what the government could do in order to help them help us through a subsidy program if they can't do it alone.
> 
> Now the question is, what is making them do what they are doing, because that is exactly what they are doing *pricing themselves out of a potential business based upon a pool that would cover any and every issue that people could ever come up with or run up against in their lives *?
> 
> They are alienating so many people upon denying them access due to the high cost of their product, that it has become counter intuitive for them. Simple analogy here, where as I see it just as a movie theater that has say 150 seats ok, and then they price the movie so high that only a 1/4 of the seats are used, thus not allowing them to profit enough to have even opened the theater up that day. Now if they would have dialed in on the correct price or knew that people would have the money by other means, then they would have filled all but a few seats in the theater thus making themselves profit and many others in the chain profit as well.  "Everyone wins".
> 
> The other good thing is that the people would have had the same quality of product that the others in the theater had also (no one placed in special seats that are way up in the upper parts, and in the back all because they didn't have the same money as the next person did), so everybody wins again in that respect as well, and all due to a great theater management system of thinking going on . Now how come these concepts or thoughts aren't working anymore or have been forgotten about these days ?
> 
> Is it a political war that is causing the citizens harm in these ways now ?
Click to expand...


Nonsense.  Health insurance plans are expensive because of what THIS TYRANNICAL GOVERNMENT is doing.  Our insurance premiums are being used to PAY FOR GOVERNMENT MANDATES.  The bills we get for our health care are high because we are being screwed by our GOVERNMENT.  The premiums we pay are what is used to pay the bills, insurance companies skim off the top but that is a small percentage of the total cost of insurance.  Almost all of the money you pay in premiums goes right back out to pay for health care for the members of the plan. 

Thus, blaming insurance companies for this mess is absolute NONSENSE.  

99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999% of the high costs of health care / insurance in this country goes back to the TYRANNICAL DECISIONS THIS GOVERNMENT HAS MADE and in some cases state and local governments included.


----------



## Listening

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs...-january-1-500000-signed-exchange_775360.html

But even if all or most of the 500,000 people who signed up for Obamacare by December 31 end up paying their bills, is that really a success? Leaving aside important questions about the quality and cost of Obamacare plans, the enrollment numbers are not impressive. The California exchange is doing very little to achieve the goal of insuring the uninsured.

Recall that California did not allow insurers the opportunity to re-offer plans canceled by Obamacare. Anne Gonzales of Covered California confirmed to THE WEEKLY STANDARD in a phone call that all 900,000 non-grandfathered plans in California "had to be discontinued by January 1." So how many of the 500,000 people who signed up for Obamacare before January 1 previously had insurance? "I don't think we have those [numbers]," Gonzales said.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guyben...lions-of-americans-out-of-work-force-n1789435

 The Affordable Care Act will also reduce the number of fulltime workers by more than 2 million in coming years, congressional budget analysts said in the most detailed analysis of the law&#8217;s impact on jobs. The CBO said the law&#8217;s impact on jobs would be mostly felt starting after 2016. The agency previously estimated that the economy would have 800,000 fewer jobs as a result of the law. The impact is likely to be most felt, the CBO said, among low-wage workers. The agency said that most of the effect would come from Americans deciding not to seek work as a result of the ACA&#8217;s impact on the economy. Some workers may forgo employment, while others may reduce hours, for a equivalent of at least 2 million fulltime workers dropping out of the labor force.

*********************

All you on the left...let's hear how this is working so great.  Come on....show your stuff.


----------



## P@triot

This is straight from the CBO....

Explosive Report: How Obamacare Will Drive People Out of the Workforce


----------



## Listening

Rottweiler said:


> This is straight from the CBO....
> 
> Explosive Report: How Obamacare Will Drive People Out of the Workforce



You'll notice the left gave up a long time ago trying to defend this POS legislation.


----------



## RKMBrown

Listening said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is straight from the CBO....
> 
> Explosive Report: How Obamacare Will Drive People Out of the Workforce
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You'll notice the left gave up a long time ago trying to defend this POS legislation.
Click to expand...


Don't worry the RINOs will be out in force doing their best to fix it.


----------



## Listening

CBO: Millions to Remain Uninsured, Pay Mandate Tax Under Obamacare

CBO: Millions to Remain Uninsured, Pay Mandate Tax Under Obamacare - Guy Benson

When he was seeking the Presidency in 2008, Barack Obama attacked his opponent - Senator Hillary Clinton - for her advocacy of a health reform plan that included a mandate which fined people for not purchasing health insurance. Obama argued that it was wrong to penalize people for not purchasing health insurance that they could not afford.

USA Today reports that an estimated 3 million Americans will find themselves in precisely that position this year - paying a fine because insurance is too expensive - due to the President's health care reform law. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that fines on individuals who do not comply with the mandate will total $52 billion over the next 10 years. The agency recently reported that in 2024, there will be 31 million Americans without insurance. About 45 percent of those - or 14 million people - will have the option to purchase insurance but choose not to do so - due to cost or other factors.


----------



## P@triot

No matter what government does to business (taxes, regulations, etc.), they will always simply pass that cost on to the consumer to the revenue side and will pay less, hire less, and offshore on the cost side.

Obamacare Raises Medicaid Cost as Insurers Shift Tax Bill - Bloomberg


----------



## oreo

Listening said:


> Coverage Expansion Fail: Less Than One-Third Of Obamacare Exchange Enrollees Were Previously Uninsured - Forbes
> 
> At the end of the day, for all of the rhetoric and promises about what Obamacare would achieve, the health laws most ardent supporters have stuck to their guns because of one thing: coverage expansion. But new data suggests that Obamacare may fail even to achieve this goal. Instead of expanding coverage to those without it, Obamacare is replacing the pre-existing market for private insurance. Surveys from insurers and other industry players indicate that as few as 11 percent of those on Obamacares exchanges were previously uninsured. If these trends continue, the probability increases that Obamacare will eventually get repealed.



There has been a fire sale going on with Obamacare--and that is the new medicade enrollment which is FREE medical insurance--paid for by others that have higher premiums.  That's the majority of new enrollee's--along with the elderly that can't live without medical insurance--they too are signing up.

But for the rest--those that don't qualify for subsidized insurance--they are finding out quickly that their old plans were much cheaper than what Obamacare offers.

And in that Obamacare is a *SUCKER PUNCH* to the middle class of this country.  They were lied into believing that premiums would drop, instead they have risen--they were told they could keep their existing plans if they liked them and that was a lie.  They were told they could keep their doctors and that was a lie also.

So all in all-*-due to the cancellations because of the Obamacare mandates--it's not hard to understand that there are more uninsured in this country today than insured because of Obamacare.*







*Welcome to your hope and change!*


----------



## jon_berzerk

*Will Medicaid take my house?*

To place the issue in context, the Affordable Care Act significantly expanded the availability of Medicaid to cover households earning up to 138% of the federal poverty line ($32,499 for a family of four). The act also widened Medicaid eligibility to cover childless adults in that income segment. The Supreme Court made that expansion optional for states, and so far, only 25 states and the District of Columbia have done so. That includes California, where Medicaid is known as Medi-Cal.
One thing the ACA didn't change was Medicaid's estate recovery rule. Under a law enacted in 1993, states are required to seek recovery from the estates of deceased enrollees for the costs of long-term care, such as nursing-home care. The recovery rule applied to those who received that care when they were 55 and older, or who were permanently institutionalized at any age.
States were given the option of seeking recovery of other costs, such as expenses unrelated to those patients' long-term care. And the states were required to inform Medicaid applicants of the existence of the estate recovery rule before they enroll, which may be one reason that concern about it is surfacing now.


Today's overblown Obamacare fear: Will Medicaid take my house? - latimes.com


----------



## Sunshine

jon_berzerk said:


> *Will Medicaid take my house?*
> 
> To place the issue in context, the Affordable Care Act significantly expanded the availability of Medicaid to cover households earning up to 138% of the federal poverty line ($32,499 for a family of four). The act also widened Medicaid eligibility to cover childless adults in that income segment. The Supreme Court made that expansion optional for states, and so far, only 25 states and the District of Columbia have done so. That includes California, where Medicaid is known as Medi-Cal.
> One thing the ACA didn't change was Medicaid's estate recovery rule. Under a law enacted in 1993, states are required to seek recovery from the estates of deceased enrollees for the costs of long-term care, such as nursing-home care. The recovery rule applied to those who received that care when they were 55 and older, or who were permanently institutionalized at any age.
> States were given the option of seeking recovery of other costs, such as expenses unrelated to those patients' long-term care. And the states were required to inform Medicaid applicants of the existence of the estate recovery rule before they enroll, which may be one reason that concern about it is surfacing now.
> 
> 
> Today's overblown Obamacare fear: Will Medicaid take my house? - latimes.com



Medicare also has the estate recovery rule.  Every time I order meds from the specialty pharmacy they ask if I am getting any assisted care, home health care, or palliative care for pain management.  Going to nursing school was one of the best decisions I made for myself and for my family.  I don't know how lay people cope with all the technical knowledge that this disease requires.


----------



## beagle9

jon_berzerk said:


> *Will Medicaid take my house?*
> 
> To place the issue in context, the Affordable Care Act significantly expanded the availability of Medicaid to cover households earning up to 138% of the federal poverty line ($32,499 for a family of four). The act also widened Medicaid eligibility to cover childless adults in that income segment. The Supreme Court made that expansion optional for states, and so far, only 25 states and the District of Columbia have done so. That includes California, where Medicaid is known as Medi-Cal.
> One thing the ACA didn't change was Medicaid's estate recovery rule. Under a law enacted in 1993, states are required to seek recovery from the estates of deceased enrollees for the costs of long-term care, such as nursing-home care. The recovery rule applied to those who received that care when they were 55 and older, or who were permanently institutionalized at any age.
> States were given the option of seeking recovery of other costs, such as expenses unrelated to those patients' long-term care. And the states were required to inform Medicaid applicants of the existence of the estate recovery rule before they enroll, which may be one reason that concern about it is surfacing now.
> 
> 
> Today's overblown Obamacare fear: Will Medicaid take my house? - latimes.com


Hmmm,, and that could be what is making this the biggest wealth redistribution plan ever, so think about that one for a second or two. Otherwise one could easily lose their assets over all of this, then no inheritance for the kiddies, and no keeping that wealth in the family right ? Then who gets the wealth that you or your family had built up over centuries in some cases ? The government right, then who gets the wealth after that ? Ok, but people will say that this thing is mainly pertaining to people who have nothing anyway, but those people who are living at or under the poverty line anymore, won't they eventually drive the rates up so high for others, that eventually it will drag down everyone else over time, therefore placing more and more of the wealth into the target zone for the taking ?


----------



## American_Jihad

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hxwot4sGTrM]Hitler finds out he can't keep his doctor under Obamacare - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Listening

Obamacare?s Failed State Exchanges - Reason.com

BOOOOOM !

The libs can ride this one in 2014.....

Just like this.......

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JlSQAZEp3PA]Dr. Strangelove: Major Kong Rides The Bomb 1080p - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## American_Jihad

Listening said:


> Obamacare?s Failed State Exchanges - Reason.com
> 
> BOOOOOM !
> 
> The libs can ride this one in 2014.....
> 
> Just like this.......
> 
> Dr. Strangelove: Major Kong Rides The Bomb 1080p - YouTube



lol, 2016 too...


----------



## P@triot

Teachers quitting their jobs 

Now that Karen Willmus can get health insurance through Obamacare, she plans to quit teaching 9th grade English at the end of the school year.

The 51-year-old found policies on the Colorado state exchange for about $300 a month. That's less than what she's paying now for employer-sponsored coverage and less than half what she paid on the individual market in 2007.

I'm quitting my job. Thanks Obamacare! - Yahoo Finance


----------



## P@triot

How is it that everyone who works for or with Obama is an anti-American terrorist?!?

Former Obamacare navigator actually a convicted terrorist


----------



## beagle9

Rottweiler said:


> How is it that everyone who works for or with Obama is an anti-American terrorist?!?
> 
> Former Obamacare navigator actually a convicted terrorist


I think Obama is a closet Muslim by religion (imho), and he has been given the keys to the nation.

I may be wrong, but it is my thoughts upon some of his actions over time.


----------



## Listening

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/gv022814dAPR20140228024534.jpg


----------



## oreo

Rottweiler said:


> Teachers quitting their jobs
> 
> Now that Karen Willmus can get health insurance through Obamacare, she plans to quit teaching 9th grade English at the end of the school year.
> 
> The 51-year-old found policies on the Colorado state exchange for about $300 a month. That's less than what she's paying now for employer-sponsored coverage and less than half what she paid on the individual market in 2007.
> 
> I'm quitting my job. Thanks Obamacare! - Yahoo Finance




This teacher could have quit anytime she wanted too.  We did have an individual marketplace before Obama destroyed it--and she could have gotten a medical insurance policy just like those 14 million other people did.

IOW--it's total B.S. the way democrats are spinning this. EVERYONE and I mean EVERYONE could get insurance in the private marketplace prior to Obamacare.  *NO ONE was "stuck" in any job, because of medical insurance.*


----------



## Mertex

Rottweiler said:


> As the Dumbocrats on USMB love to crow about - Obamacare was passed into law by Congress, signed into law by the president, and upheld by the Supreme Court. So _why_ exactly does the federal government have to piss away billions to *promote* an existing law?!? Has this _ever_ been done with any other law in U.S. _history_?
> 
> They begged the NBA to help promote it and the NBA said yes. They begged the NFL to help promote it, and the NFL told them to go fuck themselves (doh!). So why are they so desperate to reach people through Hollywood and sports? Because even the Dumbocrats know this is a miserable failure, and they _know_ it is going to be repealed eventually unless they can do major damage control and brainwash the masses (especially the young and impressionable - hence the NBA, NFL, etc.) that this is a "good" thing.
> 
> Super Bowl champ Baltimore Ravens getting paid $130,000 to promote Obamacare | WashingtonExaminer.com




Sounds like a lot of butt hurt because no matter how hard the righties try, Obamacare is marching on.....and soon, the people that are enrolled and finally getting better coverage than they were before, will be crowing over it.....many of them Republicans......so, say whatever you want....your pissing and moaning isn't changing anything....and your party has nothing to offer....which is a bigger failure.....but nice try. 

Read and weep......



*4 million people sign up for Obamacare
BY BRIAN HUGHES | FEBRUARY 25, 2014 AT 7:07 PM *

Roughly 4 million people have signed up for health care plans through Obamacare's exchanges, the Obama administration announced late Tuesday.

Marilyn Tavenner, administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, released the latest number of sign-ups in a blog post, arguing that President Obama's signature domestic achievement had reached a turning point.

As we head into the last five weeks of this historic open enrollment period, millions of Americans are taking advantage of the new choices they now have to access affordable, quality health care thanks to the Affordable Care Act, she said.

The most recent data indicate that approximately 4 million people have now signed up for a private health insurance plan through the federal and state-based marketplaces since Oct. 1," Tavenner added. A full enrollment report for February will be released in mid-March.


4 million people sign up for Obamacare | WashingtonExaminer.com


----------



## Mertex

Rottweiler said:


> Teachers quitting their jobs
> 
> Now that Karen Willmus can get health insurance through Obamacare, she plans to quit teaching 9th grade English at the end of the school year.
> 
> The 51-year-old found policies on the Colorado state exchange for about $300 a month. That's less than what she's paying now for employer-sponsored coverage and less than half what she paid on the individual market in 2007.
> 
> I'm quitting my job. Thanks Obamacare! - Yahoo Finance




You shouldn't have posted the link....because those with a brain will read the article and realize that the story is actually a positive for Obamacare....but being the closeminded partisan hack that you are, you probably thought it was a bad thing.... people are actually benefitting from it, but dumb rightwingers like you, prefer to keep getting the shaft from insurance companies, how sad is that.......bwahahaha!

From your link:

The report found that Obamacare could reduce the labor force by the equivalent of 2.5 million workers by 2024, as many Americans may opt to work less to retain eligibility for Medicaid or subsidies. *That sparked a fresh round of criticism that health reform is hurting the economy.

But for some, Obamacare is allowing them to become entrepreneurs or retire a few years early since they'll be able to find affordable individual coverage for the first time.*

Instead of eating bonbons on her couch, *Willmus plans to start her own business with her teen daughter publishing materials for non-native English speakers and others looking to improve their literacy. She expects to work even more than she does now and hire two or three people.*

*Edward Perri's job as a grocery clerk has caused him constant back and knee pain in recent years, but he continued to work because he needed insurance. Obamacare allowed him to retire in December after 39 years, 4 months and 23 days on the job.*

*His retiring at 57 allowed a more junior employee to move up on the job, said Perri,* who is single and lives in Muskegon, Mich. *Had Obamacare not existed, he'd either have to try to tough it out until he qualified for Medicare at 65 or pay $500 a month for COBRA coverage.*


*Instead, he's paying $50 a month for a policy. And, as he sees it, the $450 that he would have sent to an insurance company is going to buy groceries, fix his car and take a vacation with his girlfriend.*

Craig Mason, 59, said he has felt tied to his job as an engineer at a large defense contractor because he and his wife needed health insurance. *A diabetic, he couldn't get affordable coverage on the individual market.*

Now, however, he's thinking of leaving his employer in a few years to focus more on his side job, repairing and building guitars and other string instruments. He also wants to spend more time with his three grandchildren.

*"I want to try something different," said Mason*, a Germantown, Md., resident. "I don't want to be tied to a large corporation. The Affordable Care Act may be just the vehicle to bridge the gap until I'm eligible for Medicare."







CNSNews.com) - Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says despite all the "good news" about Obamacare, "there's plenty of horror stories being told, all of them untrue -- but they're being told all over America."

In a speech on the Senate floor Wednesday, Reid complained that Republicans, with help from wealthy donors -- he named the Koch brothers -- are telling "tall tales" and "outright lies" about Obamacare in stump speeches and political advertisements.

"Republicans may need tall tales and outright lies to convince people that Obamacare's bad for them -- but Democrats -- we don't have to make things up," Reid said."



Harry Reid Accuses Republicans of Telling 'Outright Lies' About Obamacare | CNS News


----------



## beagle9

Mertex said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> As the Dumbocrats on USMB love to crow about - Obamacare was passed into law by Congress, signed into law by the president, and upheld by the Supreme Court. So _why_ exactly does the federal government have to piss away billions to *promote* an existing law?!? Has this _ever_ been done with any other law in U.S. _history_?
> 
> They begged the NBA to help promote it and the NBA said yes. They begged the NFL to help promote it, and the NFL told them to go fuck themselves (doh!). So why are they so desperate to reach people through Hollywood and sports? Because even the Dumbocrats know this is a miserable failure, and they _know_ it is going to be repealed eventually unless they can do major damage control and brainwash the masses (especially the young and impressionable - hence the NBA, NFL, etc.) that this is a "good" thing.
> 
> Super Bowl champ Baltimore Ravens getting paid $130,000 to promote Obamacare | WashingtonExaminer.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like a lot of butt hurt because no matter how hard the righties try, Obamacare is marching on.....and soon, the people that are enrolled and finally getting better coverage than they were before, will be crowing over it.....many of them Republicans......so, say whatever you want....your pissing and moaning isn't changing anything....and your party has nothing to offer....which is a bigger failure.....but nice try.
> 
> Read and weep......
> 
> 
> 
> *4 million people sign up for Obamacare
> BY BRIAN HUGHES | FEBRUARY 25, 2014 AT 7:07 PM *
> 
> Roughly 4 million people have signed up for health care plans through Obamacare's exchanges, the Obama administration announced late Tuesday.
> 
> Marilyn Tavenner, administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, released the latest number of sign-ups in a blog post, arguing that President Obama's signature domestic achievement had reached a turning point.
> 
> &#8220;As we head into the last five weeks of this historic open enrollment period, millions of Americans are taking advantage of the new choices they now have to access affordable, quality health care thanks to the Affordable Care Act,&#8221; she said.
> 
> &#8220;The most recent data indicate that approximately 4 million people have now signed up for a private health insurance plan through the federal and state-based marketplaces since Oct. 1," Tavenner added. &#8220;A full enrollment report for February will be released in mid-March.&#8221;
> 
> 
> 4 million people sign up for Obamacare | WashingtonExaminer.com
Click to expand...

Are these people signing up because they want to (or) are they being forced to ? That is the big difference in offering alternatives in a free highly competitive market place, in which should be working to give us the best for less in a large united market place insurance pool that is being managed correctly, instead of it being a forced situation that gives you less (in total benefits), yet for the best of your hard earned money in which you can barley afford to pay into such a thing when all is said and done.


----------



## asterism

Mertex said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> As the Dumbocrats on USMB love to crow about - Obamacare was passed into law by Congress, signed into law by the president, and upheld by the Supreme Court. So _why_ exactly does the federal government have to piss away billions to *promote* an existing law?!? Has this _ever_ been done with any other law in U.S. _history_?
> 
> They begged the NBA to help promote it and the NBA said yes. They begged the NFL to help promote it, and the NFL told them to go fuck themselves (doh!). So why are they so desperate to reach people through Hollywood and sports? Because even the Dumbocrats know this is a miserable failure, and they _know_ it is going to be repealed eventually unless they can do major damage control and brainwash the masses (especially the young and impressionable - hence the NBA, NFL, etc.) that this is a "good" thing.
> 
> Super Bowl champ Baltimore Ravens getting paid $130,000 to promote Obamacare | WashingtonExaminer.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like a lot of butt hurt because no matter how hard the righties try, Obamacare is marching on.....and soon, the people that are enrolled and finally getting better coverage than they were before, will be crowing over it.....many of them Republicans......so, say whatever you want....your pissing and moaning isn't changing anything....and your party has nothing to offer....which is a bigger failure.....but nice try.
> 
> Read and weep......
> 
> 
> 
> *4 million people sign up for Obamacare
> BY BRIAN HUGHES | FEBRUARY 25, 2014 AT 7:07 PM *
> 
> Roughly 4 million people have signed up for health care plans through Obamacare's exchanges, the Obama administration announced late Tuesday.
> 
> Marilyn Tavenner, administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, released the latest number of sign-ups in a blog post, arguing that President Obama's signature domestic achievement had reached a turning point.
> 
> As we head into the last five weeks of this historic open enrollment period, millions of Americans are taking advantage of the new choices they now have to access affordable, quality health care thanks to the Affordable Care Act, she said.
> 
> The most recent data indicate that approximately 4 million people have now signed up for a private health insurance plan through the federal and state-based marketplaces since Oct. 1," Tavenner added. A full enrollment report for February will be released in mid-March.
> 
> 
> 4 million people sign up for Obamacare | WashingtonExaminer.com
Click to expand...


Generous government subsidies, a huge outreach effort to get people to enroll, and the threat of fines has convinced only 4 million to sign up?

This is success to you?  It's a farce!


----------



## Mertex

beagle9 said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> As the Dumbocrats on USMB love to crow about - Obamacare was passed into law by Congress, signed into law by the president, and upheld by the Supreme Court. So _why_ exactly does the federal government have to piss away billions to *promote* an existing law?!? Has this _ever_ been done with any other law in U.S. _history_?
> 
> They begged the NBA to help promote it and the NBA said yes. They begged the NFL to help promote it, and the NFL told them to go fuck themselves (doh!). So why are they so desperate to reach people through Hollywood and sports? Because even the Dumbocrats know this is a miserable failure, and they _know_ it is going to be repealed eventually unless they can do major damage control and brainwash the masses (especially the young and impressionable - hence the NBA, NFL, etc.) that this is a "good" thing.
> 
> Super Bowl champ Baltimore Ravens getting paid $130,000 to promote Obamacare | WashingtonExaminer.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like a lot of butt hurt because no matter how hard the righties try, Obamacare is marching on.....and soon, the people that are enrolled and finally getting better coverage than they were before, will be crowing over it.....many of them Republicans......so, say whatever you want....your pissing and moaning isn't changing anything....and your party has nothing to offer....which is a bigger failure.....but nice try.
> 
> Read and weep......
> 
> 
> 
> *4 million people sign up for Obamacare
> BY BRIAN HUGHES | FEBRUARY 25, 2014 AT 7:07 PM *
> 
> Roughly 4 million people have signed up for health care plans through Obamacare's exchanges, the Obama administration announced late Tuesday.
> 
> Marilyn Tavenner, administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, released the latest number of sign-ups in a blog post, arguing that President Obama's signature domestic achievement had reached a turning point.
> 
> As we head into the last five weeks of this historic open enrollment period, millions of Americans are taking advantage of the new choices they now have to access affordable, quality health care thanks to the Affordable Care Act, she said.
> 
> The most recent data indicate that approximately 4 million people have now signed up for a private health insurance plan through the federal and state-based marketplaces since Oct. 1," Tavenner added. A full enrollment report for February will be released in mid-March.
> 
> 
> 4 million people sign up for Obamacare | WashingtonExaminer.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are these people signing up because they want to (or) are they being forced to ?
Click to expand...

Anyone who prefers to be without healthcare is just a mooch, because no one is exempt from ever getting sick, so I would suspect that people that are signing up realize they need healthcare insurance, and they want it.




> That is the big difference in offering alternatives in a free highly competitive market place, in which should be working to give us the best for less in a large united market place insurance pool that is being managed correctly, instead of it being a forced situation that gives you less (in total benefits), yet for the best of your hard earned money in which you can barley afford to pay into such a thing when all is said and done.



Have you even looked into it?  Most people are getting more for their money with the ACA, that was the whole purpose for it.  If you want to listen to the lies of the Republican party that claim that it isn't any good, that's your choice, but if you don't even investigate it for yourself, but just repeat what you hear, then you're the fool and deserve what you get.


----------



## Mertex

asterism said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> As the Dumbocrats on USMB love to crow about - Obamacare was passed into law by Congress, signed into law by the president, and upheld by the Supreme Court. So _why_ exactly does the federal government have to piss away billions to *promote* an existing law?!? Has this _ever_ been done with any other law in U.S. _history_?
> 
> They begged the NBA to help promote it and the NBA said yes. They begged the NFL to help promote it, and the NFL told them to go fuck themselves (doh!). So why are they so desperate to reach people through Hollywood and sports? Because even the Dumbocrats know this is a miserable failure, and they _know_ it is going to be repealed eventually unless they can do major damage control and brainwash the masses (especially the young and impressionable - hence the NBA, NFL, etc.) that this is a "good" thing.
> 
> Super Bowl champ Baltimore Ravens getting paid $130,000 to promote Obamacare | WashingtonExaminer.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like a lot of butt hurt because no matter how hard the righties try, Obamacare is marching on.....and soon, the people that are enrolled and finally getting better coverage than they were before, will be crowing over it.....many of them Republicans......so, say whatever you want....your pissing and moaning isn't changing anything....and your party has nothing to offer....which is a bigger failure.....but nice try.
> 
> Read and weep......
> 
> 
> 
> *4 million people sign up for Obamacare
> BY BRIAN HUGHES | FEBRUARY 25, 2014 AT 7:07 PM *
> 
> Roughly 4 million people have signed up for health care plans through Obamacare's exchanges, the Obama administration announced late Tuesday.
> 
> Marilyn Tavenner, administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, released the latest number of sign-ups in a blog post, arguing that President Obama's signature domestic achievement had reached a turning point.
> 
> As we head into the last five weeks of this historic open enrollment period, millions of Americans are taking advantage of the new choices they now have to access affordable, quality health care thanks to the Affordable Care Act, she said.
> 
> The most recent data indicate that approximately 4 million people have now signed up for a private health insurance plan through the federal and state-based marketplaces since Oct. 1," Tavenner added. A full enrollment report for February will be released in mid-March.
> 
> 
> 4 million people sign up for Obamacare | WashingtonExaminer.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Generous government subsidies, a huge outreach effort to get people to enroll, and the threat of fines has convinced only 4 million to sign up?
> 
> This is success to you?  It's a farce!
Click to expand...



Considering the big effort the conservative party has put into convincing people that Obamacare is not good, that 4 million have enrolled is an amazing victory.

You can go ahead and think it is a farce, and remain without health insurance, and you'll become what your party has accused liberals of being, "mooches".


----------



## American_Jihad

*Outraged MSNBCer: Is It Even Legal For Restaurant to Add ObamaCare Surcharge?*



By Paul Bremmer | March 3, 2014

You reap what you sow. Most MSNBC hosts have excitedly touted ObamaCare over the past four years, despite warnings that the law would increase costs for businesses. Well, now we are beginning to see the natural consequences of what the health care law is doing to businesses, and at least one MSNBC host is upset by it.

On Saturdays Weekends with Alex Witt, Ms. Witt was incensed that Gators Dockside, a Florida restaurant chain, has started charging its customers a one percent surcharge to help cover expected ObamaCare-related costs. Witt fumed, _s it even legal to just add on a surcharge like that? I mean, its essentially a tax. [See video below the break.]

...

First of all, yes, Alex, it is legal. Second, if it were a tax, it would be the wimpiest tax ever. People can just avoid it by simply not eating at Gators Dockside. There is no law to force people to pay the tax  unlike ObamaCares individual mandate, which forces Americans to buy health insurance or pay a penalty (which the Supreme Court cynically justified as a tax).

...

Read more: Outraged MSNBCer: ?Is It Even Legal? For Restaurant to Add ObamaCare Surcharge? | NewsBusters_


----------



## beagle9

Mertex said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like a lot of butt hurt because no matter how hard the righties try, Obamacare is marching on.....and soon, the people that are enrolled and finally getting better coverage than they were before, will be crowing over it.....many of them Republicans......so, say whatever you want....your pissing and moaning isn't changing anything....and your party has nothing to offer....which is a bigger failure.....but nice try.
> 
> Read and weep......
> 
> 
> 
> *4 million people sign up for Obamacare
> BY BRIAN HUGHES | FEBRUARY 25, 2014 AT 7:07 PM *
> 
> Roughly 4 million people have signed up for health care plans through Obamacare's exchanges, the Obama administration announced late Tuesday.
> 
> Marilyn Tavenner, administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, released the latest number of sign-ups in a blog post, arguing that President Obama's signature domestic achievement had reached a turning point.
> 
> &#8220;As we head into the last five weeks of this historic open enrollment period, millions of Americans are taking advantage of the new choices they now have to access affordable, quality health care thanks to the Affordable Care Act,&#8221; she said.
> 
> &#8220;The most recent data indicate that approximately 4 million people have now signed up for a private health insurance plan through the federal and state-based marketplaces since Oct. 1," Tavenner added. &#8220;A full enrollment report for February will be released in mid-March.&#8221;
> 
> 
> 4 million people sign up for Obamacare | WashingtonExaminer.com
> 
> 
> 
> Are these people signing up because they want to (or) are they being forced to ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyone who prefers to be without healthcare is just a mooch, because no one is exempt from ever getting sick, so I would suspect that people that are signing up realize they need healthcare insurance, and they want it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is the big difference in offering alternatives in a free highly competitive market place, in which should be working to give us the best for less in a large united market place insurance pool that is being managed correctly, instead of it being a forced situation that gives you less (in total benefits), yet for the best of your hard earned money in which you can barley afford to pay into such a thing when all is said and done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you even looked into it?  Most people are getting more for their money with the ACA, that was the whole purpose for it.  If you want to listen to the lies of the Republican party that claim that it isn't any good, that's your choice, but if you don't even investigate it for yourself, but just repeat what you hear, then you're the fool and deserve what you get.
Click to expand...

So your a mooch if you don't need or use healthcare at all ? Many people are and were healthy all of their lives just like me, and I have never had a need for health care really (Dental yes, but I paid out of pocket for that). Now I have always had a healthcare policy just encase I needed it by my choosing, but even so I was jerked around while in these policies by the insurance carriers. I lost money to the real moochers who were the insurance carriers that ran off with my hard earned money more than once. I didn't choose for them to go, but instead they left me and took my money with them. Then the rates kept on going up (take, take, take and take more, and then after that take some more), so who are or were the real moochers here ? Not us that's for sure, but instead it was the ones stealing our money when we had participated as good working class American citizens. Now was Obama's plan the answer to what was going on ? I don't think so, because I think it is miss-directed letting the big dog's off of the hook for their dastardly deeds, and again it put's it all on us instead. This plan is corporate friendly, and citizen unfriendly. Obama has failed us just like the rest had failed us over time, because he has sided with big business over the citizens (of course he has), and a lot of citizens were fooled by it all, and they are still fooled by it all.


----------



## Truthmatters

the right doesn't deal in facts anymore


----------



## beagle9

Truthmatters said:


> the right doesn't deal in facts anymore


What does this have to do with healthcare ?


----------



## Listening

Mertex said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Teachers quitting their jobs
> 
> Now that Karen Willmus can get health insurance through Obamacare, she plans to quit teaching 9th grade English at the end of the school year.
> 
> The 51-year-old found policies on the Colorado state exchange for about $300 a month. That's less than what she's paying now for employer-sponsored coverage and less than half what she paid on the individual market in 2007.
> 
> I'm quitting my job. Thanks Obamacare! - Yahoo Finance
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You shouldn't have posted the link....because those with a brain will read the article and realize that the story is actually a positive for Obamacare....but being the closeminded partisan hack that you are, you probably thought it was a bad thing.... people are actually benefitting from it, but dumb rightwingers like you, prefer to keep getting the shaft from insurance companies, how sad is that.......bwahahaha!
> 
> From your link:
> 
> The report found that Obamacare could reduce the labor force by the equivalent of 2.5 million workers by 2024, as many Americans may opt to work less to retain eligibility for Medicaid or subsidies. *That sparked a fresh round of criticism that health reform is hurting the economy.
> 
> But for some, Obamacare is allowing them to become entrepreneurs or retire a few years early since they'll be able to find affordable individual coverage for the first time.*
> 
> Instead of eating bonbons on her couch, *Willmus plans to start her own business with her teen daughter publishing materials for non-native English speakers and others looking to improve their literacy. She expects to work even more than she does now and hire two or three people.*
> 
> *Edward Perri's job as a grocery clerk has caused him constant back and knee pain in recent years, but he continued to work because he needed insurance. Obamacare allowed him to retire in December after 39 years, 4 months and 23 days on the job.*
> 
> *His retiring at 57 allowed a more junior employee to move up on the job, said Perri,* who is single and lives in Muskegon, Mich. *Had Obamacare not existed, he'd either have to try to tough it out until he qualified for Medicare at 65 or pay $500 a month for COBRA coverage.*
> 
> 
> *Instead, he's paying $50 a month for a policy. And, as he sees it, the $450 that he would have sent to an insurance company is going to buy groceries, fix his car and take a vacation with his girlfriend.*
> 
> Craig Mason, 59, said he has felt tied to his job as an engineer at a large defense contractor because he and his wife needed health insurance. *A diabetic, he couldn't get affordable coverage on the individual market.*
> 
> Now, however, he's thinking of leaving his employer in a few years to focus more on his side job, repairing and building guitars and other string instruments. He also wants to spend more time with his three grandchildren.
> 
> *"I want to try something different," said Mason*, a Germantown, Md., resident. "I don't want to be tied to a large corporation. The Affordable Care Act may be just the vehicle to bridge the gap until I'm eligible for Medicare."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CNSNews.com) - Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says despite all the "good news" about Obamacare, "there's plenty of horror stories being told, all of them untrue -- but they're being told all over America."
> 
> In a speech on the Senate floor Wednesday, Reid complained that Republicans, with help from wealthy donors -- he named the Koch brothers -- are telling "tall tales" and "outright lies" about Obamacare in stump speeches and political advertisements.
> 
> "Republicans may need tall tales and outright lies to convince people that Obamacare's bad for them -- but Democrats -- we don't have to make things up," Reid said."
> 
> 
> 
> Harry Reid Accuses Republicans of Telling 'Outright Lies' About Obamacare | CNS News
Click to expand...


Essentially we are subsidizing his vacations.

I see.


----------



## Listening

beagle9 said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> the right doesn't deal in facts anymore
> 
> 
> 
> What does this have to do with healthcare ?
Click to expand...


She's waiting for a brain transplant.


----------



## Listening

Mertex said:


> Anyone who prefers to be without healthcare is just a mooch, because no one is exempt from ever getting sick, so I would suspect that people that are signing up realize they need healthcare insurance, and they want it.



Braindead argument.

People pay for healthcare out of pocket all the time.

For low risk folks, it is actually quite cost effective.

And yes....they can actually cover most of the big ones too....and come out ahead.

To bad we have to charge 65 year old men maternity insurance to make sure everyone gets "what they deserve".

You people are beyond stupid.


----------



## P@triot

For young adults, premiums will increase 171% in Arkansas, 168% in Georgia, and 156% in Arizona


An adult age 50 faces an 81% increase in Indiana, 75% in Florida, 74% in Connecticut, and 72% in Kansas.


For a family of four, premiums will rise by 31% in North Dakota and 29% in Texas
So much for the liberal *LIE* that Obamacare will lower healthcare costs...


----------



## P@triot

Listening said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> the right doesn't deal in facts anymore
> 
> 
> 
> What does this have to do with healthcare ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She's waiting for a brain transplant.
Click to expand...


Actually, she's waiting on her next government check. She's scared to death that the American people are on the verge of waking up and taking away her gravy train. She's bilked her fellow citizens out of a lifetime of money, food, housing, healthcare, and a whole lot more.

It's just a shame that she feels lying is an acceptable way to go about her scam. It's a shame she's not willing to have an honest conversation about America. But again, she knows what will happen if she does.


----------



## beagle9

Rottweiler said:


> For young adults, premiums will increase 171% in Arkansas, 168% in Georgia, and 156% in Arizona
> 
> 
> An adult age 50 faces an 81% increase in Indiana, 75% in Florida, 74% in Connecticut, and 72% in Kansas.
> 
> 
> For a family of four, premiums will rise by 31% in North Dakota and 29% in Texas
> So much for the liberal *LIE* that Obamacare will lower healthcare costs...


It was a lie, and that is why the government is poised to take over the industry as soon as Obamacare fails. Get ready for it, because it will be the only thing left is a takeover, and they know it.


----------



## Listening

Rottweiler said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does this have to do with healthcare ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She's waiting for a brain transplant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, she's waiting on her next government check. She's scared to death that the American people are on the verge of waking up and taking away her gravy train. She's bilked her fellow citizens out of a lifetime of money, food, housing, healthcare, and a whole lot more.
> 
> It's just a shame that she feels lying is an acceptable way to go about her scam. It's a shame she's not willing to have an honest conversation about America. But again, she knows what will happen if she does.
Click to expand...


Mertex is right behind her....

She's here defending Obamacrapcare...saying how good it is when......

Expected: WH to Extend Obamacare 'Fix' to Help Panicked Democrats Survive 2014

Expected: WH to Extend Obamacare 'Fix' to Help Panicked Democrats Survive 2014 - Guy Benson

from the article:

The Obama administration is set to announce another major delay in implementing the Affordable Care Act, easing election pressure on Democrats. As early as this week, according to two sources, the White House will announce a new directive allowing insurers to continue offering health plans that do not meet ObamaCares minimum coverage requirements. Prolonging the keep your plan fix will avoid another wave of health policy cancellations otherwise expected this fall. The cancellations would have created a firestorm for Democratic candidates in the last, crucial weeks before Election Day. The White House is intent on protecting its allies in the Senate, where Democrats face a battle to keep control of the chamber...Allowing insurers to continue offering noncompliant health plans for several years would substantially alter the health insurance landscape under ObamaCare. It would also undercut one rationale for the healthcare reform law. Under the Affordable Care Act, health plans are required to offer 10 medical benefits that the Obama administration deems essential.

****************

How can our affirmative action failure of a president be more blatant ?

If this is so great, why would they do this (if they do this..the reporting is not from Townhall).


----------



## P@triot

Employees shouldering more of health costs, report finds 

Employee health care premiums have risen an average of 19% since 2011, and workers are paying 28% more for health benefits compared with three years ago, finds a report by Towers Watson/National Business Group on Health. Employers are paying an average premium of $9,560 per worker in 2014, up from $8,364 in 2011.

Your workplace health insurance costs $1,200 more - Economy


----------



## P@triot

President Obama wants you to know that he gets it.

You just dont understand how much better Obamacare is going to make your life; youre afraid of change. Its okay, he wants you to know; he understands.

*There are some people who have very bad insurance, but they dont know it because they dont understand the fine print, Obama said yesterday.
*
Wasnt that thoughtful? You dont know what youre talking about, because you dont understand whats good for you. But the Obama Administration will try to make you feel better for another yearoh, and hopefully those of you who still have your old insurance wont get cancellation notices right before the *midterm election*.

Yesterday, an official with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) was asked: How many uninsured Americans are signing up for Obamacare?

*That's not a data point that we are really collecting in any sort of systematic way, CMSs Gary Cohen said.*

Thats right. One of the big selling points for President Obama was that Obamacare would *insure the uninsured*. And now the Administration doesnt even know whether the people signing up had insurance to begin with.

Latest Obamacare Delay, Insurance Cancellations, and Uninsured Signups


----------



## MaryL

Politics aside, &#8220;Affordable health care &#8220; is a misnomer, isn't it?  besides a veiled attempt to force socialism on a free democratic society. Let's call Obamacare what it REALLY is: forced insurance on everyone. But, perhaps that is a good thing. I hope our well intended know- it -all federal government isn&#8217;t  playing craps with our future here. I hope I didn't lose my job as a result of the ill informed politics of millennials good intentions.


----------



## beagle9

Rottweiler said:


> Employees shouldering more of health costs, report finds
> 
> Employee health care premiums have risen an average of 19% since 2011, and workers are paying 28% more for health benefits compared with three years ago, finds a report by Towers Watson/National Business Group on Health. Employers are paying an average premium of $9,560 per worker in 2014, up from $8,364 in 2011.
> 
> Your workplace health insurance costs $1,200 more - Economy


I wonder though, would this have happened (the higher and higher rates) regardless of Obamacare or did it happen because of Obamacare ? Does anyone TRULY no the answer to this ?


----------



## oreo

beagle9 said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> the right doesn't deal in facts anymore
> 
> 
> 
> What does this have to do with healthcare ?
Click to expand...


When liberals get cornered on an issue or can no longer defend it--they will talk in platitudes--meaning basically saying nothing of substance.--  It's best just to ignore them when they do that.

But back to O-care.  Our health care dictator and chief--single--handily--again usurped his constitutional authority for the 39th time on Obamacare alone.

He now has made another change--after a change he made a few months ago.  "That is IF the state insurance commissions will allow it."  A few months ago he stated that people in the individual market-place that have had their "liked" polices cancelled--would be granted a pardon for one year--if their stated allowed it.  Now Obama has extended that all the way into 2017 (_if the state insurance commissioners approve it)_- Of course this 2017 new deadline is-long after he is no longer the President--lol.  California said no way to the 1st extension--so I imagine with this new extension that states are not going to change their policies again to suit what appears to be an hysterical drama queen sitting in the oval office--that can't make up his mind.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101469265

Furthermore--with the individual market place still intact--how in the heck does Obama pay for all the new Medicade enrollees and all of the people that are getting their insurance subsidized?  Everyone knows that he had to collapse the individual marketplace so that those people would move into the exchanges--and HELP pay for all the medicade and subsides.  Now that's not happening until 2017--and the fire sale within medicade enrollees and subsidizes continues to grow.  As we know insurers on the Obamacare exchange will not be adjusting their premiums until this coming November--and as we know, the fewer the enrollees into these exchanges--the higher the premiums go.

*With all these changes--it's clear Obamacare is not WORKING--and right now this administration is just kicking the ball to the next administration.*  When in reality--it's so bad--that democrats would win an award if they just stood up and admitted this thing needs to be repealed so they can start all over again.  _But they won't do that._

So I assume all of these changes are just a *futile* attempt at saving democrats who are headed into the mid-term elections this November from looking like the 7th Calvary lead by Colonel Custer.


----------



## Listening

Obamacare Just Keeps on Tanking - David Limbaugh - Page 1

First, Unite Here -- a major union for the hotel, gaming, food service, manufacturing, textile, distribution, laundry and airport industries -- has issued a report concluding that Obamacare will result in wages being reduced by up to $5 an hour, reduce worker hours and exacerbate income inequality. The report, titled "The Irony of ObamaCare: Making Inequality Worse," states: "Ironically, the Administration's own signature healthcare victory poses one of the most immediate challenges to redressing inequality. ... We take seriously the promise that 'if you like your health plan, you can keep it. Period.' UNITE HERE members like their health plans."


----------



## P@triot

Even union supportersoften some of the biggest cheerleaders of the Obama Administrationare getting angry over Obamacare.

Union Group: Obamacare Is Making Inequality Worse


----------



## jon_berzerk

Rottweiler said:


> Even union supportersoften some of the biggest cheerleaders of the Obama Administrationare getting angry over Obamacare.
> 
> Union Group: Obamacare Is Making Inequality Worse



well they are not anymore 

the prezbo carved them out a special deal the other day 

paving the way to F over the common folk once again


----------



## Listening

Hey, Harry Reid, is this Baptist Preacher a Liar, too? Pastor Hit by Truck Another ObamaCare Victim - Todd Starnes - Page 2

Hey, Harry Reid, is this Baptist Preacher a Liar, too? Pastor Hit by Truck Another ObamaCare Victim

As if that&#8217;s not enough to worry about, Matthew has to figure out how to pay for his medical treatment. Because of the Affordable Care Act, he doesn&#8217;t have health insurance &#8211; and he&#8217;s now on the hook for more than $100,000 in bills.

Matthew and his wife used to have insurance through Blue Cross/Blue Shield. Like many Americans, they received a letter in 2013 informing them of a hike in premiums. The couple had been paying $550 per month for their plan and Blue Cross was raising the rate by more than 15 percent. Even though they liked their insurance plan, Matthew said it was no longer in their budget.

&#8220;It was a significant increase that we could not afford,&#8221; he said. &#8220;We had to let it go and find something new that would be better for us financially.&#8221;

The Morgans tried to sign up for ObamaCare on the Healthcare.gov website, but Matthew said that was a fruitless effort.

&#8220;We couldn&#8217;t get on the website,&#8221; he said. &#8220;That was one of our issues as we shopped around. Then, we received the notification from the Internal Revenue Service that we would be penalized if we didn&#8217;t have health insurance. We were in the process of trying to get it as soon as possible. The website being down did not help.&#8221;

The Morgans eventually found an insurance plan. It goes into effect in April &#8211; too late to help with their current predicament.

************

Thanks Harry.


----------



## emilynghiem

PMZ said:


> You are very confused.  There are jobs that can be done by people with relatively little education and minimal skills.  In other words,  people who apply for them are not in a good position to negotiate.  Businesses could pay them a wage that allows them to pay for the cost of their minimal lives,  but chooses not to.  The consequences of that are higher taxes.
> 
> At the other end of the spectrum are highly specialized jobs where the demand exceeds the supply of qualified people. Under those circumstances there will always be jobs unfilled.
> 
> Those are not the same populations.  The two problems are unrelated.



Sorry to see that PMZ got banned.

A better way to help these workers could be to set up their own co-op or
business operations, where they do the same work but pay themselves to manage it.

1. instead of profit going to a third party, they could share these costs and
retain more control and profit from their own labor
2. they could set up a union, co-op, or even a school and hire professionals to train
them in management so they move up in learning to run and own their own business
3. this would be more sustainable, rotating out new workers and managers to train,
teaching them business skills to become independent. Whereas depending on govt regs to manipulate the wages
keeps both the workers dependent on management AND keeps BOTH groups dependent on govt. 
That doesn't solve the problem of economic disparity or development.


----------



## Listening

Democrats in Disarray: Party Frightened, Fractured Over Obamacare - Guy Benson

The magnitude of Obamacare's failure is becoming increasingly clear every day. Enrollment rates and demographics are weak. Central promises have been shattered. Affordability remains elusive for millions. Costs for families, small businesses and the federal government are going up. And the uninsured aren't participating. In spite of a parade of delays and "fixes," Reeling from a bellwether special election loss, Democrats find themselves right back where they were in late 2013: Panicked over their poisonous signature law. Back then, they tried to blame "glitches" in the rollout. The problems that persist today cut to the heart of the law itself. How will Democrats spin Obamacare heading into November? They've devolved from vowing to proudly run on Obamacare, to focusing on making needed changes to the law, to...chaotic disagreement.


----------



## Listening

Notice the left does not even try anymore....they know.


----------



## P@triot

President Obama recently admitted that Obamacare will cause some Americans to lose their doctors. Some have suggested that his promise If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor should be 2014s Lie of the Year. But what about his promise that Obamacare would lower premiums by $2,500 per family?

As wewhats the opposite of celebrate?the fourth anniversary of Obamacares passage this weekend, Americans have already seen their premiums double or even triple. And premiums arent finished going up.

Obamacare and Health Insurance Premiums: Have You Saved $2,500?


----------



## Listening

You'll notice the left isn't even trying anymore.


----------



## P@triot

Listening said:


> You'll notice the left isn't even trying anymore.



That's because - as the title already indicated - the evidence is _overwhelming_


----------



## P@triot

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that from 2015 to 2024, the mandate penaltywhich the Supreme Court ruled is essentially a taxis expected to cost Americans $51 billion.

And that was after President Obama _promised_ not to raise taxes on the middle class.

But then again, Mr. Asshat also promised "if you like your plan, you can keep your plan". And after that, he turned around and promised "if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor". Basically every "promise" he makes is a "promise" he fully intends to break. The only thing Obama has any talent for is lying.

Does the Obamacare Deadline | Individual Mandate Facts


----------



## beagle9

Rottweiler said:


> The Congressional Budget Office estimates that from 2015 to 2024, the mandate penaltywhich the Supreme Court ruled is essentially a taxis expected to cost Americans $51 billion.
> 
> And that was after President Obama _promised_ not to raise taxes on the middle class.
> 
> But then again, Mr. Asshat also promised "if you like your plan, you can keep your plan". And after that, he turned around and promised "if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor". Basically every "promise" he makes is a "promise" he fully intends to break. The only thing Obama has any talent for is lying.
> 
> Does the Obamacare Deadline | Individual Mandate Facts


Lying or rather it's just that others have been running his show, because he is to uninformed or weak to do so. He is just a talking head it seems, and has been for a long while now. Who knows old Lewis Farakhan, Jerimiah Wright, Hillary, Nancy, Reed and many others may be running this show for all we know, but not Obama as his words have shown through these lies he went out and told so foolishly. Nope he sure isn't running anything but a teleprompter maybe, and even someone is doing that one for him also.


----------



## P@triot

*Top Dem pollster: "Don't defend Obamacare, call it flawed from the beginning"*

    

Top Dem pollster: 'Don't defend' Obamacare, call it 'flawed from the beginning' | WashingtonExaminer.com


----------



## P@triot

beagle9 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Congressional Budget Office estimates that from 2015 to 2024, the mandate penaltywhich the Supreme Court ruled is essentially a taxis expected to cost Americans $51 billion.
> 
> And that was after President Obama _promised_ not to raise taxes on the middle class.
> 
> But then again, Mr. Asshat also promised "if you like your plan, you can keep your plan". And after that, he turned around and promised "if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor". Basically every "promise" he makes is a "promise" he fully intends to break. The only thing Obama has any talent for is lying.
> 
> Does the Obamacare Deadline | Individual Mandate Facts
> 
> 
> 
> Lying or rather it's just that others have been running his show, because he is to uninformed or weak to do so. He is just a talking head it seems, and has been for a long while now. Who knows old Lewis Farakhan, Jerimiah Wright, Hillary, Nancy, Reed and many others may be running this show for all we know, but not Obama as his words have shown through these lies he went out and told so foolishly. Nope he sure isn't running anything but a teleprompter maybe, and even someone is doing that one for him also.
Click to expand...


Are you kidding me? With his massive *ego*? Trust me, this egomaniac wouldn't defer to God Himself if He came down and told Obama what was best.


----------



## Listening

The 'fix' is in: Obamacare is a mess - Columbia Daily Tribune | Columbia Missouri: Columnists

It just keeps going and going.


----------



## P@triot

This is what the left just can't seem to understand - that costs will ALWAYS be passed on to the consumer (thus the minimum wage worker will *never* get ahead with an increase to minimum wage). The left thinks they can make wealthy people eat the cost of their socialism and that is simply never going to happen.

Restaurant Passes On The Cost Of Obamacare


----------



## Moonglow

Why not, we eat the cost of so called capitalist that are too big to fail..


----------



## P@triot

Moonglow said:


> Why not, we eat the cost of so called capitalist that are too big to fail..



And we shouldn't. Of course, all of that corporate bailout occurred under Nancy Pelosi and the Dumbocrats.


----------



## P@triot

$53,000 per person...good grief

Liberal group finds Obamacare will cost tax payers $53,000 per enrollee


----------



## Listening

Rottweiler said:


> $53,000 per person...good grief
> 
> Liberal group finds Obamacare will cost tax payers $53,000 per enrollee



Here is a real kicker from the article:

The CBOs findings on the total number of Americans who will receive new private insurance show that the health care law isnt making much of a dent. By the end of 2014, the CBO predicts that there will be 42 million uninsured Americans; in ten years, that number will have dropped to 31 million without insurance.

Read more: Obamacare will cost taxpayers $53,000 per newly insured | The Daily Caller

******************

Wow....Obama should be proud.  

Only one person can be the worst president in history and every day he secures his lock on that title.


----------



## Rozman

As Obama closes his eyes and waits for sleep to take him he wishes
for another dream of him and Valerie.He is  also amazed that he was elected 
twice and that people got this POS Obama care done.He's still trying to figure that one out!


----------



## P@triot

Don't expect solutions to come from the government or the corporate health care industry...

Recently the Daily Caller reported new taxes coming online that will burden state government Medicaid programs to the tune of $37 billion over the next decade. States are now scrambling to keep their Medicare and Medicaid programs actuarially sound to keep them compliant with 1997 Federal Law that requires them to remain free of debt.

*These new taxes pale in comparison to the $150 billion in new taxes public health insurance companies will have to foot over the next decade. Customers are already feeling the pain by being kicked off or having huge increases in their existing plans*.

All this to fund a bill whose 11.5 million words in regulations is 30 times as long as the 381,517-word Affordable Care Act, and which congress passed but admittedly failed to even read.

What does this mean to you? *Forbes reports that there are at least 7 Obamacare taxes to hit those earning under 250K per year.. and even after these billions are paid into a system that has spent over $5 billion to make failed and underused websites*. Will you ever even be able to get so called health care?

As you are watching this video, *hospitals across the country are being shut down in states like Georgia, and numerous hospital staff layoffs are happening in Ohio, Tennessee, Iowa and Indiana*. And we are only five months into affordable health care. In addition to the layoffs and closings, The National Federation of Independent Business projects between 152,000 and 286,000 jobs health care industry jobs will be lost by 2023.

*This will lead to overcrowded waiting rooms, rationed care*  which is being reported in California and death panels that will be formed to kill off the elderly. In fact Congress is calling for an investigation into death panels being instituted which led to at least 40 deaths in Phoenix. During this time the VA director in Phoenix received a 9K bonus.

*ObamaCare: Hundreds of Billions In Taxes and A Trail of Dead*


----------



## hadit

Moonglow said:


> Why not, we eat the cost of so called capitalist that are too big to fail..



That's not capitalism.


----------



## hadit

Rottweiler said:


> This is what the left just can't seem to understand - that costs will ALWAYS be passed on to the consumer (thus the minimum wage worker will *never* get ahead with an increase to minimum wage). The left thinks they can make wealthy people eat the cost of their socialism and that is simply never going to happen.
> 
> Restaurant Passes On The Cost Of Obamacare



Failure to account for human behavior is a hallmark of liberal policies.  They never take it into account, then wonder cluelessly why their stuff never works.


----------



## Listening

8 Things That Suck About Obamacare | Pocket Full Of Liberty

http://nypost.com/2014/02/11/no-one-can-make-obamacare-work/


----------



## MaxGrit

hadit said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is what the left just can't seem to understand - that costs will ALWAYS be passed on to the consumer (thus the minimum wage worker will *never* get ahead with an increase to minimum wage). The left thinks they can make wealthy people eat the cost of their socialism and that is simply never going to happen.
> 
> Restaurant Passes On The Cost Of Obamacare
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Failure to account for human behavior is a hallmark of liberal policies.  They never take it into account, then wonder cluelessly why their stuff never works.
Click to expand...


Liberals loves to do things based on "feels good intentions". Liberals are too stupid and self-obsessed to care about the harmful effects of their actions.

Selfish pricks will cheat, lie, manipulate, and steal from others using government.


----------



## Sarah G

Only to right wingnuts..


----------



## Listening

Obamacare: Michigan Hospice to Close, Major Insurer Announces Rate Hikes - Guy Benson

Bye bye services....

Hello rate hikes.


----------



## Antares

Moonglow said:


> Why not, we eat the cost of so called capitalist that are too big to fail..



Then tell Obama to stop it.
We told Bush we didn't want it...he didn't listen, but he knew we were against it.


----------



## Antares

In Nebraska we are asking for mid 20's, the actuaries wanted mid 40's.


----------



## Listening

Here is another great Obamacare story.......

Following this philosphy, Sebelius should be given the state of Hawaii....she screwed up that well.

Employees Behind Failed Cover Oregon Website Getting Nice Bonuses | RedState


----------



## Listening

Young people are not signing up.

Obamacare Death Spiral? Newly-Insured Are Sicker - Kevin Glass

That 2500 Obama was going to save us.  Don't bet on it.

In fact, you can count on paying more taxes to support this dog.


----------



## Listening

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/report-health-law-sign-ups-dogged-data-flaws-140649603--finance.html

Now....we get more "data flaws".  

I'll bet this gets lost on crashed hard drives too.

Seems MSNBC crashes them all the time as they don't cover a lot of stuff they probably should.


----------



## Listening

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/report-health-law-sign-ups-dogged-data-flaws-140649603--finance.html

Now....we get more "data flaws".  

I'll bet this gets lost on crashed hard drives too.

Seems MSNBC crashes them all the time as they don't cover a lot of stuff they probably should.


----------



## Listening

The mess of Oregon&#8217;s state health care exchange | Amanda Coyne

Oregon is a liberal state.

I wonder if they asked Kathleen to consult ???


----------



## Listening

The mess of Oregon?s state health care exchange | Amanda Coyne

Oregon is a liberal state.

I wonder if they asked Kathleen to consult ???


----------



## percysunshine

"Robert Gibbs prediction that Obamacares employer mandate would  and perhaps should  be jettisoned shocked Democrats back in April.

By July, the former aide and longtime confidant of President Barack Obama had a lot more company. More and more liberal activists and policy experts who help shape Democratic thinking on health care have concluded that penalizing businesses if they dont offer health insurance is an unnecessary element of the Affordable Care Act that may do more harm than good."


Read more: Why liberals are abandoning the Obamacare employer mandate - Paige Winfield Cunningham and Kyle Cheney - POLITICO.com


It would have been funnier if the Politico headline was " Prominent liberal activists embrace Rush Limbaugh on Obamacare."

.


----------



## ClaimsSpec

As a long term employee of an insurance carrier I find it frightening how many people call me daily to blame Obamacare when they don't have a clue what is in their policies. If you can't afford a 10k deductible then why did you buy it? People are far more educated about their car insurance policies then they are their health insurance yet it is a single MRI or surgical procedure that can send them into bankruptcy. You can ditch the car and take the bus if your car insurance deductible is too high. You can die if you pass on an MRI or essential surgical procedure.

I agree Obamacare sux but place blame where it belongs. Your employer bought you a crappy policy and YOU signed up for it.


----------



## emilynghiem

[MENTION=30955]Rottweiler[/MENTION]
After people on this website and others pointed out that
"right to health care" is a BELIEF
and I found this statement about "BELIEVING in the right to health care"
in the Democrat Party Platform, this confirmed to me that this law
establishes a national religion based on the political beliefs that the
default source of health care is the government.

So of course, the same way Christians pay for their own billboards to promote their own BELIEF in GOD, the Democrats using Govt as their church are going to advertise
their BELIEF in GOVERNMENT. And they blame Republicans/Reagan for starting this by making all hospitals serve all people regardless of ability to pay. 

So if we don't want to use Govt as the default system for health care, we need to make this clear and not abuse govt for that. Where do you suggest we begin?

I tried writing a petition to separate ACA and health care by Party,
and only 5 people signed. So if that is not the way to go, what is?



Rottweiler said:


> As the Dumbocrats on USMB love to crow about - Obamacare was passed into law by Congress, signed into law by the president, and upheld by the Supreme Court. So _why_ exactly does the federal government have to piss away billions to *promote* an existing law?!? Has this _ever_ been done with any other law in U.S. _history_?
> 
> They begged the NBA to help promote it and the NBA said yes. They begged the NFL to help promote it, and the NFL told them to go fuck themselves (doh!). So why are they so desperate to reach people through Hollywood and sports? Because even the Dumbocrats know this is a miserable failure, and they _know_ it is going to be repealed eventually unless they can do major damage control and brainwash the masses (especially the young and impressionable - hence the NBA, NFL, etc.) that this is a "good" thing.
> 
> Super Bowl champ Baltimore Ravens getting paid $130,000 to promote Obamacare | WashingtonExaminer.com


----------



## Spoonman

you know the old saying if it isn't broken, don't fix it?   well this is broken and we really better fix it.

Fins in the water: New ObamaCare warning signs emerge | Fox News


----------



## Listening

GAO: Healthcare.gov Trainwreck Resulted From Obama Admin Incompetence - Guy Benson

Of course, the GOP has clammed up on this one.

They really are a disappointment.  

I am not in favor of the silly frontal assault that was as fraught with as many lies and Obama used to sell it.  But, I think the battle has to be waged.

Here is just another reason why.

Does anyone really believe that in today's world...just because Roberts rescued it.....that it can't be eventually declared unconstitutional by our schizoid SCOTUS ?


----------



## Spoonman

as people actually start to use it and become more familiar with how it works, approval ratings continue to drop.  as pelosi said we have to pass it to find out what it is all about.  

Suddenly, Obamacare is more unpopular than ever - The Washington Post


----------



## Listening

Ingrid Jacques: Yet another Obamacare bungle | The Detroit News

How many is this ?

10,000....

20,000....


----------



## Spoonman

its one thing signing them up, its another thing keeping them

Obamacare Enrollment Is Shrinking Fast | The Daily Caller


----------



## saveliberty

No details on the total enrolled.  Paying for it has become an obstacle to both Obama and policyholders.


----------



## Rozman

saveliberty said:


> No details on the total enrolled.  Paying for it has become an obstacle to both Obama and policyholders.



I saw a site tonight that said 6 million signed up.
No idea still haow many are paying for it,how many are subsidized.
And where o where are the 48 million who didn't have insurance?


----------



## Listening

Obamacare Largest NC Insurer Announces Double-Digit Premium Increases - Guy Benson

As the article stated....we were told RATES WOULD GO DOWN.

Did anyone really believe that and can we just drop the idea that the administration was telling the truth when they pushed this POS through ?


----------



## Listening

What ?

The left isn't answering with all their bulls**t talking points.


----------



## emilynghiem

Listening said:


> What ?
> 
> The left isn't answering with all their bulls**t talking points.



The true left opposes ACA.

So there is no one to defend it except the politicians who passed
it for symbolic political points.

I cannot find a single person who supports it who agrees to pay for it.

They only support it if they don't expect to pay more than they agree anyway.

So if no one agrees to pay for it, but only to dump costs and risks to other people,
that already tells me nobody really supports it. 

It was like that from the beginning.
I never could find anyone willing to pay not even the people  who passed it!

what is new? how is this news?
???


----------



## Listening

But even the sole metric of “success” ObamaCare defenders can point to, the number of people who gained insurance coverage under the program, does not hold up well under scrutiny, and it falls apart like wet tissue paper when measured against the _cost _of the program.  Edmund Haislmaier and Drew Gonshorowski took a look at those enrollment figures at the Heritage Foundation’s _Daily Signal, _using numbers for the second quarter of 2014 that captured enrollments delayed by what they delicately describe as “numerous problems experienced by the exchanges,” and concluded that the vast majority of “ObamaCare enrollments” are actually _Medicaid _enrollments.  Furthermore, the net number of people who gained new insurance under the Affordable Care Act is far smaller than the numbers bandied about by the Administration and its apologists, because most of them are people who found out the hard way that President Obama was lying when he promised they could keep their old insurance plans:

ObamaCare failure at any price RedState


----------



## Conservative65

RDD_1210 said:


> It is sad that this has to happen.
> 
> It's also sad that the GOP has convinced people of "death panels", "losing freedom" and all the other hysterical nonsense that you sheep believe, that have actually made you think you hate a law that is a Republican idea.
> 
> So yeah, it's sad that a campaign needs to be waged to combat such blatant misinformation.



ANYTIME a taxpayer is forced to provide something to someone that the person should provide for themselves is a loss of freedom for the one doing the subsidizing.  In other words, those funding the subsidies so someone else can get coverage lose freedom every time a penny is taken from them. 

It's interesting that people like you say it's a Republican idea then give credit for it to a no good, unqualified Democrat.


----------



## P@triot

"It is amazing that people who think we cannot afford to pay for doctors, hospitals, and medication somehow think that we can afford to pay for doctors, hospitals, medication and a government bureaucracy to administer it." -Thomas Sowell


----------



## P@triot

RDD_1210 said:


> It is sad that this has to happen.
> 
> It's also sad that the GOP has convinced people of "death panels", "losing freedom" and all the other hysterical nonsense that you sheep believe, that have actually made you think you hate a law that is a Republican idea.
> 
> So yeah, it's sad that a campaign needs to be waged to combat such blatant misinformation.


The fact that you deny the clear loss of freedoms and the obvious death panels proves that the left are the only sheep. You'll believe anything your leaders tell you and you'll never question it.

Now, about those death panels...

Howard Dean Admits Obamacare Includes Death Panels Wants Them Repealed LifeNews.com

Obama adviser admits "We need death panels"

Doug Ross Journal Paul Krugman channels Sarah Palin admits Death Panels will be required to keep Obamacare solvent

Krugman Admits We Need Death Panels

Slate Admits Sarah Palin Was Right About Death Panels

Democrats Jump on the Death Panel Bandwagon Mother Jones

Paul Krugman Recommends Death Panels to Help Balance Budget

Time Magazine editor admits Death Panels are built in to Obamacare

Howard Dean admits Sarah Palin was right on death panels

_Oops_...how embarrassing for you little sheep


----------



## Sarah G

Rottweiler said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is sad that this has to happen.
> 
> It's also sad that the GOP has convinced people of "death panels", "losing freedom" and all the other hysterical nonsense that you sheep believe, that have actually made you think you hate a law that is a Republican idea.
> 
> So yeah, it's sad that a campaign needs to be waged to combat such blatant misinformation.
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that you deny the clear loss of freedoms and the obvious death panels proves that the left are the only sheep. You'll believe anything your leaders tell you and you'll never question it.
> 
> Now, about those death panels...
> 
> Howard Dean Admits Obamacare Includes Death Panels Wants Them Repealed LifeNews.com
> 
> Obama adviser admits "We need death panels"
> 
> Doug Ross Journal Paul Krugman channels Sarah Palin admits Death Panels will be required to keep Obamacare solvent
> 
> Krugman Admits We Need Death Panels
> 
> Slate Admits Sarah Palin Was Right About Death Panels
> 
> Democrats Jump on the Death Panel Bandwagon Mother Jones
> 
> Paul Krugman Recommends Death Panels to Help Balance Budget
> 
> Time Magazine editor admits Death Panels are built in to Obamacare
> 
> Howard Dean admits Sarah Palin was right on death panels
> 
> _Oops_...how embarrassing for you little sheep
Click to expand...

 Oops and how many times has the teaparty tried to overturn it?  You all have even gone so far as to shut down government to get Obamacare gone..   How embarrassing for you.


----------



## Sarah G

Rottweiler said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is sad that this has to happen.
> 
> It's also sad that the GOP has convinced people of "death panels", "losing freedom" and all the other hysterical nonsense that you sheep believe, that have actually made you think you hate a law that is a Republican idea.
> 
> So yeah, it's sad that a campaign needs to be waged to combat such blatant misinformation.
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that you deny the clear loss of freedoms and the obvious death panels proves that the left are the only sheep. You'll believe anything your leaders tell you and you'll never question it.
> 
> Now, about those death panels...
> 
> Howard Dean Admits Obamacare Includes Death Panels Wants Them Repealed LifeNews.com
> 
> Obama adviser admits "We need death panels"
> 
> Doug Ross Journal Paul Krugman channels Sarah Palin admits Death Panels will be required to keep Obamacare solvent
> 
> Krugman Admits We Need Death Panels
> 
> Slate Admits Sarah Palin Was Right About Death Panels
> 
> Democrats Jump on the Death Panel Bandwagon Mother Jones
> 
> Paul Krugman Recommends Death Panels to Help Balance Budget
> 
> Time Magazine editor admits Death Panels are built in to Obamacare
> 
> Howard Dean admits Sarah Palin was right on death panels
> 
> _Oops_...how embarrassing for you little sheep
Click to expand...

 The Howard Dean quote you cite was lifted from a Wall St. Journal article.  In order to confirm the quote, you have to pay once you get to the WSJ site.  You might want to go get the WSJ article.


----------



## Listening

Not only did the political benefits that Democrats thought the 2010 law would eventually bring them not materialize,* opposition has only grown, according to an analysis of multiple polls taken between 2010 and last month. “There have been backlashes, but never like this,” *said Robert Blendon, a professor at the Harvard School of Public Health and co-author of the analysis released Wednesday by the New England Journal of Medicine. That backlash doesn’t appear directed at the mechanics of the law but at its underlying core principle. *Only 47 percent of Americans agree that it’s the government’s job to make sure everyone has health coverage, down from 69 percent in 2006, the analysis found*. That shift is particularly pronounced among likely voters. Of those who are most likely to show up at the polls on Nov. 4, one in four believe in this principle.

Confirmed Obamacare is Hurting Democrats - Guy Benson

The gift that keeps on giving.


----------



## P@triot

Sarah G said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is sad that this has to happen.
> 
> It's also sad that the GOP has convinced people of "death panels", "losing freedom" and all the other hysterical nonsense that you sheep believe, that have actually made you think you hate a law that is a Republican idea.
> 
> So yeah, it's sad that a campaign needs to be waged to combat such blatant misinformation.
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that you deny the clear loss of freedoms and the obvious death panels proves that the left are the only sheep. You'll believe anything your leaders tell you and you'll never question it.
> 
> Now, about those death panels...
> 
> Howard Dean Admits Obamacare Includes Death Panels Wants Them Repealed LifeNews.com
> 
> Obama adviser admits "We need death panels"
> 
> Doug Ross Journal Paul Krugman channels Sarah Palin admits Death Panels will be required to keep Obamacare solvent
> 
> Krugman Admits We Need Death Panels
> 
> Slate Admits Sarah Palin Was Right About Death Panels
> 
> Democrats Jump on the Death Panel Bandwagon Mother Jones
> 
> Paul Krugman Recommends Death Panels to Help Balance Budget
> 
> Time Magazine editor admits Death Panels are built in to Obamacare
> 
> Howard Dean admits Sarah Palin was right on death panels
> 
> _Oops_...how embarrassing for you little sheep
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oops and how many times has the teaparty tried to overturn it?  You all have even gone so far as to shut down government to get Obamacare gone..   How embarrassing for you.
Click to expand...


Why is that "embarrassing"? Can you explain it to me? I am _exceptionally_ proud that _true_ conservatives are being elected to office and are showing the integrity to follow through with their campaign promises. They are trying repeal an unconstitutional bill that is destroying healthcare and costing the American people trillions of dollars (that's a great thing). And they saw that we were $17 trillion in debt and refused - as long as they could until the liberal Republican's surrendered - to raise the debt ceiling. That resulted in a temporary shut down of unnecessary, useless, and unconstitutional federal government services (that's an even _better_ thing).

I'm listening Sarah. By the way, no comment on all of the most well known leaders in the Democrat circles admitting that death panels are inevitable when government runs healthcare because they have limited resources to support nearly unlimited needs?


----------



## Listening

Rottweiler said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is sad that this has to happen.
> 
> It's also sad that the GOP has convinced people of "death panels", "losing freedom" and all the other hysterical nonsense that you sheep believe, that have actually made you think you hate a law that is a Republican idea.
> 
> So yeah, it's sad that a campaign needs to be waged to combat such blatant misinformation.
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that you deny the clear loss of freedoms and the obvious death panels proves that the left are the only sheep. You'll believe anything your leaders tell you and you'll never question it.
> 
> Now, about those death panels...
> 
> Howard Dean Admits Obamacare Includes Death Panels Wants Them Repealed LifeNews.com
> 
> Obama adviser admits "We need death panels"
> 
> Doug Ross Journal Paul Krugman channels Sarah Palin admits Death Panels will be required to keep Obamacare solvent
> 
> Krugman Admits We Need Death Panels
> 
> Slate Admits Sarah Palin Was Right About Death Panels
> 
> Democrats Jump on the Death Panel Bandwagon Mother Jones
> 
> Paul Krugman Recommends Death Panels to Help Balance Budget
> 
> Time Magazine editor admits Death Panels are built in to Obamacare
> 
> Howard Dean admits Sarah Palin was right on death panels
> 
> _Oops_...how embarrassing for you little sheep
Click to expand...


You'll notice Sarah won't address the topic at all.....

Instead she continues to fart out her talking points.


----------



## Sarah G

Your arguments do not hold up.  The big insurance companies were out of control and not affordable for ANYBODY.  Obamacare makes it affordable.  That's just one big helpful success.  An honest assessment of the Obama presidency follows.  I'm kind of sick of listening to you Teapartiers defining this president.  

Obama 8217 s Numbers July 2014 Update


----------



## Sarah G

If anyone could just give Listening a clue, he's on ignore and if Rottweiler doesn't stop with the talking points, he will be there too.


----------



## Listening

Sarah G said:


> If anyone could just give Listening a clue, he's on ignore and if Rottweiler doesn't stop with the talking points, he will be there too.



Run away Sarah.....

Why don't you post those numbers in the context of what other presidents have done.  And baseline it to before the crash.  You'll see Obama's been pretty pathetic. 

You need the clue.  You and all the people (including the hoard that has turned it's back on him) are the reason this country is still in such sucky shape.

And, of course, you have not addressed the declining popularity in Obamacare.

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh


----------



## Listening

Hey Sarah.....

Tough shit.

Even the asswipes on PSMNBC are calling this a wave.

Obamacare was right in the middle of it.


----------



## Listening

Scott Brown just gave his concession speech.

Bummer...........

You win some....

But you lose less......


----------



## Dante

Oh the high Court is gonna jump in.

Who will be eating their words here?


----------



## Listening

Dante said:


> Oh the high Court is gonna jump in.
> 
> Who will be eating their words here?



Hahahahahahaha

The High Court is going to declare the unpopularity of Obamacare unconstitutional ?

You guys are right on track.....


----------



## P@triot

_Ouch_! The Obama Administration not only on record admitting they had to deceive the American people about Obamacare, but they also refer to the American voter as "stupid". That's right liberals - this is what your masters in the Democrat Party think of you! They think you are stupid puppets who are not worthy of the truth....

In a newly surfaced video, one of Obamacare’s architects admits a “lack of transparency” helped the Obama administration and congressional Democrats pass the Affordable Care Act.

“Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage,” says the MIT economist who helped write Obamacare. “And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical for the thing to pass.”

Obamacare Architect Admits Deceiving Americans to Pass Law


----------



## Listening

Rottweiler said:


> _Ouch_! The Obama Administration not only on record admitting they had to deceive the American people about Obamacare, but they also refer to the American voter as "stupid". That's right liberals - this is what your masters in the Democrat Party think of you! They think you are stupid puppets who are not worthy of the truth....
> 
> In a newly surfaced video, one of Obamacare’s architects admits a “lack of transparency” helped the Obama administration and congressional Democrats pass the Affordable Care Act.
> 
> “Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage,” says the MIT economist who helped write Obamacare. “And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical for the thing to pass.”
> 
> Obamacare Architect Admits Deceiving Americans to Pass Law



This deserves it's own thread.  It's a key reason they got their asses kicked.


----------



## P@triot

_Boom_! The left tries to create a false-narrative and Glenn delivers a _knockout_ blow in just a couple of short sentences...

Ed Schultz used Glenn to push universal healthcare - you'll love the response


----------



## P@triot

Sarah G said:


> Your arguments do not hold up.  The big insurance companies were out of control and not affordable for ANYBODY.  Obamacare makes it affordable.  That's just one big helpful success.  An honest assessment of the Obama presidency follows.  I'm kind of sick of listening to you Teapartiers defining this president.



Wow - I would like to think that you wouldn't revert to lying but that's exactly what you did. I had exceptionally affordable healthcare _before_ Obamacare. Paid about $150 per month for my entire family - my children were born and I don't think I even got a bill. My prescriptions were often free and never exceeded more than $30.

Nobody on earth could deny that is "affordable". Why is it that the left insists on lying Sarah? Why is it so hard for you guys to just have an honest discussion?


----------



## Listening

Rottweiler said:


> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your arguments do not hold up.  The big insurance companies were out of control and not affordable for ANYBODY.  Obamacare makes it affordable.  That's just one big helpful success.  An honest assessment of the Obama presidency follows.  I'm kind of sick of listening to you Teapartiers defining this president.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow - I would like to think that you wouldn't revert to lying but that's exactly what you did. I had exceptionally affordable healthcare _before_ Obamacare. Paid about $150 per month for my entire family - my children were born and I don't think I even got a bill. My prescriptions were often free and never exceeded more than $30.
> 
> Nobody on earth could deny that is "affordable". Why is it that the left insists on lying Sarah? Why is it so hard for you guys to just have an honest discussion?
Click to expand...


You could very good plans for less than $100/month prior to Obummercare.


----------



## Sarah G

Rottweiler said:


> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your arguments do not hold up.  The big insurance companies were out of control and not affordable for ANYBODY.  Obamacare makes it affordable.  That's just one big helpful success.  An honest assessment of the Obama presidency follows.  I'm kind of sick of listening to you Teapartiers defining this president.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow - I would like to think that you wouldn't revert to lying but that's exactly what you did. I had exceptionally affordable healthcare _before_ Obamacare. Paid about $150 per month for my entire family - my children were born and I don't think I even got a bill. My prescriptions were often free and never exceeded more than $30.
> 
> Nobody on earth could deny that is "affordable". Why is it that the left insists on lying Sarah? Why is it so hard for you guys to just have an honest discussion?
Click to expand...

Well mine is very inexpensive now.  You revert to lying every time you use those stupid talking points.  We ALL know what insurance used to be.  Why would you think we believe that big insurance made you a special character while they bankrupted everyone else?

Btw, I had very good insurance where I worked and I never got free prescriptions.


----------



## Unkotare

democrats seem so fond of the word "lie" and now they have a chance to actually use it correctly for once. obamacare, like the obama administration, will go down in history as one of the most corrupt, dishonest clusterfucks in US history.


----------



## P@triot

Sarah G said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your arguments do not hold up.  The big insurance companies were out of control and not affordable for ANYBODY.  Obamacare makes it affordable.  That's just one big helpful success.  An honest assessment of the Obama presidency follows.  I'm kind of sick of listening to you Teapartiers defining this president.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow - I would like to think that you wouldn't revert to lying but that's exactly what you did. I had exceptionally affordable healthcare _before_ Obamacare. Paid about $150 per month for my entire family - my children were born and I don't think I even got a bill. My prescriptions were often free and never exceeded more than $30.
> 
> Nobody on earth could deny that is "affordable". Why is it that the left insists on lying Sarah? Why is it so hard for you guys to just have an honest discussion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well mine is very inexpensive now.  You revert to lying every time you use those stupid talking points.  *We ALL know what insurance used to be*.  Why would you think we believe that big insurance made you a special character while *they bankrupted everyone* else?
> 
> Btw, *I had very good insurance where I worked* and I never got free prescriptions.
Click to expand...

Sarah - you're lying through your teeth and you _know_ it. First of all - you just contradicted yourself (someone can't keep track of her lies). You said that insurance companies were killing people with costs and wouldn't make a special exception for me. Then you turn around and admit " I had very good insurance where I worked". _Oops_... You didn't just say good. You said *very* good. _Oops_...

Second, I don't know what world you live in, but where I live there are actually several antibiotics that the pharmacies give away free even if you don't have insurance (I doubt the pharmacies eat the cost on this - I'm not sure who is subsidizing it). On top of that, my insurance covered many other prescriptions in full. I didn't have to pay one damn dime. I've included links below that are really going to be humiliating for you. Now quick - scream "talking points" and put me on ignore rather than being a big girl and admitting that you were caught _lying_.

A Healthy Dose of Compassion - Pharmacy Savings - Pharmacy Overview - Giant Eagle

Generic Drug Program - 4 10 Drug Program - Pharmacy Savings - Save - Giant Eagle

Giant Eagle Pharmacy Free Antibiotics Program Surpasses 3.2 Million in Free Prescriptions - News Releases - About - Giant Eagle


----------



## P@triot

Unkotare said:


> democrats seem so fond of the word "lie" and now they have a chance to actually use it correctly for once. obamacare, like the obama administration, will go down in history as one of the most corrupt, dishonest clusterfucks in US history.


Did you see my post (#3246) on the previous page Unk? A member of the Administration _admitted_ that they *lied* to get Obamacare passed.

The glaring evidence that Obamacare is a catastrophic FAILURE continues to mount Page 325 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


----------



## Listening

Unkotare said:


> democrats seem so fond of the word "lie" and now they have a chance to actually use it correctly for once. obamacare, like the obama administration, will go down in history as one of the most corrupt, dishonest clusterfucks in US history.



Not one of the most...THE MOST......


----------



## Listening

Sarah G said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your arguments do not hold up.  The big insurance companies were out of control and not affordable for ANYBODY.  Obamacare makes it affordable.  That's just one big helpful success.  An honest assessment of the Obama presidency follows.  I'm kind of sick of listening to you Teapartiers defining this president.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow - I would like to think that you wouldn't revert to lying but that's exactly what you did. I had exceptionally affordable healthcare _before_ Obamacare. Paid about $150 per month for my entire family - my children were born and I don't think I even got a bill. My prescriptions were often free and never exceeded more than $30.
> 
> Nobody on earth could deny that is "affordable". Why is it that the left insists on lying Sarah? Why is it so hard for you guys to just have an honest discussion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well mine is very inexpensive now.  You revert to lying every time you use those stupid talking points.  We ALL know what insurance used to be.  Why would you think we believe that big insurance made you a special character while they bankrupted everyone else?
> 
> Btw, I had very good insurance where I worked and I never got free prescriptions.
Click to expand...


Insurance bankrupted everyone else ????

Now that goes in some kind of category for hyper-stupidity.


----------



## Listening

USA Today Obamacare Accelerates Demise of Rural Hospitals - Katie Pavlich

Article quotes U.S.A. Today as saying that Obamacare is crushing rural hospitals.

Yes, there is that affordable health insurance that makes health care available to everyone.

************************

The Affordable Care Act was designed to improve access to health care for all Americans and will give them another chance at getting health insurance during open enrollment starting this Saturday. But critics say the ACA is also accelerating the demise of rural outposts that cater to many of society's most vulnerable. These hospitals treat some of the sickest and poorest patients — those least aware of how to stay healthy. Hospital officials contend that the law's penalties for having to re-admit patients soon after they're released are impossible to avoid and create a crushing burden.

USA Today Obamacare Accelerates Demise of Rural Hospitals - Katie Pavlich


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Unkotare said:


> democrats seem so fond of the word "lie" and now they have a chance to actually use it correctly for once. obamacare, like the obama administration, will go down in history as one of the most corrupt, dishonest clusterfucks in US history.



"THE"... .

The obama cult is an enemy insurgency; but no more so than the Berkley City counsel, the Harvard Academic Staff and the Congressional Caucus of Socialist who happen to be BLACK.

The distinction being that none of those are known to have taken official action to DECEIVE The US Public through a maze of thousands of pages IDIOCY, which directly opposes everything from common sense to even a BASIC understanding of the purpose of INSURANCE... all toward the goal of destroying the US Insurance industry, as a means to socialize 1/7th of the entire US Economy.

Not that they wouldn't if they had the POWER, and therein rests the point: The Ideological Left rests ENTIRELY upon RELATIVISM... and relativism rejects objectivity.  And Objectivity is the ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF TRUTH.

What you see in obamacare is little more than the overt attack upon TRUTH, as an official function of the obama cult presently in power, sitting as the US Executive Branch.  A piece of Legislation which was passed ENTIRELY, WHOLLY by the Ideological Left, without so much as a single vote by a single Republican.  

The resultant law is, therefore... rests entirely upon the obama-cult, thus the deceit within the bill and the fraudulence used to pass the law, is the SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE IDEOLOGICAL LEFT, with ALL OF IT falling to the representatives thereof: in the persons of obama, Pelosi, Reid and every single individual who is directly associated with them.  Most of those in the Legislature who voted to pass it, are ALREADY GONE.

Now, as the New Congress is about to be seated, we will begin the process of ferreting out the evidence of those who can be shown to have tampered with the evidence, which will inevitably prove their guilt in abusing the public trust, which stands as the basis of the power they abused to SCREW THOSE PEOPLE WHO TRUSTED THEM!


----------



## Listening

Medical Costs Drive Record High Number of Americans to Delay Treatment - Sarah Jean Seman

One in three Americans has delayed seeking medical treatment due to its high cost, according to a recent _Gallup_poll. This marks the highest percentage ever recorded in the 14-year history of the survey question.

Despite President Obama's dream of providing affordable health care coverage for all, fewer and fewer Americans are able to get the coverage they need.


----------



## Listening

My Family s Health Plan Was Cancelled And ObamaCare s One-Size-Fits-All Doesn t Fit Us - Forbes

*My Family's Health Plan Was Cancelled And ObamaCare's One-Size-Fits-All Doesn't Fit Us*


----------



## boilermaker55

Think healthcare costs are soaring Think again. - Dec. 4 2014
Premiums for private health insurance grew 2.8% last year, compared to a 4% increase in 2012. Low overall enrollment growth, greater usage of high deductible plans and other benefit design changes and the health law's medical loss ratio and rate review provisions contributed to the decline, the Centers found.

Consumer out-of-pocket spending -- including co-payments and deductibles or payments for services not covered by a consumer's health insurance -- grew 3.2% in 2013, down from the 3.6% growth in both 2011 and 2012.

Spending for physician and clinical services grew 3.8% last year, a slowdown from 2012 when spending grew 4.5%. Expenditures for hospital care increased 4.3%, slower than the 5.7% rate of growth in 2012. 
 Catastrophic failure.............I think not.
But then, having evidence shown to those like you are of no consequence.











Rottweiler said:


> As the Dumbocrats on USMB love to crow about - Obamacare was passed into law by Congress, signed into law by the president, and upheld by the Supreme Court. So _why_ exactly does the federal government have to piss away billions to *promote* an existing law?!? Has this _ever_ been done with any other law in U.S. _history_?
> 
> They begged the NBA to help promote it and the NBA said yes. They begged the NFL to help promote it, and the NFL told them to go fuck themselves (doh!). So why are they so desperate to reach people through Hollywood and sports? Because even the Dumbocrats know this is a miserable failure, and they _know_ it is going to be repealed eventually unless they can do major damage control and brainwash the masses (especially the young and impressionable - hence the NBA, NFL, etc.) that this is a "good" thing.
> 
> Super Bowl champ Baltimore Ravens getting paid $130,000 to promote Obamacare | WashingtonExaminer.com


----------



## Listening

boilermaker55 said:


> Think healthcare costs are soaring Think again. - Dec. 4 2014
> Premiums for private health insurance grew 2.8% last year, compared to a 4% increase in 2012. Low overall enrollment growth, greater usage of high deductible plans and other benefit design changes and the health law's medical loss ratio and rate review provisions contributed to the decline, the Centers found.
> 
> Consumer out-of-pocket spending -- including co-payments and deductibles or payments for services not covered by a consumer's health insurance -- grew 3.2% in 2013, down from the 3.6% growth in both 2011 and 2012.
> 
> Spending for physician and clinical services grew 3.8% last year, a slowdown from 2012 when spending grew 4.5%. Expenditures for hospital care increased 4.3%, slower than the 5.7% rate of growth in 2012.
> Catastrophic failure.............I think not.
> But then, having evidence shown to those like you are of no consequence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> As the Dumbocrats on USMB love to crow about - Obamacare was passed into law by Congress, signed into law by the president, and upheld by the Supreme Court. So _why_ exactly does the federal government have to piss away billions to *promote* an existing law?!? Has this _ever_ been done with any other law in U.S. _history_?
> 
> They begged the NBA to help promote it and the NBA said yes. They begged the NFL to help promote it, and the NFL told them to go fuck themselves (doh!). So why are they so desperate to reach people through Hollywood and sports? Because even the Dumbocrats know this is a miserable failure, and they _know_ it is going to be repealed eventually unless they can do major damage control and brainwash the masses (especially the young and impressionable - hence the NBA, NFL, etc.) that this is a "good" thing.
> 
> Super Bowl champ Baltimore Ravens getting paid $130,000 to promote Obamacare | WashingtonExaminer.com
Click to expand...


Missed that point on people delaying care, did you ?


----------



## Listening

Oh the irony.....

Single Tear Harvard Faculty Upset Over Obamacare s Impact - Guy Benson

For years, Harvard’s experts on health economics and policy have advised presidents and Congress on how to provide health benefits to the nation at a reasonable cost. But those remedies will now be applied to the Harvard faculty, and the professors are in an uproar. Members of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, the heart of the 378-year-old university, *voted overwhelmingly in November to oppose changes that would require them and thousands of other Harvard employees to pay more for health care. The university says the increases are in part a result of the Obama administration’s Affordable Care Act, which many Harvard professors championed*. The faculty vote came too late to stop the cost increases from taking effect this month, and the anger on campus remains focused on questions that are agitating many workplaces: How should the burden of health costs be shared by employers and employees? If employees have to bear more of the cost, will they skimp on medically necessary care, curtail the use of less valuable services, or both?


----------



## Judicial review

My Lawyer is better than anyone Harvards ever produced and he went to Notre Dame.  My other Lawyer who is also better was that lawyers roommate.


----------



## Ernie S.

WTF?


----------



## ScienceRocks

Liberals, i want a better healthcare system that invests in the latest innovation in the field. I want America to be number one...Don't you??


----------



## Judicial review

Ernie S. said:


> WTF?



Still think I'm not a business owner?  Can't make this shit up.    Oh, my one attorney was on the doctor phil show.  Said, lie detectors are like Wigi boards."  The audience was going batshit insane and Dr Phil was speechless.  Only my attorney is that quick.


----------



## Ernie S.

Why is your lawyer relevant in this conversation? No one cares if your lawyer was on Dr Phil. The discussion is about Harvard professors unhappy with obamacare. Are you drunk?


----------



## peach174

Ernie S. said:


> Why is your lawyer relevant in this conversation? No one cares if your lawyer was on Dr Phil. The discussion is about Harvard professors unhappy with obamacare. Are you drunk?



He's a 28 year old spoiled rotten kid who thinks everything should be about him.


----------



## Ernie S.

I bet my lawyer can beat up his lawyer. I'll further posit that if the big bad "business owner" acted how he does here in my place of business, my employees would be escorting him out of the building post haste. Resistance is futile at Doc's.


----------



## koshergrl




----------



## peach174

Everybody warned these types that their Health Care cost would go up, but no the far left Harvard Professors believed their lies.
Now they are upset about it?
Tough Professors, deal with it or join the ones who want to repeal it and actually get a great one for all of us.
There are way to many problems with it to fix it.


----------



## emilynghiem

Matthew said:


> Liberals, i want a better healthcare system that invests in the latest innovation in the field. I want America to be number one...Don't you??



Great! So how can we do this through FREE MARKET and not tangle it up in more govt or political bureaucracy than people are willing to mess with.

How can we make it so free choice that if
you want to go through public options and gov you can do that,
if you want to go through churches, charities, businesses, schools or nonprofits
to set up health care and medical education and services to reach all people,
that you can invest in any part of such a network and not be fined by the IRS for not paying for health care by ACA limitations.

Currently you either pay thousands for insurance, or pay 1% of your salary to the govt and those are your only choices.

How do we free the taxpayers and businesses to invest in medical services, facilities and developing programs directly?

ACA has already cost taxpayers billions if not trillions in money given to insurance companies
who only agreed if the mandates were put in the bill and forced onto taxpayers.

Not to mention 24 billion cost to taxpayers ovver the deadlock in Congress over the budget
due to the conflict over the ACA having unconstitutional mandates costing citizens our liberty without due process
of law to prove we had committed any crimes before punishing us with loss of free choice in how to pay for health care.

Matthew would you be willing to stand with me
and demand that the same billions the govt paid or lost or wasted
be reimbursed to taxpayers as credits through the Federal Reserve,
and we can organize by teams per state, district or party to
delegate those credits into solutions we believe will work better than ACA.

So people can have the CHOICE to go through ACA exchanges,
or the CHOICE to invest in other solutions for health care and not be fined or forced to pay into other systems
we don't believe in funding.

As a fellow Democrat, do you believe in free choice
without govt threatening fines or penalties on how we pay for those choices?


----------



## P@triot

The bad news just continues to grow...

Obamacare still the solution for healthcare?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

"The glaring evidence that Obamacare is a catastrophic FAILURE continues to mount"

The glaring evidence that continues to mount is how utterly wrong the OP is.


----------



## emilynghiem

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> "The glaring evidence that Obamacare is a catastrophic FAILURE continues to mount"
> 
> The glaring evidence that continues to mount is how utterly wrong the OP is.


The glaring fault is nobody wants to pay for it.
Only want to make other people pay for it.

Havent found a single person willing
To pay but all in it to complain.

Left wants Singlepayer, not paying Insurance companies writing off their losses for us to.pay.

Right doesnt believe in govt forcing you to buy insurance.

If neither side agrees to.corporate insurance companies inserting themselves then why not agree to
Remove that? Too busy hoping and waiting someone else will fix it first


----------



## westwall

Yep, Obummercare is the gift that keeps on giving!

*List of tax hikes ignored in the CBO half-score of Obamacare*

-3.8 percent surtax on investment income
-Hike in top Medicare payroll tax rate to 3.8 percent
-Medicine cabinet tax
-Additional surtax on health savings account (HSA) distributions
-Cap on flexible spending accounts (FSAs)
-Medical device tax
-High medical bills tax
-Tanning tax
-Tax on employer retiree drug coverage in Medicare
-Charitable hospital tax
-Pharmaceutical manufacturers tax
-Health insurance tax
-Tax on executive compensation in the health sector
-"Black liquor" tax hike
-Codification of "economic substance doctrine"

All these tax increases can be read about in detail here.


Read more: CBO Still Refuses to Score Obamacare Ignores 15 Tax Hikes in Healthcare Law Americans for Tax Reform 
Follow us: @taxreformer on Twitter


----------



## emilynghiem

And if that doesnt cover all costs, then put a tax on these taxes.
Raise the minimum wage,
and increase taxes on that.

You don't own your body anymore.
Since Govt is in charge of paying for your health care, all labor and means to pay for it have to meet
Federal regulations. you have no natural rights and freedoms except what we dictate by law.

You will have voting rights but no gun rights.

Right to choose abortion and birth control, but not life which is not a right unless you kill someone and end up on death row. Then you have the right to life, only after you are sentenced to death.

If you are Atheist you can't be forced to look at a cross or to listen to Christian prayer, but if you are a Christian business, you can be forced to bake cakes or photograph weddings or else forced to pay fines.

If you want freedom to pay for health care, too bad, your beliefs don't count and you willbe subject to give your labor to pay taxes or insurance as the only way to pay. However if you commit a crime and land in prison, you can't be forced into labor, but your health care and housing is paid by other people's labor who can work since they didn't commit crimes.


----------



## P@triot

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> "The glaring evidence that Obamacare is a catastrophic FAILURE continues to mount"
> 
> The glaring evidence that continues to mount is how utterly wrong the OP is.


What a bizarre response. This thread is _filled_ with thousands of facts illustrating what an overwhelming failure Obamacare has been and you didn't even attempt to dispute one of them, yet you want to attack the "OP"?!?

You just proved the time tested saying: "If you want to make a conservative angry, lie to him. If you want to make a liberal angry, tell him the truth".


----------



## P@triot

Obamacare has barely insured a few hundred thousand, yet _many_ millions have actually *LOST* their health insurance because of Obamacare. Welcome to a liberals idea of "progress". 

5 Takeaways from the CBO s Report on Obamacare


----------



## emilynghiem

Rottweiler said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The glaring evidence that Obamacare is a catastrophic FAILURE continues to mount"
> 
> The glaring evidence that continues to mount is how utterly wrong the OP is.
> 
> 
> 
> What a bizarre response. This thread is _filled_ with thousands of facts illustrating what an overwhelming failure Obamacare has been and you didn't even attempt to dispute one of them, yet you want to attack the "OP"?!?
> 
> You just proved the time tested saying: "If you want to make a conservative angry, lie to him. If you want to make a liberal angry, tell him the truth".
Click to expand...


Dear Rottweiler and C_Clayton_Jones
I really came close yesterday to trying to understand this idea of imposing ACA first,
and defending it second, buying time to either make it work or embed it so deeply it can't be removed and
has to be made to work because it's too late.

The closest I can come is what I learned from my friend Juda with Choices for Life.
She points out that just because the RAPE is wrong, doesn't mean the child born of rape can't be a blessing in disguise
and meant to come into the world anyway. And just because that child is a gift, doesn't mean the RAPE isn't still wrong.
It doesn't make the RAPE any more correct just because the child was meant to be. The RAPE may have been "meant to happen" but it is still RAPE, still WRONGFUL and punishable by law.

So that is what I understand going on here.
Even though pushing ACA against the will of the people, is like forcing sex on a wife because
she agreed to marry the husband and be under one marriage agreement,
and ONE side of the partnership agrees to "terms of relations" but the other OPPOSES and SAYS NO
repeatedly, and is overruled by the other side that WANTS these relations, this "baby" to start growing.

And by the time the baby is too big to remove, the woman is FORCED to have this baby whether she
ever consented or not.

So whatever comes of this, one side is saying SEE you want this baby anyway, it's going to be fine,
this is better in the long run.

And the woman in the relationship is still crying NO I didn't consent, you are forcing me and didn't
include me equally in this decision, it is RAPE.

And the imposing side says TOUGH "sux to be you" We're having this baby whether you like it or not.
My friends approved, and the Court including your family approved, so this is "consensus."

So REGARDLESS if the baby turns out all right or not,
that doesn't change the fact that the baby was conceived in RAPE.

RAPE is still wrong, and it looks like the RAPIST is trying to justify the RAPE
by * discrediting the victim as "wanting and asking for it anyway, you agreed to 
have hospitals not turn people away so you agreed to these terms added on"
(typical of blaming rape victims to lessen the shock and reality of rape)
* saying the outcome justify the means. If it works anyway then it's okay to rape people.
using the good things about the baby to try to "lessen or justify" the wrongful act of rape.
* saying other people impose their political belief the same way, so "everybody does this"
like saying "boys will be boys" and just because bullying and coercion is common on
the playground, it's okay to look the other way because that's just how it's done.

And all this is coming from the party accusing the other of being anti-women
and promoting the rape culture.

That is what I find most shocking.

My friend Juda who is Prolife is Republican and is always disappointed that no candidates
can push for Prolife when the laws favor Prochoice. This whole conflict over ACA
showed me what it's like when the tables are turned, and liberals who believe in
"right to health care" are willing to push that right over the right to choose, and don't even see it,
while the people who used to push "right to life" now demand right to choose.
Now that side feels "raped" by the other overriding free choice with their own "political beliefs."

I still believe people should be able to CHOOSE the terms of their relations
and who they want to have a "baby" with.

Since this ACA is not a literal baby, we can logistically "split the baby in half"
and let each party fund and manage their own version of their own baby.

I vote to adopt out this current baby to the Democrats to fix;
and let Republicans and Greens form their own baby that is prochoice and proliberty,
per state or per party, and not these mandated regulations and taxes from federal govt.

If the Prolife people are going to be held to mandates,
they should have equal right to mandate "right to life" in all the programs they are mandated to pay for
as their belief, similar to Prochoice people who want to mandate right to health care as their belief.

If it's going to be mandatory, let each group choose to add their mandates equally.
And if you don't agree, well, maybe we need to make these programs prochoice.

If you want Right to Life to remain a choice and not mandatory, then 
Right to Health Care and ACA mandates should be a choice and not mandated.

Let's treat beliefs equally: if you mandate one, them mandate the others.
If you reject one as a choice, allow all citizens to reject yours as choice.


----------



## dblack

Fuck ACA. Fuck the corporate whores supporting it.


----------



## emilynghiem

MaryL


MaryL said:


> Politics aside, &#8220;Affordable health care &#8220; is a misnomer, isn't it?  besides a veiled attempt to force socialism on a free democratic society. Let's call Obamacare what it REALLY is: forced insurance on everyone. But, perhaps that is a good thing. I hope our well intended know- it -all federal government isn&#8217;t  playing craps with our future here. I hope I didn't lose my job as a result of the ill informed politics of millennials good intentions.


Yes and no. If you are going to require insurance through govt,
at least have the Constitutional sense to vote on it per state, and let the
people have a say as the taxpayers who are going to be under that policy.

This precedent of allowing Congress and Courts to pass and approve such a bill
is DANGEROUS. It does what the liberals scream and rail against in terms of
violating "separation of church and state" by mandating either for or against people's personal beliefs in private matters,
and what the conservatives fear the most in terms of a "shariah law" being imposed by a political sect of beliefs over others.

If the liberals are going to mandate the right to health care and make everyone required to be under and pay for this policy,
then what's to stop conservatives to mandate the right to life? or the right to spiritual healing to reduce costs, and make
everyone go through that system.

This sets a terrible precedence, and I hope people on both the side of prochoice and prolife
come to realize this, so they can understand why the other side is so opposed to mandating such beliefs on a national scale.


----------



## emilynghiem

beagle9 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Employees shouldering more of health costs, report finds
> 
> Employee health care premiums have risen an average of 19% since 2011, and workers are paying 28% more for health benefits compared with three years ago, finds a report by Towers Watson/National Business Group on Health. Employers are paying an average premium of $9,560 per worker in 2014, up from $8,364 in 2011.
> 
> Your workplace health insurance costs $1,200 more - Economy
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder though, would this have happened (the higher and higher rates) regardless of Obamacare or did it happen because of Obamacare ? Does anyone TRULY no the answer to this ?
Click to expand...


Regardless, what remains is that people are being required by federal govt to buy insurance instead of this remaining a free business choice. There are other ways to cover health care, and this is neither the ONLY way, nor the most immediate relief to cover healthcare.

As for the complaints of rising insurance costs,
then why pass this bill that forces changes to the whole industry and to all consumers and citizens?

if you are not willing to take responsibility, then don't force reforms without the consent of others, especially the opposition.

Just like if a robber puts a gun in someone's face and causes a fatal heart attack,
how do you know that person wouldn't have a heart attack anyway?
Even if it turns out to be a fake gun, the person is still responsible
even if the person might have had a heart attack and died anyway, with or without 
the armed confrontation, and regardless if it was a real gun or fake gun.

In this case, since people in opposition CLEARLY objected UP FRONT, and voted no,
and did NOT want to be responsible for the risks and changes
forced on the public, then the people pushing the bill should accept responsibility.

If not, then why push this bill against the opposition of others?

I'm also worried about the push for legalization for similar reasons.
It is one thing to push for decriminalization, but then I would make people
responsible for health care costs and consequences without
imposing that on people who said NO there is longterm damage from
unnecessary pot use and NO we don't agree to pay for those problems.


----------



## emilynghiem

Sarah G said:


> Oops and how many times has the teaparty tried to overturn it?  You all have even gone so far as to shut down government to get Obamacare gone..   How embarrassing for you.



Dear Sarah G
Why is it a shame on the victim of rape or bullying
to have stated up front "NO we do not consent to giving up personal freedom to federal govt over health care choices"
and then REPEATEDLY defended our interests and consent, only to be ignored and violated repeatedly?

Do you blame the rape victim for fighting and resisting
so if she "fails" and injures herself more, it is her fault for fighting back?

Do you blame the bullying victim for giving up or being
pushed to suicide because someone else refused to stop when asked repeatedly?

Do you blame the Slaves for their own slavery
because it took centuries to fight for equal right and say when they were overruled.

Why are you blaming the victim of political bullying and censorship?

Do you like when people do this to you? To people you care about
who are being overrun and overruled by political bullying? Really?

P.S. As for the federal shutdown, the conservatives and leaders in Congress went out of their way to get opponents to AGREE to the budget with two concesions that most ppl AGREED on
* to delay the individual mandate for one year since the employer mandate was delayed for one year
* to remove the tax on medical devices that would punish service providers at a time the economy and businesses are struggling to recover

And Obama refused to sign any bill that had any changes at all.
So the fault was mutual. This was an incredible opportunity, and compromise
on behalf of opponents who wanted the whole ACA repealed but settled for
these two changes to prevent from deadlocking and shutting down govt.

This cannot be blamed on just the opposition.
The ACA should not have been passed without support in the first place,
but all conflicts should be resolved in advance. This was started by
the people like Obama who pushed the bill when it had Constitutional issues
that needed to be addressed first. 

I would either hold the Democrat Party 75-100% responsible, given the above,
or split it 50/50 and let both parties fix their own health care programs
and quit imposing on the beliefs and members of the other party if they cannot resolve this.


----------



## rdean

Rottweiler said:


> As the Dumbocrats on USMB love to crow about - Obamacare was passed into law by Congress, signed into law by the president, and upheld by the Supreme Court. So _why_ exactly does the federal government have to piss away billions to *promote* an existing law?!? Has this _ever_ been done with any other law in U.S. _history_?
> 
> They begged the NBA to help promote it and the NBA said yes. They begged the NFL to help promote it, and the NFL told them to go fuck themselves (doh!). So why are they so desperate to reach people through Hollywood and sports? Because even the Dumbocrats know this is a miserable failure, and they _know_ it is going to be repealed eventually unless they can do major damage control and brainwash the masses (especially the young and impressionable - hence the NBA, NFL, etc.) that this is a "good" thing.
> 
> Super Bowl champ Baltimore Ravens getting paid $130,000 to promote Obamacare | WashingtonExaminer.com


Plus he took a trip to India costing $200,000,000.00 a "day".

Rep. Michele Bachmann claims Obama s trip to India will cost the taxpayers 200 million a day PolitiFact

It has been repeated by nearly every conservative pundit in the land: Hannity, Limbaugh, Beck, Drudge. Always with a healthy dose of indignation.

It also got picked up by U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., who told CNN's Anderson Cooper on Nov. 3, 2010, it was just the latest example of government excess and spending from the Obama administration.

"The president of the United States will be taking a trip over to India that is expected to cost the taxpayers $200 million a day," Bachmann said. "He's taking 2,000 people with him.

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

Oh these Republicans and their honesty.


----------



## dblack

emilynghiem said:


> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oops and how many times has the teaparty tried to overturn it?  You all have even gone so far as to shut down government to get Obamacare gone..   How embarrassing for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Sarah G
> Why is it a shame on the victim of rape or bullying
> to have stated up front "NO we do not consent to giving up personal freedom to federal govt over health care choices"
> and then REPEATEDLY defended our interests and consent, only to be ignored and violated repeatedly?
> 
> Do you blame the rape victim for fighting and resisting
> so if she "fails" and injures herself more, it is her fault for fighting back?
> 
> Do you blame the bullying victim for giving up or being
> pushed to suicide because someone else refused to stop when asked repeatedly?
> 
> Do you blame the Slaves for their own slavery
> because it took centuries to fight for equal right and say when they were overruled.
> 
> Why are you blaming the victim of political bullying and censorship?
> 
> Do you like when people do this to you? To people you care about
> who are being overrun and overruled by political bullying? Really?
> 
> P.S. As for the federal shutdown, the conservatives and leaders in Congress went out of their way to get opponents to AGREE to the budget with two concesions that most ppl AGREED on
> * to delay the individual mandate for one year since the employer mandate was delayed for one year
> * to remove the tax on medical devices that would punish service providers at a time the economy and businesses are struggling to recover
> 
> And Obama refused to sign any bill that had any changes at all.
> So the fault was mutual. This was an incredible opportunity, and compromise
> on behalf of opponents who wanted the whole ACA repealed but settled for
> these two changes to prevent from deadlocking and shutting down govt.
> 
> This cannot be blamed on just the opposition.
> The ACA should not have been passed without support in the first place,
> but all conflicts should be resolved in advance. This was started by
> the people like Obama who pushed the bill when it had Constitutional issues
> that needed to be addressed first.
> 
> I would either hold the Democrat Party 75-100% responsible, given the above,
> or split it 50/50 and let both parties fix their own health care programs
> and quit imposing on the beliefs and members of the other party if they cannot resolve this.
Click to expand...


Yeah. There's nothing embarrassing about fighting for what you believe in.


----------



## emilynghiem

dblack said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oops and how many times has the teaparty tried to overturn it?  You all have even gone so far as to shut down government to get Obamacare gone..   How embarrassing for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Sarah G
> Why is it a shame on the victim of rape or bullying
> to have stated up front "NO we do not consent to giving up personal freedom to federal govt over health care choices"
> and then REPEATEDLY defended our interests and consent, only to be ignored and violated repeatedly?
> 
> Do you blame the rape victim for fighting and resisting
> so if she "fails" and injures herself more, it is her fault for fighting back?
> 
> Do you blame the bullying victim for giving up or being
> pushed to suicide because someone else refused to stop when asked repeatedly?
> 
> Do you blame the Slaves for their own slavery
> because it took centuries to fight for equal right and say when they were overruled.
> 
> Why are you blaming the victim of political bullying and censorship?
> 
> Do you like when people do this to you? To people you care about
> who are being overrun and overruled by political bullying? Really?
> 
> P.S. As for the federal shutdown, the conservatives and leaders in Congress went out of their way to get opponents to AGREE to the budget with two concesions that most ppl AGREED on
> * to delay the individual mandate for one year since the employer mandate was delayed for one year
> * to remove the tax on medical devices that would punish service providers at a time the economy and businesses are struggling to recover
> 
> And Obama refused to sign any bill that had any changes at all.
> So the fault was mutual. This was an incredible opportunity, and compromise
> on behalf of opponents who wanted the whole ACA repealed but settled for
> these two changes to prevent from deadlocking and shutting down govt.
> 
> This cannot be blamed on just the opposition.
> The ACA should not have been passed without support in the first place,
> but all conflicts should be resolved in advance. This was started by
> the people like Obama who pushed the bill when it had Constitutional issues
> that needed to be addressed first.
> 
> I would either hold the Democrat Party 75-100% responsible, given the above,
> or split it 50/50 and let both parties fix their own health care programs
> and quit imposing on the beliefs and members of the other party if they cannot resolve this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah. There's nothing embarrassing about fighting for what you believe in.
Click to expand...


I'm more embarrassed for Obama and the Democrats,
who can't seem to recognize when they have a political BELIEF that is violating "separation of church and state"
similar to religious advocates who make this mistake with govt.


----------



## emilynghiem

Dear boilermaker55
Regardless, it is not the authority of federal govt to dictate how citizens pay for health care,
unless they pass a Constitutional amendment or a state law the citizens vote on and agree on the process.
Here, there was not only disagreement but religious objection to using federal govt in this manner to bypass checks on govt. It was either wrongful as a violation of Constitutional laws directly, or indirectly by violating and discriminating on the basis of creed because of equal political beliefs that should have both been taking into account without excluding or favoring one over the other.

That is wrong regardless of the outcome.

1. slavery was still wrong although it allowed for the growth of the US industrial revolution and economy to dominate the word
2. taking over Hawaii was wrong and later apologized for officially by govt, even though it protected US security in the Pacific
3. if Christian spiritual healing were mandated for all citizens, that would reduce addictions, crime and disease
and save lives and resources, but would be wrongful by Constitutional laws and a violation of federal govt duties
4. rape can lead to conceptoin and birth of a lovely child, who is loved and cherished and brings meaning and purpose in life,
but the rape is still wrong and punishable by law. the outcome produced by a wrongful action does not justify breaching laws.



boilermaker55 said:


> Think healthcare costs are soaring Think again. - Dec. 4 2014
> Premiums for private health insurance grew 2.8% last year, compared to a 4% increase in 2012. Low overall enrollment growth, greater usage of high deductible plans and other benefit design changes and the health law's medical loss ratio and rate review provisions contributed to the decline, the Centers found.
> 
> Consumer out-of-pocket spending -- including co-payments and deductibles or payments for services not covered by a consumer's health insurance -- grew 3.2% in 2013, down from the 3.6% growth in both 2011 and 2012.
> 
> Spending for physician and clinical services grew 3.8% last year, a slowdown from 2012 when spending grew 4.5%. Expenditures for hospital care increased 4.3%, slower than the 5.7% rate of growth in 2012.
> Catastrophic failure.............I think not.
> But then, having evidence shown to those like you are of no consequence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> As the Dumbocrats on USMB love to crow about - Obamacare was passed into law by Congress, signed into law by the president, and upheld by the Supreme Court. So _why_ exactly does the federal government have to piss away billions to *promote* an existing law?!? Has this _ever_ been done with any other law in U.S. _history_?
> 
> They begged the NBA to help promote it and the NBA said yes. They begged the NFL to help promote it, and the NFL told them to go fuck themselves (doh!). So why are they so desperate to reach people through Hollywood and sports? Because even the Dumbocrats know this is a miserable failure, and they _know_ it is going to be repealed eventually unless they can do major damage control and brainwash the masses (especially the young and impressionable - hence the NBA, NFL, etc.) that this is a "good" thing.
> 
> Super Bowl champ Baltimore Ravens getting paid $130,000 to promote Obamacare | WashingtonExaminer.com
Click to expand...


----------



## emilynghiem

Judicial review said:


> My Lawyer is better than anyone Harvards ever produced and he went to Notre Dame.  My other Lawyer who is also better was that lawyers roommate.


Great,  Judicial review. Can your Lawyer fix this whole mess over ACA mandates, political beliefs, and the Constitution?
I am ready for a national class-action lawsuit, is your Lawyer up for it?

1. First step, evaluate and assess how many citizens share the political beliefs about health care as a right through govt,
how many believe the ACA mandates are constitutional or not, and how many believe this violates either Constitutional laws directly or indirectly discriminates on the basis of creed.

2. Then ask the Parties to address and resolve these issues, either separate the bill into separate groups under separate policies, or leave it open as an equal option to participate in govt health care or not, and/or require other options besides ACA.

3. And if neither Party can fix this bill, then sue on behalf of the public for 24 billion in costs of the govt shutdown,
for passing a bill that couldn't be fixed, and demand that this money be invested as credits toward setting up
a system or system(s) that people agree to use according to our political beliefs without violating any of them.

can your lawyer do that?


----------



## Judicial review

emilynghiem said:


> Judicial review said:
> 
> 
> 
> My Lawyer is better than anyone Harvards ever produced and he went to Notre Dame.  My other Lawyer who is also better was that lawyers roommate.
> 
> 
> 
> Great,  Judicial review. Can your Lawyer fix this whole mess over ACA mandates, political beliefs, and the Constitution?
> I am ready for a national class-action lawsuit, is your Lawyer up for it?
> 
> 1. First step, evaluate and assess how many citizens share the political beliefs about health care as a right through govt,
> how many believe the ACA mandates are constitutional or not, and how many believe this violates either Constitutional laws directly or indirectly discriminates on the basis of creed.
> 
> 2. Then ask the Parties to address and resolve these issues, either separate the bill into separate groups under separate policies, or leave it open as an equal option to participate in govt health care or not, and/or require other options besides ACA.
> 
> 3. And if neither Party can fix this bill, then sue on behalf of the public for 24 billion in costs of the govt shutdown,
> for passing a bill that couldn't be fixed, and demand that this money be invested as credits toward setting up
> a system or system(s) that people agree to use according to our political beliefs without violating any of them.
> 
> can your lawyer do that?
Click to expand...


Yes.  He embarrassed Dr Phil on TV in front of his audience he can do whatever.


----------



## emilynghiem

ClaimsSpec said:


> As a long term employee of an insurance carrier I find it frightening how many people call me daily to blame Obamacare when they don't have a clue what is in their policies. If you can't afford a 10k deductible then why did you buy it? People are far more educated about their car insurance policies then they are their health insurance yet it is a single MRI or surgical procedure that can send them into bankruptcy. You can ditch the car and take the bus if your car insurance deductible is too high. You can die if you pass on an MRI or essential surgical procedure.
> 
> I agree Obamacare sux but place blame where it belongs. Your employer bought you a crappy policy and YOU signed up for it.



Under free market, they wouldn't be forced or rushed to buy insurance.
The issue of deadlines came from Obamacare, by requiring this.

In normal business practices, consumers are free to choose,
so if plans are bad, nobody will buy them. This factor has been lost.

The proper way would be to set up programs first, test them out and prove
they work through the people who CHOSE to be patrons, similar to businesses,
and then the programs that are more effective will attract more patrons while the
failed programs will lose customers.

Keep it voluntary, and then only the effectively run programs would sustain.
And people would naturally gravitate towards those, without being forced by law.


----------



## Judicial review

emily, how many debates do you want to start in one day?  Spread them out.


----------



## emilynghiem

Judicial review said:


> emily, how many debates do you want to start in one day?  Spread them out.


Trying to resolve this one, by finding the central team to head it up.
Is your Lawyer up for it? The ACA mandate issue of political beliefs
and discrimination by creed. Can your Lawyer head a national team to address both parties to fix this mess?


----------



## emilynghiem

Ernie S. said:


> I bet my lawyer can beat up his lawyer. I'll further posit that if the big bad "business owner" acted how he does here in my place of business, my employees would be escorting him out of the building post haste. Resistance is futile at Doc's.


Okay Ernie S. 
let's pit your lawyer up against JR's lawyer.
and see who is willing to admit that the ACA mandates
either violate Constitutional laws directly or indirectly
discriminate on the basis of creed. Are you game?

or are both you and JR talking out of your hats?


----------



## emilynghiem

Judicial review said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judicial review said:
> 
> 
> 
> My Lawyer is better than anyone Harvards ever produced and he went to Notre Dame.  My other Lawyer who is also better was that lawyers roommate.
> 
> 
> 
> Great,  Judicial review. Can your Lawyer fix this whole mess over ACA mandates, political beliefs, and the Constitution?
> I am ready for a national class-action lawsuit, is your Lawyer up for it?
> 
> 1. First step, evaluate and assess how many citizens share the political beliefs about health care as a right through govt,
> how many believe the ACA mandates are constitutional or not, and how many believe this violates either Constitutional laws directly or indirectly discriminates on the basis of creed.
> 
> 2. Then ask the Parties to address and resolve these issues, either separate the bill into separate groups under separate policies, or leave it open as an equal option to participate in govt health care or not, and/or require other options besides ACA.
> 
> 3. And if neither Party can fix this bill, then sue on behalf of the public for 24 billion in costs of the govt shutdown,
> for passing a bill that couldn't be fixed, and demand that this money be invested as credits toward setting up
> a system or system(s) that people agree to use according to our political beliefs without violating any of them.
> 
> can your lawyer do that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.  He embarrassed Dr Phil on TV in front of his audience he can do whatever.
Click to expand...

Ok Judicial review so ask your Lawyer about researching the political beliefs
for and against ACA mandates, and ask your lawyer about putting together a national class action lawsuit,
demanding a refund of 24 billion in wasted resources to be invested in models by both parties, to PROVE their solutions work first BEFORE requiring citizens to fund one or the other(s), and require the political party leaders to separate
the funding by beliefs, so people have equal choice in participating in the program they believe in or which works best.

1. people who believe in right to health care through govt Singlepayer
2. people who believe ACA is the best way or the only way
3. people who believe in states rights or rights reserved to the people
4. people who believe in right to life and only funding programs consistent with their faith
5. people willing to pay for health care programs through the party or programs of their choice


----------



## rdean

Tell the truth about Republicans and they feel constantly attacked.  In between their lies about Obama.


----------



## Conservative65

rdean said:


> Tell the truth about Republicans and they feel constantly attacked.  In between their lies about Obama.


 
You're an Obama Liberal.  That means you can't tell the truth.


----------



## boilermaker55

The individuals that interpret the constitution for the citizens of the US ruled contrary to your belief.





emilynghiem said:


> Dear boilermaker55
> Regardless, it is not the authority of federal govt to dictate how citizens pay for health care,
> unless they pass a Constitutional amendment or a state law the citizens vote on and agree on the process.
> Here, there was not only disagreement but religious objection to using federal govt in this manner to bypass checks on govt. It was either wrongful as a violation of Constitutional laws directly, or indirectly by violating and discriminating on the basis of creed because of equal political beliefs that should have both been taking into account without excluding or favoring one over the other.
> 
> That is wrong regardless of the outcome.
> 
> 1. slavery was still wrong although it allowed for the growth of the US industrial revolution and economy to dominate the word
> 2. taking over Hawaii was wrong and later apologized for officially by govt, even though it protected US security in the Pacific
> 3. if Christian spiritual healing were mandated for all citizens, that would reduce addictions, crime and disease
> and save lives and resources, but would be wrongful by Constitutional laws and a violation of federal govt duties
> 4. rape can lead to conceptoin and birth of a lovely child, who is loved and cherished and brings meaning and purpose in life,
> but the rape is still wrong and punishable by law. the outcome produced by a wrongful action does not justify breaching laws.
> 
> 
> 
> boilermaker55 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Think healthcare costs are soaring Think again. - Dec. 4 2014
> Premiums for private health insurance grew 2.8% last year, compared to a 4% increase in 2012. Low overall enrollment growth, greater usage of high deductible plans and other benefit design changes and the health law's medical loss ratio and rate review provisions contributed to the decline, the Centers found.
> 
> Consumer out-of-pocket spending -- including co-payments and deductibles or payments for services not covered by a consumer's health insurance -- grew 3.2% in 2013, down from the 3.6% growth in both 2011 and 2012.
> 
> Spending for physician and clinical services grew 3.8% last year, a slowdown from 2012 when spending grew 4.5%. Expenditures for hospital care increased 4.3%, slower than the 5.7% rate of growth in 2012.
> Catastrophic failure.............I think not.
> But then, having evidence shown to those like you are of no consequence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> As the Dumbocrats on USMB love to crow about - Obamacare was passed into law by Congress, signed into law by the president, and upheld by the Supreme Court. So _why_ exactly does the federal government have to piss away billions to *promote* an existing law?!? Has this _ever_ been done with any other law in U.S. _history_?
> 
> They begged the NBA to help promote it and the NBA said yes. They begged the NFL to help promote it, and the NFL told them to go fuck themselves (doh!). So why are they so desperate to reach people through Hollywood and sports? Because even the Dumbocrats know this is a miserable failure, and they _know_ it is going to be repealed eventually unless they can do major damage control and brainwash the masses (especially the young and impressionable - hence the NBA, NFL, etc.) that this is a "good" thing.
> 
> Super Bowl champ Baltimore Ravens getting paid $130,000 to promote Obamacare | WashingtonExaminer.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## emilynghiem

rdean said:


> Tell the truth about Republicans and they feel constantly attacked.  In between their lies about Obama.



Dear rdean I'm beginning to think this is their own karma come back to them.

When Conservatives were pushing PROLIFE and assuming "prochoice" means killing babies and proabortion,
they pushed for laws that impose this belief WITHOUT PROVING FIRST that a person's conscious free will begins at conception for ALL CASES. Since this is on a spiritual realm, based on belief, laws cannot be based on belief.
But instead of proving it first, they want to push the laws "making other people responsible for THEIR beliefs" so this got nixed in favor of PROCHOICE.
the "burden of proof" should be on the proponents, not the defense; so the prolife laws
keep getting blocked because they haven't been proven yet, but are still based on FAITH.

Now the burden and offense is on the other side!

Now the liberals are pushing pro health care through Govt and requiring insurance or tax penalties against people's consent and liberties, based on the "BELIEF" that health care is right that can ONLY be provided equally through govt and that INSURANCE and mandates are the best way to reduce costs etc. so these MUST be required and cannot just be FREE CHOICE
but must be MADE LAW. Similar to how prolife are not content with prochoice but want their laws MANDATED.

But now, instead of the liberals having "burden of proof" to show their system is true,
they JUMPED THE GUN and passed a LAW FIRST, mandating that people pay into this system and are made responsible for beliefs NOT PROVEN YET, and then expect to prove it AFTER THE FACT. But they refuse to let prolife do this with their beliefs and laws, and demand they prove it FIRST BEFORE passing laws "based on beliefs."

*If the restriction or loss of liberty is IMPOSED onto the side of Opponents,
then the 'burden of proof' should be on the side of Proponents of this belief and law.
NOT pushed onto the Opponents to prove their side in DEFENSE of choice/liberty.*

But the proponents keep using the "fact the bill passed" as proof that it is lawful. That is after the fact.
That is like atheists contesting "proof of God using the Bible" that is already after the fact, after it was already assumed!!!

So now BOTH sides are getting a taste of their own medicine.

Prolife people are screaming for proliberty similar to prochoice arguments they slammed before this.
And Prochoice people are pushing their values and beliefs WITHOUT PROOF in violation of separation of church and state.

What a circus. Too bad the tent is on fire and elephants and donkeys are stampeding.
We could have a lovely show with these theatrical dramatics going on,
if people could see what they are doing to each other.  This should be a reality show to straighten out this mess!


----------



## emilynghiem

Dear boilermaker55: And this is where I am thinking to take an ASSESSMENT of the President, Court Justices, and Congress members who either voted on ACA and/or subsequent budgets or measures,
and EVALUATE which of them (1) recognize political beliefs (2) recognize their own biases (3) and are either able to remain neutral and include BOTH while deciding policies or (4) require ASSISTANCE to form a consensus to respect and include these political beliefs equally or (5) Do not see or believe in either one, and are not able to represent people except of their own political beliefs

I think this is a fair test for office. Just like testing if a doctor can distinguish the difference between two different types of cells if that is involved in a procedure requiring this distinction.  If doctors don't know the difference between an artery and a vein, or a normal lung cell vs. a growth that doesn't belong there, and/or can't see the difference, etc. they shouldn't be performing surgery that requires this!

Why not ask for an evaluation of our Federal Officials and investigate the nature of this conflict
and how it can be resolved? I am happy to mediate in public or private so that anyone with a 'disability' to distinguish political beliefs from regular political differences can still hold their office and not be dismissed for negligence if they can work effectively with added assistance of mediation.

I believe in accomodations for those with disabilities, and am beginning to see this issue as either a conflict of beliefs
and/or disability to discern, and/or issue of personal forgiveness or unforgiveness which can be remedied with counseling or mediation to either heal or bypass the points of conflict and reach a consensus anyway.



boilermaker55 said:


> The individuals that interpret the constitution for the citizens of the US ruled contrary to your belief.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear boilermaker55
> Regardless, it is not the authority of federal govt to dictate how citizens pay for health care,
> unless they pass a Constitutional amendment or a state law the citizens vote on and agree on the process.
> Here, there was not only disagreement but religious objection to using federal govt in this manner to bypass checks on govt. It was either wrongful as a violation of Constitutional laws directly, or indirectly by violating and discriminating on the basis of creed because of equal political beliefs that should have both been taking into account without excluding or favoring one over the other.
> 
> That is wrong regardless of the outcome.
> 
> 1. slavery was still wrong although it allowed for the growth of the US industrial revolution and economy to dominate the word
> 2. taking over Hawaii was wrong and later apologized for officially by govt, even though it protected US security in the Pacific
> 3. if Christian spiritual healing were mandated for all citizens, that would reduce addictions, crime and disease
> and save lives and resources, but would be wrongful by Constitutional laws and a violation of federal govt duties
> 4. rape can lead to conceptoin and birth of a lovely child, who is loved and cherished and brings meaning and purpose in life,
> but the rape is still wrong and punishable by law. the outcome produced by a wrongful action does not justify breaching laws.
> 
> 
> 
> boilermaker55 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Think healthcare costs are soaring Think again. - Dec. 4 2014
> Premiums for private health insurance grew 2.8% last year, compared to a 4% increase in 2012. Low overall enrollment growth, greater usage of high deductible plans and other benefit design changes and the health law's medical loss ratio and rate review provisions contributed to the decline, the Centers found.
> 
> Consumer out-of-pocket spending -- including co-payments and deductibles or payments for services not covered by a consumer's health insurance -- grew 3.2% in 2013, down from the 3.6% growth in both 2011 and 2012.
> 
> Spending for physician and clinical services grew 3.8% last year, a slowdown from 2012 when spending grew 4.5%. Expenditures for hospital care increased 4.3%, slower than the 5.7% rate of growth in 2012.
> Catastrophic failure.............I think not.
> But then, having evidence shown to those like you are of no consequence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> As the Dumbocrats on USMB love to crow about - Obamacare was passed into law by Congress, signed into law by the president, and upheld by the Supreme Court. So _why_ exactly does the federal government have to piss away billions to *promote* an existing law?!? Has this _ever_ been done with any other law in U.S. _history_?
> 
> They begged the NBA to help promote it and the NBA said yes. They begged the NFL to help promote it, and the NFL told them to go fuck themselves (doh!). So why are they so desperate to reach people through Hollywood and sports? Because even the Dumbocrats know this is a miserable failure, and they _know_ it is going to be repealed eventually unless they can do major damage control and brainwash the masses (especially the young and impressionable - hence the NBA, NFL, etc.) that this is a "good" thing.
> 
> Super Bowl champ Baltimore Ravens getting paid $130,000 to promote Obamacare | WashingtonExaminer.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## emilynghiem

Conservative65 said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell the truth about Republicans and they feel constantly attacked.  In between their lies about Obama.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're an Obama Liberal.  That means you can't tell the truth.
Click to expand...


No, but it has to be presented to them through the right venue.
If it takes the President or party leaders to say it, then they can hear it and repeat it.
They just can't hear it from a source they don't trust, and don't have the same connection with personally.

Reminds me of Jehovah's Witnesses who rely on their Elders to change a policy
before they are allowed to cite those changes.


----------



## boilermaker55

Does it not seem that the ACA went all the way through our political checks and balances and now, it is where it is by going through the gauntlet.





emilynghiem said:


> Dear boilermaker55: And this is where I am thinking to take an ASSESSMENT of the President, Court Justices, and Congress members who either voted on ACA and/or subsequent budgets or measures,
> and EVALUATE which of them (1) recognize political beliefs (2) recognize their own biases (3) and are either able to remain neutral and include BOTH while deciding policies or (4) require ASSISTANCE to form a consensus to respect and include these political beliefs equally or (5) Do not see or believe in either one, and are not able to represent people except of their own political beliefs
> 
> I think this is a fair test for office. Just like testing if a doctor can distinguish the difference between two different types of cells if that is involved in a procedure requiring this distinction.  If doctors don't know the difference between an artery and a vein, or a normal lung cell vs. a growth that doesn't belong there, and/or can't see the difference, etc. they shouldn't be performing surgery that requires this!
> 
> Why not ask for an evaluation of our Federal Officials and investigate the nature of this conflict
> and how it can be resolved? I am happy to mediate in public or private so that anyone with a 'disability' to distinguish political beliefs from regular political differences can still hold their office and not be dismissed for negligence if they can work effectively with added assistance of mediation.
> 
> I believe in accomodations for those with disabilities, and am beginning to see this issue as either a conflict of beliefs
> and/or disability to discern, and/or issue of personal forgiveness or unforgiveness which can be remedied with counseling or mediation to either heal or bypass the points of conflict and reach a consensus anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> boilermaker55 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The individuals that interpret the constitution for the citizens of the US ruled contrary to your belief.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear boilermaker55
> Regardless, it is not the authority of federal govt to dictate how citizens pay for health care,
> unless they pass a Constitutional amendment or a state law the citizens vote on and agree on the process.
> Here, there was not only disagreement but religious objection to using federal govt in this manner to bypass checks on govt. It was either wrongful as a violation of Constitutional laws directly, or indirectly by violating and discriminating on the basis of creed because of equal political beliefs that should have both been taking into account without excluding or favoring one over the other.
> 
> That is wrong regardless of the outcome.
> 
> 1. slavery was still wrong although it allowed for the growth of the US industrial revolution and economy to dominate the word
> 2. taking over Hawaii was wrong and later apologized for officially by govt, even though it protected US security in the Pacific
> 3. if Christian spiritual healing were mandated for all citizens, that would reduce addictions, crime and disease
> and save lives and resources, but would be wrongful by Constitutional laws and a violation of federal govt duties
> 4. rape can lead to conceptoin and birth of a lovely child, who is loved and cherished and brings meaning and purpose in life,
> but the rape is still wrong and punishable by law. the outcome produced by a wrongful action does not justify breaching laws.
> 
> 
> 
> boilermaker55 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Think healthcare costs are soaring Think again. - Dec. 4 2014
> Premiums for private health insurance grew 2.8% last year, compared to a 4% increase in 2012. Low overall enrollment growth, greater usage of high deductible plans and other benefit design changes and the health law's medical loss ratio and rate review provisions contributed to the decline, the Centers found.
> 
> Consumer out-of-pocket spending -- including co-payments and deductibles or payments for services not covered by a consumer's health insurance -- grew 3.2% in 2013, down from the 3.6% growth in both 2011 and 2012.
> 
> Spending for physician and clinical services grew 3.8% last year, a slowdown from 2012 when spending grew 4.5%. Expenditures for hospital care increased 4.3%, slower than the 5.7% rate of growth in 2012.
> Catastrophic failure.............I think not.
> But then, having evidence shown to those like you are of no consequence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> As the Dumbocrats on USMB love to crow about - Obamacare was passed into law by Congress, signed into law by the president, and upheld by the Supreme Court. So _why_ exactly does the federal government have to piss away billions to *promote* an existing law?!? Has this _ever_ been done with any other law in U.S. _history_?
> 
> They begged the NBA to help promote it and the NBA said yes. They begged the NFL to help promote it, and the NFL told them to go fuck themselves (doh!). So why are they so desperate to reach people through Hollywood and sports? Because even the Dumbocrats know this is a miserable failure, and they _know_ it is going to be repealed eventually unless they can do major damage control and brainwash the masses (especially the young and impressionable - hence the NBA, NFL, etc.) that this is a "good" thing.
> 
> Super Bowl champ Baltimore Ravens getting paid $130,000 to promote Obamacare | WashingtonExaminer.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## emilynghiem

Dear boilermaker55 But what I learned from interacting with proACA supporters here,
is they don't recognize their political beliefs or the political beliefs of opponents as valid much less equal.

If THAT is the "gauntlet" through which this ACA has gone through,
those are dangerous biases on both sides.

If I can even find ONE lawyer who can understand this argument about political beliefs (and I only found one columnist who wrote something in the newspaper asking to examine the political beliefs about right to health care)
then there could be a petition or lawsuit on NEGLIGENCE if the Congress reps or Justices failed to distinguish
a political belief or religion creating a bias in this law or process.

If no LAWYERS are able to address it, then I would include all LAW SCHOOLS as responsible for addressing breaches based on "not recognizing" political beliefs and religions equally when they train lawyers or judges to practice.

This SHOULD be taught in conflict resolution and mediation.



boilermaker55 said:


> Does it not seem that the ACA went all the way through our political checks and balances and now, it is where it is by going through the gauntlet.
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear boilermaker55: And this is where I am thinking to take an ASSESSMENT of the President, Court Justices, and Congress members who either voted on ACA and/or subsequent budgets or measures,
> and EVALUATE which of them (1) recognize political beliefs (2) recognize their own biases (3) and are either able to remain neutral and include BOTH while deciding policies or (4) require ASSISTANCE to form a consensus to respect and include these political beliefs equally or (5) Do not see or believe in either one, and are not able to represent people except of their own political beliefs
> 
> I think this is a fair test for office. Just like testing if a doctor can distinguish the difference between two different types of cells if that is involved in a procedure requiring this distinction.  If doctors don't know the difference between an artery and a vein, or a normal lung cell vs. a growth that doesn't belong there, and/or can't see the difference, etc. they shouldn't be performing surgery that requires this!
> 
> Why not ask for an evaluation of our Federal Officials and investigate the nature of this conflict
> and how it can be resolved? I am happy to mediate in public or private so that anyone with a 'disability' to distinguish political beliefs from regular political differences can still hold their office and not be dismissed for negligence if they can work effectively with added assistance of mediation.
> 
> I believe in accomodations for those with disabilities, and am beginning to see this issue as either a conflict of beliefs
> and/or disability to discern, and/or issue of personal forgiveness or unforgiveness which can be remedied with counseling or mediation to either heal or bypass the points of conflict and reach a consensus anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> boilermaker55 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The individuals that interpret the constitution for the citizens of the US ruled contrary to your belief.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear boilermaker55
> Regardless, it is not the authority of federal govt to dictate how citizens pay for health care,
> unless they pass a Constitutional amendment or a state law the citizens vote on and agree on the process.
> Here, there was not only disagreement but religious objection to using federal govt in this manner to bypass checks on govt. It was either wrongful as a violation of Constitutional laws directly, or indirectly by violating and discriminating on the basis of creed because of equal political beliefs that should have both been taking into account without excluding or favoring one over the other.
> 
> That is wrong regardless of the outcome.
> 
> 1. slavery was still wrong although it allowed for the growth of the US industrial revolution and economy to dominate the word
> 2. taking over Hawaii was wrong and later apologized for officially by govt, even though it protected US security in the Pacific
> 3. if Christian spiritual healing were mandated for all citizens, that would reduce addictions, crime and disease
> and save lives and resources, but would be wrongful by Constitutional laws and a violation of federal govt duties
> 4. rape can lead to conceptoin and birth of a lovely child, who is loved and cherished and brings meaning and purpose in life,
> but the rape is still wrong and punishable by law. the outcome produced by a wrongful action does not justify breaching laws.
> 
> 
> 
> boilermaker55 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Think healthcare costs are soaring Think again. - Dec. 4 2014
> Premiums for private health insurance grew 2.8% last year, compared to a 4% increase in 2012. Low overall enrollment growth, greater usage of high deductible plans and other benefit design changes and the health law's medical loss ratio and rate review provisions contributed to the decline, the Centers found.
> 
> Consumer out-of-pocket spending -- including co-payments and deductibles or payments for services not covered by a consumer's health insurance -- grew 3.2% in 2013, down from the 3.6% growth in both 2011 and 2012.
> 
> Spending for physician and clinical services grew 3.8% last year, a slowdown from 2012 when spending grew 4.5%. Expenditures for hospital care increased 4.3%, slower than the 5.7% rate of growth in 2012.
> Catastrophic failure.............I think not.
> But then, having evidence shown to those like you are of no consequence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> As the Dumbocrats on USMB love to crow about - Obamacare was passed into law by Congress, signed into law by the president, and upheld by the Supreme Court. So _why_ exactly does the federal government have to piss away billions to *promote* an existing law?!? Has this _ever_ been done with any other law in U.S. _history_?
> 
> They begged the NBA to help promote it and the NBA said yes. They begged the NFL to help promote it, and the NFL told them to go fuck themselves (doh!). So why are they so desperate to reach people through Hollywood and sports? Because even the Dumbocrats know this is a miserable failure, and they _know_ it is going to be repealed eventually unless they can do major damage control and brainwash the masses (especially the young and impressionable - hence the NBA, NFL, etc.) that this is a "good" thing.
> 
> Super Bowl champ Baltimore Ravens getting paid $130,000 to promote Obamacare | WashingtonExaminer.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## boilermaker55

Then you should also question with great regard the ruling of Citizens United.




emilynghiem said:


> Dear boilermaker55 But what I learned from interacting with proACA supporters here,
> is they don't recognize their political beliefs or the political beliefs of opponents as valid much less equal.
> 
> If THAT is the "gauntlet" through which this ACA has gone through,
> those are dangerous biases on both sides.
> 
> If I can even find ONE lawyer who can understand this argument about political beliefs (and I only found one columnist who wrote something in the newspaper asking to examine the political beliefs about right to health care)
> then there could be a petition or lawsuit on NEGLIGENCE if the Congress reps or Justices failed to distinguish
> a political belief or religion creating a bias in this law or process.
> 
> If no LAWYERS are able to address it, then I would include all LAW SCHOOLS as responsible for addressing breaches based on "not recognizing" political beliefs and religions equally when they train lawyers or judges to practice.
> 
> This SHOULD be taught in conflict resolution and mediation.
> 
> 
> 
> boilermaker55 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does it not seem that the ACA went all the way through our political checks and balances and now, it is where it is by going through the gauntlet.
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear boilermaker55: And this is where I am thinking to take an ASSESSMENT of the President, Court Justices, and Congress members who either voted on ACA and/or subsequent budgets or measures,
> and EVALUATE which of them (1) recognize political beliefs (2) recognize their own biases (3) and are either able to remain neutral and include BOTH while deciding policies or (4) require ASSISTANCE to form a consensus to respect and include these political beliefs equally or (5) Do not see or believe in either one, and are not able to represent people except of their own political beliefs
> 
> I think this is a fair test for office. Just like testing if a doctor can distinguish the difference between two different types of cells if that is involved in a procedure requiring this distinction.  If doctors don't know the difference between an artery and a vein, or a normal lung cell vs. a growth that doesn't belong there, and/or can't see the difference, etc. they shouldn't be performing surgery that requires this!
> 
> Why not ask for an evaluation of our Federal Officials and investigate the nature of this conflict
> and how it can be resolved? I am happy to mediate in public or private so that anyone with a 'disability' to distinguish political beliefs from regular political differences can still hold their office and not be dismissed for negligence if they can work effectively with added assistance of mediation.
> 
> I believe in accomodations for those with disabilities, and am beginning to see this issue as either a conflict of beliefs
> and/or disability to discern, and/or issue of personal forgiveness or unforgiveness which can be remedied with counseling or mediation to either heal or bypass the points of conflict and reach a consensus anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> boilermaker55 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The individuals that interpret the constitution for the citizens of the US ruled contrary to your belief.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear boilermaker55
> Regardless, it is not the authority of federal govt to dictate how citizens pay for health care,
> unless they pass a Constitutional amendment or a state law the citizens vote on and agree on the process.
> Here, there was not only disagreement but religious objection to using federal govt in this manner to bypass checks on govt. It was either wrongful as a violation of Constitutional laws directly, or indirectly by violating and discriminating on the basis of creed because of equal political beliefs that should have both been taking into account without excluding or favoring one over the other.
> 
> That is wrong regardless of the outcome.
> 
> 1. slavery was still wrong although it allowed for the growth of the US industrial revolution and economy to dominate the word
> 2. taking over Hawaii was wrong and later apologized for officially by govt, even though it protected US security in the Pacific
> 3. if Christian spiritual healing were mandated for all citizens, that would reduce addictions, crime and disease
> and save lives and resources, but would be wrongful by Constitutional laws and a violation of federal govt duties
> 4. rape can lead to conceptoin and birth of a lovely child, who is loved and cherished and brings meaning and purpose in life,
> but the rape is still wrong and punishable by law. the outcome produced by a wrongful action does not justify breaching laws.
> 
> 
> 
> boilermaker55 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Think healthcare costs are soaring Think again. - Dec. 4 2014
> Premiums for private health insurance grew 2.8% last year, compared to a 4% increase in 2012. Low overall enrollment growth, greater usage of high deductible plans and other benefit design changes and the health law's medical loss ratio and rate review provisions contributed to the decline, the Centers found.
> 
> Consumer out-of-pocket spending -- including co-payments and deductibles or payments for services not covered by a consumer's health insurance -- grew 3.2% in 2013, down from the 3.6% growth in both 2011 and 2012.
> 
> Spending for physician and clinical services grew 3.8% last year, a slowdown from 2012 when spending grew 4.5%. Expenditures for hospital care increased 4.3%, slower than the 5.7% rate of growth in 2012.
> Catastrophic failure.............I think not.
> But then, having evidence shown to those like you are of no consequence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## emilynghiem

Hi boilermaker55 Even more so than the level it is questioned now.
If laws were based on consensus, then no amount of money could buy out a decision to go one way over the other.
So corporations would have no bearing on decisions, that must reflect a consent of the governed, not the corporations.



boilermaker55 said:


> Then you should also question with great regard the ruling of Citizens United.
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear boilermaker55 But what I learned from interacting with proACA supporters here,
> is they don't recognize their political beliefs or the political beliefs of opponents as valid much less equal.
> 
> If THAT is the "gauntlet" through which this ACA has gone through,
> those are dangerous biases on both sides.
> 
> If I can even find ONE lawyer who can understand this argument about political beliefs (and I only found one columnist who wrote something in the newspaper asking to examine the political beliefs about right to health care)
> then there could be a petition or lawsuit on NEGLIGENCE if the Congress reps or Justices failed to distinguish
> a political belief or religion creating a bias in this law or process.
> 
> If no LAWYERS are able to address it, then I would include all LAW SCHOOLS as responsible for addressing breaches based on "not recognizing" political beliefs and religions equally when they train lawyers or judges to practice.
> 
> This SHOULD be taught in conflict resolution and mediation.
> 
> 
> 
> boilermaker55 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does it not seem that the ACA went all the way through our political checks and balances and now, it is where it is by going through the gauntlet.
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear boilermaker55: And this is where I am thinking to take an ASSESSMENT of the President, Court Justices, and Congress members who either voted on ACA and/or subsequent budgets or measures,
> and EVALUATE which of them (1) recognize political beliefs (2) recognize their own biases (3) and are either able to remain neutral and include BOTH while deciding policies or (4) require ASSISTANCE to form a consensus to respect and include these political beliefs equally or (5) Do not see or believe in either one, and are not able to represent people except of their own political beliefs
> 
> I think this is a fair test for office. Just like testing if a doctor can distinguish the difference between two different types of cells if that is involved in a procedure requiring this distinction.  If doctors don't know the difference between an artery and a vein, or a normal lung cell vs. a growth that doesn't belong there, and/or can't see the difference, etc. they shouldn't be performing surgery that requires this!
> 
> Why not ask for an evaluation of our Federal Officials and investigate the nature of this conflict
> and how it can be resolved? I am happy to mediate in public or private so that anyone with a 'disability' to distinguish political beliefs from regular political differences can still hold their office and not be dismissed for negligence if they can work effectively with added assistance of mediation.
> 
> I believe in accomodations for those with disabilities, and am beginning to see this issue as either a conflict of beliefs
> and/or disability to discern, and/or issue of personal forgiveness or unforgiveness which can be remedied with counseling or mediation to either heal or bypass the points of conflict and reach a consensus anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> boilermaker55 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The individuals that interpret the constitution for the citizens of the US ruled contrary to your belief.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear boilermaker55
> Regardless, it is not the authority of federal govt to dictate how citizens pay for health care,
> unless they pass a Constitutional amendment or a state law the citizens vote on and agree on the process.
> Here, there was not only disagreement but religious objection to using federal govt in this manner to bypass checks on govt. It was either wrongful as a violation of Constitutional laws directly, or indirectly by violating and discriminating on the basis of creed because of equal political beliefs that should have both been taking into account without excluding or favoring one over the other.
> 
> That is wrong regardless of the outcome.
> 
> 1. slavery was still wrong although it allowed for the growth of the US industrial revolution and economy to dominate the word
> 2. taking over Hawaii was wrong and later apologized for officially by govt, even though it protected US security in the Pacific
> 3. if Christian spiritual healing were mandated for all citizens, that would reduce addictions, crime and disease
> and save lives and resources, but would be wrongful by Constitutional laws and a violation of federal govt duties
> 4. rape can lead to conceptoin and birth of a lovely child, who is loved and cherished and brings meaning and purpose in life,
> but the rape is still wrong and punishable by law. the outcome produced by a wrongful action does not justify breaching laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## hauke

i live in germany

i can t even imagine

a country not having healthcare for everyone

thats not third world

for me it means the USA

is third world

with nukes


----------



## emilynghiem

hauke said:


> i live in germany
> 
> i can t even imagine
> 
> a country not having healthcare for everyone
> 
> thats not third world
> 
> for me it means the USA
> 
> is third world
> 
> with nukes



Hi hauke
The interesting thing is that everyone understands that the US system
is built on providing these services through free market.

The conflict is 
A. Extreme Constitutionalists argue that health care should NEVER
be done through federal govt which was NEVER designed for that
but the responsibility/decisions belong to People and States locally.

B. Traditional moderate Constitutionalists are willing to amend the
Constitution and set things up by the will of the people, but it has
to represent the taxpayers and can't be "mucked up" by corporate politics

C. Liberals (who may or may not respect the Constitution but just
believe in deciding things by elections, votes on laws, and lawsuits)
believe ANYTHING can be pushed as long as people vote on it.

Since A and C clash with each other, this messed up the process
that could have been worked out by B, without corporate politics.

And C used corporate politics to pass this law (while a mix of B and C
is what got it approved, while half of B and ALL of A are still
arguing it didn't follow Constitutional procedures and therefore
got "mucked up" by corporate politics not representing the people).

Thus, half the nation was NOT represented in the form this bill passed.
Sadly, NEITHER side got represented or what they wanted.

C. The Singlepayer advocates equally PROTEST this bill as paying off Corporate
Insurance interests -- But THOSE Corporate interests are what Obama and Congress 
had to "make deals with" to get this form to pass. So Corporate Politics "mucked up" the process in B, and this
left out what both A and C needed to be represented so both of those are left out.

The only people happy with this are those that either are happy
with the Corporate Politics or believe the bill is a stepping stone.

So I would say at most half of B and at most half of C.

So half the nation (or more) are not happy with the
hybrid legislation that didn't satisfy what anyone wanted.

This happened because the push from C to override A
relied on Corporate Insurance interest and then
refused to compromise and correct points that A was willing to concede.

So we got stuck with a "transition" type bill that is not what
anyone wanted, like a litter of stray mixed pitbulls left on our doorstep
that nobody wants to mess with because everyone blames
someone else for what this thing is and how it got there,
when we really wanted something else, not this thing.

It is mainly used to threaten and blame people until somebody does
something about it instead of just complaining to get rid of it.

My suggestion is to split the responsibility between the two
parties that created this mess, and let them fix it by their
own systems, which they agree to be under and fund through
their party networks, and quit trying to mandate one way for the whole nation.

So the Singlepayer system can be coordinated by the Democrats,
Greens or whoever wants that; and the free market way of paying
as before through either choices of business, churches, charities,
nonprofits or govt can be managed that way; and the programs ALL parties
agree on can go through public govt, but anything they don't agree on 
goes through party programs they set up nationally or statewide as needed.

It's like letting Democrats set up group health care for their members
under terms they can elect and vote on and fund; while letting
Republicans or Greens set up theirs. And they compete for members
by having the better more effective policies that are financially
sustainable and provide the choices those members believe in.

Something like that.


----------



## boilermaker55

My contention is, and history itself shows, money influences decision making in this country.
So they are, in a way, getting consent from the government. 



emilynghiem said:


> Hi boilermaker55 Even more so than the level it is questioned now.
> If laws were based on consensus, then no amount of money could buy out a decision to go one way over the other.
> So corporations would have no bearing on decisions, that must reflect a consent of the governed, not the corporations.
> 
> 
> 
> boilermaker55 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you should also question with great regard the ruling of Citizens United.
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear boilermaker55 But what I learned from interacting with proACA supporters here,
> is they don't recognize their political beliefs or the political beliefs of opponents as valid much less equal.
> 
> If THAT is the "gauntlet" through which this ACA has gone through,
> those are dangerous biases on both sides.
> 
> If I can even find ONE lawyer who can understand this argument about political beliefs (and I only found one columnist who wrote something in the newspaper asking to examine the political beliefs about right to health care)
> then there could be a petition or lawsuit on NEGLIGENCE if the Congress reps or Justices failed to distinguish
> a political belief or religion creating a bias in this law or process.
> 
> If no LAWYERS are able to address it, then I would include all LAW SCHOOLS as responsible for addressing breaches based on "not recognizing" political beliefs and religions equally when they train lawyers or judges to practice.
> 
> This SHOULD be taught in conflict resolution and mediation.
> 
> 
> 
> boilermaker55 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does it not seem that the ACA went all the way through our political checks and balances and now, it is where it is by going through the gauntlet.
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear boilermaker55: And this is where I am thinking to take an ASSESSMENT of the President, Court Justices, and Congress members who either voted on ACA and/or subsequent budgets or measures,
> and EVALUATE which of them (1) recognize political beliefs (2) recognize their own biases (3) and are either able to remain neutral and include BOTH while deciding policies or (4) require ASSISTANCE to form a consensus to respect and include these political beliefs equally or (5) Do not see or believe in either one, and are not able to represent people except of their own political beliefs
> 
> I think this is a fair test for office. Just like testing if a doctor can distinguish the difference between two different types of cells if that is involved in a procedure requiring this distinction.  If doctors don't know the difference between an artery and a vein, or a normal lung cell vs. a growth that doesn't belong there, and/or can't see the difference, etc. they shouldn't be performing surgery that requires this!
> 
> Why not ask for an evaluation of our Federal Officials and investigate the nature of this conflict
> and how it can be resolved? I am happy to mediate in public or private so that anyone with a 'disability' to distinguish political beliefs from regular political differences can still hold their office and not be dismissed for negligence if they can work effectively with added assistance of mediation.
> 
> I believe in accomodations for those with disabilities, and am beginning to see this issue as either a conflict of beliefs
> and/or disability to discern, and/or issue of personal forgiveness or unforgiveness which can be remedied with counseling or mediation to either heal or bypass the points of conflict and reach a consensus anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> boilermaker55 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The individuals that interpret the constitution for the citizens of the US ruled contrary to your belief.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Teeje651

Sen. Thom Tillis Employees shouldn t have to wash hands after using the bathroom

http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com...regulations-like-hand-washing-at-restaurants/

Tillis Restaurant workers shouldn t have to wash hands

Sen. Thom Tillis pooh-poohs hand-washing regulations MSNBC

Senator says restaurant employees shouldn 8217 t be required to wash their hands - The Washington Post


----------



## emilynghiem

boilermaker55 said:


> My contention is, and history itself shows, money influences decision making in this country. So they are, in a way, getting consent from the government.



RE


emilynghiem said:


> Hi boilermaker55 Even more so than the level it is questioned now.
> If laws were based on consensus, then no amount of money could buy out a decision to go one way over the other.
> So corporations would have no bearing on decisions, that must reflect a consent of the governed, not the corporations.
> 
> 
> 
> boilermaker55 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you should also question with great regard the ruling of Citizens United.
Click to expand...


??? RE "when money influences decision making"
whose consent are you talking about?

If corporations want to invest in programs that only affect them, that's private, and yes they have the right to do that by their own free choice and consent.

But when it comes to policies that affect greater populations, and especially taxpayers,
then NO the corporations should not have more say just because they fund someone's campaigns.

How is this consent? Because politicians consent to this game?
What about taxpayers? I don't consent to America being bought and sold to the highest corporate bidders.
Do you? Do you consent to this going on?

The only people I've seen consent to it are the ones who benefit,
YET THEY COMPLAIN when the SAME GAME  goes against what they want.

So they don't REALLY consent, only when they win which isn't guaranteed.
So it's not really consent, but taking turns bullying, gambling and buying out one side and selling out the other.

The only real consent I would believe in is where people, both sides, AGREE to a policy.
If they all voluntarily AGREE by informed consent, and all conflicts are resolved,
I would respect that decision as representing the interests equally.

Example: the Code of Ethics for Govt Service was passed unanimously by Congress
and I find it is a well-written set of standards I believe should be uniformly enforced for all govt:
http://www.isocracytx.net/ec/ethicscode.doc

It's not impossible to form a consensus before passing laws. 
In fact, I think it would cut down on bogus and manipulated laws
and force legislators to cut out the crap and resolve the real issues.


----------



## P@triot

God Bless this woman. I marvel at the grace with which she has handled this unacceptable nightmare. If it were me, it would have been a postal episode on a certain building on a certain street...

How One Nebraska Woman Lost Her Health Insurance Three Times Under Obamacare


----------



## P@triot

emilynghiem said:


> boilermaker55 said:
> 
> 
> 
> My contention is, and history itself shows, money influences decision making in this country. So they are, in a way, getting consent from the government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RE
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi boilermaker55 Even more so than the level it is questioned now.
> If laws were based on consensus, then no amount of money could buy out a decision to go one way over the other.
> So corporations would have no bearing on decisions, that must reflect a consent of the governed, not the corporations.
> 
> 
> 
> boilermaker55 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you should also question with great regard the ruling of Citizens United.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ??? RE "when money influences decision making"
> whose consent are you talking about?
> 
> If corporations want to invest in programs that only affect them, that's private, and yes they have the right to do that by their own free choice and consent.
> 
> But when it comes to policies that affect greater populations, and especially taxpayers,
> then NO the corporations should not have more say just because they fund someone's campaigns.
> 
> How is this consent? Because politicians consent to this game?
> What about taxpayers? I don't consent to America being bought and sold to the highest corporate bidders.
> Do you? Do you consent to this going on?
> 
> The only people I've seen consent to it are the ones who benefit,
> YET THEY COMPLAIN when the SAME GAME  goes against what they want.
> 
> So they don't REALLY consent, only when they win which isn't guaranteed.
> So it's not really consent, but taking turns bullying, gambling and buying out one side and selling out the other.
> 
> The only real consent I would believe in is where people, both sides, AGREE to a policy.
> If they all voluntarily AGREE by informed consent, and all conflicts are resolved,
> I would respect that decision as representing the interests equally.
> 
> Example: the Code of Ethics for Govt Service was passed unanimously by Congress
> and I find it is a well-written set of standards I believe should be uniformly enforced for all govt:
> http://www.isocracytx.net/ec/ethicscode.doc
> 
> It's not impossible to form a consensus before passing laws.
> In fact, I think it would cut down on bogus and manipulated laws
> and force legislators to cut out the crap and resolve the real issues.
Click to expand...


I think the first thing we need to do is is start a regular program of polygraphs for _every_ member of Congress and the president and vice president. It would start when any candidate runs for office. That alone would send all the dirtbag scam artists and adulterers running back to the dark corners like the cockroaches they are. Then it would continue quarterly and cover each bill they had voted on up to that point (with questions like were you bribed at all, did you follow the legal process on the bill, did you vote with integrity, etc.).

And to ensure the polygraphers were honest, each political party (Republicans, Democrats, and Independents) would have a few polygraphers on staff who would administer the polygraph to members of the other party while that party's own polygraphers would watch. So Republican polygraphers would administer polygraphs to Democrats while Democrat and Independent polygraphers watched to call out any shenanigans by the Republican polygraphers. With that many eyes from that many experts in the room, nobody would be able to get away with anything. Anyone failing a polygraph is immediately removed from office.

Would solve EVERY problem we've ever had.


----------



## boilermaker55

When there are horrendous abuses by Wall Street and all the bankers within the corporate banking system and what they get away with, compared to *Civil forfeiture in the United States (read about the laws), then tell us how corporations and those inside the institute are not treated differently than others.*
*Social and Environmental Issues*

*MANN vs Ford An Epic Battle of the Ramapough Mountain Indians NDN News - Daily Headlines in Indian Country*




emilynghiem said:


> boilermaker55 said:
> 
> 
> 
> My contention is, and history itself shows, money influences decision making in this country. So they are, in a way, getting consent from the government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RE
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi boilermaker55 Even more so than the level it is questioned now.
> If laws were based on consensus, then no amount of money could buy out a decision to go one way over the other.
> So corporations would have no bearing on decisions, that must reflect a consent of the governed, not the corporations.
> 
> 
> 
> boilermaker55 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you should also question with great regard the ruling of Citizens United.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ??? RE "when money influences decision making"
> whose consent are you talking about?
> 
> If corporations want to invest in programs that only affect them, that's private, and yes they have the right to do that by their own free choice and consent.
> 
> But when it comes to policies that affect greater populations, and especially taxpayers,
> then NO the corporations should not have more say just because they fund someone's campaigns.
> 
> How is this consent? Because politicians consent to this game?
> What about taxpayers? I don't consent to America being bought and sold to the highest corporate bidders.
> Do you? Do you consent to this going on?
> 
> The only people I've seen consent to it are the ones who benefit,
> YET THEY COMPLAIN when the SAME GAME  goes against what they want.
> 
> So they don't REALLY consent, only when they win which isn't guaranteed.
> So it's not really consent, but taking turns bullying, gambling and buying out one side and selling out the other.
> 
> The only real consent I would believe in is where people, both sides, AGREE to a policy.
> If they all voluntarily AGREE by informed consent, and all conflicts are resolved,
> I would respect that decision as representing the interests equally.
> 
> Example: the Code of Ethics for Govt Service was passed unanimously by Congress
> and I find it is a well-written set of standards I believe should be uniformly enforced for all govt:
> http://www.isocracytx.net/ec/ethicscode.doc
> 
> It's not impossible to form a consensus before passing laws.
> In fact, I think it would cut down on bogus and manipulated laws
> and force legislators to cut out the crap and resolve the real issues.
Click to expand...


----------



## boilermaker55

Inadmissible in courts



Rottweiler said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boilermaker55 said:
> 
> 
> 
> My contention is, and history itself shows, money influences decision making in this country. So they are, in a way, getting consent from the government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RE
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi boilermaker55 Even more so than the level it is questioned now.
> If laws were based on consensus, then no amount of money could buy out a decision to go one way over the other.
> So corporations would have no bearing on decisions, that must reflect a consent of the governed, not the corporations.
> 
> 
> 
> boilermaker55 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you should also question with great regard the ruling of Citizens United.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ??? RE "when money influences decision making"
> whose consent are you talking about?
> 
> If corporations want to invest in programs that only affect them, that's private, and yes they have the right to do that by their own free choice and consent.
> 
> But when it comes to policies that affect greater populations, and especially taxpayers,
> then NO the corporations should not have more say just because they fund someone's campaigns.
> 
> How is this consent? Because politicians consent to this game?
> What about taxpayers? I don't consent to America being bought and sold to the highest corporate bidders.
> Do you? Do you consent to this going on?
> 
> The only people I've seen consent to it are the ones who benefit,
> YET THEY COMPLAIN when the SAME GAME  goes against what they want.
> 
> So they don't REALLY consent, only when they win which isn't guaranteed.
> So it's not really consent, but taking turns bullying, gambling and buying out one side and selling out the other.
> 
> The only real consent I would believe in is where people, both sides, AGREE to a policy.
> If they all voluntarily AGREE by informed consent, and all conflicts are resolved,
> I would respect that decision as representing the interests equally.
> 
> Example: the Code of Ethics for Govt Service was passed unanimously by Congress
> and I find it is a well-written set of standards I believe should be uniformly enforced for all govt:
> http://www.isocracytx.net/ec/ethicscode.doc
> 
> It's not impossible to form a consensus before passing laws.
> In fact, I think it would cut down on bogus and manipulated laws
> and force legislators to cut out the crap and resolve the real issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think the first thing we need to do is is start a regular program of polygraphs for _every_ member of Congress and the president and vice president. It would start when any candidate runs for office. That alone would send all the dirtbag scam artists and adulterers running back to the dark corners like the cockroaches they are. Then it would continue quarterly and cover each bill they had voted on up to that point (with questions like were you bribed at all, did you follow the legal process on the bill, did you vote with integrity, etc.).
> 
> And to ensure the polygraphers were honest, each political party (Republicans, Democrats, and Independents) would have a few polygraphers on staff who would administer the polygraph to members of the other party while that party's own polygraphers would watch. So Republican polygraphers would administer polygraphs to Democrats while Democrat and Independent polygraphers watched to call out any shenanigans by the Republican polygraphers. With that many eyes from that many experts in the room, nobody would be able to get away with anything. Anyone failing a polygraph is immediately removed from office.
> 
> Would solve EVERY problem we've ever had.
Click to expand...


----------



## P@triot

boilermaker55 said:


> Inadmissible in courts
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boilermaker55 said:
> 
> 
> 
> My contention is, and history itself shows, money influences decision making in this country. So they are, in a way, getting consent from the government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RE
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi boilermaker55 Even more so than the level it is questioned now.
> If laws were based on consensus, then no amount of money could buy out a decision to go one way over the other.
> So corporations would have no bearing on decisions, that must reflect a consent of the governed, not the corporations.
> 
> 
> 
> boilermaker55 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you should also question with great regard the ruling of Citizens United.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ??? RE "when money influences decision making"
> whose consent are you talking about?
> 
> If corporations want to invest in programs that only affect them, that's private, and yes they have the right to do that by their own free choice and consent.
> 
> But when it comes to policies that affect greater populations, and especially taxpayers,
> then NO the corporations should not have more say just because they fund someone's campaigns.
> 
> How is this consent? Because politicians consent to this game?
> What about taxpayers? I don't consent to America being bought and sold to the highest corporate bidders.
> Do you? Do you consent to this going on?
> 
> The only people I've seen consent to it are the ones who benefit,
> YET THEY COMPLAIN when the SAME GAME  goes against what they want.
> 
> So they don't REALLY consent, only when they win which isn't guaranteed.
> So it's not really consent, but taking turns bullying, gambling and buying out one side and selling out the other.
> 
> The only real consent I would believe in is where people, both sides, AGREE to a policy.
> If they all voluntarily AGREE by informed consent, and all conflicts are resolved,
> I would respect that decision as representing the interests equally.
> 
> Example: the Code of Ethics for Govt Service was passed unanimously by Congress
> and I find it is a well-written set of standards I believe should be uniformly enforced for all govt:
> http://www.isocracytx.net/ec/ethicscode.doc
> 
> It's not impossible to form a consensus before passing laws.
> In fact, I think it would cut down on bogus and manipulated laws
> and force legislators to cut out the crap and resolve the real issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think the first thing we need to do is is start a regular program of polygraphs for _every_ member of Congress and the president and vice president. It would start when any candidate runs for office. That alone would send all the dirtbag scam artists and adulterers running back to the dark corners like the cockroaches they are. Then it would continue quarterly and cover each bill they had voted on up to that point (with questions like were you bribed at all, did you follow the legal process on the bill, did you vote with integrity, etc.).
> 
> And to ensure the polygraphers were honest, each political party (Republicans, Democrats, and Independents) would have a few polygraphers on staff who would administer the polygraph to members of the other party while that party's own polygraphers would watch. So Republican polygraphers would administer polygraphs to Democrats while Democrat and Independent polygraphers watched to call out any shenanigans by the Republican polygraphers. With that many eyes from that many experts in the room, nobody would be able to get away with anything. Anyone failing a polygraph is immediately removed from office.
> 
> Would solve EVERY problem we've ever had.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

What do "courts" have to do with any of this? Please _try_ and pay attention? Nobody mentioned a word about a trial.


----------



## emilynghiem

boilermaker55 said:


> Inadmissible in courts



Hi boilermaker55
to avoid trying to use polygraphs,
if court rulings were based on consensus
people would have NO REASON to lie.

They would only get what they want by telling the truth.
If you lie about what you want to be included in the decision,
if you omit information so the other side objects and won't agree until the truth is established,
if you lie about what your objections are and what it takes to correct them,
then nobody gets what they want.

So this would put the focus on getting to a solution
that satisfies the interests and conditions of both parties.

If parties are unable to cooperation to mediate and form a mutual agreement,
THEY HAVE NO BUSINESS CONTRACTING WITH EACH OTHER.
Why should I pay for such conflicts in court as a taxpayer?

Either write your contracts/agreement out by consensus the FIRST time,
go through mediation to resolve disputes that come up later,
or DON'T DO BUSINESS TOGETHER.

Go work with people who have the same BELIEFS and values,
and quit putting all this on the taxpayers.

Especially with political beliefs and putting these conflicts
through the legislative and court system where it affects public govt policies.

ALL those conflicts should be worked out in advance,
or keep those policies PRIVATE if people can't agree.

But don't take incompetent "inability to resolve issues" and make ME pay for it
and make ME be under whatever WEIRD laws or rulings come out of such INCOMPETENCE.

If politicians don't have experience, training or track record in resolving conflicts,
especially involving POLITICAL and Religious beliefs, THEY SHOULD NOT BE IN OFFICE.

I wouldn't license or hire a doctor who couldn't perform a surgery without botching it up.
Why are people allowed to run for President and make decisions that affect the public
who have NO CONCEPT of conflict resolution, equal protection of beliefs, and consent of the governed?

That is MASSIVE incompetence. The COURTS and legal system have this problem also,
where lawyers and judges make careers off problems and politics instead of solutions that prevent them.
The more problems, the more opportunity to exploit those for career.

So boilermaker55 in case you didn't know this, as all the lawyers and judges I know admit this is going on,
there is a CONFLICT OF INTEREST with political party and professional benefit in the court system
that isn't about consensus and protection of equal interests, but is biased toward political interests of the dominant parties.

I know you must know this, because it is common knowledge.
everyone knows the justice system is sold out, but nobody wants to fix the big mess.

The best we can do is try to keep conflicts OUT of the court system
and resolve them directly among the parties to retain control.

Once you go into that system, there is no control or protection of the process.

So although Rottweiler's idea of polygraphs won't necessary work directly,
we DO need to set it up where people don't get rewarded for lying and taking the fifth at public expense.

We need to require people to respect due process and not obstruct justice,
in order not to impose legal costs on the public, as a requirement for citizenship.

so if you abuse the system then you can lose your citizenship,
and if you want to maintain you have to work with authorities to resolve grievances and crimes by
consensus with the parties affected, and pay restitution for any debts and damages caused.

there has to be accountability, and now it's just paying off lawyers to get you off the hook on any technicality
or "introduction of doubt" that can pass.

So this is worse than when the Reformation exposed the Catholic Church for selling indulgences
to "buy your way out of sins." Here we have a legal system that allows you to
"buy your way out of crimes and violations" under a mandatory system that the taxpayer is forced to pay for.

So that is worse than when churches were corrupt.
this is mandatory and we have to pay for the damages done while parties with influence can buy
their way out for political favors and leave taxpayers stuck with the costs and damages on our tab.


----------



## emilynghiem

Rottweiler said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boilermaker55 said:
> 
> 
> 
> My contention is, and history itself shows, money influences decision making in this country. So they are, in a way, getting consent from the government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RE
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi boilermaker55 Even more so than the level it is questioned now.
> If laws were based on consensus, then no amount of money could buy out a decision to go one way over the other.
> So corporations would have no bearing on decisions, that must reflect a consent of the governed, not the corporations.
> 
> 
> 
> boilermaker55 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you should also question with great regard the ruling of Citizens United.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ??? RE "when money influences decision making"
> whose consent are you talking about?
> 
> If corporations want to invest in programs that only affect them, that's private, and yes they have the right to do that by their own free choice and consent.
> 
> But when it comes to policies that affect greater populations, and especially taxpayers,
> then NO the corporations should not have more say just because they fund someone's campaigns.
> 
> How is this consent? Because politicians consent to this game?
> What about taxpayers? I don't consent to America being bought and sold to the highest corporate bidders.
> Do you? Do you consent to this going on?
> 
> The only people I've seen consent to it are the ones who benefit,
> YET THEY COMPLAIN when the SAME GAME  goes against what they want.
> 
> So they don't REALLY consent, only when they win which isn't guaranteed.
> So it's not really consent, but taking turns bullying, gambling and buying out one side and selling out the other.
> 
> The only real consent I would believe in is where people, both sides, AGREE to a policy.
> If they all voluntarily AGREE by informed consent, and all conflicts are resolved,
> I would respect that decision as representing the interests equally.
> 
> Example: the Code of Ethics for Govt Service was passed unanimously by Congress
> and I find it is a well-written set of standards I believe should be uniformly enforced for all govt:
> http://www.isocracytx.net/ec/ethicscode.doc
> 
> It's not impossible to form a consensus before passing laws.
> In fact, I think it would cut down on bogus and manipulated laws
> and force legislators to cut out the crap and resolve the real issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think the first thing we need to do is is start a regular program of polygraphs for _every_ member of Congress and the president and vice president. It would start when any candidate runs for office. That alone would send all the dirtbag scam artists and adulterers running back to the dark corners like the cockroaches they are. Then it would continue quarterly and cover each bill they had voted on up to that point (with questions like were you bribed at all, did you follow the legal process on the bill, did you vote with integrity, etc.).
> 
> And to ensure the polygraphers were honest, each political party (Republicans, Democrats, and Independents) would have a few polygraphers on staff who would administer the polygraph to members of the other party while that party's own polygraphers would watch. So Republican polygraphers would administer polygraphs to Democrats while Democrat and Independent polygraphers watched to call out any shenanigans by the Republican polygraphers. With that many eyes from that many experts in the room, nobody would be able to get away with anything. Anyone failing a polygraph is immediately removed from office.
> 
> Would solve EVERY problem we've ever had.
Click to expand...


Hi Rottweiler I don't think the real test requires a polygraph:
Require federal govt officials to be able to recognize and mediate between "political beliefs."
1. If they don't even acknowledge these are creeds to be respected and included equally by law,
they already fail the test. Being in denial is part of their belief, but it should not preclude the fact other beliefs are valid.
There are two other levels that they can pass with assistance:
2. If they acknowledge the conflicting beliefs of themselves and others,
and AWARE that they are SO biased towards some,
they have a "conflict of interest," and need to work with a mediator or partner on THAT issue
to make sure the representation on policy is inclusive and equal.
3. If they acknowledge these and can stay neutral without help, whether with or without a bias toward one side. And they have proof by forming teams of mixed reps from both sides (as acknowledged by the MEMBERS of that actual party/lobby as legit, and not token figureheads) who confirm that they CAN work with this candidate/leader.

For example, I know I am biased about compromising voting rights and legalization beliefs about pot.
I know I will go along with overruling things, when other people's beliefs don't agree.
On issues like these two, I would NEED to work closely with proponents to make sure
solutions include them, while NOT imposing burdens that I oppose on opponents that I CAN relate to.
I know I am onesided and need to be offset to be fair.

For gun rights/gun control and prochoice/prolife, I am able to stand separately for both sides
and support both in seeking equitable solutions that don't violate one or the other.
Also for pro or anti gay marriage, and for pro and anti-death penalty, I believe in separation
of these, and only agree to state sanctioned policies if there is CONSENSUS including both proponents and opponents.

I can handle those on my own and with equal assistance from both sides to form a consensus.

On the lopsided issues, I would have to go a bit farther out of my way
to include the people protesting that, on my own, I would just as soon dismiss
because it costs so much to avoid problems other ways.  That would take a lot of
work, and until better solutions are set up than can be equally sided, these
issues are too lopsided, where the side pushing for rights isn't taking enough responsibility for that,
according to my beliefs, and thus appears to me to be pushing this onto the opposing side.
Other people don't see it as lopsided, so it would have to be proven first to make the sides more equal
going into the debate. Once the issues are proven, then I think I could be more even keeled about those.

So RW if I can assess where I stand on political beliefs,
and know where my biases are and when they risk not being fair/inclusive,
isn't it safe to assume that politicians in office should be able to do the same?

And if they can't, and here I am just a working citizen who went through the trouble to find out
what is going on with these political beliefs, and I CAN figure it out,
why can't they? Or why are they running the govt if they can't see a political belief or bias for what it is?

Why not make a checklist of political beliefs, and ask not only what side people are
on, but find a test measure or assessment for figuring out WHICH candidates and
leaders can be balanced and RESOLVE conflicts not compromise one belief for another.

Then people only have motivation to be honest.

Even if you lie, this will come out by requiring conflicts over political beliefs to be resolved by consensus.
So if you can't even imagine a solution that includes both beliefs equally,
then it's clear where you stand. If you are shown a solution and you reject it,
and can't come up with a better alternative than NO, that shows where you stand.

I don't know anyone who can fake and hide whether they can accept and work with
opposing beliefs. most people are completely transparent. And where they aren't this is exposed too, and they wouldn't get past the first round of questions....


----------



## Ernie S.

hauke said:


> i live in germany
> 
> i can t even imagine
> 
> a country not having healthcare for everyone
> 
> thats not third world
> 
> for me it means the USA
> 
> is third world
> 
> with nukes


Feel free to comment on the politics of Germany. You are unqualified and unentitled to tell us how to run our country.Verstehst du?


----------



## JoeB131

Rottweiler said:


> God Bless this woman. I marvel at the grace with which she has handled this unacceptable nightmare. If it were me, it would have been a postal episode on a certain building on a certain street...
> 
> How One Nebraska Woman Lost Her Health Insurance Three Times Under Obamacare



Again, you wingnuts killed the Public Option, and then complain when private insurance can't make up the difference.  

It's Obama's fault she didn't do her research on her insurance carriers?


----------



## dblack

JoeB131 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> God Bless this woman. I marvel at the grace with which she has handled this unacceptable nightmare. If it were me, it would have been a postal episode on a certain building on a certain street...
> 
> How One Nebraska Woman Lost Her Health Insurance Three Times Under Obamacare
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you wingnuts killed the Public Option, and then complain when private insurance can't make up the difference.
> 
> It's Obama's fault she didn't do her research on her insurance carriers?
Click to expand...


The corporatist sellouts in Congress, the so-called "moderates", killed the public option, not the "wingnuts".


----------



## P@triot

Just when I think I've seen the biggest Obamacare bombshell imaginable, something else comes out to top it. Let's recap real quick, shall we:

We now know that Obama *lied* when he promised "if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor". Those involved with writing the bill have now testified that they knew before they wrote the bill that millions would not be able to keep their doctor. But they lied and forced the bill on the American people anyway.
We now know that Obama *lied* when he promised "if you like your plan, you can keep your plan". Those involved with writing the bill have now testified that they knew before they wrote the bill that millions would not be able to keep their plan. But they lied and forced the bill on the American people anyway.

We now know that Obama *lied* when he mocked Republican's predictions (based on the historical results of other nations taking these same steps) that there would be death panels. Those involved with writing the bill have now testified that they knew before they wrote the bill that death panels would be inevitable. But they lied and forced the bill on the American people anyway.

And we now know that Obama *lied* when he promised that it would decrease healthcare costs. In fact, quite the contrary, those involved with writing the bill have now testified that they knew before they wrote the bill that it would drastically increase healthcare costs. But they lied and forced the bill on the American people anyway.
So why would someone force through a bill which did the exact opposite of what they were claiming in public and which they _knew_ would be detrimental to America in every way? Simple. Power and Control. The more government controls healthcare, the more likely people are to vote Dumbocrat to protect their handout. It's the same reason Obama's policies were designed to keep people on unemployment and food stamps. Obama desperately wants to keep the masses on the government plantation. And let's not forget too that Obama studied at Columbia during the same years professors Cloward & Piven were there teaching their strategy of "overloading the system with socialism" to collapse America, blame it on capitalism, and then replace it all with communism. Obama has been masterful at killing the proverbial two birds with one stone. Keep people beholden to the government and on the plantation to ensure power and control while at the same time overloading the system (ahem, $17 trillion in debt) to collapse America.

Gruber In 2009 Obamacare Will NOT Be Affordable The Daily Caller


----------



## P@triot

emilynghiem said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boilermaker55 said:
> 
> 
> 
> My contention is, and history itself shows, money influences decision making in this country. So they are, in a way, getting consent from the government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RE
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi boilermaker55 Even more so than the level it is questioned now.
> If laws were based on consensus, then no amount of money could buy out a decision to go one way over the other.
> So corporations would have no bearing on decisions, that must reflect a consent of the governed, not the corporations.
> 
> 
> 
> boilermaker55 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you should also question with great regard the ruling of Citizens United.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ??? RE "when money influences decision making"
> whose consent are you talking about?
> 
> If corporations want to invest in programs that only affect them, that's private, and yes they have the right to do that by their own free choice and consent.
> 
> But when it comes to policies that affect greater populations, and especially taxpayers,
> then NO the corporations should not have more say just because they fund someone's campaigns.
> 
> How is this consent? Because politicians consent to this game?
> What about taxpayers? I don't consent to America being bought and sold to the highest corporate bidders.
> Do you? Do you consent to this going on?
> 
> The only people I've seen consent to it are the ones who benefit,
> YET THEY COMPLAIN when the SAME GAME  goes against what they want.
> 
> So they don't REALLY consent, only when they win which isn't guaranteed.
> So it's not really consent, but taking turns bullying, gambling and buying out one side and selling out the other.
> 
> The only real consent I would believe in is where people, both sides, AGREE to a policy.
> If they all voluntarily AGREE by informed consent, and all conflicts are resolved,
> I would respect that decision as representing the interests equally.
> 
> Example: the Code of Ethics for Govt Service was passed unanimously by Congress
> and I find it is a well-written set of standards I believe should be uniformly enforced for all govt:
> http://www.isocracytx.net/ec/ethicscode.doc
> 
> It's not impossible to form a consensus before passing laws.
> In fact, I think it would cut down on bogus and manipulated laws
> and force legislators to cut out the crap and resolve the real issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think the first thing we need to do is is start a regular program of polygraphs for _every_ member of Congress and the president and vice president. It would start when any candidate runs for office. That alone would send all the dirtbag scam artists and adulterers running back to the dark corners like the cockroaches they are. Then it would continue quarterly and cover each bill they had voted on up to that point (with questions like were you bribed at all, did you follow the legal process on the bill, did you vote with integrity, etc.).
> 
> And to ensure the polygraphers were honest, each political party (Republicans, Democrats, and Independents) would have a few polygraphers on staff who would administer the polygraph to members of the other party while that party's own polygraphers would watch. So Republican polygraphers would administer polygraphs to Democrats while Democrat and Independent polygraphers watched to call out any shenanigans by the Republican polygraphers. With that many eyes from that many experts in the room, nobody would be able to get away with anything. Anyone failing a polygraph is immediately removed from office.
> 
> Would solve EVERY problem we've ever had.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hi Rottweiler I don't think the real test requires a polygraph:
> Require federal govt officials to be able to recognize and mediate between "political beliefs."
> 1. If they don't even acknowledge these are creeds to be respected and included equally by law,
> they already fail the test. Being in denial is part of their belief, but it should not preclude the fact other beliefs are valid.
> There are two other levels that they can pass with assistance:
> 2. If they acknowledge the conflicting beliefs of themselves and others,
> and AWARE that they are SO biased towards some,
> they have a "conflict of interest," and need to work with a mediator or partner on THAT issue
> to make sure the representation on policy is inclusive and equal.
> 3. If they acknowledge these and can stay neutral without help, whether with or without a bias toward one side. And they have proof by forming teams of mixed reps from both sides (as acknowledged by the MEMBERS of that actual party/lobby as legit, and not token figureheads) who confirm that they CAN work with this candidate/leader.
> 
> For example, I know I am biased about compromising voting rights and legalization beliefs about pot.
> I know I will go along with overruling things, when other people's beliefs don't agree.
> On issues like these two, I would NEED to work closely with proponents to make sure
> solutions include them, while NOT imposing burdens that I oppose on opponents that I CAN relate to.
> I know I am onesided and need to be offset to be fair.
> 
> For gun rights/gun control and prochoice/prolife, I am able to stand separately for both sides
> and support both in seeking equitable solutions that don't violate one or the other.
> Also for pro or anti gay marriage, and for pro and anti-death penalty, I believe in separation
> of these, and only agree to state sanctioned policies if there is CONSENSUS including both proponents and opponents.
> 
> I can handle those on my own and with equal assistance from both sides to form a consensus.
> 
> On the lopsided issues, I would have to go a bit farther out of my way
> to include the people protesting that, on my own, I would just as soon dismiss
> because it costs so much to avoid problems other ways.  That would take a lot of
> work, and until better solutions are set up than can be equally sided, these
> issues are too lopsided, where the side pushing for rights isn't taking enough responsibility for that,
> according to my beliefs, and thus appears to me to be pushing this onto the opposing side.
> Other people don't see it as lopsided, so it would have to be proven first to make the sides more equal
> going into the debate. Once the issues are proven, then I think I could be more even keeled about those.
> 
> So RW if I can assess where I stand on political beliefs,
> and know where my biases are and when they risk not being fair/inclusive,
> isn't it safe to assume that politicians in office should be able to do the same?
> 
> And if they can't, and here I am just a working citizen who went through the trouble to find out
> what is going on with these political beliefs, and I CAN figure it out,
> why can't they? Or why are they running the govt if they can't see a political belief or bias for what it is?
> 
> Why not make a checklist of political beliefs, and ask not only what side people are
> on, but find a test measure or assessment for figuring out WHICH candidates and
> leaders can be balanced and RESOLVE conflicts not compromise one belief for another.
> 
> Then people only have motivation to be honest.
> 
> Even if you lie, this will come out by requiring conflicts over political beliefs to be resolved by consensus.
> So if you can't even imagine a solution that includes both beliefs equally,
> then it's clear where you stand. If you are shown a solution and you reject it,
> and can't come up with a better alternative than NO, that shows where you stand.
> 
> I don't know anyone who can fake and hide whether they can accept and work with
> opposing beliefs. most people are completely transparent. And where they aren't this is exposed too, and they wouldn't get past the first round of questions....
Click to expand...

I must vehemently disagree with everything you said here. Not only will this not prevent the despicable dirt-bags in Congress, it will actually facilitate it!

A much simpler and reliable option: require polygraphs for anyone running for office (again, this eliminates 98% of the dirt-bags out there now as adulterers like Bill Clinton are never going to run for office if they have to answer whether or not they have ever cheated on their spouse). Then require quarterly polygraphs for every elected official and include questions about each bill they voted on or each executive order they issued. Problem solved, filthy liars removed from Washington, integrity restored.


----------



## P@triot

If America can cure the cancer known as Obamacare, here is the future of healthcare (note that this solution is effective, Constitutional, market-based, and requires no coercion, force, or control over others....gasp!)

This Doctor Posts His Prices Online.


----------



## JoeB131

Rottweiler said:


> If America can cure the cancer known as Obamacare, here is the future of healthcare (note that this solution is effective, Constitutional, market-based, and requires no coercion, force, or control over others....gasp!)



Yeah, guy, the Market forces. Uh, huh.  

"Hey, I have this cure for your kid's cancer, what are you willing to pay me for it?"


----------



## dblack

JoeB131 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> If America can cure the cancer known as Obamacare, here is the future of healthcare (note that this solution is effective, Constitutional, market-based, and requires no coercion, force, or control over others....gasp!)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, guy, the Market forces. Uh, huh.
> 
> "Hey, I have this cure for your kid's cancer, what are you willing to pay me for it?"
Click to expand...


As much of your money as I can afford?


----------



## JoeB131

dblack said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> If America can cure the cancer known as Obamacare, here is the future of healthcare (note that this solution is effective, Constitutional, market-based, and requires no coercion, force, or control over others....gasp!)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, guy, the Market forces. Uh, huh.
> 
> "Hey, I have this cure for your kid's cancer, what are you willing to pay me for it?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As much of your money as I can afford?
Click to expand...


And that's exactly the problem.   Most countries treat health care like a public service.  we treat it like a commodity. 

as a result, we die earlier, less of our babies survive, 70% of bankruptcies are linked to medical crisis, and we spend more than any country in the world on Health Care. 

But..errr...um... "Freedom".  "Founding Fathers!"


----------



## dblack

JoeB131 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> If America can cure the cancer known as Obamacare, here is the future of healthcare (note that this solution is effective, Constitutional, market-based, and requires no coercion, force, or control over others....gasp!)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, guy, the Market forces. Uh, huh.
> 
> "Hey, I have this cure for your kid's cancer, what are you willing to pay me for it?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As much of your money as I can afford?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that's exactly the problem.   Most countries treat health care like a public service.  we treat it like a commodity.
Click to expand...


Looks like you got a typo here. You accidentally reversed these.


----------



## dblack

The problem isn't that we treat health care as a commodity. It's that we try to pretend it's not.


----------



## JoeB131

dblack said:


> The problem isn't that we treat health care as a commodity. It's that we try to pretend it's not.



No, guy. It should be a public service. 

And just like we shouldn't expect a fire department to let an orphanage burn to the ground because they were getting a rich woman's cat out of a tree, we shouldn't let a poor person die from an infection because we were using resources to give a rich woman a face-lift.


----------



## dblack

JoeB131 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem isn't that we treat health care as a commodity. It's that we try to pretend it's not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, guy. It should be a public service.
> 
> And just like we shouldn't expect a fire department to let an orphanage burn to the ground because they were getting a rich woman's cat out of a tree, we shouldn't let a poor person die from an infection because we were using resources to give a rich woman a face-lift.
Click to expand...


Making it a public service won't make it not a commodity. It will simply put government in charge of its distribution.


----------



## JoeB131

dblack said:


> Making it a public service won't make it not a commodity. It will simply put government in charge of its distribution.



Which would be a bad thing, why? 

(Oh, shit, now I'm going to get the whole screed about how government is EEEEEEEEVIL and Freedom as defined by people who raped slaves 200 years ago.)


----------



## dblack

JoeB131 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Making it a public service won't make it not a commodity. It will simply put government in charge of its distribution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which would be a bad thing, why?
> 
> (Oh, shit, now I'm going to get the whole screed about how government is EEEEEEEEVIL and Freedom as defined by people who raped slaves 200 years ago.)
Click to expand...


I wouldn't bother with you. You clearly think government can do no wrong.

The thing is, mostly I agree. Most of the time, government is good. But when it's the only game in town, "mostly" isn't good enough.

That's what you don't get. It isn't that government is always evil. It's that it's monolithic (there's only one). If government doesn't provide you the kind of service you want, you can't take your business elsewhere. You're going to pay for that service whether you use it or not.


----------



## JoeB131

dblack said:


> I
> That's what you don't get. It isn't that government is always evil. It's that it's monolithic (there's only one). If government doesn't provide you the kind of service you want, you can't take your business elsewhere. You're going to pay for that service whether you use it or not.



okay.  I can't see that as a problem.  

Here's the thing. For six years, I worked for my last company, and paid into an insurance plan.  I really didn't have a choice in that plan, especially when they came back every year and told us how they were changing plans and it would cost a little more for us and suck a lot more.  so short of quitting, I really couldn't take my business elsewhere. 

But when that day came when I needed medical attention, I had to fight them tooth and nail to get the treatments i needed and they still found a flimsy excuse to get me off the payroll.  

So I am taking my business elsewhere.  Single Payer like every other civilized country has. Done.


----------



## dblack

JoeB131 said:


> So I am taking my business elsewhere.  Single Payer like every other civilized country has. Done.



It's not that simple. If you confined your decision to _your business _there would be no problem. But single payer is about forcing everyone else to conform to your preferences.


----------



## emilynghiem

Rottweiler said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boilermaker55 said:
> 
> 
> 
> My contention is, and history itself shows, money influences decision making in this country. So they are, in a way, getting consent from the government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RE
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi boilermaker55 Even more so than the level it is questioned now.
> If laws were based on consensus, then no amount of money could buy out a decision to go one way over the other.
> So corporations would have no bearing on decisions, that must reflect a consent of the governed, not the corporations.
> 
> 
> 
> boilermaker55 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you should also question with great regard the ruling of Citizens United.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ??? RE "when money influences decision making"
> whose consent are you talking about?
> 
> If corporations want to invest in programs that only affect them, that's private, and yes they have the right to do that by their own free choice and consent.
> 
> But when it comes to policies that affect greater populations, and especially taxpayers,
> then NO the corporations should not have more say just because they fund someone's campaigns.
> 
> How is this consent? Because politicians consent to this game?
> What about taxpayers? I don't consent to America being bought and sold to the highest corporate bidders.
> Do you? Do you consent to this going on?
> 
> The only people I've seen consent to it are the ones who benefit,
> YET THEY COMPLAIN when the SAME GAME  goes against what they want.
> 
> So they don't REALLY consent, only when they win which isn't guaranteed.
> So it's not really consent, but taking turns bullying, gambling and buying out one side and selling out the other.
> 
> The only real consent I would believe in is where people, both sides, AGREE to a policy.
> If they all voluntarily AGREE by informed consent, and all conflicts are resolved,
> I would respect that decision as representing the interests equally.
> 
> Example: the Code of Ethics for Govt Service was passed unanimously by Congress
> and I find it is a well-written set of standards I believe should be uniformly enforced for all govt:
> http://www.isocracytx.net/ec/ethicscode.doc
> 
> It's not impossible to form a consensus before passing laws.
> In fact, I think it would cut down on bogus and manipulated laws
> and force legislators to cut out the crap and resolve the real issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think the first thing we need to do is is start a regular program of polygraphs for _every_ member of Congress and the president and vice president. It would start when any candidate runs for office. That alone would send all the dirtbag scam artists and adulterers running back to the dark corners like the cockroaches they are. Then it would continue quarterly and cover each bill they had voted on up to that point (with questions like were you bribed at all, did you follow the legal process on the bill, did you vote with integrity, etc.).
> 
> And to ensure the polygraphers were honest, each political party (Republicans, Democrats, and Independents) would have a few polygraphers on staff who would administer the polygraph to members of the other party while that party's own polygraphers would watch. So Republican polygraphers would administer polygraphs to Democrats while Democrat and Independent polygraphers watched to call out any shenanigans by the Republican polygraphers. With that many eyes from that many experts in the room, nobody would be able to get away with anything. Anyone failing a polygraph is immediately removed from office.
> 
> Would solve EVERY problem we've ever had.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hi Rottweiler I don't think the real test requires a polygraph:
> Require federal govt officials to be able to recognize and mediate between "political beliefs."
> 1. If they don't even acknowledge these are creeds to be respected and included equally by law,
> they already fail the test. Being in denial is part of their belief, but it should not preclude the fact other beliefs are valid.
> There are two other levels that they can pass with assistance:
> 2. If they acknowledge the conflicting beliefs of themselves and others,
> and AWARE that they are SO biased towards some,
> they have a "conflict of interest," and need to work with a mediator or partner on THAT issue
> to make sure the representation on policy is inclusive and equal.
> 3. If they acknowledge these and can stay neutral without help, whether with or without a bias toward one side. And they have proof by forming teams of mixed reps from both sides (as acknowledged by the MEMBERS of that actual party/lobby as legit, and not token figureheads) who confirm that they CAN work with this candidate/leader.
> 
> For example, I know I am biased about compromising voting rights and legalization beliefs about pot.
> I know I will go along with overruling things, when other people's beliefs don't agree.
> On issues like these two, I would NEED to work closely with proponents to make sure
> solutions include them, while NOT imposing burdens that I oppose on opponents that I CAN relate to.
> I know I am onesided and need to be offset to be fair.
> 
> For gun rights/gun control and prochoice/prolife, I am able to stand separately for both sides
> and support both in seeking equitable solutions that don't violate one or the other.
> Also for pro or anti gay marriage, and for pro and anti-death penalty, I believe in separation
> of these, and only agree to state sanctioned policies if there is CONSENSUS including both proponents and opponents.
> 
> I can handle those on my own and with equal assistance from both sides to form a consensus.
> 
> On the lopsided issues, I would have to go a bit farther out of my way
> to include the people protesting that, on my own, I would just as soon dismiss
> because it costs so much to avoid problems other ways.  That would take a lot of
> work, and until better solutions are set up than can be equally sided, these
> issues are too lopsided, where the side pushing for rights isn't taking enough responsibility for that,
> according to my beliefs, and thus appears to me to be pushing this onto the opposing side.
> Other people don't see it as lopsided, so it would have to be proven first to make the sides more equal
> going into the debate. Once the issues are proven, then I think I could be more even keeled about those.
> 
> So RW if I can assess where I stand on political beliefs,
> and know where my biases are and when they risk not being fair/inclusive,
> isn't it safe to assume that politicians in office should be able to do the same?
> 
> And if they can't, and here I am just a working citizen who went through the trouble to find out
> what is going on with these political beliefs, and I CAN figure it out,
> why can't they? Or why are they running the govt if they can't see a political belief or bias for what it is?
> 
> Why not make a checklist of political beliefs, and ask not only what side people are
> on, but find a test measure or assessment for figuring out WHICH candidates and
> leaders can be balanced and RESOLVE conflicts not compromise one belief for another.
> 
> Then people only have motivation to be honest.
> 
> Even if you lie, this will come out by requiring conflicts over political beliefs to be resolved by consensus.
> So if you can't even imagine a solution that includes both beliefs equally,
> then it's clear where you stand. If you are shown a solution and you reject it,
> and can't come up with a better alternative than NO, that shows where you stand.
> 
> I don't know anyone who can fake and hide whether they can accept and work with
> opposing beliefs. most people are completely transparent. And where they aren't this is exposed too, and they wouldn't get past the first round of questions....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I must vehemently disagree with everything you said here. Not only will this not prevent the despicable dirt-bags in Congress, it will actually facilitate it!
> 
> A much simpler and reliable option: require polygraphs for anyone running for office (again, this eliminates 98% of the dirt-bags out there now as adulterers like Bill Clinton are never going to run for office if they have to answer whether or not they have ever cheated on their spouse). Then require quarterly polygraphs for every elected official and include questions about each bill they voted on or each executive order they issued. Problem solved, filthy liars removed from Washington, integrity restored.
Click to expand...


Dear Rottweiler I think our goal is the same: in having complete transparency and consistency.
However, by the Bill of Rights on not self incriminating and on due process, people cannot be required to do something unless it is proven they have committed a crime first. So yes, this can be mandated for people with past records of criminal misconduct. And like I said about "consensus" if everyone AGREES to such a policy then SURE you can pass this law.

If your attitude intones political prejudice, that will not build a consensus but block it for fear of abuse of this for politics.
You will incite the same fears that Clinton/Obama did abusing the IRS to target political enemies, so that the ENFORCEMENT of this polygraph test will get abused -- whoever is in charge will use it to benefit them and block their opposition and it will not be applied equally. So that is why I would use Consensus as the standard, so that if there is such blocking or obstruction, the opposition voices objection and that is taken into account.

It does the same thing you are saying, but lets the PROCESS reveal who is truthful and who is distorting and obstructing.
This is not imposed by whoever is administering the testing which can get onesided and abused for political targeting.

Consensus includes ALL the people in the process and holds them equally to account to each other.
Only people who are honest and inclusive will co-facilitate that process, and whoever is biased and not fully equal
will be limited in what they can defend because someone else will counter them. All conflicts would have to either be resolved or agreed to drop as not essential to the solution.

Our goal is the same, and I agree it is possible to use polygraphs as part of that, but this
would have to be carefully managed so it is (1) legal and not unconstitutional in violation of the Bill of Rights
and (2) not abused political by administrators enforcing it laxly for their benefit while targeting opponents as with the IRS.


----------



## emilynghiem

JoeB131 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I
> That's what you don't get. It isn't that government is always evil. It's that it's monolithic (there's only one). If government doesn't provide you the kind of service you want, you can't take your business elsewhere. You're going to pay for that service whether you use it or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> okay.  I can't see that as a problem.
> 
> Here's the thing. For six years, I worked for my last company, and paid into an insurance plan.  I really didn't have a choice in that plan, especially when they came back every year and told us how they were changing plans and it would cost a little more for us and suck a lot more.  so short of quitting, I really couldn't take my business elsewhere.
> 
> But when that day came when I needed medical attention, I had to fight them tooth and nail to get the treatments i needed and they still found a flimsy excuse to get me off the payroll.
> 
> So I am taking my business elsewhere.  Single Payer like every other civilized country has. Done.
Click to expand...


JoeB131 you are assuming that passing SinglePayer through the Federal Govt will guarantee that the plans you believe in will be the policy. There's no guarantee of that. With 50 states all vying to protect the interests and methods their citizenry wants, and with TWO political parties fighting for opposing approaches, you are gambling with national politics and that's why corporate insurance bought their way into ACA to get something to pass. 

If you didn't get SinglePayer the first time (and the second time with the budget deadlock, the federal shutdown cost taxpayers an estimated 24 billion NOT to reach an agreement) what makes you think this process will work the next time.

If you want to set up health care that works, your best bet is to work locally, either through your State or your Party or both. This is because health care and financial decisions are PERSONAL choices and are NOT the duty of federal govt to regulate for the entire nation. Congress was never designed to micromanage personal aspects of people's lives. That's why personal liberties are reserved to the People and to the States to decide democratically. It is to protect your right to choose and not be forced by govt to compromise your values or beliefs.

What I will propose to the TX govt is to let the Parties in our State organize their membership and structures to provide the coverage and systems that suit those members. And let the public choose which group to be under. So if the Democrats want to mandate insurance and set it up that way, they are only responsible for paying taxes to cover people under that plan.
And if the Republicans want a free market or health care account plan, they handle their members that way. And the charities and medical schools that want to offer public services to the poor through supervised interns in training, then anyone is free to donate to help them cover the populations not covered by the other plans. And the prisons can be reformed also, so taxpayer money already spent on facilities, mental health and health care can cover the general population.

The more LOCALLY you make decisions, the better chances you have of getting the choice of plan you want.
where YOU choose, not the govt choosing for you; where federal is harder to change once mandates or regulations are passed, state is easier and county or city is even more direct where citizens can write their own ordinances for their districts.

Maybe I have an advantage living in Texas where the conservative culture lends itself to maximum autonomy and creating your own business plans, building your own schools, and running your own towns.

Whatever state you are in, I would either recommend working on the state level and/or through the local and statewide Democrats or Greens to organize a Singlepayer network. There is nothing wrong with organizing this by State and then linking up all the Party resources nationally to get your national level Singlepayer.  It just has to be for those members
only, and if you don't agree nationally, then separate by state where people can follow the plans they agree to and not be forced to compromise.

Democrats should have organized this through Party through Obama first, get the model to work and then propose it to the nation to adopt. But doing it backwards, imposing it first, then trying to get it to work caused even more rejection because people were forced under plans they don't agree with and keep changing, but still under threat of penalty and tax fines.

It's not too late to do it the right way, in fact, I believe it should be legally required for Obama and Democrats to fix the mess this caused on a national scale. And take back all financial and legal responsibility and costs for reverting the ACA mandates and exchanges to be option on the State level and allow citizens to opt in either by party or by free choice as consumers.


----------



## emilynghiem

JoeB131 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem isn't that we treat health care as a commodity. It's that we try to pretend it's not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, guy. It should be a public service.
> 
> And just like we shouldn't expect a fire department to let an orphanage burn to the ground because they were getting a rich woman's cat out of a tree, we shouldn't let a poor person die from an infection because we were using resources to give a rich woman a face-lift.
Click to expand...


Dear JoeB131 You are leaving out the SPIRITUAL aspects of  health and healing that
must remain a free choice and cannot be mandated much less regulated by govt.

If YOU start regulating it as a public service,
what about those who treat health and healing as part of religious spiritual practice?

These groups, if forced under YOUR national policies, should have EQUAL right to mandate "spiritual healing"
which is used to "keep down the costs" the same way YOU propose to use Insurance to keep down the costs.

So SURE if you are okay with Christians mandating Spiritual Healing for the whole Nation,
I AGREE that would be more cost-effective than mandating insurance. It would free up the prisons and mental wards so those facilities resources and taxes can pay for health care for the larger population, and work on prevention which is cheaper.

Yours is not the ONLY way to approach health care. That's why it should remain a FREE CHOICE.


----------



## emilynghiem

Rottweiler said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boilermaker55 said:
> 
> 
> 
> My contention is, and history itself shows, money influences decision making in this country. So they are, in a way, getting consent from the government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RE
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi boilermaker55 Even more so than the level it is questioned now.
> If laws were based on consensus, then no amount of money could buy out a decision to go one way over the other.
> So corporations would have no bearing on decisions, that must reflect a consent of the governed, not the corporations.
> 
> 
> 
> boilermaker55 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you should also question with great regard the ruling of Citizens United.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ??? RE "when money influences decision making"
> whose consent are you talking about?
> 
> If corporations want to invest in programs that only affect them, that's private, and yes they have the right to do that by their own free choice and consent.
> 
> But when it comes to policies that affect greater populations, and especially taxpayers,
> then NO the corporations should not have more say just because they fund someone's campaigns.
> 
> How is this consent? Because politicians consent to this game?
> What about taxpayers? I don't consent to America being bought and sold to the highest corporate bidders.
> Do you? Do you consent to this going on?
> 
> The only people I've seen consent to it are the ones who benefit,
> YET THEY COMPLAIN when the SAME GAME  goes against what they want.
> 
> So they don't REALLY consent, only when they win which isn't guaranteed.
> So it's not really consent, but taking turns bullying, gambling and buying out one side and selling out the other.
> 
> The only real consent I would believe in is where people, both sides, AGREE to a policy.
> If they all voluntarily AGREE by informed consent, and all conflicts are resolved,
> I would respect that decision as representing the interests equally.
> 
> Example: the Code of Ethics for Govt Service was passed unanimously by Congress
> and I find it is a well-written set of standards I believe should be uniformly enforced for all govt:
> http://www.isocracytx.net/ec/ethicscode.doc
> 
> It's not impossible to form a consensus before passing laws.
> In fact, I think it would cut down on bogus and manipulated laws
> and force legislators to cut out the crap and resolve the real issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think the first thing we need to do is is start a regular program of polygraphs for _every_ member of Congress and the president and vice president. It would start when any candidate runs for office. That alone would send all the dirtbag scam artists and adulterers running back to the dark corners like the cockroaches they are. Then it would continue quarterly and cover each bill they had voted on up to that point (with questions like were you bribed at all, did you follow the legal process on the bill, did you vote with integrity, etc.).
> 
> And to ensure the polygraphers were honest, each political party (Republicans, Democrats, and Independents) would have a few polygraphers on staff who would administer the polygraph to members of the other party while that party's own polygraphers would watch. So Republican polygraphers would administer polygraphs to Democrats while Democrat and Independent polygraphers watched to call out any shenanigans by the Republican polygraphers. With that many eyes from that many experts in the room, nobody would be able to get away with anything. Anyone failing a polygraph is immediately removed from office.
> 
> Would solve EVERY problem we've ever had.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hi Rottweiler I don't think the real test requires a polygraph:
> Require federal govt officials to be able to recognize and mediate between "political beliefs."
> 1. If they don't even acknowledge these are creeds to be respected and included equally by law,
> they already fail the test. Being in denial is part of their belief, but it should not preclude the fact other beliefs are valid.
> There are two other levels that they can pass with assistance:
> 2. If they acknowledge the conflicting beliefs of themselves and others,
> and AWARE that they are SO biased towards some,
> they have a "conflict of interest," and need to work with a mediator or partner on THAT issue
> to make sure the representation on policy is inclusive and equal.
> 3. If they acknowledge these and can stay neutral without help, whether with or without a bias toward one side. And they have proof by forming teams of mixed reps from both sides (as acknowledged by the MEMBERS of that actual party/lobby as legit, and not token figureheads) who confirm that they CAN work with this candidate/leader.
> 
> For example, I know I am biased about compromising voting rights and legalization beliefs about pot.
> I know I will go along with overruling things, when other people's beliefs don't agree.
> On issues like these two, I would NEED to work closely with proponents to make sure
> solutions include them, while NOT imposing burdens that I oppose on opponents that I CAN relate to.
> I know I am onesided and need to be offset to be fair.
> 
> For gun rights/gun control and prochoice/prolife, I am able to stand separately for both sides
> and support both in seeking equitable solutions that don't violate one or the other.
> Also for pro or anti gay marriage, and for pro and anti-death penalty, I believe in separation
> of these, and only agree to state sanctioned policies if there is CONSENSUS including both proponents and opponents.
> 
> I can handle those on my own and with equal assistance from both sides to form a consensus.
> 
> On the lopsided issues, I would have to go a bit farther out of my way
> to include the people protesting that, on my own, I would just as soon dismiss
> because it costs so much to avoid problems other ways.  That would take a lot of
> work, and until better solutions are set up than can be equally sided, these
> issues are too lopsided, where the side pushing for rights isn't taking enough responsibility for that,
> according to my beliefs, and thus appears to me to be pushing this onto the opposing side.
> Other people don't see it as lopsided, so it would have to be proven first to make the sides more equal
> going into the debate. Once the issues are proven, then I think I could be more even keeled about those.
> 
> So RW if I can assess where I stand on political beliefs,
> and know where my biases are and when they risk not being fair/inclusive,
> isn't it safe to assume that politicians in office should be able to do the same?
> 
> And if they can't, and here I am just a working citizen who went through the trouble to find out
> what is going on with these political beliefs, and I CAN figure it out,
> why can't they? Or why are they running the govt if they can't see a political belief or bias for what it is?
> 
> Why not make a checklist of political beliefs, and ask not only what side people are
> on, but find a test measure or assessment for figuring out WHICH candidates and
> leaders can be balanced and RESOLVE conflicts not compromise one belief for another.
> 
> Then people only have motivation to be honest.
> 
> Even if you lie, this will come out by requiring conflicts over political beliefs to be resolved by consensus.
> So if you can't even imagine a solution that includes both beliefs equally,
> then it's clear where you stand. If you are shown a solution and you reject it,
> and can't come up with a better alternative than NO, that shows where you stand.
> 
> I don't know anyone who can fake and hide whether they can accept and work with
> opposing beliefs. most people are completely transparent. And where they aren't this is exposed too, and they wouldn't get past the first round of questions....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I must vehemently disagree with everything you said here. Not only will this not prevent the despicable dirt-bags in Congress, it will actually facilitate it!
> 
> A much simpler and reliable option: require polygraphs for anyone running for office (again, this eliminates 98% of the dirt-bags out there now as adulterers like Bill Clinton are never going to run for office if they have to answer whether or not they have ever cheated on their spouse). Then require quarterly polygraphs for every elected official and include questions about each bill they voted on or each executive order they issued. Problem solved, filthy liars removed from Washington, integrity restored.
Click to expand...


Here Rottweiler maybe you want this for all officials:
http://www.oathkeepers.org/
and to screen any candidates for President through the Veterans and active Military first.
Veterans Party of America


----------



## JoeB131

dblack said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So I am taking my business elsewhere.  Single Payer like every other civilized country has. Done.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not that simple. If you confined your decision to _your business _there would be no problem. But single payer is about forcing everyone else to conform to your preferences.
Click to expand...


Yup.  So what's your point.  And can you make it coherently without whining about "Freedom"?


----------



## JoeB131

emilynghiem said:


> Dear JoeB131 You are leaving out the SPIRITUAL aspects of health and healing that
> must remain a free choice and cannot be mandated much less regulated by govt.
> 
> If YOU start regulating it as a public service,
> what about those who treat health and healing as part of religious spiritual practice?



I think they can find other avenues for their supersition and ignorance.


----------



## JoeB131

emilynghiem said:


> JoeB131 you are assuming that passing SinglePayer through the Federal Govt will guarantee that the plans you believe in will be the policy. There's no guarantee of that. With 50 states all vying to protect the interests and methods their citizenry wants, and with TWO political parties fighting for opposing approaches, you are gambling with national politics and that's why corporate insurance bought their way into ACA to get something to pass.



No, the reason big insurance bought into ACA was they thought with Obama and 60 Democrat Senators and 280 Democrat Congressmen, they were going to get health care reform if they wanted it or not. 

We NEED to go to Single Payer.  That should have been the starting position and the goal. 9 Figure CEO Salaries add nothing to health care.


----------



## emilynghiem

JoeB131 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So I am taking my business elsewhere.  Single Payer like every other civilized country has. Done.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not that simple. If you confined your decision to _your business _there would be no problem. But single payer is about forcing everyone else to conform to your preferences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup.  So what's your point.  And can you make it coherently without whining about "Freedom"?
Click to expand...


^ ????  Really JoeB131 ???? ^

What about YOUR freedom not to have people impose their preference about God.
What if THAT were imposed by national law, wouldn't you "whine about freedom" too?

????

If you wouldn't want OTHER people's preferences imposed on you, and fine YOU higher taxes for YOUR choices that are different, why is that "whining" when it is HUMAN NATURE to want free will and want the right to consent to policies and taxes affecting us.

Any human being is going to PROTEST when threatened with some policy we don't believe in, even more so when TAXED without representation and consent.  Don't you protest when someone else's preferences are imposed on you, and you get attacked for simply defending your right to choose?


----------



## emilynghiem

JoeB131 said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 you are assuming that passing SinglePayer through the Federal Govt will guarantee that the plans you believe in will be the policy. There's no guarantee of that. With 50 states all vying to protect the interests and methods their citizenry wants, and with TWO political parties fighting for opposing approaches, you are gambling with national politics and that's why corporate insurance bought their way into ACA to get something to pass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, the reason big insurance bought into ACA was they thought with Obama and 60 Democrat Senators and 280 Democrat Congressmen, they were going to get health care reform if they wanted it or not.
> 
> We NEED to go to Single Payer.  That should have been the starting position and the goal. 9 Figure CEO Salaries add nothing to health care.
Click to expand...


Nobody is stopping you from setting up your own system of health care through your party or networks and leaders.

Trying to set this up at the expense of other people who disagree, and have equal freedom of choice as you do,
is where you and Obama are going wrong.

The Catholics don't force their prolife and proGod school programs on everyone to have to follow and fund.
The Muslims don't force their practices on the entire nation for everyone else to follow or else pay fines into their system.

Why should you and the people who believe in "right to health care' be some exception that is magically allowed to impose YOUR BELIEFS on everyone else to pay as YOU dictate (and ironically while Democrats CLAIM to be for right to choose and for separation of church and state).

Can you explain why an exception to the First Amendment to the Constitution should be magically allowed for YOUR beliefs to be imposed on the entire nation without our consent or vote?


----------



## dblack

JoeB131 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So I am taking my business elsewhere.  Single Payer like every other civilized country has. Done.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not that simple. If you confined your decision to _your business _there would be no problem. But single payer is about forcing everyone else to conform to your preferences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup.  So what's your point.  And can you make it coherently without whining about "Freedom"?
Click to expand...


My point is we're not 'taking our business elsewhere' by going to single payer. We're dictating how everyone must pay for their healthcare. We're not doing away with all the frustrations of insurance companies. We're simply forcing everyone to sign up with the same insurance company.


----------



## emilynghiem

dblack said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So I am taking my business elsewhere.  Single Payer like every other civilized country has. Done.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not that simple. If you confined your decision to _your business _there would be no problem. But single payer is about forcing everyone else to conform to your preferences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup.  So what's your point.  And can you make it coherently without whining about "Freedom"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My point is we're not 'taking our business elsewhere' by going to single payer. We're dictating how everyone must pay for their healthcare. We're not doing away with all the frustrations of insurance companies. We're simply forcing everyone to sign up with the same insurance company.
Click to expand...


I would agree -- shifting this around isn't solving the problem of who is running up the costs of health care.
by holding people responsible for their own programs, there would be accountability for costs.
Just shifting it to govt means shifting it to taxpayers, who don't have a direct say in these federal mandates.

JoeB131 I think you and my other friends who lobby for Singlepayer are thinking the money that
goes into Govt is NEUTRAL and/or automatically going to go where and how YOU think it should.

What you seem to miss is that federal govt provides a whole OTHER level of politics and bureaucracy
to filter your resources and choices through. So it is not this automatic vending machine that is going to pay
for whatever you charge to it.

You seem to forget that Conservatives, prolife, and limited govt people make up at least half the nation.

So if you go through federal govt, all those other people and their ways and interests are INCLUDED
and equally represented as YOUR interests.

You seem to leave that out of the equation, and just think going through govt means getting it YOUR way.

The way to get things YOUR way is to set it up yourself. If the Democrats took all the campaign donations
and funding they get and invest in teaching hospitals, intern programs, and converting prisons into medical and mental treatment centers, we'd have a much BETTER guarantee of getting what we want because we'd pay to build it ourselves.


----------



## P@triot

emilynghiem said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boilermaker55 said:
> 
> 
> 
> My contention is, and history itself shows, money influences decision making in this country. So they are, in a way, getting consent from the government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RE
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi boilermaker55 Even more so than the level it is questioned now.
> If laws were based on consensus, then no amount of money could buy out a decision to go one way over the other.
> So corporations would have no bearing on decisions, that must reflect a consent of the governed, not the corporations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ??? RE "when money influences decision making"
> whose consent are you talking about?
> 
> If corporations want to invest in programs that only affect them, that's private, and yes they have the right to do that by their own free choice and consent.
> 
> But when it comes to policies that affect greater populations, and especially taxpayers,
> then NO the corporations should not have more say just because they fund someone's campaigns.
> 
> How is this consent? Because politicians consent to this game?
> What about taxpayers? I don't consent to America being bought and sold to the highest corporate bidders.
> Do you? Do you consent to this going on?
> 
> The only people I've seen consent to it are the ones who benefit,
> YET THEY COMPLAIN when the SAME GAME  goes against what they want.
> 
> So they don't REALLY consent, only when they win which isn't guaranteed.
> So it's not really consent, but taking turns bullying, gambling and buying out one side and selling out the other.
> 
> The only real consent I would believe in is where people, both sides, AGREE to a policy.
> If they all voluntarily AGREE by informed consent, and all conflicts are resolved,
> I would respect that decision as representing the interests equally.
> 
> Example: the Code of Ethics for Govt Service was passed unanimously by Congress
> and I find it is a well-written set of standards I believe should be uniformly enforced for all govt:
> http://www.isocracytx.net/ec/ethicscode.doc
> 
> It's not impossible to form a consensus before passing laws.
> In fact, I think it would cut down on bogus and manipulated laws
> and force legislators to cut out the crap and resolve the real issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think the first thing we need to do is is start a regular program of polygraphs for _every_ member of Congress and the president and vice president. It would start when any candidate runs for office. That alone would send all the dirtbag scam artists and adulterers running back to the dark corners like the cockroaches they are. Then it would continue quarterly and cover each bill they had voted on up to that point (with questions like were you bribed at all, did you follow the legal process on the bill, did you vote with integrity, etc.).
> 
> And to ensure the polygraphers were honest, each political party (Republicans, Democrats, and Independents) would have a few polygraphers on staff who would administer the polygraph to members of the other party while that party's own polygraphers would watch. So Republican polygraphers would administer polygraphs to Democrats while Democrat and Independent polygraphers watched to call out any shenanigans by the Republican polygraphers. With that many eyes from that many experts in the room, nobody would be able to get away with anything. Anyone failing a polygraph is immediately removed from office.
> 
> Would solve EVERY problem we've ever had.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hi Rottweiler I don't think the real test requires a polygraph:
> Require federal govt officials to be able to recognize and mediate between "political beliefs."
> 1. If they don't even acknowledge these are creeds to be respected and included equally by law,
> they already fail the test. Being in denial is part of their belief, but it should not preclude the fact other beliefs are valid.
> There are two other levels that they can pass with assistance:
> 2. If they acknowledge the conflicting beliefs of themselves and others,
> and AWARE that they are SO biased towards some,
> they have a "conflict of interest," and need to work with a mediator or partner on THAT issue
> to make sure the representation on policy is inclusive and equal.
> 3. If they acknowledge these and can stay neutral without help, whether with or without a bias toward one side. And they have proof by forming teams of mixed reps from both sides (as acknowledged by the MEMBERS of that actual party/lobby as legit, and not token figureheads) who confirm that they CAN work with this candidate/leader.
> 
> For example, I know I am biased about compromising voting rights and legalization beliefs about pot.
> I know I will go along with overruling things, when other people's beliefs don't agree.
> On issues like these two, I would NEED to work closely with proponents to make sure
> solutions include them, while NOT imposing burdens that I oppose on opponents that I CAN relate to.
> I know I am onesided and need to be offset to be fair.
> 
> For gun rights/gun control and prochoice/prolife, I am able to stand separately for both sides
> and support both in seeking equitable solutions that don't violate one or the other.
> Also for pro or anti gay marriage, and for pro and anti-death penalty, I believe in separation
> of these, and only agree to state sanctioned policies if there is CONSENSUS including both proponents and opponents.
> 
> I can handle those on my own and with equal assistance from both sides to form a consensus.
> 
> On the lopsided issues, I would have to go a bit farther out of my way
> to include the people protesting that, on my own, I would just as soon dismiss
> because it costs so much to avoid problems other ways.  That would take a lot of
> work, and until better solutions are set up than can be equally sided, these
> issues are too lopsided, where the side pushing for rights isn't taking enough responsibility for that,
> according to my beliefs, and thus appears to me to be pushing this onto the opposing side.
> Other people don't see it as lopsided, so it would have to be proven first to make the sides more equal
> going into the debate. Once the issues are proven, then I think I could be more even keeled about those.
> 
> So RW if I can assess where I stand on political beliefs,
> and know where my biases are and when they risk not being fair/inclusive,
> isn't it safe to assume that politicians in office should be able to do the same?
> 
> And if they can't, and here I am just a working citizen who went through the trouble to find out
> what is going on with these political beliefs, and I CAN figure it out,
> why can't they? Or why are they running the govt if they can't see a political belief or bias for what it is?
> 
> Why not make a checklist of political beliefs, and ask not only what side people are
> on, but find a test measure or assessment for figuring out WHICH candidates and
> leaders can be balanced and RESOLVE conflicts not compromise one belief for another.
> 
> Then people only have motivation to be honest.
> 
> Even if you lie, this will come out by requiring conflicts over political beliefs to be resolved by consensus.
> So if you can't even imagine a solution that includes both beliefs equally,
> then it's clear where you stand. If you are shown a solution and you reject it,
> and can't come up with a better alternative than NO, that shows where you stand.
> 
> I don't know anyone who can fake and hide whether they can accept and work with
> opposing beliefs. most people are completely transparent. And where they aren't this is exposed too, and they wouldn't get past the first round of questions....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I must vehemently disagree with everything you said here. Not only will this not prevent the despicable dirt-bags in Congress, it will actually facilitate it!
> 
> A much simpler and reliable option: require polygraphs for anyone running for office (again, this eliminates 98% of the dirt-bags out there now as adulterers like Bill Clinton are never going to run for office if they have to answer whether or not they have ever cheated on their spouse). Then require quarterly polygraphs for every elected official and include questions about each bill they voted on or each executive order they issued. Problem solved, filthy liars removed from Washington, integrity restored.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Rottweiler I think our goal is the same: in having complete transparency and consistency.
> However, by the Bill of Rights on not self incriminating and on due process, people cannot be required to do something unless it is proven they have committed a crime first. So yes, this can be mandated for people with past records of criminal misconduct. And like I said about "consensus" if everyone AGREES to such a policy then SURE you can pass this law.
> 
> If your attitude intones political prejudice, that will not build a consensus but block it for fear of abuse of this for politics.
> You will incite the same fears that Clinton/Obama did abusing the IRS to target political enemies, so that the ENFORCEMENT of this polygraph test will get abused -- whoever is in charge will use it to benefit them and block their opposition and it will not be applied equally. So that is why I would use Consensus as the standard, so that if there is such blocking or obstruction, the opposition voices objection and that is taken into account.
> 
> It does the same thing you are saying, but lets the PROCESS reveal who is truthful and who is distorting and obstructing.
> This is not imposed by whoever is administering the testing which can get onesided and abused for political targeting.
> 
> Consensus includes ALL the people in the process and holds them equally to account to each other.
> Only people who are honest and inclusive will co-facilitate that process, and whoever is biased and not fully equal
> will be limited in what they can defend because someone else will counter them. All conflicts would have to either be resolved or agreed to drop as not essential to the solution.
> 
> Our goal is the same, and I agree it is possible to use polygraphs as part of that, but this
> would have to be carefully managed so it is (1) legal and not unconstitutional in violation of the Bill of Rights
> and (2) not abused political by administrators enforcing it laxly for their benefit while targeting opponents as with the IRS.
Click to expand...


Emily - we do agree (we usually do) on what we want. We disagree on how. The problem is you, like others, are looking at this from a strictly criminal perspective.

You statement "However, by the Bill of Rights on not self incriminating and on due process, people cannot be required to do something unless it is proven they have committed a crime first" is simply not true because you absolutely can require people to take a polygraph. It's not "self-incriminating" outside of a criminal trial. I know several people who were required to take a polygraph for their jobs. If they want the job, they must take the polygraph (the "self-incrimination" simply doesn't apply in a situation like this - it's outside of a criminal trial). The same thing is true in my plan. If you don't want to take the polygraph, don't run for office. But if you choose to run for office, then the polygraph is a requirement.

Everyone needs to stop looking at this from a Hollywood perspective. This has NOTHING to do with "self-incrimination" or "polygraphs are not admissible in a cour of law". We're not talking about a criminal trial here. We are talking about a job. And you can require polygraphs for jobs because people always have the freedom to not take the job and thus not take the polygraph.


----------



## emilynghiem

Rottweiler said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE
> ??? RE "when money influences decision making"
> whose consent are you talking about?
> 
> If corporations want to invest in programs that only affect them, that's private, and yes they have the right to do that by their own free choice and consent.
> 
> But when it comes to policies that affect greater populations, and especially taxpayers,
> then NO the corporations should not have more say just because they fund someone's campaigns.
> 
> How is this consent? Because politicians consent to this game?
> What about taxpayers? I don't consent to America being bought and sold to the highest corporate bidders.
> Do you? Do you consent to this going on?
> 
> The only people I've seen consent to it are the ones who benefit,
> YET THEY COMPLAIN when the SAME GAME  goes against what they want.
> 
> So they don't REALLY consent, only when they win which isn't guaranteed.
> So it's not really consent, but taking turns bullying, gambling and buying out one side and selling out the other.
> 
> The only real consent I would believe in is where people, both sides, AGREE to a policy.
> If they all voluntarily AGREE by informed consent, and all conflicts are resolved,
> I would respect that decision as representing the interests equally.
> 
> Example: the Code of Ethics for Govt Service was passed unanimously by Congress
> and I find it is a well-written set of standards I believe should be uniformly enforced for all govt:
> http://www.isocracytx.net/ec/ethicscode.doc
> 
> It's not impossible to form a consensus before passing laws.
> In fact, I think it would cut down on bogus and manipulated laws
> and force legislators to cut out the crap and resolve the real issues.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think the first thing we need to do is is start a regular program of polygraphs for _every_ member of Congress and the president and vice president. It would start when any candidate runs for office. That alone would send all the dirtbag scam artists and adulterers running back to the dark corners like the cockroaches they are. Then it would continue quarterly and cover each bill they had voted on up to that point (with questions like were you bribed at all, did you follow the legal process on the bill, did you vote with integrity, etc.).
> 
> And to ensure the polygraphers were honest, each political party (Republicans, Democrats, and Independents) would have a few polygraphers on staff who would administer the polygraph to members of the other party while that party's own polygraphers would watch. So Republican polygraphers would administer polygraphs to Democrats while Democrat and Independent polygraphers watched to call out any shenanigans by the Republican polygraphers. With that many eyes from that many experts in the room, nobody would be able to get away with anything. Anyone failing a polygraph is immediately removed from office.
> 
> Would solve EVERY problem we've ever had.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hi Rottweiler I don't think the real test requires a polygraph:
> Require federal govt officials to be able to recognize and mediate between "political beliefs."
> 1. If they don't even acknowledge these are creeds to be respected and included equally by law,
> they already fail the test. Being in denial is part of their belief, but it should not preclude the fact other beliefs are valid.
> There are two other levels that they can pass with assistance:
> 2. If they acknowledge the conflicting beliefs of themselves and others,
> and AWARE that they are SO biased towards some,
> they have a "conflict of interest," and need to work with a mediator or partner on THAT issue
> to make sure the representation on policy is inclusive and equal.
> 3. If they acknowledge these and can stay neutral without help, whether with or without a bias toward one side. And they have proof by forming teams of mixed reps from both sides (as acknowledged by the MEMBERS of that actual party/lobby as legit, and not token figureheads) who confirm that they CAN work with this candidate/leader.
> 
> For example, I know I am biased about compromising voting rights and legalization beliefs about pot.
> I know I will go along with overruling things, when other people's beliefs don't agree.
> On issues like these two, I would NEED to work closely with proponents to make sure
> solutions include them, while NOT imposing burdens that I oppose on opponents that I CAN relate to.
> I know I am onesided and need to be offset to be fair.
> 
> For gun rights/gun control and prochoice/prolife, I am able to stand separately for both sides
> and support both in seeking equitable solutions that don't violate one or the other.
> Also for pro or anti gay marriage, and for pro and anti-death penalty, I believe in separation
> of these, and only agree to state sanctioned policies if there is CONSENSUS including both proponents and opponents.
> 
> I can handle those on my own and with equal assistance from both sides to form a consensus.
> 
> On the lopsided issues, I would have to go a bit farther out of my way
> to include the people protesting that, on my own, I would just as soon dismiss
> because it costs so much to avoid problems other ways.  That would take a lot of
> work, and until better solutions are set up than can be equally sided, these
> issues are too lopsided, where the side pushing for rights isn't taking enough responsibility for that,
> according to my beliefs, and thus appears to me to be pushing this onto the opposing side.
> Other people don't see it as lopsided, so it would have to be proven first to make the sides more equal
> going into the debate. Once the issues are proven, then I think I could be more even keeled about those.
> 
> So RW if I can assess where I stand on political beliefs,
> and know where my biases are and when they risk not being fair/inclusive,
> isn't it safe to assume that politicians in office should be able to do the same?
> 
> And if they can't, and here I am just a working citizen who went through the trouble to find out
> what is going on with these political beliefs, and I CAN figure it out,
> why can't they? Or why are they running the govt if they can't see a political belief or bias for what it is?
> 
> Why not make a checklist of political beliefs, and ask not only what side people are
> on, but find a test measure or assessment for figuring out WHICH candidates and
> leaders can be balanced and RESOLVE conflicts not compromise one belief for another.
> 
> Then people only have motivation to be honest.
> 
> Even if you lie, this will come out by requiring conflicts over political beliefs to be resolved by consensus.
> So if you can't even imagine a solution that includes both beliefs equally,
> then it's clear where you stand. If you are shown a solution and you reject it,
> and can't come up with a better alternative than NO, that shows where you stand.
> 
> I don't know anyone who can fake and hide whether they can accept and work with
> opposing beliefs. most people are completely transparent. And where they aren't this is exposed too, and they wouldn't get past the first round of questions....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I must vehemently disagree with everything you said here. Not only will this not prevent the despicable dirt-bags in Congress, it will actually facilitate it!
> 
> A much simpler and reliable option: require polygraphs for anyone running for office (again, this eliminates 98% of the dirt-bags out there now as adulterers like Bill Clinton are never going to run for office if they have to answer whether or not they have ever cheated on their spouse). Then require quarterly polygraphs for every elected official and include questions about each bill they voted on or each executive order they issued. Problem solved, filthy liars removed from Washington, integrity restored.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Rottweiler I think our goal is the same: in having complete transparency and consistency.
> However, by the Bill of Rights on not self incriminating and on due process, people cannot be required to do something unless it is proven they have committed a crime first. So yes, this can be mandated for people with past records of criminal misconduct. And like I said about "consensus" if everyone AGREES to such a policy then SURE you can pass this law.
> 
> If your attitude intones political prejudice, that will not build a consensus but block it for fear of abuse of this for politics.
> You will incite the same fears that Clinton/Obama did abusing the IRS to target political enemies, so that the ENFORCEMENT of this polygraph test will get abused -- whoever is in charge will use it to benefit them and block their opposition and it will not be applied equally. So that is why I would use Consensus as the standard, so that if there is such blocking or obstruction, the opposition voices objection and that is taken into account.
> 
> It does the same thing you are saying, but lets the PROCESS reveal who is truthful and who is distorting and obstructing.
> This is not imposed by whoever is administering the testing which can get onesided and abused for political targeting.
> 
> Consensus includes ALL the people in the process and holds them equally to account to each other.
> Only people who are honest and inclusive will co-facilitate that process, and whoever is biased and not fully equal
> will be limited in what they can defend because someone else will counter them. All conflicts would have to either be resolved or agreed to drop as not essential to the solution.
> 
> Our goal is the same, and I agree it is possible to use polygraphs as part of that, but this
> would have to be carefully managed so it is (1) legal and not unconstitutional in violation of the Bill of Rights
> and (2) not abused political by administrators enforcing it laxly for their benefit while targeting opponents as with the IRS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Emily - we do agree (we usually do) on what we want. We disagree on how. The problem is you, like others, are looking at this from a strictly criminal perspective.
> 
> You statement "However, by the Bill of Rights on not self incriminating and on due process, people cannot be required to do something unless it is proven they have committed a crime first" is simply not true because you absolutely can require people to take a polygraph. It's not "self-incriminating" outside of a criminal trial. I know several people who were required to take a polygraph for their jobs. If they want the job, they must take the polygraph (the "self-incrimination" simply doesn't apply in a situation like this - it's outside of a criminal trial). The same thing is true in my plan. If you don't want to take the polygraph, don't run for office. But if you choose to run for office, then the polygraph is a requirement.
> 
> Everyone needs to stop looking at this from a Hollywood perspective. This has NOTHING to do with "self-incrimination" or "polygraphs are not admissible in a cour of law". We're not talking about a criminal trial here. We are talking about a job. And you can require polygraphs for jobs because people always have the freedom to not take the job and thus not take the polygraph.
Click to expand...


Unless it is administered by a consensus based process,
this is still going to get abused politically. So sure, you can incorporate that as one of the tools,
but the whole political process has to move AWAY from this winning-by-bullying mode of operating
and into collaborative problem solving and rewarding solutions that are so effective that they win 
support across party lines, by free choice.


----------



## P@triot

emilynghiem said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the first thing we need to do is is start a regular program of polygraphs for _every_ member of Congress and the president and vice president. It would start when any candidate runs for office. That alone would send all the dirtbag scam artists and adulterers running back to the dark corners like the cockroaches they are. Then it would continue quarterly and cover each bill they had voted on up to that point (with questions like were you bribed at all, did you follow the legal process on the bill, did you vote with integrity, etc.).
> 
> And to ensure the polygraphers were honest, each political party (Republicans, Democrats, and Independents) would have a few polygraphers on staff who would administer the polygraph to members of the other party while that party's own polygraphers would watch. So Republican polygraphers would administer polygraphs to Democrats while Democrat and Independent polygraphers watched to call out any shenanigans by the Republican polygraphers. With that many eyes from that many experts in the room, nobody would be able to get away with anything. Anyone failing a polygraph is immediately removed from office.
> 
> Would solve EVERY problem we've ever had.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Rottweiler I don't think the real test requires a polygraph:
> Require federal govt officials to be able to recognize and mediate between "political beliefs."
> 1. If they don't even acknowledge these are creeds to be respected and included equally by law,
> they already fail the test. Being in denial is part of their belief, but it should not preclude the fact other beliefs are valid.
> There are two other levels that they can pass with assistance:
> 2. If they acknowledge the conflicting beliefs of themselves and others,
> and AWARE that they are SO biased towards some,
> they have a "conflict of interest," and need to work with a mediator or partner on THAT issue
> to make sure the representation on policy is inclusive and equal.
> 3. If they acknowledge these and can stay neutral without help, whether with or without a bias toward one side. And they have proof by forming teams of mixed reps from both sides (as acknowledged by the MEMBERS of that actual party/lobby as legit, and not token figureheads) who confirm that they CAN work with this candidate/leader.
> 
> For example, I know I am biased about compromising voting rights and legalization beliefs about pot.
> I know I will go along with overruling things, when other people's beliefs don't agree.
> On issues like these two, I would NEED to work closely with proponents to make sure
> solutions include them, while NOT imposing burdens that I oppose on opponents that I CAN relate to.
> I know I am onesided and need to be offset to be fair.
> 
> For gun rights/gun control and prochoice/prolife, I am able to stand separately for both sides
> and support both in seeking equitable solutions that don't violate one or the other.
> Also for pro or anti gay marriage, and for pro and anti-death penalty, I believe in separation
> of these, and only agree to state sanctioned policies if there is CONSENSUS including both proponents and opponents.
> 
> I can handle those on my own and with equal assistance from both sides to form a consensus.
> 
> On the lopsided issues, I would have to go a bit farther out of my way
> to include the people protesting that, on my own, I would just as soon dismiss
> because it costs so much to avoid problems other ways.  That would take a lot of
> work, and until better solutions are set up than can be equally sided, these
> issues are too lopsided, where the side pushing for rights isn't taking enough responsibility for that,
> according to my beliefs, and thus appears to me to be pushing this onto the opposing side.
> Other people don't see it as lopsided, so it would have to be proven first to make the sides more equal
> going into the debate. Once the issues are proven, then I think I could be more even keeled about those.
> 
> So RW if I can assess where I stand on political beliefs,
> and know where my biases are and when they risk not being fair/inclusive,
> isn't it safe to assume that politicians in office should be able to do the same?
> 
> And if they can't, and here I am just a working citizen who went through the trouble to find out
> what is going on with these political beliefs, and I CAN figure it out,
> why can't they? Or why are they running the govt if they can't see a political belief or bias for what it is?
> 
> Why not make a checklist of political beliefs, and ask not only what side people are
> on, but find a test measure or assessment for figuring out WHICH candidates and
> leaders can be balanced and RESOLVE conflicts not compromise one belief for another.
> 
> Then people only have motivation to be honest.
> 
> Even if you lie, this will come out by requiring conflicts over political beliefs to be resolved by consensus.
> So if you can't even imagine a solution that includes both beliefs equally,
> then it's clear where you stand. If you are shown a solution and you reject it,
> and can't come up with a better alternative than NO, that shows where you stand.
> 
> I don't know anyone who can fake and hide whether they can accept and work with
> opposing beliefs. most people are completely transparent. And where they aren't this is exposed too, and they wouldn't get past the first round of questions....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I must vehemently disagree with everything you said here. Not only will this not prevent the despicable dirt-bags in Congress, it will actually facilitate it!
> 
> A much simpler and reliable option: require polygraphs for anyone running for office (again, this eliminates 98% of the dirt-bags out there now as adulterers like Bill Clinton are never going to run for office if they have to answer whether or not they have ever cheated on their spouse). Then require quarterly polygraphs for every elected official and include questions about each bill they voted on or each executive order they issued. Problem solved, filthy liars removed from Washington, integrity restored.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Rottweiler I think our goal is the same: in having complete transparency and consistency.
> However, by the Bill of Rights on not self incriminating and on due process, people cannot be required to do something unless it is proven they have committed a crime first. So yes, this can be mandated for people with past records of criminal misconduct. And like I said about "consensus" if everyone AGREES to such a policy then SURE you can pass this law.
> 
> If your attitude intones political prejudice, that will not build a consensus but block it for fear of abuse of this for politics.
> You will incite the same fears that Clinton/Obama did abusing the IRS to target political enemies, so that the ENFORCEMENT of this polygraph test will get abused -- whoever is in charge will use it to benefit them and block their opposition and it will not be applied equally. So that is why I would use Consensus as the standard, so that if there is such blocking or obstruction, the opposition voices objection and that is taken into account.
> 
> It does the same thing you are saying, but lets the PROCESS reveal who is truthful and who is distorting and obstructing.
> This is not imposed by whoever is administering the testing which can get onesided and abused for political targeting.
> 
> Consensus includes ALL the people in the process and holds them equally to account to each other.
> Only people who are honest and inclusive will co-facilitate that process, and whoever is biased and not fully equal
> will be limited in what they can defend because someone else will counter them. All conflicts would have to either be resolved or agreed to drop as not essential to the solution.
> 
> Our goal is the same, and I agree it is possible to use polygraphs as part of that, but this
> would have to be carefully managed so it is (1) legal and not unconstitutional in violation of the Bill of Rights
> and (2) not abused political by administrators enforcing it laxly for their benefit while targeting opponents as with the IRS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Emily - we do agree (we usually do) on what we want. We disagree on how. The problem is you, like others, are looking at this from a strictly criminal perspective.
> 
> You statement "However, by the Bill of Rights on not self incriminating and on due process, people cannot be required to do something unless it is proven they have committed a crime first" is simply not true because you absolutely can require people to take a polygraph. It's not "self-incriminating" outside of a criminal trial. I know several people who were required to take a polygraph for their jobs. If they want the job, they must take the polygraph (the "self-incrimination" simply doesn't apply in a situation like this - it's outside of a criminal trial). The same thing is true in my plan. If you don't want to take the polygraph, don't run for office. But if you choose to run for office, then the polygraph is a requirement.
> 
> Everyone needs to stop looking at this from a Hollywood perspective. This has NOTHING to do with "self-incrimination" or "polygraphs are not admissible in a cour of law". We're not talking about a criminal trial here. We are talking about a job. And you can require polygraphs for jobs because people always have the freedom to not take the job and thus not take the polygraph.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unless it is administered by a consensus based process,
> this is still going to get abused politically. So sure, you can incorporate that as one of the tools,
> but the whole political process has to move AWAY from this winning-by-bullying mode of operating
> and into collaborative problem solving and rewarding solutions that are so effective that they win
> support across party lines, by free choice.
Click to expand...

How is it "bullying"? Were the corporations "bullying" my acquaintances when they required a polygraph to ensure they weren't hiring criminals or liars?

You're operating from the naive position that if everyone joins hands and sings kumbaya, even evil people will see the light and come around. Sorry, but dirt-bags like Harry Reid, Barack Obama, and Nancy Pelosi are NEVER going to act with integrity. They are there for power and control. So the simple solution is to make sure the American people know the truth about them before the voting. Simple. Effective. Full-proof.


----------



## JoeB131

emilynghiem said:


> ^ ???? Really JoeB131 ???? ^
> 
> What about YOUR freedom not to have people impose their preference about God.
> What if THAT were imposed by national law, wouldn't you "whine about freedom" too?



We have enough stupid laws to accomedate Sky Fairy Worshippers, thanks. 

The problem with people who end up not getting insurance is that we don't "Let them die" as some asshole screaemed at a GOP Debate without ONE candidate admonishing him for it.  So as long as we all end up paying for even the most irresponsible person who refuses to get health coverage and shows up at an emergency room after stuffing his face with cakes, then we should have a say in what the best way to cover it is. 

And what we are doing, where we have the most expensive system with the worst results, isn't working.


----------



## JoeB131

dblack said:


> My point is we're not 'taking our business elsewhere' by going to single payer. We're dictating how everyone must pay for their healthcare. We're not doing away with all the frustrations of insurance companies. We're simply forcing everyone to sign up with the same insurance company.



Yes, we are.  One that WE THE PEOPLE control.  As opposed to getting it through our employers from a greedy company that could care less if we live or die.


----------



## JoeB131

emilynghiem said:


> Nobody is stopping you from setting up your own system of health care through your party or networks and leaders.
> 
> Trying to set this up at the expense of other people who disagree, and have equal freedom of choice as you do,
> is where you and Obama are going wrong.



well, no.  that would be well and good if the bad choices of those who don't participate didn't effect me.  But the guy who refuses to see a doctor for that hacking cough who spreads germs all over the office, that guy doesn't do anyone any good.  Health is a collective issue.  That's why other countries treat it like a PUBLIC SERVICE, not a luxury commodity.


----------



## emilynghiem

JoeB131 said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> ^ ???? Really JoeB131 ???? ^
> 
> What about YOUR freedom not to have people impose their preference about God.
> What if THAT were imposed by national law, wouldn't you "whine about freedom" too?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have enough stupid laws to accomedate Sky Fairy Worshippers, thanks.
> 
> The problem with people who end up not getting insurance is that we don't "Let them die" as some asshole screaemed at a GOP Debate without ONE candidate admonishing him for it.  So as long as we all end up paying for even the most irresponsible person who refuses to get health coverage and shows up at an emergency room after stuffing his face with cakes, then we should have a say in what the best way to cover it is.
> 
> And what we are doing, where we have the most expensive system with the worst results, isn't working.
Click to expand...


Two wrongs don't make it right.

If you are against laws worshipping "sky fairies" YOU don't believe in
how can you endorse national laws forcing YOUR political beliefs on others who don't worship the same way YOU do?

NOTE: saying YOUR way "is the only way" to prevent people from dying
is like Christians saying JESUS "is the only way" to life.

That's not proven and neither is your way.

So people retain free choice, and there are MANY WAYS to prevent people from dying
* charity
* medical schools where supervised interns get credit or pay off educational loans by providing public service
* spiritual healing which is free and natural and saves lives and resources
* reforming the prison system to save resources already paid by taxpayers

Yours is not the only way, so quit preaching that it is and supporting TAX penalties for not supporting YOUR way.


----------



## emilynghiem

JoeB131 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> My point is we're not 'taking our business elsewhere' by going to single payer. We're dictating how everyone must pay for their healthcare. We're not doing away with all the frustrations of insurance companies. We're simply forcing everyone to sign up with the same insurance company.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, we are.  One that WE THE PEOPLE control.  As opposed to getting it through our employers from a greedy company that could care less if we live or die.
Click to expand...


JoeB131 yours is not the only way.

People can pay for health care without going through mandated insurance and govt exchanges.

Just like people can prevent abortion and go through alternatives WITHOUT making that choice "illegal." Why this need to BAN other choices and FORCE your way onto everyone else?

If you trust people with the choice of abortion not to "baby killers"
why don't you trust people the choice of health care not to "let people die."

You act like this is the ONLY thing that can pay for health care.
Where are you getting this?

You DO acknowledge that Obamacare doesn't cover everyone and all costs, right?
So you DO acknowledge that something else has to cover the rest, right?

So why not USE those other resources and programs needed and make THOSE CHOICES equally a right to choose?
Since we need other help anyway, why penalize people for those? Why not REWARD people
for investing in building teaching hospital and medical education programs and internships.

Yours is not the only way, and further, pushing it while penalizing other ways is HURTING
the will and right of people to invest and develop the other ways that are NEEDED to cover the entire population anyway.

Why would you PUNISH people just because we are focusing on the OTHER things needed to provide health care?


----------



## dblack

Rottweiler said:


> Yes, we are.  One that WE THE PEOPLE control.  As opposed to getting it through our employers from a greedy company that could care less if we live or die.



Well, WE THE REST OF THE PEOPLE are telling you that we won't don't lay down for bullies.


----------



## emilynghiem

JoeB131 said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody is stopping you from setting up your own system of health care through your party or networks and leaders.
> 
> Trying to set this up at the expense of other people who disagree, and have equal freedom of choice as you do,
> is where you and Obama are going wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> well, no.  that would be well and good if the bad choices of those who don't participate didn't effect me.  But the guy who refuses to see a doctor for that hacking cough who spreads germs all over the office, that guy doesn't do anyone any good.  Health is a collective issue.  That's why other countries treat it like a PUBLIC SERVICE, not a luxury commodity.
Click to expand...


JoeB131 do you agree public services can be provided by schools and charities,
and can be managed on a state level,
and don't have to be mandated through federal taxes?

Do you recognize that if states better managed the prison budgets, and quit wasting that on failed systems,
then THAT money the public already spends could cover health care programs and facilities.

If the guy at the office affects you, what about the guy who shoots out your neighborhood
and sends 5 people to the ER at taxpayer expense. Why can't we go after the people
convicted of crimes and hold them accountable instead of making a new class of penalties on law abiding citizens.

why keep depriving the law abiding citizens of liberties to cover the irresponsibility of others.
 Why not go directly AFTER the people who are causing the costs and problems, not the ones who 
ARE asking to take responsibility for health care WITHOUT depending on fed govt to "make them do it this way."

sounds like you are punishing the wrong people and missing your target.


----------



## P@triot

dblack said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, we are.  One that WE THE PEOPLE control.  As opposed to getting it through our employers from a greedy company that could care less if we live or die.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, WE THE REST OF THE PEOPLE are telling you that we won't don't lay down for bullies.
Click to expand...

Only a liberal would consider having to tell the truth "being bullied"... 

By the way - when you edit posts, try to pay attention. You just attributed a quote to me that was from someone else genius.


----------



## JoeB131

emilynghiem said:


> JoeB131 yours is not the only way.
> 
> People can pay for health care without going through mandated insurance and govt exchanges.



Yeah, they can. And they'd go bankrupt pretty fast if they get anything more serious than a cold. 

70% of bankruptcies are tied to medical crisis.  What makes that worse is that of those, 75% had insurance when the crisis started.  That's what happens when you don't have universal health care or tie health care into your ability to make someone else money.


----------



## JoeB131

emilynghiem said:


> JoeB131 do you agree public services can be provided by schools and charities,
> and can be managed on a state level,
> and don't have to be mandated through federal taxes?



Sure, if you want to do it in a half-ass way.  

If you want to do it RIGHT, get the feds to do it.


----------



## dblack

Rottweiler said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, WE THE REST OF THE PEOPLE are telling you that we won't don't lay down for bullies.
> 
> 
> 
> Only a liberal would consider having to tell the truth "being bullied"...
Click to expand...

What does telling the truth have to do with what we're discussing?


----------



## airplanemechanic

Wow 336 pages in one thread? That has to be a record.


----------



## emilynghiem

JoeB131 said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 do you agree public services can be provided by schools and charities,
> and can be managed on a state level,
> and don't have to be mandated through federal taxes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, if you want to do it in a half-ass way.
> 
> If you want to do it RIGHT, get the feds to do it.
Click to expand...


JoeB131 why not teach the States to do it right so it doesn't depend on the Feds.

When we teach our kids to run their own households, do we want them living under the wing of parents
who already know how to manage? Don't we want the kids to "grow up" manage their OWN kids someday?

Where is your sense of equal empowerment?
Why would you want people to stay dependent on federal govt
and not learn how to enforce the same principles independently on their own?

Would you agree that the ideal is for people NOT to depend on Federal Govt to manage
our own local decisions about education, health care, etc.?

I find it funny this is coming from someone who doesn't believe
in ONE GROUP imposing their version of the ideal God on everyone else.

Yet you want to take YOUR ideal version of govt and do that very thing!!!

You wouldn't like if someone took their version of govt and forced you to follow it,
like the God of Abraham, but you are telling me that you want to do that to other people?

Why would you do what you hate being done to you?
Most curious JoeB131 please explain until I can understand!


----------



## emilynghiem

JoeB131 said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 yours is not the only way.
> 
> People can pay for health care without going through mandated insurance and govt exchanges.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, they can. And they'd go bankrupt pretty fast if they get anything more serious than a cold.
> 
> 70% of bankruptcies are tied to medical crisis.  What makes that worse is that of those, 75% had insurance when the crisis started.  That's what happens when you don't have universal health care or tie health care into your ability to make someone else money.
Click to expand...


And why not go after state budgets wasting taxpayer money (in the BILLIIONS) on failed 
criminal justice and mental health.

Why not reform THAT and save lives and resources that can go into health care per STATE.
teach people to invest in crime reduction and correction so money is spent on PREVENTATIVE care.

Do you understand that more of the population could be covered by
focusing on effective PREVENTION -- instead of abusing and wasting
those same resources on symptoms and costs AFTER crimes are committed.

How does depending on Federal Govt to bail out the states
motivate ANYONE to correct the waste of money on problems already costing us billions of dollars?

Wouldn't holding States accountable to pay for health care with the same budgets blown on prisons
force proper accounting and reform?


----------



## regent

Most social programs enacted in our two party system is a bundle of compromises and not close to perfection. Obama-Care will be changed, modified added to and so forth. The Obama-Care fifty years from now will be somewhat different, in fact if America continues 
to change at its present rate Obama-Care may have joined Medicare and changed into total medical care. The irony for Republicans will be when our children's children wonder why the name.


----------



## P@triot

Three years since this thread was started and things have only gotten _worse_. It never ceases to amaze me how conservatives can so easily identify and accurately predict the results of a policy while liberals are so blinded by their ideology that not only cannot they see the forest for the trees but then they can't even bring themselves to admit that a liberal policy was a catastrophic failure after the fact.

The 14th Obamacae co-op is now closing its doors. There were only 23 to start with. Everything about Obamacare has been catastrophic. It caused people to lose their health insurance when it claimed to do the opposite. It caused people to lose their doctor when it promised to give people more access to doctors. It caused healthcare costs to _skyrocket_ when it claimed it would reduce healthcare costs. And it has cost the American people trillions of dollars to legislate, pass, setup, and run. An unmitigated disaster from start to finish. That's what happens with legislation that is unconstitutional and which is founded on lies.

Obamacare’s 14th Co-Op Is Closing. More Could Follow.


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> Three years since this thread was started and things have only gotten _worse_. It never ceases to amaze me how conservatives can so easily identify and accurately predict the results of a policy while liberals are so blinded by their ideology that not only cannot they see the forest for the trees but then they can't even bring themselves to admit that a liberal policy was a catastrophic failure after the fact.
> 
> The 14th Obamacae co-op is now closing its doors. There were only 23 to start with. Everything about Obamacare has been catastrophic. It caused people to lose their health insurance when it claimed to do the opposite. It caused people to lose their doctor when it promised to give people more access to doctors. It caused healthcare costs to _skyrocket_ when it claimed it would reduce healthcare costs. And it has cost the American people trillions of dollars to legislate, pass, setup, and run. An unmitigated disaster from start to finish. That's what happens with legislation that is unconstitutional and which is founded on lies.



Yawn... Checking the weather report, Poodle.  

The sky still isn't falling.


----------



## billyerock1991

P@triot said:


> Three years since this thread was started and things have only gotten _worse_. It never ceases to amaze me how conservatives can so easily identify and accurately predict the results of a policy while liberals are so blinded by their ideology that not only cannot they see the forest for the trees but then they can't even bring themselves to admit that a liberal policy was a catastrophic failure after the fact.
> 
> The 14th Obamacae co-op is now closing its doors. There were only 23 to start with. Everything about Obamacare has been catastrophic. It caused people to lose their health insurance when it claimed to do the opposite. It caused people to lose their doctor when it promised to give people more access to doctors. It caused healthcare costs to _skyrocket_ when it claimed it would reduce healthcare costs. And it has cost the American people trillions of dollars to legislate, pass, setup, and run. An unmitigated disaster from start to finish. That's what happens with legislation that is unconstitutional and which is founded on lies.
> 
> Obamacare’s 14th Co-Op Is Closing. More Could Follow.


heres what I have found about Obama care the people who actually have it and have sign on correctly love it ... people who complain about it who have applied for it incorrectly complain about it ... I have had friends conservative one who wet to the web site and applied they did apply their subsidy then complain about the cost ... I was debatigh with a conservative here complaining about how he had to pay 1200. a month... and he said he lived in the same state that I do ... after several rounds of own yeahs I said to him well do you have a health care broker and of course he said no ... so I offered him mine ... finally he said he had move out of my state and now lives in Louisiana ... I had to laugh Bobby Jindal refused the obama care to his state and I said well you get what you voted for... you see if your state doesn't apply for the health care subsidy you pay through the nose... .

you said ( never ceases to amaze me how conservatives can so easily identify and accurately predict the results of a policy while liberals are so blinded by their ideology that not only cannot they see the forest for the trees but then they can't even bring themselves to admit that a liberal policy was a catastrophic failure after the fact.)
I had to laugh ... none of you republicans have ever predicted anything that we liberals have put into play ... states who accept the obama care program love it ... states who rejected it where republican  governors refused it, and their people hate it, because they pay through the nose, because of their republican governor rejecting it they high cost, they have to pay through the nose ... you moron deserve what you get

lets look at republican predictions White water... they went after hillary and lost  ... then they tried to go after her for just about any thing while she was first lady and lost  their too... now currant day ...they went after he over benghazi, they lost there too ... they went after her over emails, now they lost their too ... now they are going to try to go after her for lying under oath at the Benghazi hearing ... they will fail their too... don't you ever get tire of republicans wasting your tax dollars??? so when you try to make your claim liberals are so blinded by their ideology ... I had to laugh ... here the republicans are so blinded by their hate,  that they are the ones who can't see the forest for the trees ... I sat and watch all 5 hours yesterday of time and time again republicans making fools of them selves over their loss of their battle over her emails each and ever time republican said the same thing over and over where comes had to correct their statement by say using fictional scenarios don't app-ly in this case and it made them mad ... finally it got so bad of republicans repeating themselves Director Comey said to the republicans look me in the eye, hillary clinton didn't brake any laws that I can prosecute her under... she didn't get special treatment ... if anyone else in this country did the same thing she did I would say the same.... finally, mr clueless ... the Emails in question  where the had the (C) in the emails the state department who classifies them said those documents in question they said yesterday in the hearing that they were marked incorrectly ...that they weren't classified documents ...  but I know you'll come up with a law that doesn't apply so don't bother me with it ...


----------



## Meathead

emilynghiem said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 do you agree public services can be provided by schools and charities,
> and can be managed on a state level,
> and don't have to be mandated through federal taxes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, if you want to do it in a half-ass way.
> 
> If you want to do it RIGHT, get the feds to do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> JoeB131 why not teach the States to do it right so it doesn't depend on the Feds.
> 
> When we teach our kids to run their own households, do we want them living under the wing of parents
> who already know how to manage? Don't we want the kids to "grow up" manage their OWN kids someday?
> 
> Where is your sense of equal empowerment?
> Why would you want people to stay dependent on federal govt
> and not learn how to enforce the same principles independently on their own?
> 
> Would you agree that the ideal is for people NOT to depend on Federal Govt to manage
> our own local decisions about education, health care, etc.?
> 
> I find it funny this is coming from someone who doesn't believe
> in ONE GROUP imposing their version of the ideal God on everyone else.
> 
> Yet you want to take YOUR ideal version of govt and do that very thing!!!
> 
> You wouldn't like if someone took their version of govt and forced you to follow it,
> like the God of Abraham, but you are telling me that you want to do that to other people?
> 
> Why would you do what you hate being done to you?
> Most curious JoeB131 please explain until I can understand!
Click to expand...

To understand JoeB is to delve into a murky world of pathological damage, besides which, he can't hold a job and has probably never paid taxes. He thinks living in Chicago is an excuse, but the truth is it goes much deeper than that.


----------



## billyerock1991

regent said:


> Most social programs enacted in our two party system is a bundle of compromises and not close to perfection. Obama-Care will be changed, modified added to and so forth. The Obama-Care fifty years from now will be somewhat different, in fact if America continues
> to change at its present rate Obama-Care may have joined Medicare and changed into total medical care. The irony for Republicans will be when our children's children wonder why the name.


I would like to see all health care go through medicare with private insurance companies being selected by they people applying for it ... I would like to see like it is now ... where every body has money taken out of their pay check each month that pays for part of it ... and either the company they work for or themselves have to buy a supplemental from an insurer... that would be the best plan we could ever have, in my opinion ...


----------



## emilynghiem

JoeB131 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Three years since this thread was started and things have only gotten _worse_. It never ceases to amaze me how conservatives can so easily identify and accurately predict the results of a policy while liberals are so blinded by their ideology that not only cannot they see the forest for the trees but then they can't even bring themselves to admit that a liberal policy was a catastrophic failure after the fact.
> 
> The 14th Obamacae co-op is now closing its doors. There were only 23 to start with. Everything about Obamacare has been catastrophic. It caused people to lose their health insurance when it claimed to do the opposite. It caused people to lose their doctor when it promised to give people more access to doctors. It caused healthcare costs to _skyrocket_ when it claimed it would reduce healthcare costs. And it has cost the American people trillions of dollars to legislate, pass, setup, and run. An unmitigated disaster from start to finish. That's what happens with legislation that is unconstitutional and which is founded on lies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yawn... Checking the weather report, Poodle.
> 
> The sky still isn't falling.
Click to expand...


Dear JoeB131
We shouldn't BE depending on the Federal Govt to hold the sky up.
Joe you don't get it do you.
Even if it works that means citizens DEPEND on federal govt
and we no longer have checks on officials if they hold the purse strings
to benefits and health care we depend on.
This is going in the wrong direction.

Sustainable programs with accountability to those they serve
depend on EARNING the voluntary contributions and participation.
The minute the Red Cross or any such group loses trust by abusing resources,
people can YANK their funding and support INSTANTLY.  

With federal govt we can go in circles for years and years without changing anything.
There is not direct accountability, and social programs that affect us directly need
more FLEXIBILITY than can be managed in longer election cycles, voting on each and every change.

If this is run through govt the funding is mandated and this loses accountability to the public.
It goes through Congress and you can see what a battle that is to get any representation.

This is why SOCIAL PROGRAMS are better run by independent groups
and not by federal govt that is not designed for sensitive personal decisions as health care
and individual finances involve.


----------



## P@triot

billyerock1991 said:


> you said ( never ceases to amaze me how conservatives can so easily identify and accurately predict the results of a policy while liberals are so blinded by their ideology that not only cannot they see the forest for the trees but then they can't even bring themselves to admit that a liberal policy was a catastrophic failure after the fact.)
> *I had to laugh ... none of you republicans have ever predicted anything that we liberals have put into play* ... states who accept the obama care program love it ... states who rejected it where republican  governors refused it, and their people hate it, because they pay through the nose, because of their republican governor rejecting it they high cost, they have to pay through the nose ... you moron deserve what you get



God Almighty....educating you astoundingly _ignorant_ liberals is exhausting. 


In the late 1930's, Democrats wanted to implement Social Security. Republican's vehemently opposed it - warning that it was unsustainable. Social Security is now insolvent. It owes more than it brings in. It is unsustainable just as Republican's accurately predicted over 70 years ago.

In the last 1960's, Democrats wanted to implement Medicare & Medicaid. Republican's vehemently opposed it - warning that it was unsustainable. Medicare and Medicaid are so unsustainable, that Barack Obama himself went all over the nation claiming that Obamacare was absolutely necessary because the government could not handle the healthcare costs of Medicare and Medicaid. Once again, Republican's proven 100% correct - this time roughly 50 years later.

In 2009, the Dumbocrats wanted Obamacare. Republican's vehemently opposed it - warning that it was unsustainable. Already, millions have lost their health insurance because of it, millions have lost their doctor because of it, healthcare costs have _skyrocketed_ because of it, and 14 of the 23 co-op's have shut down because they can't afford to stay in business. Yes again, Republican's were proven 100% correct - this time after only 3 years. We're either getting better and better at seeing the future or you Dumbocrats are getting dumber and dumber and thus failing quicker and quicker.

See - here is the thing junior. The things you stated in your ignorant post (Benghazi, Clinton e-mails, etc.) were *not* laws, legislation, or policy. They were _events_. Benghazi was a terrorist event. It was not a proposed bill that one could study, crunch numbers on, and accurately predict the results of. So you're either really stupid to mention those items because they have nothing to do with the issue, or you're disingenuous. Which one is it, junior? Neither one bodes well for you.


----------



## JoeB131

emilynghiem said:


> Dear JoeB131
> We shouldn't BE depending on the Federal Govt to hold the sky up.
> Joe you don't get it do you.
> Even if it works that means citizens DEPEND on federal govt
> and we no longer have checks on officials if they hold the purse strings
> to benefits and health care we depend on.
> This is going in the wrong direction.



Without reading through your verbal spew, I'd rather trust the government that I can vote out than a private insurance company contracted by my employer that I have no control over. 

There's a reason why Medicare recipiants are highly satisfied with their level of care and people in private plans, not so much.


----------



## Conservative65

RDD_1210 said:


> It is sad that this has to happen.
> 
> It's also sad that the GOP has convinced people of "death panels", "losing freedom" and all the other hysterical nonsense that you sheep believe, that have actually made you think you hate a law that is a Republican idea.
> 
> So yeah, it's sad that a campaign needs to be waged to combat such blatant misinformation.



What's sad is that people like you think one person owes another person anything in life including healthcare coverage.  You do know there is a way you can get what you want without the government or a single taxpayer being involved don't you?  Provide coverage to someone you think it's owed to with your money.


----------



## Arianrhod

Conservative65 said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is sad that this has to happen.
> 
> It's also sad that the GOP has convinced people of "death panels", "losing freedom" and all the other hysterical nonsense that you sheep believe, that have actually made you think you hate a law that is a Republican idea.
> 
> So yeah, it's sad that a campaign needs to be waged to combat such blatant misinformation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's sad is that people like you think one person owes another person anything in life including healthcare coverage.  You do know there is a way you can get what you want without the government or a single taxpayer being involved don't you?  Provide coverage to someone you think it's owed to with your money.
Click to expand...


I'm sure you've done this many times.


----------



## auditor0007

P@triot said:


> Three years since this thread was started and things have only gotten _worse_. It never ceases to amaze me how conservatives can so easily identify and accurately predict the results of a policy while liberals are so blinded by their ideology that not only cannot they see the forest for the trees but then they can't even bring themselves to admit that a liberal policy was a catastrophic failure after the fact.
> 
> The 14th Obamacae co-op is now closing its doors. There were only 23 to start with. Everything about Obamacare has been catastrophic. It caused people to lose their health insurance when it claimed to do the opposite. It caused people to lose their doctor when it promised to give people more access to doctors. It caused healthcare costs to _skyrocket_ when it claimed it would reduce healthcare costs. And it has cost the American people trillions of dollars to legislate, pass, setup, and run. An unmitigated disaster from start to finish. That's what happens with legislation that is unconstitutional and which is founded on lies.
> 
> Obamacare’s 14th Co-Op Is Closing. More Could Follow.



Quite a bit of misinformation in your statement.  First of all, Obamacare has led to 20 million additional people being insured.  Second, most people who lost their doctor did so because they chose one of the cheapest policies available.  I purchase my insurance through the marketplace because I am self-employed, and if I chose one of the really cheap policies, I would have lost my doctors too.  Last of all, while there have been premium increases, they haven't been any more than they were in years past.  In fact, mine have been less than what they were during the Bush years.  I do realize that this can vary greatly by state and that some states are seeing bigger increases than others.  What people fail to understand is that now everyone gets insurance, not just the healthy people.  These policies are much closer in price to what businesses pay.  In the past private policies were much cheaper than those through employers because they only accepted completely healthy low risk individuals, and if you got sick, they would try to find ways to dump you.  

Prices are not increasing because of Obamacare/ACA.  They are increasing because hospitals are still getting away with overcharging for just about everything.  Need an MRI?  Your local hospital will charge you around $2000.  An independent imaging center will charge $500 for the same exact MRI.  The imaging center might be within a mile of that hospital that charges four times more for the same exact service.


----------



## JoeB131

Conservative65 said:


> What's sad is that people like you think one person owes another person anything in life including healthcare coverage. You do know there is a way you can get what you want without the government or a single taxpayer being involved don't you? Provide coverage to someone you think it's owed to with your money.



Guy I suspect you aren't going to compliantly die when your health issues outpace your ability to pay.  You'll be the first one insisting your insurance company pay for it, and will scream like a banshee if they tried to deny you coverage.


----------



## Conservative65

JoeB131 said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's sad is that people like you think one person owes another person anything in life including healthcare coverage. You do know there is a way you can get what you want without the government or a single taxpayer being involved don't you? Provide coverage to someone you think it's owed to with your money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy I suspect you aren't going to compliantly die when your health issues outpace your ability to pay.  You'll be the first one insisting your insurance company pay for it, and will scream like a banshee if they tried to deny you coverage.
Click to expand...


I already KNOW you think when one person doesn't have coverage you'll do nothing about it but demand someone else fund it.  You're the typical bleeding heart Liberal that believes supporting someone else being forced to do what you support means you actually did it yourself.


----------



## Conservative65

Arianrhod said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is sad that this has to happen.
> 
> It's also sad that the GOP has convinced people of "death panels", "losing freedom" and all the other hysterical nonsense that you sheep believe, that have actually made you think you hate a law that is a Republican idea.
> 
> So yeah, it's sad that a campaign needs to be waged to combat such blatant misinformation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's sad is that people like you think one person owes another person anything in life including healthcare coverage.  You do know there is a way you can get what you want without the government or a single taxpayer being involved don't you?  Provide coverage to someone you think it's owed to with your money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sure you've done this many times.
Click to expand...


I KNOW you haven't.  

I have no reason to do it.  I don't think one person is owed anything by another.  You do yet you personally do nothing in regards to what you want the rest of us to be forced to do.  If you cared, you and those that think like you would have done things to the point you would have to get the government to force others.  You simply don't like that people don't privately do with their money what you think should be done and your ONLY answer is to get the government to force them to do so.


----------



## Conservative65

JoeB131 said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear JoeB131
> We shouldn't BE depending on the Federal Govt to hold the sky up.
> Joe you don't get it do you.
> Even if it works that means citizens DEPEND on federal govt
> and we no longer have checks on officials if they hold the purse strings
> to benefits and health care we depend on.
> This is going in the wrong direction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Without reading through your verbal spew, I'd rather trust the government that I can vote out than a private insurance company contracted by my employer that I have no control over.
> 
> There's a reason why Medicare recipiants are highly satisfied with their level of care and people in private plans, not so much.
Click to expand...


That's your problem.  You trust the government to do for you what your sorry ass should be doing for yourself.


----------



## JoeB131

Conservative65 said:


> I already KNOW you think when one person doesn't have coverage you'll do nothing about it but demand someone else fund it. You're the typical bleeding heart Liberal that believes supporting someone else being forced to do what you support means you actually did it yourself.



you mean I favor EFFECTIVE solutions?  yes. yes, I do.


----------



## JoeB131

Conservative65 said:


> That's your problem. You trust the government to do for you what your sorry ass should be doing for yourself.



I'm sure I can't build a health care system by myself any more than I can build a road by myself.  

That's why we have government to do these things. 

The thing is, the current system with it's 9 figure salaries for CEOs and seven figure salaries for doctors is more expensive than a government system that would actually control costs and make it affordable.


----------



## emilynghiem

JoeB131 said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I already KNOW you think when one person doesn't have coverage you'll do nothing about it but demand someone else fund it. You're the typical bleeding heart Liberal that believes supporting someone else being forced to do what you support means you actually did it yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you mean I favor EFFECTIVE solutions?  yes. yes, I do.
Click to expand...


OK JoeB131 so if you believe this is more effective to go through govt
why can't this be a FREE CHOICE for everyone to decide what is most effective as well?

When spiritual healing through Christian programs is deemed more effective,
aren't people given a choice whether to fund a Catholic, Protestant or Universalist group they prefer?

When right to life people prefer abstention and education to prevent abortions
as more effective, aren't they expected to fund these programs by their own choice and not impose through govt?

What happened to free choice?


----------



## emilynghiem

JoeB131 said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's your problem. You trust the government to do for you what your sorry ass should be doing for yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure I can't build a health care system by myself any more than I can build a road by myself.
> 
> That's why we have government to do these things.
> 
> The thing is, the current system with it's 9 figure salaries for CEOs and seven figure salaries for doctors is more expensive than a government system that would actually control costs and make it affordable.
Click to expand...


Dear JoeB131 yes and no
When it comes to roads, we agree what is delegated to state, local or federal levels.
Why not extend this same process to health care and AGREE what should be
on local, state or federal levels?

Clearly we don't even agree on federal govt deciding for our local
schools who needs to be using which restroom.

We are dragging this same conflict into multiple issues if we don't resolve it first.
So why not resolve it and solve all the other areas where this same argument is taking place?

What is local
What is state
What is federal

As for examples of health care and medical programs that work independent of govt:
Look at Doctors without Borders
When they couldn't contain the Ebola outbreaks that had become a threat to nation's security,
they alerted the govts to step in who had authority to freeze travel until it could be contained.

But for the lesser areas, they are able to go in and work QUICKLY to meet the needs and demands
PER REGION because they aren't bogged down in "voting through Congress" everytime they need to do something.
They can decide on the spot because they are privately managed, and they run on
purely VOLUNTARY donations and participation.

Only in extreme cases like Ebola where people needed to be ordered to follow govt protocol
did it require that level of intervention and national controls.

Most of the local care can be handled regionally.

I talked with Libertarians about the cost of localized health care,
and found one group that estimated the cost can be reduced to 25/month
to cover basic care. And it's only the CATASTROPHIC level that needs to be
handled as emergencies on a higher collective level of organization.

So why not rework the state budgets to cover health care,
such as by revamping the state prison budgets where taxpayers are
already paying millions if not billions for the care of people with either
mental criminal illness or social disorders, and reserve only the truly
emergency cases for higher levels.

Why not organize by party, so people like you who believe in managing
things collective through govt can fund that, while others who believe
in localizing control through free market business charities and schools
can fund that.  Organizing by party will still allow the management to 
go all the way up to the top national levels, but without forcing this
on people involuntarily. People volunteer to affiliate with the parties
of their choice, so why not use that structure to organize health care
and benefits according to what people believe in or don't believe in funding.

And recognize free choice so everyone gets what they want and agrees to pay for their own systems?


----------



## Conservative65

JoeB131 said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's your problem. You trust the government to do for you what your sorry ass should be doing for yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure I can't build a health care system by myself any more than I can build a road by myself.
> 
> That's why we have government to do these things.
> 
> The thing is, the current system with it's 9 figure salaries for CEOs and seven figure salaries for doctors is more expensive than a government system that would actually control costs and make it affordable.
Click to expand...


I didn't say build a health system.  I said provide for YOURSELF.   You can't do that.  It's why you want the rest of us forced to be in a system so you can actually get something.


----------



## Conservative65

JoeB131 said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I already KNOW you think when one person doesn't have coverage you'll do nothing about it but demand someone else fund it. You're the typical bleeding heart Liberal that believes supporting someone else being forced to do what you support means you actually did it yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you mean I favor EFFECTIVE solutions?  yes. yes, I do.
Click to expand...


You support it because it provides you something you aren't capable of providing yourself.  Typical loser that relies on others to do for him what he CAN'T do for himself.    How sad it must be for you to know you can't make it on your own.


----------



## JoeB131

Conservative65 said:


> I didn't say build a health system. I said provide for YOURSELF. You can't do that. It's why you want the rest of us forced to be in a system so you can actually get something.



Uh, guy, here's the thing.  Right before I got cured of Republicanism, I did provide for myself.  I worked a job that had health insurance and I selected the top program they had because I knew I was getting up there in years and would have more issues.  

And then came that happy day my doctors told me I needed surgery for something that the insurance company decided was ELECTIVE after I paid the premiums.  After a long fight, they paid up and then pushed my employer at the time to cut me from the program.  

So, um, no, I would be happy to pay taxes to provide for insurance from a government I can vote out than an insurance company I can't.  

It's really pretty simple  We tried it your way and it didn't work. 

We can pretty much apply that to ANYTHING conservatives say.  We tried that. Doesn't work.  Let's do something that does.


----------



## Conservative65

JoeB131 said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say build a health system. I said provide for YOURSELF. You can't do that. It's why you want the rest of us forced to be in a system so you can actually get something.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, guy, here's the thing.  Right before I got cured of Republicanism, I did provide for myself.  I worked a job that had health insurance and I selected the top program they had because I knew I was getting up there in years and would have more issues.
> 
> And then came that happy day my doctors told me I needed surgery for something that the insurance company decided was ELECTIVE after I paid the premiums.  After a long fight, they paid up and then pushed my employer at the time to cut me from the program.
> 
> So, um, no, I would be happy to pay taxes to provide for insurance from a government I can vote out than an insurance company I can't.
> 
> It's really pretty simple  We tried it your way and it didn't work.
> 
> We can pretty much apply that to ANYTHING conservatives say.  We tried that. Doesn't work.  Let's do something that does.
Click to expand...


I can't help it you chose to have an elective surgery then wanted it to be funded.  They should have done what they did.  You tried to cheat the insurance  company to pay for something you wanted to do.

Funny how you Liberals say you'd pay more in taxes.  If you thought your ideas were so good, no one would have to tell you to pay more.  You'd pay it voluntarily.


----------



## Arianrhod

Conservative65 said:


> I can't help it you chose to have an elective surgery then wanted it to be funded.



You still don't get it, do you?


----------



## MaryL

Getting fired because you are over 55 because Obama care doesn't concern itself with older white workers, priceless. Obama cares more about poor non white non productive non revenue producing whatzits other than us non descript hard working revenue generating folks . Really? I never voted for Obama, and he has hurt me.Chickens come home to roost eventualy,  Hussein .


----------



## Arianrhod

MaryL said:


> Getting fired because you are over 55 because Obama care doesn't concern itself with older white workers...



Is that the excuse your boss gave you?  Pathetic.  Even more pathetic is that you believed him.


----------



## MaryL

W


Arianrhod said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Getting fired because you are over 55 because Obama care doesn't concern itself with older white workers...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that the excuse your boss gave you?  Pathetic.  Even more pathetic is that you believed him.
Click to expand...

Well, they really didn't say a word other than  weep over a intercom  as they say "you are fired" .My boss  just sat there. Then he was forced to retire  a few days later. I wish Hussein had to experience that.


----------



## Arianrhod

MaryL said:


> W
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Getting fired because you are over 55 because Obama care doesn't concern itself with older white workers...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that the excuse your boss gave you?  Pathetic.  Even more pathetic is that you believed him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, they really didn't say a word other than  weep over a intercom  as they say "you are fired" .My boss  just sat there. Then he was forced to retire  a few days later.
Click to expand...


And it's your belief that no one was ever superannuated prior to the passage of the PPACA.  What a fascinating microcosm you live in.


----------



## Dot Com

Arianrhod said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Getting fired because you are over 55 because Obama care doesn't concern itself with older white workers...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that the excuse your boss gave you?  Pathetic.  Even more pathetic is that you believed him.
Click to expand...

^ that


----------



## Dot Com

MaryL said:


> W
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Getting fired because you are over 55 because Obama care doesn't concern itself with older white workers...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that the excuse your boss gave you?  Pathetic.  Even more pathetic is that you believed him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, they really didn't say a word other than  weep over a intercom  as they say "you are fired" .My boss  just sat there. Then he was forced to retire  a few days later. I wish Hussein had to experience that.
Click to expand...

Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal


----------



## MaryL

Dot Com said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> W
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Getting fired because you are over 55 because Obama care doesn't concern itself with older white workers...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that the excuse your boss gave you?  Pathetic.  Even more pathetic is that you believed him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, they really didn't say a word other than  weep over a intercom  as they say "you are fired" .My boss  just sat there. Then he was forced to retire  a few days later. I wish Hussein had to experience that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal
Click to expand...

Really,  I will remind the judge of that when they bring  an eyewitness to the stand next time I  pull jury duty. it's all anecdotal unopilars whatever your new moniker is, all facts are based on eyewitness and you can't blow that off.


----------



## Conservative65

Arianrhod said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't help it you chose to have an elective surgery then wanted it to be funded.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You still don't get it, do you?
Click to expand...




Arianrhod said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't help it you chose to have an elective surgery then wanted it to be funded.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You still don't get it, do you?
Click to expand...


I get it.  Joe wanted an elective surgery and expected insurance to pay for something it didn't cover.  Rather than be a man about it, he whined and bitched like Liberals do.  

You don't get it.  It's not the government's responsibility to make sure people have health coverage.  It really is that simple but you don't want to understand it.


----------



## Conservative65

Arianrhod said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Getting fired because you are over 55 because Obama care doesn't concern itself with older white workers...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that the excuse your boss gave you?  Pathetic.  Even more pathetic is that you believed him.
Click to expand...


Joe used the insurance company refused to pay excuse and you supported him.


----------



## MaryL

Anecdotal evidence holds sway in our justice system. Its called  eyewitness testimony. It  beats a bunch of know it all assholes bloggers  that never saw a damned thing that refer to the internet as their savior.  Guess again.


----------



## Arianrhod

MaryL said:


> Anecdotal evidence holds sway in our justice system. Its called  eyewitness testimony.



Hate to break it to you, but posting anonymously on a message board does not constitute "eyewitness testimony."

My guess is you never noticed when your employers let older workers go prior to January 2014 because it didn't apply to you.


----------



## MaryL

Arianrhod said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anecdotal evidence holds sway in our justice system. Its called  eyewitness testimony.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hate to break it to you, but posting anonymously on a message board does not constitute "eyewitness testimony."
> 
> My guess is you never noticed when your employers let older workers go prior to January 2014 because it didn't apply to you.
Click to expand...

This  is amusing, but YES eyewitness testimony is still acceptable in a court of law. I just came off jury duty, not my first time either.  Older workers in my company mysteriously vanished over the span of a couple of years, they where made to retire, or they were fired.. Because my employer   couldn't pay for the new health care premiums Obama care imposed. And you are in no way in a position to judge. But you can be a smart ass and be contradictory as  you want.


----------



## Arianrhod

MaryL said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anecdotal evidence holds sway in our justice system. Its called  eyewitness testimony.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hate to break it to you, but posting anonymously on a message board does not constitute "eyewitness testimony."
> 
> My guess is you never noticed when your employers let older workers go prior to January 2014 because it didn't apply to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This  is amusing, but YES eyewitness testimony is still acceptable in a court of law.
Click to expand...


And this is not a court of law.


----------



## MaryL

Arianrhod said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anecdotal evidence holds sway in our justice system. Its called  eyewitness testimony.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hate to break it to you, but posting anonymously on a message board does not constitute "eyewitness testimony."
> 
> My guess is you never noticed when your employers let older workers go prior to January 2014 because it didn't apply to you.
Click to expand...

My guess is you don't know what you are talking about.


----------



## MaryL

I don't care about politics. Omama hurt me personally, and I don't see  how this phoney health care program helps anyone but unproductive people  or Obama's image. I don't care about either. Something dreadfully wrong here, kids.


----------



## Arianrhod

MaryL said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anecdotal evidence holds sway in our justice system. Its called  eyewitness testimony.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hate to break it to you, but posting anonymously on a message board does not constitute "eyewitness testimony."
> 
> My guess is you never noticed when your employers let older workers go prior to January 2014 because it didn't apply to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My guess is you don't know what you are talking about.
Click to expand...


Then give me some "eyewitness testimony" to the fact that when someone older than you was "let go" you didn't yawn and say "Oh, well, he wasn't that efficient, anyway."


----------



## Arianrhod

MaryL said:


> Obama hurt me personally.



So you worked for Obama?  Or did he personally show up at your workplace and instruct the bosses to fire everyone over age 54?  I'd have thought that would have been newsworthy.


----------



## MaryL

Arianrhod said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama hurt me personally.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you worked for Obama?  Or did he personally show up at your workplace and instruct the bosses to fire everyone over age 54?  I'd have thought that would have been newsworthy.
Click to expand...

Umm, no and no, he's our fureur. Zeig la Obama's  new reich, we can't question him or his politics because you robot liberals go off on those pre programmed diatribes of yours.


----------



## dblack

MaryL said:


> I don't care about politics. Omama hurt me personally, and I don't see  how this phoney health care program helps anyone but unproductive people  or Obama's image. I don't care about either. *Something dreadfully wrong here, kids.*



Yep. And you describe it succinctly. We have an amoral society concerned only with their own personal circumstance, with no ability - or at least no willingness - to see things from another's perspective.


----------



## Arianrhod

MaryL said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama hurt me personally.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you worked for Obama?  Or did he personally show up at your workplace and instruct the bosses to fire everyone over age 54?  I'd have thought that would have been newsworthy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Umm, no and no, he's our fureur. Zeig la Obama's  new reich, we can't question him or his politics because you robot liberals go off on those pre programmed diatribes of yours.
Click to expand...


Oh, okay, Alternate Universe R Us.  Now I know how seriously to take you.


----------



## JoeB131

Conservative65 said:


> I can't help it you chose to have an elective surgery then wanted it to be funded. They should have done what they did. You tried to cheat the insurance company to pay for something you wanted to do.
> 
> Funny how you Liberals say you'd pay more in taxes. If you thought your ideas were so good, no one would have to tell you to pay more. You'd pay it voluntarily.



It wasn't "elective". The Doctor told me I needed this or I was going to have serious health issues.  

That's the problem with what Health Insurance companies do. They take your money and then they try to cheat people out of the services promised.  I guess I was luckier than that 17 year old girl who didn't get a liver transplant because the same insurance company ruled her procedure "experimental" 

Here's the thing, we are ALREADY paying more for Ed Hanaway's 9 figure salary and the dividends paid to stockholders.  While the US Spends 17% of it's GDP on health care, most industrialized nations spend 8-11%.  

But you don't want no gummit, telling you what to do, Cleetus!


----------



## JoeB131

Conservative65 said:


> I get it. Joe wanted an elective surgery and expected insurance to pay for something it didn't cover. Rather than be a man about it, he whined and bitched like Liberals do.
> 
> You don't get it. It's not the government's responsibility to make sure people have health coverage. It really is that simple but you don't want to understand it.



It wasn't "elective".  I'd have probably died if I didn't get it. This is what qualified medical professionals told me.  

But you do bring up an interesting question.  Should health care be a public service provided to all citizens like police and fire protection, or should it be a consumer commodity that you only get if you can afford it?  

Obviously every other industrialized nation has asked this question and decided it SHOULD be a public service.  Only the US still treats it as a consumer commodity and has the worst health care in the industrialized world. 

Lowest Life Expectency in advanced nations. 
Highest infant mortality rate
62% of bankruptcies linked to medical crisis, and 75% of those had health insurance.


----------



## JoeB131

MaryL said:


> This is amusing, but YES eyewitness testimony is still acceptable in a court of law. I just came off jury duty, not my first time either. Older workers in my company mysteriously vanished over the span of a couple of years, they where made to retire, or they were fired.. Because my employer couldn't pay for the new health care premiums Obama care imposed. And you are in no way in a position to judge. But you can be a smart ass and be contradictory as you want.



You don't think that older workers aren't made to disappear without ObamaCare?


----------



## Conservative65

JoeB131 said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I get it. Joe wanted an elective surgery and expected insurance to pay for something it didn't cover. Rather than be a man about it, he whined and bitched like Liberals do.
> 
> You don't get it. It's not the government's responsibility to make sure people have health coverage. It really is that simple but you don't want to understand it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't "elective".  I'd have probably died if I didn't get it. This is what qualified medical professionals told me.
> 
> But you do bring up an interesting question.  Should health care be a public service provided to all citizens like police and fire protection, or should it be a consumer commodity that you only get if you can afford it?
> 
> Obviously every other industrialized nation has asked this question and decided it SHOULD be a public service.  Only the US still treats it as a consumer commodity and has the worst health care in the industrialized world.
> 
> Lowest Life Expectency in advanced nations.
> Highest infant mortality rate
> 62% of bankruptcies linked to medical crisis, and 75% of those had health insurance.
Click to expand...


That wouldn't have been such a bad thing.  One less entitlement minded moron.

I've proposed a solution to many of those that believe like you and it would satisfy those who think others who don't have coverage should get it and those that think it's not their place to pay more taxes to provide it.  If you know of a situation where someone doesn't have coverage or can't get care, pay for it yourself.  They get what you think they deserve and the rest of us don't have to pay for it.  

I've used the healthcare industry in the U.S. and received excellent service.  I also know many others that have.  Perhaps, like with many other things, you're the problem and not the system.


----------



## Conservative65

JoeB131 said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't help it you chose to have an elective surgery then wanted it to be funded. They should have done what they did. You tried to cheat the insurance company to pay for something you wanted to do.
> 
> Funny how you Liberals say you'd pay more in taxes. If you thought your ideas were so good, no one would have to tell you to pay more. You'd pay it voluntarily.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't "elective". The Doctor told me I needed this or I was going to have serious health issues.
> 
> That's the problem with what Health Insurance companies do. They take your money and then they try to cheat people out of the services promised.  I guess I was luckier than that 17 year old girl who didn't get a liver transplant because the same insurance company ruled her procedure "experimental"
> 
> Here's the thing, we are ALREADY paying more for Ed Hanaway's 9 figure salary and the dividends paid to stockholders.  While the US Spends 17% of it's GDP on health care, most industrialized nations spend 8-11%.
> 
> But you don't want no gummit, telling you what to do, Cleetus!
Click to expand...


The problem is you want the government doing everything FOR you, freeloader.


----------



## rdean

I'm retiring this year.  I already called Obamacare to find out about their insurance programs.  First I need bridge insurance.  That's insurance that goes between jobs or between a job and medicare eligibility.  Then I'll need supplemental insurance.  Can't imagine it would be easier to find out all the plans and get proper help without the exchange.  Republicans would cut off nose to spite face.  The ignorance is appalling.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> But you do bring up an interesting question.  Should health care be a public service provided to all citizens like police and fire protection, or should it be a consumer commodity that you only get if you can afford it?
> 
> Obviously every other industrialized nation has asked this question and decided it SHOULD be a public service.  Only the US still treats it as a consumer commodity and has the worst health care in the industrialized world.



And that is why the U.S. had the greatest healthcare in the world. It's why Canadian government officials flew in to Florida for heart surgery instead of using their own shitty government healthcare. It's why billionaire oil sheiks from all over the world fly into the U.S. for their healthcare (you sure as fuck don't see them flying into Cuba).

I'm so sick of libtards lowering the bar and trying to destroy the U.S. "Every other industrialized nation does X". Well that's why every other industrialized nations blows in comparison to the U.S. Nobody risks their life trying to make it into China or Japan. Nope - everyone tries to come _here_. Those other nations are supposedly soooooo great yet every fucking libtard refuses to go live there. That says it _all_.


----------



## P@triot

rdean said:


> I'm retiring this year.  I already called Obamacare to find out about their insurance programs.  First I need bridge insurance.  That's insurance that goes between jobs or between a job and medicare eligibility.  Then I'll need supplemental insurance.  Can't imagine it would be easier to find out all the plans and get proper help without the exchange.  Republicans would cut off nose to spite face.  The ignorance is appalling.


You ignorance is indeed appalling RDean...


----------



## P@triot

rdean said:


> Can't imagine it would be easier to find out all the plans and get proper help without the exchange.



Yeah....we know RDean. A liberal is someone who can't imagine surviving without government doing everything for them (like a small child needs their mommy for every basic need). I mean....gosh....how could _anyone_ find out healthcare plans before Obamacare?

Oh wait....that's right.....people have only been doing it for hundreds of years (and surviving thousands of years with no health insurance at all).


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> While the US Spends 17% of it's GDP on health care, most industrialized nations spend 8-11%.



And that is why the U.S. is _far_ superior to everyone nation in the world. You get what you pay for. What kind of mindless asshole would advocate for dirt cheap or "free" healthcare. Oh wait - that's right. A libtard that would rather spend their money on drugs and porn than their health.

Frankly - I want healthcare costs to skyrocket *if* it happens naturally through the free market. After all, you get what you pay for. After all, a Ford Focus is pretty cheap but the Lamborghini is a _billion_ times better.



JoeB131 said:


> But you don't want no gummit, telling you what to do, Cleetus!



That's right _Joe_! It's called liberty. It's a trillion times more priceless than healthcare. Or housing. Or food stamps. It's exactly why Patrick Henry said "Give me liberty or give me *death*". But little Joey here, who can't seem to figure out how to function in the real world, says "take my liberty and give me pitiful gummit table scraps in return".


----------



## JoeB131

Conservative65 said:


> That wouldn't have been such a bad thing. One less entitlement minded moron.
> 
> I've proposed a solution to many of those that believe like you and it would satisfy those who think others who don't have coverage should get it and those that think it's not their place to pay more taxes to provide it. If you know of a situation where someone doesn't have coverage or can't get care, pay for it yourself. They get what you think they deserve and the rest of us don't have to pay for it.
> 
> I've used the healthcare industry in the U.S. and received excellent service. I also know many others that have. Perhaps, like with many other things, you're the problem and not the system.



Guy, some day you are going to have a situation where you get sick and your insurance won't pay for it.  or you would had Obama not passed a bunch of stuff protecting you.  

The problem with a system based on greed is that everyone has a price. If you think that there aren't people out there willing to let you die so they can make more money, you are delusional.


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> And that is why the U.S. is _far_ superior to everyone nation in the world. You get what you pay for. What kind of mindless asshole would advocate for dirt cheap or "free" healthcare. Oh wait - that's right. A libtard that would rather spend their money on drugs and porn than their health.
> 
> Frankly - I want healthcare costs to skyrocket *if* it happens naturally through the free market. After all, you get what you pay for. After all, a Ford Focus is pretty cheap but the Lamborghini is a _billion_ times better.



Here's the thing with that crappy analogy.  Not everyone can afford a Lamborghini. Having a Lamborghini health care system that poor people can't afford because they are poor is retarded.  

But as I stated. I had a good job. I paid for health coverage.  My insurance company did it's level best to screw me, anyway. 

My health care plan. Socialized medicine and we harvest the 1%ers for transplant organs. 

Sounds as fair and human as what you suggest.  



P@triot said:


> That's right _Joe_! It's called liberty. It's a trillion times more priceless than healthcare. Or housing. Or food stamps. It's exactly why Patrick Henry said "Give me liberty or give me *death*". But little Joey here, who can't seem to figure out how to function in the real world, says "take my liberty and give me pitiful gummit table scraps in return".



Fuck the Founding Slave Rapists.  YOu don't get to mouth off about "liberty" and then go home and whip your slaves, which is what these assholes did. 

Every time you fuckwads talk about liberty, it usually means the ability of those with money to abuse those of us with less money. 

I'd rather have health care.  Make the rich pay for it.  Maybe harvest a couple of them for Transplant Organs.


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> And that is why the U.S. had the greatest healthcare in the world. It's why Canadian government officials flew in to Florida for heart surgery instead of using their own shitty government healthcare. It's why billionaire oil sheiks from all over the world fly into the U.S. for their healthcare (you sure as fuck don't see them flying into Cuba).



It was only one Canadian official who didn't want to share a hospital room. His constiuents voted his ass out of office after he did that stunt. 

Guy, here's the thing you don't get. Of course the rich are going to get better stuff than the rest of us. But treatments that rich oil sheiks can get and the rest of us can't, not so much. 

In terms of ACTUAL NUMBERS, we have the WORST system in the world. Highest infant mortality rate and the lowest life expectancy in the industrialized world.


----------



## JoeB131

Conservative65 said:


> The problem is you want the government doing everything FOR you, freeloader.



No, just the things I wouldn't trust the private sector with.


----------



## Arianrhod

Dear RWNJs: You've used up your quota of "you want government to do everything for you."  Try a new buzzphrase, mmkay?


----------



## Conservative65

JoeB131 said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is you want the government doing everything FOR you, freeloader.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, just the things I wouldn't trust the private sector with.
Click to expand...


Which, based on your own words, is just about everything, freeloader.


----------



## Conservative65

JoeB131 said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That wouldn't have been such a bad thing. One less entitlement minded moron.
> 
> I've proposed a solution to many of those that believe like you and it would satisfy those who think others who don't have coverage should get it and those that think it's not their place to pay more taxes to provide it. If you know of a situation where someone doesn't have coverage or can't get care, pay for it yourself. They get what you think they deserve and the rest of us don't have to pay for it.
> 
> I've used the healthcare industry in the U.S. and received excellent service. I also know many others that have. Perhaps, like with many other things, you're the problem and not the system.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, some day you are going to have a situation where you get sick and your insurance won't pay for it.  or you would had Obama not passed a bunch of stuff protecting you.
> 
> The problem with a system based on greed is that everyone has a price. If you think that there aren't people out there willing to let you die so they can make more money, you are delusional.
Click to expand...


Oh, the doom and gloom mentality of a freeloader.  What you don't get is that I would rather die than for someone else, including you, to be forced to provide for me.  Unlike you, a freeloader, I don't need someone protecting me from something that doesn't bother me.  You do because you're both unwilling and unable to do for yourself.


----------



## Conservative65

Arianrhod said:


> Dear RWNJs: You've used up your quota of "you want government to do everything for you."  Try a new buzzphrase, mmkay?



When you LWNJs stop expecting the government to do everything for you, I'll quit saying that's what you want.  If you don't expect it, no one will say you do.  Since you do, don't be shocked when someone calls you on it.


----------



## Arianrhod

Conservative65 said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear RWNJs: You've used up your quota of "you want government to do everything for you."  Try a new buzzphrase, mmkay?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you LWNJs stop expecting the government to do everything for you, I'll quit saying that's what you want.  If you don't expect it, no one will say you do.  Since you do, don't be shocked when someone calls you on it.
Click to expand...


Then you're no one, because you can't find a single liberal on this board, much less IRL who "expects the goverment to do everything for" them.

Though you're welcome to try.  Go for it.


----------



## Conservative65

Arianrhod said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear RWNJs: You've used up your quota of "you want government to do everything for you."  Try a new buzzphrase, mmkay?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you LWNJs stop expecting the government to do everything for you, I'll quit saying that's what you want.  If you don't expect it, no one will say you do.  Since you do, don't be shocked when someone calls you on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you're no one, because you can't find a single liberal on this board, much less IRL who "expects the goverment to do everything for" them.
> 
> Though you're welcome to try.  Go for it.
Click to expand...


Do you expect the taxpayers, through the government, to provide funding for food when people can't afford it?  Healthcare?  Housing?  

When the argument by Liberals stems around societies responsibility to provide for society as a whole and the way that's done is through government mandated taxes, it's exactly what you're doing whether you realize it or not.


----------



## Arianrhod

Conservative65 said:


> Do you expect the taxpayers, through the government, to provide funding for food when people can't afford it?  Healthcare?  Housing?
> 
> When the argument by Liberals stems around societies responsibility to provide for society as a whole and the way that's done is through government mandated taxes, it's exactly what you're doing whether you realize it or not.



None of that has anything to do with your claim that I, as a liberal "expect the government to do everything" for me.

I have worked since I was 14.  I pay my taxes.  As an independent contractor, I pay for my own health insurance.  If you polled the liberals here, you'd find out most of them are more conscientious than you are.

You're so obsessed with the fantasy that someone's going to take your money that I doubt you're doing very well in other aspects of your life.  Time to stop obsessing, before it kills you.


----------



## JoeB131

Conservative65 said:


> Which, based on your own words, is just about everything, freeloader.



Meh, naw, just the shit they've clearly fucked up.  Like health care.  

Like I said, I'd be happier to send the money to the government than Cigna. Then I know it would go to pay for health care rather than Ed Hanaway's 9 figure retirement fund.


----------



## JoeB131

Arianrhod said:


> None of that has anything to do with your claim that I, as a liberal "expect the government to do everything" for me.
> 
> I have worked since I was 14. I pay my taxes. As an independent contractor, I pay for my own health insurance. If you polled the liberals here, you'd find out most of them are more conscientious than you are.
> 
> You're so obsessed with the fantasy that someone's going to take your money that I doubt you're doing very well in other aspects of your life. Time to stop obsessing, before it kills you.



well said. I can't imagine this guy is doing well in his own life, but he's happy to look down on others.


----------



## JoeB131

Conservative65 said:


> Do you expect the taxpayers, through the government, to provide funding for food when people can't afford it? Healthcare? Housing?



Well, personally, I'd rather have the big corporations that exploit their labor pay them a fair wage so they can buy their own.


----------



## Unkotare

MaryL said:


> I don't care about politics. Omama hurt me personally, and I don't see  how this phoney health care program helps anyone but unproductive people  or Obama's image. I don't care about either. Something dreadfully wrong here, kids.





95% of your posts contain the words "hurt me personally" + some racist rant or whining about being called a racist. 

Get some new material.


----------



## Conservative65

JoeB131 said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you expect the taxpayers, through the government, to provide funding for food when people can't afford it? Healthcare? Housing?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, personally, I'd rather have the big corporations that exploit their labor pay them a fair wage so they can buy their own.
Click to expand...


If someone has skills worth $8/hour and they get paid $8/hour, how is that not a fair wage and exploitation?  Isn't the wage equal to the skills?  

Your problem is that you think it's your place to determine what a business you don't own should pay for skills offered to that business.  It's not and never will be.


----------



## Conservative65

JoeB131 said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which, based on your own words, is just about everything, freeloader.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meh, naw, just the shit they've clearly fucked up.  Like health care.
> 
> Like I said, I'd be happier to send the money to the government than Cigna. Then I know it would go to pay for health care rather than Ed Hanaway's 9 figure retirement fund.
Click to expand...


My insurance coverage has been excellent since I started working professionally.  Tell me why I should support what you support when what you say is fucked up for you isn't for me.  Tell me why I should stop doing things in a way that has worked for me so it can be better for you.


----------



## Conservative65

Arianrhod said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you expect the taxpayers, through the government, to provide funding for food when people can't afford it?  Healthcare?  Housing?
> 
> When the argument by Liberals stems around societies responsibility to provide for society as a whole and the way that's done is through government mandated taxes, it's exactly what you're doing whether you realize it or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None of that has anything to do with your claim that I, as a liberal "expect the government to do everything" for me.
> 
> I have worked since I was 14.  I pay my taxes.  As an independent contractor, I pay for my own health insurance.  If you polled the liberals here, you'd find out most of them are more conscientious than you are.
> 
> You're so obsessed with the fantasy that someone's going to take your money that I doubt you're doing very well in other aspects of your life.  Time to stop obsessing, before it kills you.
Click to expand...


If I polled them?  Do you really think I believe what Liberal says and trust them to be honest?  

Since you're a Liberal I doubt you are what you say you are.  What you need to do is prove beyond a shadow of a doubt the claim YOU made.


----------



## JoeB131

Conservative65 said:


> If someone has skills worth $8/hour and they get paid $8/hour, how is that not a fair wage and exploitation? Isn't the wage equal to the skills?
> 
> Your problem is that you think it's your place to determine what a business you don't own should pay for skills offered to that business. It's not and never will be.



Guy, guess what, Living Wage is coming whether you like it or not.  

And you'll be better off for it.  I'm sure Possum Catcher doesn't pay that much.


----------



## JoeB131

Conservative65 said:


> My insurance coverage has been excellent since I started working professionally. Tell me why I should support what you support when what you say is fucked up for you isn't for me. Tell me why I should stop doing things in a way that has worked for me so it can be better for you.



Again, wait until you have a bill that's more than they want to pay for, then get back to me.


----------



## Arianrhod

Conservative65 said:


> If I polled them?  Do you really think I believe what Liberal says and trust them to be honest?



Hell, you don't even know the difference between "elective" and "You need this surgery or you'll die."  Can't expect you to master complex concepts like "honesty."


----------



## Conservative65

Arianrhod said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I polled them?  Do you really think I believe what Liberal says and trust them to be honest?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hell, you don't even know the difference between "elective" and "You need this surgery or you'll die."  Can't expect you to master complex concepts like "honesty."
Click to expand...

Again, I can't trust you to be dishonest as you totally lie about what I said.


----------



## Conservative65

JoeB131 said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> My insurance coverage has been excellent since I started working professionally. Tell me why I should support what you support when what you say is fucked up for you isn't for me. Tell me why I should stop doing things in a way that has worked for me so it can be better for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, wait until you have a bill that's more than they want to pay for, then get back to me.
Click to expand...


I have.  You know what I did.  I paid the difference.  That means I got back to you and I suspect you find some other excuse to justify being a freeloader.


----------



## Conservative65

JoeB131 said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If someone has skills worth $8/hour and they get paid $8/hour, how is that not a fair wage and exploitation? Isn't the wage equal to the skills?
> 
> Your problem is that you think it's your place to determine what a business you don't own should pay for skills offered to that business. It's not and never will be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, guess what, Living Wage is coming whether you like it or not.
> 
> And you'll be better off for it.  I'm sure Possum Catcher doesn't pay that much.
Click to expand...


Just another example of freeloaders like you getting something you don't deserve but think is owed to you.


----------



## rdean

P@triot said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm retiring this year.  I already called Obamacare to find out about their insurance programs.  First I need bridge insurance.  That's insurance that goes between jobs or between a job and medicare eligibility.  Then I'll need supplemental insurance.  Can't imagine it would be easier to find out all the plans and get proper help without the exchange.  Republicans would cut off nose to spite face.  The ignorance is appalling.
> 
> 
> 
> You ignorance is indeed appalling RDean...
> View attachment 81054
Click to expand...

Because Republicans are trying to ruin them.  And leave people with what?


----------



## rdean

Conservative65 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If someone has skills worth $8/hour and they get paid $8/hour, how is that not a fair wage and exploitation? Isn't the wage equal to the skills?
> 
> Your problem is that you think it's your place to determine what a business you don't own should pay for skills offered to that business. It's not and never will be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, guess what, Living Wage is coming whether you like it or not.
> 
> And you'll be better off for it.  I'm sure Possum Catcher doesn't pay that much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just another example of freeloaders like you getting something you don't deserve but think is owed to you.
Click to expand...

5.8 million jobs unfilled in this country because the GOP lacks skills and Donald Trump talks about bringing back hi paying unskilled labor that doesn't exist because it's been automated and ignorant right wingers believe that swindler.  So who are the ridiculous chumps?


----------



## Conservative65

rdean said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If someone has skills worth $8/hour and they get paid $8/hour, how is that not a fair wage and exploitation? Isn't the wage equal to the skills?
> 
> Your problem is that you think it's your place to determine what a business you don't own should pay for skills offered to that business. It's not and never will be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, guess what, Living Wage is coming whether you like it or not.
> 
> And you'll be better off for it.  I'm sure Possum Catcher doesn't pay that much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just another example of freeloaders like you getting something you don't deserve but think is owed to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 5.8 million jobs unfilled in this country because the GOP lacks skills and Donald Trump talks about bringing back hi paying unskilled labor that doesn't exist because it's been automated and ignorant right wingers believe that swindler.  So who are the ridiculous chumps?
Click to expand...


The ridiculous chumps are you Liberal ass lickers that think giving someone something for nothing will cause them to do better for themselves.


----------



## P@triot

rdean said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm retiring this year.  I already called Obamacare to find out about their insurance programs.  First I need bridge insurance.  That's insurance that goes between jobs or between a job and medicare eligibility.  Then I'll need supplemental insurance.  Can't imagine it would be easier to find out all the plans and get proper help without the exchange.  Republicans would cut off nose to spite face.  The ignorance is appalling.
> 
> 
> 
> You ignorance is indeed appalling RDean...
> View attachment 81054
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because Republicans are trying to ruin them.  And leave people with what?
Click to expand...


Funny.....when it suits you - Republican's are powerless, insignificant little nothing's. But then when you have no other way to explain the astounding failures of Barack Obama - suddenly Republican's are the most powerful force in the universe. Able to move mountains and shut down businesses with a wave of their hand.


----------



## Arianrhod

Conservative65 said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I polled them?  Do you really think I believe what Liberal says and trust them to be honest?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hell, you don't even know the difference between "elective" and "You need this surgery or you'll die."  Can't expect you to master complex concepts like "honesty."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, I can't trust you to be dishonest as you totally lie about what I said.
Click to expand...


You say you can't trust me to be dishonest, which makes no sense.   Are you denying you're the one repeating  that liberals are "expecting the government to do everything for them" ad infinitum, ad nauseam?  You're the dishonest one.  Small wonder you don't trust anyone else.


----------



## Conservative65

rdean said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm retiring this year.  I already called Obamacare to find out about their insurance programs.  First I need bridge insurance.  That's insurance that goes between jobs or between a job and medicare eligibility.  Then I'll need supplemental insurance.  Can't imagine it would be easier to find out all the plans and get proper help without the exchange.  Republicans would cut off nose to spite face.  The ignorance is appalling.
> 
> 
> 
> You ignorance is indeed appalling RDean...
> View attachment 81054
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because Republicans are trying to ruin them.  And leave people with what?
Click to expand...


If people die because they don't have insurance, it's the fault of people like you that say you care about them but are personally unwilling to provide them help with your own money.  If you say someone deserves something then won't provide them with it using your money, you can't blame someone else for not doing what you think should be done.


----------



## Conservative65

Arianrhod said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I polled them?  Do you really think I believe what Liberal says and trust them to be honest?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hell, you don't even know the difference between "elective" and "You need this surgery or you'll die."  Can't expect you to master complex concepts like "honesty."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, I can't trust you to be dishonest as you totally lie about what I said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You say you can't trust me to be dishonest, which makes no sense.   Are you denying you're the one repeating  that liberals are "expecting the government to do everything for them" ad infinitum, ad nauseam?  You're the dishonest one.  Small wonder you don't trust anyone else.
Click to expand...


I can't trust a word you say.  You're a Liberal and Liberals are known liars.  I don't trust liars like you.


----------



## Arianrhod

Conservative65 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If someone has skills worth $8/hour and they get paid $8/hour, how is that not a fair wage and exploitation? Isn't the wage equal to the skills?
> 
> Your problem is that you think it's your place to determine what a business you don't own should pay for skills offered to that business. It's not and never will be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, guess what, Living Wage is coming whether you like it or not.
> 
> And you'll be better off for it.  I'm sure Possum Catcher doesn't pay that much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just another example of freeloaders like you getting something you don't deserve but think is owed to you.
Click to expand...


If you bought what you thought was a new car, faithfully made your payments every month, then found out your shiny new car had a reconditioned engine, you'd consider that fair, would you?


----------



## Arianrhod

Conservative65 said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I polled them?  Do you really think I believe what Liberal says and trust them to be honest?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hell, you don't even know the difference between "elective" and "You need this surgery or you'll die."  Can't expect you to master complex concepts like "honesty."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, I can't trust you to be dishonest as you totally lie about what I said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You say you can't trust me to be dishonest, which makes no sense.   Are you denying you're the one repeating  that liberals are "expecting the government to do everything for them" ad infinitum, ad nauseam?  You're the dishonest one.  Small wonder you don't trust anyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't trust a word you say.  You're a Liberal and Liberals are known liars.  I don't trust liars like you.
Click to expand...


But you said you can't trust me to be dishonest.  That means you believe I'm honest.  You seem conflicted.


----------



## Conservative65

Arianrhod said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If someone has skills worth $8/hour and they get paid $8/hour, how is that not a fair wage and exploitation? Isn't the wage equal to the skills?
> 
> Your problem is that you think it's your place to determine what a business you don't own should pay for skills offered to that business. It's not and never will be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, guess what, Living Wage is coming whether you like it or not.
> 
> And you'll be better off for it.  I'm sure Possum Catcher doesn't pay that much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just another example of freeloaders like you getting something you don't deserve but think is owed to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you bought what you thought was a new car, faithfully made your payments every month, then found out your shiny new car had a reconditioned engine, you'd consider that fair, would you?
Click to expand...


Several assumptions on your part.  One, I don't make car payments, I pay cash.  Two, I have the ability and knowledge to be able to determine whether or not that's been done to an engine.  

You like to ASSume a lot.


----------



## Conservative65

Arianrhod said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I polled them?  Do you really think I believe what Liberal says and trust them to be honest?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hell, you don't even know the difference between "elective" and "You need this surgery or you'll die."  Can't expect you to master complex concepts like "honesty."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, I can't trust you to be dishonest as you totally lie about what I said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You say you can't trust me to be dishonest, which makes no sense.   Are you denying you're the one repeating  that liberals are "expecting the government to do everything for them" ad infinitum, ad nauseam?  You're the dishonest one.  Small wonder you don't trust anyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't trust a word you say.  You're a Liberal and Liberals are known liars.  I don't trust liars like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you said you can't trust me to be dishonest.  That means you believe I'm honest.  You seem conflicted.
Click to expand...


I said you're a lying piece of shit.  You seem to be unable to know what that means.


----------



## Arianrhod

Conservative65 said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If someone has skills worth $8/hour and they get paid $8/hour, how is that not a fair wage and exploitation? Isn't the wage equal to the skills?
> 
> Your problem is that you think it's your place to determine what a business you don't own should pay for skills offered to that business. It's not and never will be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, guess what, Living Wage is coming whether you like it or not.
> 
> And you'll be better off for it.  I'm sure Possum Catcher doesn't pay that much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just another example of freeloaders like you getting something you don't deserve but think is owed to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you bought what you thought was a new car, faithfully made your payments every month, then found out your shiny new car had a reconditioned engine, you'd consider that fair, would you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Several assumptions on your part.  One, I don't make car payments, I pay cash.  Two, I have the ability and knowledge to be able to determine whether or not that's been done to an engine.
Click to expand...


In that case, if your insurer pulls the bait-and-switch that JoeB's insurer did, you'd never see it coming.


----------



## Conservative65

Arianrhod said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If someone has skills worth $8/hour and they get paid $8/hour, how is that not a fair wage and exploitation? Isn't the wage equal to the skills?
> 
> Your problem is that you think it's your place to determine what a business you don't own should pay for skills offered to that business. It's not and never will be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, guess what, Living Wage is coming whether you like it or not.
> 
> And you'll be better off for it.  I'm sure Possum Catcher doesn't pay that much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just another example of freeloaders like you getting something you don't deserve but think is owed to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you bought what you thought was a new car, faithfully made your payments every month, then found out your shiny new car had a reconditioned engine, you'd consider that fair, would you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Several assumptions on your part.  One, I don't make car payments, I pay cash.  Two, I have the ability and knowledge to be able to determine whether or not that's been done to an engine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In that case, if your insurer pulls the bait-and-switch that JoeB's insurer did, you'd never see it coming.
Click to expand...


That also assumes Joe is telling the truth.  Have him prove that happened to him. 

Sad how you lefties use the "IF"  doom and gloom argument to try and sell your nonsense.

What are you going to tell me next, that I'm wrong for looking out for me?


----------



## Arianrhod

Conservative65 said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, guess what, Living Wage is coming whether you like it or not.
> 
> And you'll be better off for it.  I'm sure Possum Catcher doesn't pay that much.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just another example of freeloaders like you getting something you don't deserve but think is owed to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you bought what you thought was a new car, faithfully made your payments every month, then found out your shiny new car had a reconditioned engine, you'd consider that fair, would you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Several assumptions on your part.  One, I don't make car payments, I pay cash.  Two, I have the ability and knowledge to be able to determine whether or not that's been done to an engine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In that case, if your insurer pulls the bait-and-switch that JoeB's insurer did, you'd never see it coming.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That also assumes Joe is telling the truth.  Have him prove that happened to him.
> 
> Sad how you lefties use the "IF"  doom and gloom argument to try and sell your nonsense.
> 
> What are you going to tell me next, that I'm wrong for looking out for me?
Click to expand...


Given your assumption that half the people on this board are liars, I wonder what you're doing here.  Not to mention whether you've figured out the difference between "elective" and "life-saving" yet.


----------



## Conservative65

Arianrhod said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just another example of freeloaders like you getting something you don't deserve but think is owed to you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you bought what you thought was a new car, faithfully made your payments every month, then found out your shiny new car had a reconditioned engine, you'd consider that fair, would you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Several assumptions on your part.  One, I don't make car payments, I pay cash.  Two, I have the ability and knowledge to be able to determine whether or not that's been done to an engine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In that case, if your insurer pulls the bait-and-switch that JoeB's insurer did, you'd never see it coming.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That also assumes Joe is telling the truth.  Have him prove that happened to him.
> 
> Sad how you lefties use the "IF"  doom and gloom argument to try and sell your nonsense.
> 
> What are you going to tell me next, that I'm wrong for looking out for me?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Given your assumption that half the people on this board are liars, I wonder what you're doing here.  Not to mention whether you've figured out the difference between "elective" and "life-saving" yet.
Click to expand...


Trying to educate liars to change their ways.  Like most of them, including you, you want to be a liar.  It's easier for you.

I know the difference.  Joe said it was life saving.  His insurance company said it was elective.  I believe his insurance provider.  Joe's a liar.  Why would anyone believe him?


----------



## P@triot

rdean said:


> Donald Trump talks about bringing back hi paying unskilled labor that doesn't exist because it's been automated and ignorant right wingers believe that swindler.  So who are the ridiculous chumps?



You are. You are the ridiculous chumps. Because "high paying unskilled labor" was automated due to the fact that idiot liberal socialism made the labor unaffordable. It's the same reason you people have driven so many jobs overseas.

Because you people don't understand basic economics and business fundamentals - you are the ridiculous chumps who have put yourselves out of jobs and destroyed world economies.


----------



## Arianrhod

Conservative65 said:


> Joe said it was life saving.  His insurance company said it was elective.  I believe his insurance provider.  Joe's a liar.  Why would anyone believe him?



Anyone who hasn't been letting Daddy Corporation take care of him all his adult life (and even some of you who actually interact with other human beings) knows that Joe's story is only one of millions.  People pay their premiums, check to make sure the life-saving surgery they need is covered by their insurer, have the surgery, and then hear 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 "We changed our policy.  You lose, sucka!"

It's the reason for the bankruptcies.  But you refuse to believe that they exist, either.  No amount of hard data makes a dent in your confirmation bias.  Either you're a liar or you're incredibly stupid.  It's a wonder you can find your way onto the Internet to spew your anger day after day.


----------



## Sun Devil 92

P@triot said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm retiring this year.  I already called Obamacare to find out about their insurance programs.  First I need bridge insurance.  That's insurance that goes between jobs or between a job and medicare eligibility.  Then I'll need supplemental insurance.  Can't imagine it would be easier to find out all the plans and get proper help without the exchange.  Republicans would cut off nose to spite face.  The ignorance is appalling.
> 
> 
> 
> You ignorance is indeed appalling RDean...
> View attachment 81054
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because Republicans are trying to ruin them.  And leave people with what?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny.....when it suits you - Republican's are powerless, insignificant little nothing's. But then when you have no other way to explain the astounding failures of Barack Obama - suddenly Republican's are the most powerful force in the universe. Able to move mountains and shut down businesses with a wave of their hand.
Click to expand...


Good call !!!


----------



## Sun Devil 92

Conservative65 said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, guess what, Living Wage is coming whether you like it or not.
> 
> And you'll be better off for it.  I'm sure Possum Catcher doesn't pay that much.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just another example of freeloaders like you getting something you don't deserve but think is owed to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you bought what you thought was a new car, faithfully made your payments every month, then found out your shiny new car had a reconditioned engine, you'd consider that fair, would you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Several assumptions on your part.  One, I don't make car payments, I pay cash.  Two, I have the ability and knowledge to be able to determine whether or not that's been done to an engine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In that case, if your insurer pulls the bait-and-switch that JoeB's insurer did, you'd never see it coming.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That also assumes Joe is telling the truth.  Have him prove that happened to him.
> 
> Sad how you lefties use the "IF"  doom and gloom argument to try and sell your nonsense.
> 
> What are you going to tell me next, that I'm wrong for looking out for me?
Click to expand...


It's beyond sad.


----------



## P@triot

Arianrhod said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Joe said it was life saving.  His insurance company said it was elective.  I believe his insurance provider.  Joe's a liar.  Why would anyone believe him?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who hasn't been letting Daddy Corporation take care of him all his adult life (and even some of you who actually interact with other human beings) knows that Joe's story is only one of millions.  People pay their premiums, check to make sure the life-saving surgery they need is covered by their insurer, have the surgery, and then hear
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "We changed our policy.  You lose, sucka!"
> 
> It's the reason for the bankruptcies.  But you refuse to believe that they exist, either.  No amount of hard data makes a dent in your confirmation bias.  Either you're a liar or you're incredibly stupid.  It's a wonder you can find your way onto the Internet to spew your anger day after day.
Click to expand...

So then the question remains - why don't people like you and Joe start insurance companies that operate in the highest ethical capacities imaginable?

Why is it people like you and Joe cry to government to solve your problems for you (by placing a gun to people's heads no less)? Why not solve your own problems? _And_...why drag the rest of us into your problems? We were all quite happy with our insurance. Funny how stuff like this seems to only happen to people like Joe. What a _coincidence_...


----------



## Conservative65

P@triot said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Joe said it was life saving.  His insurance company said it was elective.  I believe his insurance provider.  Joe's a liar.  Why would anyone believe him?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who hasn't been letting Daddy Corporation take care of him all his adult life (and even some of you who actually interact with other human beings) knows that Joe's story is only one of millions.  People pay their premiums, check to make sure the life-saving surgery they need is covered by their insurer, have the surgery, and then hear
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "We changed our policy.  You lose, sucka!"
> 
> It's the reason for the bankruptcies.  But you refuse to believe that they exist, either.  No amount of hard data makes a dent in your confirmation bias.  Either you're a liar or you're incredibly stupid.  It's a wonder you can find your way onto the Internet to spew your anger day after day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So then the question remains - why don't people like you and Joe start insurance companies that operate in the highest ethical capacities imaginable?
> 
> Why is it people like you and Joe cry to government to solve your problems for you (by placing a gun to people's heads no less)? Why not solve your own problems? _And_...why drag the rest of us into your problems? We were all quite happy with our insurance. Funny how stuff like this seems to only happen to people like Joe. What a _coincidence_...
Click to expand...


They're the type that says (fill in the blank) should be done yet automatically look to the government to do it.  If they care about people having coverage, it's easy.  They can buy it for them.  They don't.  They expect the government to force others to do it then take credit as if it was their money.  They say businesses should pay a higher minimum wage but rather than starting a business and proving to us they believe that, they want the government to force business owners to pay higher wages.


----------



## Conservative65

Arianrhod said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Joe said it was life saving.  His insurance company said it was elective.  I believe his insurance provider.  Joe's a liar.  Why would anyone believe him?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who hasn't been letting Daddy Corporation take care of him all his adult life (and even some of you who actually interact with other human beings) knows that Joe's story is only one of millions.  People pay their premiums, check to make sure the life-saving surgery they need is covered by their insurer, have the surgery, and then hear
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "We changed our policy.  You lose, sucka!"
> 
> It's the reason for the bankruptcies.  But you refuse to believe that they exist, either.  No amount of hard data makes a dent in your confirmation bias.  Either you're a liar or you're incredibly stupid.  It's a wonder you can find your way onto the Internet to spew your anger day after day.
Click to expand...


The only way to KNOW Joe's story is real is for him to prove it.  If I made a claim with which you disagreed, you'd demand proof.  When someone makes a claim with which you agree, you accept it without proof.  Typical Liberal.  

Joe made a claim and you automatically believed it happened to him.  That makes you incredibly stupid but you're a Liberal and it comes natural for you.  

Where's the proof?  No proof, didn't happen.


----------



## JoeB131

Conservative65 said:


> I have. You know what I did. I paid the difference. That means I got back to you and I suspect you find some other excuse to justify being a freeloader.



That just tells me you've never had a serious medical crisis. "Woooo, I paid my deductable". 

Wow, guy, really?  



Conservative65 said:


> If people die because they don't have insurance, it's the fault of people like you that say you care about them but are personally unwilling to provide them help with your own money. If you say someone deserves something then won't provide them with it using your money, you can't blame someone else for not doing what you think should be done.



Guy, the thing is, people are dying because they have insurance.  62% of bankruptcies are due to medical crisis,and of those, 75% of them had insurance when the crisis started. They either exceeded their insurance or they were unable to maintain insurance because they were unable to work.  The whole concept of linking health care to the ability to work is insane. 



Conservative65 said:


> Just another example of freeloaders like you getting something you don't deserve but think is owed to you.



Guy, the thing is, if people vote to redistribute the wealth, there ain't much you can do about it. I guess you'll sit outside your Double Wide with your shotgun and wait for those revenuers....


----------



## JoeB131

Arianrhod said:


> Given your assumption that half the people on this board are liars, I wonder what you're doing here. Not to mention whether you've figured out the difference between "elective" and "life-saving" yet.



Conservatard65 thinks everyone who disagrees with him is lying. The thought that other people had other life experiences is unthinkable to him. 

Sadly, I truly believe his life experiences have led him to be a racist, callous asshole.


----------



## Conservative65

JoeB131 said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have. You know what I did. I paid the difference. That means I got back to you and I suspect you find some other excuse to justify being a freeloader.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That just tells me you've never had a serious medical crisis. "Woooo, I paid my deductable".
> 
> Wow, guy, really?
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If people die because they don't have insurance, it's the fault of people like you that say you care about them but are personally unwilling to provide them help with your own money. If you say someone deserves something then won't provide them with it using your money, you can't blame someone else for not doing what you think should be done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guy, the thing is, people are dying because they have insurance.  62% of bankruptcies are due to medical crisis,and of those, 75% of them had insurance when the crisis started. They either exceeded their insurance or they were unable to maintain insurance because they were unable to work.  The whole concept of linking health care to the ability to work is insane.
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just another example of freeloaders like you getting something you don't deserve but think is owed to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guy, the thing is, if people vote to redistribute the wealth, there ain't much you can do about it. I guess you'll sit outside your Double Wide with your shotgun and wait for those revenuers....
Click to expand...


Thanks for proving you're a freeloader.  I wouldn't expect anything else from someone that is a failure in life, can't hold a job, and thinks others owe him something.  It's what you kind is, worthless pieces of shit that would have been better of dying by not getting the surgery.  It's a shame you got it.


----------



## Conservative65

JoeB131 said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> Given your assumption that half the people on this board are liars, I wonder what you're doing here. Not to mention whether you've figured out the difference between "elective" and "life-saving" yet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatard65 thinks everyone who disagrees with him is lying. The thought that other people had other life experiences is unthinkable to him.
> 
> Sadly, I truly believe his life experiences have led him to be a racist, callous asshole.
Click to expand...


It's not about disagreement.  It's about you not having proven your claim.

Seems your life's failures have led you to be yet another freeloading piece of shit.


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> So then the question remains - why don't people like you and Joe start insurance companies that operate in the highest ethical capacities imaginable?
> 
> Why is it people like you and Joe cry to government to solve your problems for you (by placing a gun to people's heads no less)? Why not solve your own problems? _And_...why drag the rest of us into your problems?



We are solving the problem. We are doing EXACTLY what every other civilized country has done. 

Why come up with a new solution basedon what we already know doesn't work, when a bunch of other people have already found a solution that works perfectly fine?  



P@triot said:


> We were all quite happy with our insurance. Funny how stuff like this seems to only happen to people like Joe. What a _coincidence_...



I was perfectly happy with my insurance, too. Until I needed it. That's when I stopped being one of your Republican assholes who only thought about himself.


----------



## JoeB131

Conservative65 said:


> Thanks for proving you're a freeloader. I wouldn't expect anything else from someone that is a failure in life, can't hold a job, and thinks others owe him something. It's what you kind is, worthless pieces of shit that would have been better of dying by not getting the surgery. It's a shame you got it.



Yawn, guy, I'm more successful than you are...  

And I still think private insurance sucks. It doesn't work. Even the insurance companies admit as much,which is why they didn't fight ObamaCare the way they fought HillaryCare.


----------



## Conservative65

JoeB131 said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for proving you're a freeloader. I wouldn't expect anything else from someone that is a failure in life, can't hold a job, and thinks others owe him something. It's what you kind is, worthless pieces of shit that would have been better of dying by not getting the surgery. It's a shame you got it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yawn, guy, I'm more successful than you are...
> 
> And I still think private insurance sucks. It doesn't work. Even the insurance companies admit as much,which is why they didn't fight ObamaCare the way they fought HillaryCare.
Click to expand...


Again, I'll ask you to prove it.   

Sad that you define success by how much you get of someone else's money to provide you what you won't provide yourself.


----------



## JoeB131

Conservative65 said:


> Again, I'll ask you to prove it.
> 
> Sad that you define success by how much you get of someone else's money to provide you what you won't provide yourself.



Not at all.  I am still on a private insurance plan. I've also built up an HSA,just in case. 

That said, private insurance doesn't work. It was always a bad idea, which is why America has the worst health care in the industrialized world. 

The thing is, if you are sufficiently sick (and the crisis I had wasn't, even though I ran up over $60,000 in medical bills) you won't be able to work and you will lose insurance. That's fucking insane. 

Especially when those bills included a $150.00 charge for giving me liquid tylanol after one of the surgeries. 

working people should not be crushed between the greed of hte medical industry and the greed of the insurance industry. 

Every other country has figured this out, by going to single payer and controlling


----------



## Conservative65

JoeB131 said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, I'll ask you to prove it.
> 
> Sad that you define success by how much you get of someone else's money to provide you what you won't provide yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all.  I am still on a private insurance plan. I've also built up an HSA,just in case.
> 
> That said, private insurance doesn't work. It was always a bad idea, which is why America has the worst health care in the industrialized world.
> 
> The thing is, if you are sufficiently sick (and the crisis I had wasn't, even though I ran up over $60,000 in medical bills) you won't be able to work and you will lose insurance. That's fucking insane.
> 
> Especially when those bills included a $150.00 charge for giving me liquid tylanol after one of the surgeries.
> 
> working people should not be crushed between the greed of hte medical industry and the greed of the insurance industry.
> 
> Every other country has figured this out, by going to single payer and controlling
Click to expand...


Private insurance has worked for ME every time.  

You said it all.  CONTROL.  You might be such a worthless piece of shit you want to be controlled but many of us aren't that way.


----------



## JoeB131

Conservative65 said:


> Private insurance has worked for ME every time.
> 
> You said it all. CONTROL. You might be such a worthless piece of shit you want to be controlled but many of us aren't that way.



It j ust tells me you've never had anything bad enough it couldn't be cured with a pill.


----------



## Conservative65

JoeB131 said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Private insurance has worked for ME every time.
> 
> You said it all. CONTROL. You might be such a worthless piece of shit you want to be controlled but many of us aren't that way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It j ust tells me you've never had anything bad enough it couldn't be cured with a pill.
Click to expand...


More claims without proof?  You sure make claims about people for which you have no clue.  

Unlike you Joe, I pay my bills.


----------



## JoeB131

Conservative65 said:


> More claims without proof? You sure make claims about people for which you have no clue.
> 
> Unlike you Joe, I pay my bills.



I'm sure your double wide is completely paid off.


----------



## Conservative65

JoeB131 said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> More claims without proof? You sure make claims about people for which you have no clue.
> 
> Unlike you Joe, I pay my bills.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure your double wide is completely paid off.
Click to expand...


Again, making claims you can't prove and diverting from expectations that you prove your claims.

Prove what you claim happened to you actually happened or STFU.


----------



## Conservative65

JoeB131 said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> More claims without proof? You sure make claims about people for which you have no clue.
> 
> Unlike you Joe, I pay my bills.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure your double wide is completely paid off.
Click to expand...


How sad you think your Section 8 housing means you actually pay for it.


----------



## JoeB131

Conservative65 said:


> Again, making claims you can't prove and diverting from expectations that you prove your claims.
> 
> Prove what you claim happened to you actually happened or STFU.



I know it happened.  That's enough for me, Cleetus. 

Proving stuff to you is pointless.  You are fact impervious.


----------



## JoeB131

Conservative65 said:


> How sad you think your Section 8 housing means you actually pay for it.



Wouldn't know. I got my mortgage through the VA, but I pay it every month.


----------



## Conservative65

JoeB131 said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, making claims you can't prove and diverting from expectations that you prove your claims.
> 
> Prove what you claim happened to you actually happened or STFU.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know it happened.  That's enough for me, Cleetus.
> 
> Proving stuff to you is pointless.  You are fact impervious.
Click to expand...


You can't prove it which means it didn't happen.  

Making excuses is something you're good at.  That means you're not good for anything else.


----------



## Conservative65

JoeB131 said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How sad you think your Section 8 housing means you actually pay for it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn't know. I got my mortgage through the VA, but I pay it every month.
Click to expand...


I do.  I pay taxes that support funding for where you live in Section 8.

I know you do and don't need to prove it.  It's just something I know.


----------



## JoeB131

Conservative65 said:


> I do. I pay taxes that support funding for where you live in Section 8.
> 
> I know you do and don't need to prove it. It's just something I know.



you also know there's a magic man in the sky who loves you. You know a lot of things that aren't so.


----------



## Conservative65

JoeB131 said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do. I pay taxes that support funding for where you live in Section 8.
> 
> I know you do and don't need to prove it. It's just something I know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you also know there's a magic man in the sky who loves you. You know a lot of things that aren't so.
Click to expand...


I know you haven't proven a damn thing you've claimed yet you still claim it and, worse, expect people to believe it.


----------



## RDD_1210

Conservative65 said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is sad that this has to happen.
> 
> It's also sad that the GOP has convinced people of "death panels", "losing freedom" and all the other hysterical nonsense that you sheep believe, that have actually made you think you hate a law that is a Republican idea.
> 
> So yeah, it's sad that a campaign needs to be waged to combat such blatant misinformation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's sad is that people like you think one person owes another person anything in life including healthcare coverage.  You do know there is a way you can get what you want without the government or a single taxpayer being involved don't you?  Provide coverage to someone you think it's owed to with your money.
Click to expand...


I'm sorry you don't like living in a civilized society. I'm sure you can find some remote jungle to live in where you can be happy all by yourself.


----------



## Arianrhod

P@triot said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Joe said it was life saving.  His insurance company said it was elective.  I believe his insurance provider.  Joe's a liar.  Why would anyone believe him?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who hasn't been letting Daddy Corporation take care of him all his adult life (and even some of you who actually interact with other human beings) knows that Joe's story is only one of millions.  People pay their premiums, check to make sure the life-saving surgery they need is covered by their insurer, have the surgery, and then hear
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "We changed our policy.  You lose, sucka!"
> 
> It's the reason for the bankruptcies.  But you refuse to believe that they exist, either.  No amount of hard data makes a dent in your confirmation bias.  Either you're a liar or you're incredibly stupid.  It's a wonder you can find your way onto the Internet to spew your anger day after day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So then the question remains - why don't people like you and Joe start insurance companies that operate in the highest ethical capacities imaginable?
> 
> Why is it people like you and Joe cry to government to solve your problems for you (by placing a gun to people's heads no less)? Why not solve your own problems? _And_...why drag the rest of us into your problems? We were all quite happy with our insurance. Funny how stuff like this seems to only happen to people like Joe. What a _coincidence_...
Click to expand...


Why is it you completely misconstrue what Joe and I are saying?


----------



## P@triot

Arianrhod said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Joe said it was life saving.  His insurance company said it was elective.  I believe his insurance provider.  Joe's a liar.  Why would anyone believe him?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who hasn't been letting Daddy Corporation take care of him all his adult life (and even some of you who actually interact with other human beings) knows that Joe's story is only one of millions.  People pay their premiums, check to make sure the life-saving surgery they need is covered by their insurer, have the surgery, and then hear
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "We changed our policy.  You lose, sucka!"
> 
> It's the reason for the bankruptcies.  But you refuse to believe that they exist, either.  No amount of hard data makes a dent in your confirmation bias.  Either you're a liar or you're incredibly stupid.  It's a wonder you can find your way onto the Internet to spew your anger day after day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So then the question remains - why don't people like you and Joe start insurance companies that operate in the highest ethical capacities imaginable?
> 
> Why is it people like you and Joe cry to government to solve your problems for you (by placing a gun to people's heads no less)? Why not solve your own problems? _And_...why drag the rest of us into your problems? We were all quite happy with our insurance. Funny how stuff like this seems to only happen to people like Joe. What a _coincidence_...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why is it you completely misconstrue what Joe and I are saying?
Click to expand...

I didn't. At all. According to you, people like Joe are completely responsible citizens who check their policies, get authorization, etc., have the surgery, and then are told by the insurance company "Ha! Ha! You lose, sucka". So according to you, this sort of unethical behavior requires government intervention.

My question is - _why_? You and Joe claim to have found a problem. Do you know how people get filthy rich in America? They see a problem and they solve it. When Kevin Plank was playing football at Maryland and hated his cotton shirt retaining water and sweat - he didn't ask government to force cotton producers to improve their product. Instead, he went out and created Under Armour. He's now one of the wealthiest people in the _world_. If the insurance companies really operate like you and Joe claim, by forming your own and not doing to people what you claim these companies are doing, you will make billions. Every consumer on earth will sign up with you.

So again I ask - why no solve your own problems? Don't sit on the sideline crying to government like they are your mom and dad. Get in the game. Start solving problems. You'll not only preserve freedom and liberty for us and for future generations, but you'll get unimaginably wealthy while doing it. It's the perfect win-win.


----------



## Arianrhod

P@triot said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Joe said it was life saving.  His insurance company said it was elective.  I believe his insurance provider.  Joe's a liar.  Why would anyone believe him?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who hasn't been letting Daddy Corporation take care of him all his adult life (and even some of you who actually interact with other human beings) knows that Joe's story is only one of millions.  People pay their premiums, check to make sure the life-saving surgery they need is covered by their insurer, have the surgery, and then hear
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "We changed our policy.  You lose, sucka!"
> 
> It's the reason for the bankruptcies.  But you refuse to believe that they exist, either.  No amount of hard data makes a dent in your confirmation bias.  Either you're a liar or you're incredibly stupid.  It's a wonder you can find your way onto the Internet to spew your anger day after day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So then the question remains - why don't people like you and Joe start insurance companies that operate in the highest ethical capacities imaginable?
> 
> Why is it people like you and Joe cry to government to solve your problems for you (by placing a gun to people's heads no less)? Why not solve your own problems? _And_...why drag the rest of us into your problems? We were all quite happy with our insurance. Funny how stuff like this seems to only happen to people like Joe. What a _coincidence_...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why is it you completely misconstrue what Joe and I are saying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't. At all. According to you, people like Joe are completely responsible citizens how check their policies, get authorization, etc., have the surgery, and then are told by the insurance company "Ha! Ha! You lose, sucka". So according to you, this sort of unethical behavior requires government intervention.
> 
> My question is - _why_? You and Joe claim to have found a problem. Do you know how people get filthy rich in America? They see a problem and they solve it. When Kevin Plank was playing football at Maryland and hated his cotton shirt retaining water and sweat - he didn't ask government to force cotton producers to improve their product. Instead, he went out and created Under Armour. He's now one of the wealthiest people in the _world_. If the insurance companies really operate like you and Joe claim, by forming your own and not doing to people what you claim these companies are doing, you will make billions. Every consumer on earth will sign up with you.
> 
> So again I ask - why no solve your own problems? Don't sit on the sideline crying to government like they are your mom and dad. Get in the game. Start solving problems. You'll not only preserve freedom and liberty for us and for future generations, but you'll get unimaginably wealthy while doing it. It's the perfect win-win.
Click to expand...


So you're saying we should all play college football and that will eliminate unethical insurers.  How old are you?


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> I didn't. At all. According to you, people like Joe are completely responsible citizens how check their policies, get authorization, etc., have the surgery, and then are told by the insurance company "Ha! Ha! You lose, sucka". So according to you, this sort of unethical behavior requires government intervention.
> 
> My question is - _why_? You and Joe claim to have found a problem. Do you know how people get filthy rich in America? They see a problem and they solve it. When Kevin Plank was playing football at Maryland and hated his cotton shirt retaining water and sweat - he didn't ask government to force cotton producers to improve their product. Instead, he went out and created Under Armour. He's now one of the wealthiest people in the _world_. If the insurance companies really operate like you and Joe claim, by forming your own and not doing to people what you claim these companies are doing, you will make billions. Every consumer on earth will sign up with you.



Guy, I'm not sure why you worship greed or think every solution requires someone getting rich. Oh, wait, some closeted homosexual on Hate Radio said that once.  I wouldn't credit
 you with an original idea.  

Here's the thing. We've ALREADY found the solution.  I was the same solution the Germans found a century ago and the British found 50 years ago.  Single payer. Everyone gets covered, the rich get the same treatment the poor get.  

Sounds completely reasonable to me.


----------



## JoeB131

Arianrhod said:


> So you're saying we should all play college football and that will eliminate unethical insurers. How old are you?



Im guessing about 25.He read _Atlas Shrugged_ once and thinks he knows everything and no one told him Ayn Rand collected Social Security and MediCare at the end of her miserable life because she wasn't making any money on her awful books.


----------



## P@triot

Arianrhod said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Joe said it was life saving.  His insurance company said it was elective.  I believe his insurance provider.  Joe's a liar.  Why would anyone believe him?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who hasn't been letting Daddy Corporation take care of him all his adult life (and even some of you who actually interact with other human beings) knows that Joe's story is only one of millions.  People pay their premiums, check to make sure the life-saving surgery they need is covered by their insurer, have the surgery, and then hear
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "We changed our policy.  You lose, sucka!"
> 
> It's the reason for the bankruptcies.  But you refuse to believe that they exist, either.  No amount of hard data makes a dent in your confirmation bias.  Either you're a liar or you're incredibly stupid.  It's a wonder you can find your way onto the Internet to spew your anger day after day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So then the question remains - why don't people like you and Joe start insurance companies that operate in the highest ethical capacities imaginable?
> 
> Why is it people like you and Joe cry to government to solve your problems for you (by placing a gun to people's heads no less)? Why not solve your own problems? _And_...why drag the rest of us into your problems? We were all quite happy with our insurance. Funny how stuff like this seems to only happen to people like Joe. What a _coincidence_...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why is it you completely misconstrue what Joe and I are saying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't. At all. According to you, people like Joe are completely responsible citizens how check their policies, get authorization, etc., have the surgery, and then are told by the insurance company "Ha! Ha! You lose, sucka". So according to you, this sort of unethical behavior requires government intervention.
> 
> My question is - _why_? You and Joe claim to have found a problem. Do you know how people get filthy rich in America? They see a problem and they solve it. When Kevin Plank was playing football at Maryland and hated his cotton shirt retaining water and sweat - he didn't ask government to force cotton producers to improve their product. Instead, he went out and created Under Armour. He's now one of the wealthiest people in the _world_. If the insurance companies really operate like you and Joe claim, by forming your own and not doing to people what you claim these companies are doing, you will make billions. Every consumer on earth will sign up with you.
> 
> So again I ask - why no solve your own problems? Don't sit on the sideline crying to government like they are your mom and dad. Get in the game. Start solving problems. You'll not only preserve freedom and liberty for us and for future generations, but you'll get unimaginably wealthy while doing it. It's the perfect win-win.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you're saying we should all play college football and that will eliminate unethical insurers.  How old are you?
Click to expand...

I didn't say anything close to that and you know it. So the question is - how old are _you_? Because you respond like a 4 year old throwing a tantrum when you can't defend your position (typical of liberals).


----------



## Arianrhod

P@triot said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who hasn't been letting Daddy Corporation take care of him all his adult life (and even some of you who actually interact with other human beings) knows that Joe's story is only one of millions.  People pay their premiums, check to make sure the life-saving surgery they need is covered by their insurer, have the surgery, and then hear
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "We changed our policy.  You lose, sucka!"
> 
> It's the reason for the bankruptcies.  But you refuse to believe that they exist, either.  No amount of hard data makes a dent in your confirmation bias.  Either you're a liar or you're incredibly stupid.  It's a wonder you can find your way onto the Internet to spew your anger day after day.
> 
> 
> 
> So then the question remains - why don't people like you and Joe start insurance companies that operate in the highest ethical capacities imaginable?
> 
> Why is it people like you and Joe cry to government to solve your problems for you (by placing a gun to people's heads no less)? Why not solve your own problems? _And_...why drag the rest of us into your problems? We were all quite happy with our insurance. Funny how stuff like this seems to only happen to people like Joe. What a _coincidence_...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why is it you completely misconstrue what Joe and I are saying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't. At all. According to you, people like Joe are completely responsible citizens how check their policies, get authorization, etc., have the surgery, and then are told by the insurance company "Ha! Ha! You lose, sucka". So according to you, this sort of unethical behavior requires government intervention.
> 
> My question is - _why_? You and Joe claim to have found a problem. Do you know how people get filthy rich in America? They see a problem and they solve it. When Kevin Plank was playing football at Maryland and hated his cotton shirt retaining water and sweat - he didn't ask government to force cotton producers to improve their product. Instead, he went out and created Under Armour. He's now one of the wealthiest people in the _world_. If the insurance companies really operate like you and Joe claim, by forming your own and not doing to people what you claim these companies are doing, you will make billions. Every consumer on earth will sign up with you.
> 
> So again I ask - why no solve your own problems? Don't sit on the sideline crying to government like they are your mom and dad. Get in the game. Start solving problems. You'll not only preserve freedom and liberty for us and for future generations, but you'll get unimaginably wealthy while doing it. It's the perfect win-win.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you're saying we should all play college football and that will eliminate unethical insurers.  How old are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't say anything close to that and you know it.
Click to expand...


So how many companies have you started?


----------



## P@triot

Arianrhod said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> So then the question remains - why don't people like you and Joe start insurance companies that operate in the highest ethical capacities imaginable?
> 
> Why is it people like you and Joe cry to government to solve your problems for you (by placing a gun to people's heads no less)? Why not solve your own problems? _And_...why drag the rest of us into your problems? We were all quite happy with our insurance. Funny how stuff like this seems to only happen to people like Joe. What a _coincidence_...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it you completely misconstrue what Joe and I are saying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't. At all. According to you, people like Joe are completely responsible citizens how check their policies, get authorization, etc., have the surgery, and then are told by the insurance company "Ha! Ha! You lose, sucka". So according to you, this sort of unethical behavior requires government intervention.
> 
> My question is - _why_? You and Joe claim to have found a problem. Do you know how people get filthy rich in America? They see a problem and they solve it. When Kevin Plank was playing football at Maryland and hated his cotton shirt retaining water and sweat - he didn't ask government to force cotton producers to improve their product. Instead, he went out and created Under Armour. He's now one of the wealthiest people in the _world_. If the insurance companies really operate like you and Joe claim, by forming your own and not doing to people what you claim these companies are doing, you will make billions. Every consumer on earth will sign up with you.
> 
> So again I ask - why no solve your own problems? Don't sit on the sideline crying to government like they are your mom and dad. Get in the game. Start solving problems. You'll not only preserve freedom and liberty for us and for future generations, but you'll get unimaginably wealthy while doing it. It's the perfect win-win.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you're saying we should all play college football and that will eliminate unethical insurers.  How old are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't say anything close to that and you know it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So how many companies have you started?
Click to expand...

One. Just started it a couple of months ago. But.....I'm not the one bitching and complaining. I fully support the U.S. Constitution and I completely recognize the value of liberty over pitiful government table scraps like healthcare and food stamps.

The point is - in America - you are free and empowered to solve your own problems. If the insurance companies are doing what you are Joe are claiming they are doing (and I suspect 90% of them are not) then you should capitalize on their poor customer service and launch a health insurance company that never cheats people. You'll be rolling in billions of dollars.


----------



## Arianrhod

P@triot said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it you completely misconstrue what Joe and I are saying?
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't. At all. According to you, people like Joe are completely responsible citizens how check their policies, get authorization, etc., have the surgery, and then are told by the insurance company "Ha! Ha! You lose, sucka". So according to you, this sort of unethical behavior requires government intervention.
> 
> My question is - _why_? You and Joe claim to have found a problem. Do you know how people get filthy rich in America? They see a problem and they solve it. When Kevin Plank was playing football at Maryland and hated his cotton shirt retaining water and sweat - he didn't ask government to force cotton producers to improve their product. Instead, he went out and created Under Armour. He's now one of the wealthiest people in the _world_. If the insurance companies really operate like you and Joe claim, by forming your own and not doing to people what you claim these companies are doing, you will make billions. Every consumer on earth will sign up with you.
> 
> So again I ask - why no solve your own problems? Don't sit on the sideline crying to government like they are your mom and dad. Get in the game. Start solving problems. You'll not only preserve freedom and liberty for us and for future generations, but you'll get unimaginably wealthy while doing it. It's the perfect win-win.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you're saying we should all play college football and that will eliminate unethical insurers.  How old are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't say anything close to that and you know it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So how many companies have you started?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One. Just started it a couple of months ago.
Click to expand...


Do you provide your employees with health insurance?


----------



## P@triot

Arianrhod said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't. At all. According to you, people like Joe are completely responsible citizens how check their policies, get authorization, etc., have the surgery, and then are told by the insurance company "Ha! Ha! You lose, sucka". So according to you, this sort of unethical behavior requires government intervention.
> 
> My question is - _why_? You and Joe claim to have found a problem. Do you know how people get filthy rich in America? They see a problem and they solve it. When Kevin Plank was playing football at Maryland and hated his cotton shirt retaining water and sweat - he didn't ask government to force cotton producers to improve their product. Instead, he went out and created Under Armour. He's now one of the wealthiest people in the _world_. If the insurance companies really operate like you and Joe claim, by forming your own and not doing to people what you claim these companies are doing, you will make billions. Every consumer on earth will sign up with you.
> 
> So again I ask - why no solve your own problems? Don't sit on the sideline crying to government like they are your mom and dad. Get in the game. Start solving problems. You'll not only preserve freedom and liberty for us and for future generations, but you'll get unimaginably wealthy while doing it. It's the perfect win-win.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying we should all play college football and that will eliminate unethical insurers.  How old are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't say anything close to that and you know it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So how many companies have you started?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One. Just started it a couple of months ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you provide your employees with health insurance?
Click to expand...

I don't have any employees. I'm a one man show right now. Just started it (and I suspect this will take a long time to grow so I don't anticipate having some in the next few years barring some sudden unexpected growth of course).


----------



## Arianrhod

P@triot said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying we should all play college football and that will eliminate unethical insurers.  How old are you?
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say anything close to that and you know it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So how many companies have you started?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One. Just started it a couple of months ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you provide your employees with health insurance?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't have any employees. I'm a one man show right now. Just started it (and I suspect this will take a long time to grow so I don't anticipate having some in the next few years barring some sudden unexpected growth of course).
Click to expand...


Well, good luck with it, but I hope you have a fallback.  The majority of start-ups fail within the first year.


----------



## Conservative65

JoeB131 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't. At all. According to you, people like Joe are completely responsible citizens how check their policies, get authorization, etc., have the surgery, and then are told by the insurance company "Ha! Ha! You lose, sucka". So according to you, this sort of unethical behavior requires government intervention.
> 
> My question is - _why_? You and Joe claim to have found a problem. Do you know how people get filthy rich in America? They see a problem and they solve it. When Kevin Plank was playing football at Maryland and hated his cotton shirt retaining water and sweat - he didn't ask government to force cotton producers to improve their product. Instead, he went out and created Under Armour. He's now one of the wealthiest people in the _world_. If the insurance companies really operate like you and Joe claim, by forming your own and not doing to people what you claim these companies are doing, you will make billions. Every consumer on earth will sign up with you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, I'm not sure why you worship greed or think every solution requires someone getting rich. Oh, wait, some closeted homosexual on Hate Radio said that once.  I wouldn't credit
> you with an original idea.
> 
> Here's the thing. We've ALREADY found the solution.  I was the same solution the Germans found a century ago and the British found 50 years ago.  Single payer. Everyone gets covered, the rich get the same treatment the poor get.
> 
> Sounds completely reasonable to me.
Click to expand...


Typical response about rich and poor alike getting the same thing.  Funny how equal to people like you only means getting not putting in.  If someone isn't putting in the same, why should they get the same?


----------



## Conservative65

RDD_1210 said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is sad that this has to happen.
> 
> It's also sad that the GOP has convinced people of "death panels", "losing freedom" and all the other hysterical nonsense that you sheep believe, that have actually made you think you hate a law that is a Republican idea.
> 
> So yeah, it's sad that a campaign needs to be waged to combat such blatant misinformation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's sad is that people like you think one person owes another person anything in life including healthcare coverage.  You do know there is a way you can get what you want without the government or a single taxpayer being involved don't you?  Provide coverage to someone you think it's owed to with your money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sorry you don't like living in a civilized society. I'm sure you can find some remote jungle to live in where you can be happy all by yourself.
Click to expand...


Living in a civilized society doesn't involve giving people what they are unwilling to provide for themselves.  Civilized people are willing to do for themselves not expect others to be forced to do it for them.  What we can conclude from this is you oppose civilization and support freeloading.


----------



## Arianrhod

Conservative65 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't. At all. According to you, people like Joe are completely responsible citizens how check their policies, get authorization, etc., have the surgery, and then are told by the insurance company "Ha! Ha! You lose, sucka". So according to you, this sort of unethical behavior requires government intervention.
> 
> My question is - _why_? You and Joe claim to have found a problem. Do you know how people get filthy rich in America? They see a problem and they solve it. When Kevin Plank was playing football at Maryland and hated his cotton shirt retaining water and sweat - he didn't ask government to force cotton producers to improve their product. Instead, he went out and created Under Armour. He's now one of the wealthiest people in the _world_. If the insurance companies really operate like you and Joe claim, by forming your own and not doing to people what you claim these companies are doing, you will make billions. Every consumer on earth will sign up with you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, I'm not sure why you worship greed or think every solution requires someone getting rich. Oh, wait, some closeted homosexual on Hate Radio said that once.  I wouldn't credit
> you with an original idea.
> 
> Here's the thing. We've ALREADY found the solution.  I was the same solution the Germans found a century ago and the British found 50 years ago.  Single payer. Everyone gets covered, the rich get the same treatment the poor get.
> 
> Sounds completely reasonable to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Typical response about rich and poor alike getting the same thing.  Funny how equal to people like you only means getting not putting in.  If someone isn't putting in the same, why should they get the same?
Click to expand...


Are you "putting in" as much as Stephen Hawking?


----------



## Conservative65

Arianrhod said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't. At all. According to you, people like Joe are completely responsible citizens how check their policies, get authorization, etc., have the surgery, and then are told by the insurance company "Ha! Ha! You lose, sucka". So according to you, this sort of unethical behavior requires government intervention.
> 
> My question is - _why_? You and Joe claim to have found a problem. Do you know how people get filthy rich in America? They see a problem and they solve it. When Kevin Plank was playing football at Maryland and hated his cotton shirt retaining water and sweat - he didn't ask government to force cotton producers to improve their product. Instead, he went out and created Under Armour. He's now one of the wealthiest people in the _world_. If the insurance companies really operate like you and Joe claim, by forming your own and not doing to people what you claim these companies are doing, you will make billions. Every consumer on earth will sign up with you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, I'm not sure why you worship greed or think every solution requires someone getting rich. Oh, wait, some closeted homosexual on Hate Radio said that once.  I wouldn't credit
> you with an original idea.
> 
> Here's the thing. We've ALREADY found the solution.  I was the same solution the Germans found a century ago and the British found 50 years ago.  Single payer. Everyone gets covered, the rich get the same treatment the poor get.
> 
> Sounds completely reasonable to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Typical response about rich and poor alike getting the same thing.  Funny how equal to people like you only means getting not putting in.  If someone isn't putting in the same, why should they get the same?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you "putting in" as much as Stephen Hawking?
Click to expand...


More.


----------



## P@triot

Arianrhod said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't. At all. According to you, people like Joe are completely responsible citizens how check their policies, get authorization, etc., have the surgery, and then are told by the insurance company "Ha! Ha! You lose, sucka". So according to you, this sort of unethical behavior requires government intervention.
> 
> My question is - _why_? You and Joe claim to have found a problem. Do you know how people get filthy rich in America? They see a problem and they solve it. When Kevin Plank was playing football at Maryland and hated his cotton shirt retaining water and sweat - he didn't ask government to force cotton producers to improve their product. Instead, he went out and created Under Armour. He's now one of the wealthiest people in the _world_. If the insurance companies really operate like you and Joe claim, by forming your own and not doing to people what you claim these companies are doing, you will make billions. Every consumer on earth will sign up with you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, I'm not sure why you worship greed or think every solution requires someone getting rich. Oh, wait, some closeted homosexual on Hate Radio said that once.  I wouldn't credit
> you with an original idea.
> 
> Here's the thing. We've ALREADY found the solution.  I was the same solution the Germans found a century ago and the British found 50 years ago.  Single payer. Everyone gets covered, the rich get the same treatment the poor get.
> 
> Sounds completely reasonable to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Typical response about rich and poor alike getting the same thing.  Funny how equal to people like you only means getting not putting in.  If someone isn't putting in the same, why should they get the same?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you "putting in" as much as Stephen Hawking?
Click to expand...

Uh....._what_? Stephen Hawking is a Brit my friend. What he does has no effect on us and what we do has no effect on him. You might want to use a better example (I would go with Bill Gates...but that's just me).


----------



## P@triot

Arianrhod said:


> Well, good luck with it, but I hope you have a fallback.  The majority of start-ups fail within the first year.



That seems more and more like a reality each and every day. But.....you only live once, right? I appreciate the well wishes!


----------



## Arianrhod

P@triot said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't. At all. According to you, people like Joe are completely responsible citizens how check their policies, get authorization, etc., have the surgery, and then are told by the insurance company "Ha! Ha! You lose, sucka". So according to you, this sort of unethical behavior requires government intervention.
> 
> My question is - _why_? You and Joe claim to have found a problem. Do you know how people get filthy rich in America? They see a problem and they solve it. When Kevin Plank was playing football at Maryland and hated his cotton shirt retaining water and sweat - he didn't ask government to force cotton producers to improve their product. Instead, he went out and created Under Armour. He's now one of the wealthiest people in the _world_. If the insurance companies really operate like you and Joe claim, by forming your own and not doing to people what you claim these companies are doing, you will make billions. Every consumer on earth will sign up with you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, I'm not sure why you worship greed or think every solution requires someone getting rich. Oh, wait, some closeted homosexual on Hate Radio said that once.  I wouldn't credit
> you with an original idea.
> 
> Here's the thing. We've ALREADY found the solution.  I was the same solution the Germans found a century ago and the British found 50 years ago.  Single payer. Everyone gets covered, the rich get the same treatment the poor get.
> 
> Sounds completely reasonable to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Typical response about rich and poor alike getting the same thing.  Funny how equal to people like you only means getting not putting in.  If someone isn't putting in the same, why should they get the same?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you "putting in" as much as Stephen Hawking?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Uh....._what_? Stephen Hawking is a Brit my friend. What he does has no effect on us and what we do has no effect on him. You might want to use a better example (I would go with Bill Gates...but that's just me).
Click to expand...


Stephen Hawking is a citizen of a developed nation.  There's a reason why I chose him.  Let's see if Conservative65 can answer.


----------



## Conservative65

Arianrhod said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't. At all. According to you, people like Joe are completely responsible citizens how check their policies, get authorization, etc., have the surgery, and then are told by the insurance company "Ha! Ha! You lose, sucka". So according to you, this sort of unethical behavior requires government intervention.
> 
> My question is - _why_? You and Joe claim to have found a problem. Do you know how people get filthy rich in America? They see a problem and they solve it. When Kevin Plank was playing football at Maryland and hated his cotton shirt retaining water and sweat - he didn't ask government to force cotton producers to improve their product. Instead, he went out and created Under Armour. He's now one of the wealthiest people in the _world_. If the insurance companies really operate like you and Joe claim, by forming your own and not doing to people what you claim these companies are doing, you will make billions. Every consumer on earth will sign up with you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, I'm not sure why you worship greed or think every solution requires someone getting rich. Oh, wait, some closeted homosexual on Hate Radio said that once.  I wouldn't credit
> you with an original idea.
> 
> Here's the thing. We've ALREADY found the solution.  I was the same solution the Germans found a century ago and the British found 50 years ago.  Single payer. Everyone gets covered, the rich get the same treatment the poor get.
> 
> Sounds completely reasonable to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Typical response about rich and poor alike getting the same thing.  Funny how equal to people like you only means getting not putting in.  If someone isn't putting in the same, why should they get the same?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you "putting in" as much as Stephen Hawking?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Uh....._what_? Stephen Hawking is a Brit my friend. What he does has no effect on us and what we do has no effect on him. You might want to use a better example (I would go with Bill Gates...but that's just me).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stephen Hawking is a citizen of a developed nation.  There's a reason why I chose him.  Let's see if Conservative65 can answer.
Click to expand...


Already did, retard.


----------



## Arianrhod

Conservative65 said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't. At all. According to you, people like Joe are completely responsible citizens how check their policies, get authorization, etc., have the surgery, and then are told by the insurance company "Ha! Ha! You lose, sucka". So according to you, this sort of unethical behavior requires government intervention.
> 
> My question is - _why_? You and Joe claim to have found a problem. Do you know how people get filthy rich in America? They see a problem and they solve it. When Kevin Plank was playing football at Maryland and hated his cotton shirt retaining water and sweat - he didn't ask government to force cotton producers to improve their product. Instead, he went out and created Under Armour. He's now one of the wealthiest people in the _world_. If the insurance companies really operate like you and Joe claim, by forming your own and not doing to people what you claim these companies are doing, you will make billions. Every consumer on earth will sign up with you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, I'm not sure why you worship greed or think every solution requires someone getting rich. Oh, wait, some closeted homosexual on Hate Radio said that once.  I wouldn't credit
> you with an original idea.
> 
> Here's the thing. We've ALREADY found the solution.  I was the same solution the Germans found a century ago and the British found 50 years ago.  Single payer. Everyone gets covered, the rich get the same treatment the poor get.
> 
> Sounds completely reasonable to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Typical response about rich and poor alike getting the same thing.  Funny how equal to people like you only means getting not putting in.  If someone isn't putting in the same, why should they get the same?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you "putting in" as much as Stephen Hawking?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More.
Click to expand...


Prove it.


----------



## Conservative65

Arianrhod said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't. At all. According to you, people like Joe are completely responsible citizens how check their policies, get authorization, etc., have the surgery, and then are told by the insurance company "Ha! Ha! You lose, sucka". So according to you, this sort of unethical behavior requires government intervention.
> 
> My question is - _why_? You and Joe claim to have found a problem. Do you know how people get filthy rich in America? They see a problem and they solve it. When Kevin Plank was playing football at Maryland and hated his cotton shirt retaining water and sweat - he didn't ask government to force cotton producers to improve their product. Instead, he went out and created Under Armour. He's now one of the wealthiest people in the _world_. If the insurance companies really operate like you and Joe claim, by forming your own and not doing to people what you claim these companies are doing, you will make billions. Every consumer on earth will sign up with you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, I'm not sure why you worship greed or think every solution requires someone getting rich. Oh, wait, some closeted homosexual on Hate Radio said that once.  I wouldn't credit
> you with an original idea.
> 
> Here's the thing. We've ALREADY found the solution.  I was the same solution the Germans found a century ago and the British found 50 years ago.  Single payer. Everyone gets covered, the rich get the same treatment the poor get.
> 
> Sounds completely reasonable to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Typical response about rich and poor alike getting the same thing.  Funny how equal to people like you only means getting not putting in.  If someone isn't putting in the same, why should they get the same?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you "putting in" as much as Stephen Hawking?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Prove it.
Click to expand...


In person?


----------



## Arianrhod

Conservative65 said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, I'm not sure why you worship greed or think every solution requires someone getting rich. Oh, wait, some closeted homosexual on Hate Radio said that once.  I wouldn't credit
> you with an original idea.
> 
> Here's the thing. We've ALREADY found the solution.  I was the same solution the Germans found a century ago and the British found 50 years ago.  Single payer. Everyone gets covered, the rich get the same treatment the poor get.
> 
> Sounds completely reasonable to me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Typical response about rich and poor alike getting the same thing.  Funny how equal to people like you only means getting not putting in.  If someone isn't putting in the same, why should they get the same?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you "putting in" as much as Stephen Hawking?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In person?
Click to expand...


Nah, just tell us a convincing story.  Like maybe you're an inventor with 100+ patents, which is why you have time to rant about liberals all day long.  Something like that.


----------



## Conservative65

Arianrhod said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Typical response about rich and poor alike getting the same thing.  Funny how equal to people like you only means getting not putting in.  If someone isn't putting in the same, why should they get the same?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you "putting in" as much as Stephen Hawking?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In person?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nah, just tell us a convincing story.  Like maybe you're an inventor with 100+ patents, which is why you have time to rant about liberals all day long.  Something like that.
Click to expand...


So you don't want proof?  Scared you'd be proven wrong?


----------



## Arianrhod

Conservative65 said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you "putting in" as much as Stephen Hawking?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In person?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nah, just tell us a convincing story.  Like maybe you're an inventor with 100+ patents, which is why you have time to rant about liberals all day long.  Something like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you don't want proof?  Scared you'd be proven wrong?
Click to expand...


You mean do I want you showing up at my house?  No.  Why does it have to be "in person"?  Don't you have a résumé or CV?  You can block out your name and any other personal details.  But I'm sure a great achiever like you can come up with a more creative way to prove you're more accomplished than Stephen Hawking.  Go for it.


----------



## Conservative65

Arianrhod said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> More.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In person?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nah, just tell us a convincing story.  Like maybe you're an inventor with 100+ patents, which is why you have time to rant about liberals all day long.  Something like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you don't want proof?  Scared you'd be proven wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean do I want you showing up at my house?  No.  Why does it have to be "in person"?  Don't you have a résumé or CV?  You can block out your name and any other personal details.  But I'm sure a great achiever like you can come up with a more creative way to prove you're more accomplished than Stephen Hawking.  Go for it.
Click to expand...


Where did I say your house?  You assume a lot.   In person can't give you an excuse to say that's really not your resume or CV.  It takes away any confusion and any chance you have to make an excuse.


----------



## Arianrhod

Conservative65 said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prove it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In person?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nah, just tell us a convincing story.  Like maybe you're an inventor with 100+ patents, which is why you have time to rant about liberals all day long.  Something like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you don't want proof?  Scared you'd be proven wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean do I want you showing up at my house?  No.  Why does it have to be "in person"?  Don't you have a résumé or CV?  You can block out your name and any other personal details.  But I'm sure a great achiever like you can come up with a more creative way to prove you're more accomplished than Stephen Hawking.  Go for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where did I say your house?  You assume a lot.   In person can't give you an excuse to say that's really not your resume or CV.  It takes away any confusion and any chance you have to make an excuse.
Click to expand...


Again, why "in person"?  The person whom I might choose to meet with wouldn't necessarily be you.  You're the one who doesn't trust anyone.  Why should anyone trust you?  And what is it you can only say in person that you couldn't say in, for example, a PM?  Or don't you trust PMs, either?


----------



## Conservative65

Arianrhod said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> In person?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nah, just tell us a convincing story.  Like maybe you're an inventor with 100+ patents, which is why you have time to rant about liberals all day long.  Something like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you don't want proof?  Scared you'd be proven wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean do I want you showing up at my house?  No.  Why does it have to be "in person"?  Don't you have a résumé or CV?  You can block out your name and any other personal details.  But I'm sure a great achiever like you can come up with a more creative way to prove you're more accomplished than Stephen Hawking.  Go for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where did I say your house?  You assume a lot.   In person can't give you an excuse to say that's really not your resume or CV.  It takes away any confusion and any chance you have to make an excuse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, why "in person"?  The person whom I might choose to meet with wouldn't necessarily be you.  You're the one who doesn't trust anyone.  Why should anyone trust you?  And what is it you can only say in person that you couldn't say in, for example, a PM?  Or don't you trust PMs, either?
Click to expand...


More excuses.  I knew you weren't man enough.  You asked me to prove it and when I tell you how I will do it, you refuse.  Next time just say you're a coward and leave it at that.


----------



## Arianrhod

Conservative65 said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nah, just tell us a convincing story.  Like maybe you're an inventor with 100+ patents, which is why you have time to rant about liberals all day long.  Something like that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't want proof?  Scared you'd be proven wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean do I want you showing up at my house?  No.  Why does it have to be "in person"?  Don't you have a résumé or CV?  You can block out your name and any other personal details.  But I'm sure a great achiever like you can come up with a more creative way to prove you're more accomplished than Stephen Hawking.  Go for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where did I say your house?  You assume a lot.   In person can't give you an excuse to say that's really not your resume or CV.  It takes away any confusion and any chance you have to make an excuse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, why "in person"?  The person whom I might choose to meet with wouldn't necessarily be you.  You're the one who doesn't trust anyone.  Why should anyone trust you?  And what is it you can only say in person that you couldn't say in, for example, a PM?  Or don't you trust PMs, either?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More excuses.  I knew you weren't man enough.  You asked me to prove it and when I tell you how I will do it, you refuse.  Next time just say you're a coward and leave it at that.
Click to expand...


You have no idea how funny that post is.


----------



## Conservative65

Arianrhod said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't want proof?  Scared you'd be proven wrong?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean do I want you showing up at my house?  No.  Why does it have to be "in person"?  Don't you have a résumé or CV?  You can block out your name and any other personal details.  But I'm sure a great achiever like you can come up with a more creative way to prove you're more accomplished than Stephen Hawking.  Go for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where did I say your house?  You assume a lot.   In person can't give you an excuse to say that's really not your resume or CV.  It takes away any confusion and any chance you have to make an excuse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, why "in person"?  The person whom I might choose to meet with wouldn't necessarily be you.  You're the one who doesn't trust anyone.  Why should anyone trust you?  And what is it you can only say in person that you couldn't say in, for example, a PM?  Or don't you trust PMs, either?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More excuses.  I knew you weren't man enough.  You asked me to prove it and when I tell you how I will do it, you refuse.  Next time just say you're a coward and leave it at that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have no idea how funny that post is.
Click to expand...


You have no idea how big of a coward you are.  YOU asked for proof.  I offered a way to provide it to you and you hide.


----------



## Arianrhod

Conservative65 said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean do I want you showing up at my house?  No.  Why does it have to be "in person"?  Don't you have a résumé or CV?  You can block out your name and any other personal details.  But I'm sure a great achiever like you can come up with a more creative way to prove you're more accomplished than Stephen Hawking.  Go for it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where did I say your house?  You assume a lot.   In person can't give you an excuse to say that's really not your resume or CV.  It takes away any confusion and any chance you have to make an excuse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, why "in person"?  The person whom I might choose to meet with wouldn't necessarily be you.  You're the one who doesn't trust anyone.  Why should anyone trust you?  And what is it you can only say in person that you couldn't say in, for example, a PM?  Or don't you trust PMs, either?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More excuses.  I knew you weren't man enough.  You asked me to prove it and when I tell you how I will do it, you refuse.  Next time just say you're a coward and leave it at that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have no idea how funny that post is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have no idea how big of a coward you are.  YOU asked for proof.  I offered a way to provide it to you and you hide.
Click to expand...


You've broken the protocol.  You're supposed to slap me first, then issue the challenge, then set the date and time and the choice of weapon.  Flintlocks at 20 paces?  Do you want to play Burr or Hamilton?


----------



## Conservative65

Arianrhod said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where did I say your house?  You assume a lot.   In person can't give you an excuse to say that's really not your resume or CV.  It takes away any confusion and any chance you have to make an excuse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, why "in person"?  The person whom I might choose to meet with wouldn't necessarily be you.  You're the one who doesn't trust anyone.  Why should anyone trust you?  And what is it you can only say in person that you couldn't say in, for example, a PM?  Or don't you trust PMs, either?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More excuses.  I knew you weren't man enough.  You asked me to prove it and when I tell you how I will do it, you refuse.  Next time just say you're a coward and leave it at that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have no idea how funny that post is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have no idea how big of a coward you are.  YOU asked for proof.  I offered a way to provide it to you and you hide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've broken the protocol.  You're supposed to slap me first, then issue the challenge, then set the date and time and the choice of weapon.  Flintlocks at 20 paces?  Do you want to play Burr or Hamilton?
Click to expand...


You won't show your cowardly face.  You've already refused that offer.


----------



## Arianrhod

Conservative65 said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, why "in person"?  The person whom I might choose to meet with wouldn't necessarily be you.  You're the one who doesn't trust anyone.  Why should anyone trust you?  And what is it you can only say in person that you couldn't say in, for example, a PM?  Or don't you trust PMs, either?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More excuses.  I knew you weren't man enough.  You asked me to prove it and when I tell you how I will do it, you refuse.  Next time just say you're a coward and leave it at that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have no idea how funny that post is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have no idea how big of a coward you are.  YOU asked for proof.  I offered a way to provide it to you and you hide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've broken the protocol.  You're supposed to slap me first, then issue the challenge, then set the date and time and the choice of weapon.  Flintlocks at 20 paces?  Do you want to play Burr or Hamilton?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You won't show your cowardly face.  You've already refused that offer.
Click to expand...


You - or your surrogate - would actually fly to my location in order to tell me something so vewwwy vewwwy secret that you can't share it in any other medium, when you don't even know what state I live in?  

This is by far the funniest conversation I've ever had on USMB - I'll give you that.

Now, post the word "coward" again.  Make sure to post it in every reply to every one of my posts from now on.  Go with your strengths, I always say.


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> One. Just started it a couple of months ago. But.....I'm not the one bitching and complaining. I fully support the U.S. Constitution and I completely recognize the value of liberty over pitiful government table scraps like healthcare and food stamps.



That's nice.  WOuld you still feel that way if you had a serious illness and had to choose between food and medicine this month?  



P@triot said:


> The point is - in America - you are free and empowered to solve your own problems. If the insurance companies are doing what you are Joe are claiming they are doing (and I suspect 90% of them are not) then you should capitalize on their poor customer service and launch a health insurance company that never cheats people. You'll be rolling in billions of dollars.



Right. Because clearly, a company that cheats its customers isn't going to be as profitable as one that lives up to it's obligations. 

You see, your argument of Free Market Pixie Dust might make sense if people were buying their insurance directly.  But that system would collapse in a year. Young people wouldn't buy insurance and old people couldn't afford it.  

So instead, we have collectivization through employers instead of collectivization through the people.  

Which means the obligations of the Insurance company is to save the employer money, not make sure the policy holder is covered.


----------



## JoeB131

Arianrhod said:


> Again, why "in person"? The person whom I might choose to meet with wouldn't necessarily be you. You're the one who doesn't trust anyone. Why should anyone trust you? And what is it you can only say in person that you couldn't say in, for example, a PM? Or don't you trust PMs, either?



COnservatard likes to threaten to go to people's houses. Probably because his neighors are already terrified of him and don't go anywhere near his double wide.


----------



## Sun Devil 92

Back on track folks.

Another Co-op tanked.

It's not a roaring success.


----------



## Arianrhod

Sun Devil 92 said:


> Back on track folks.
> 
> Another Co-op tanked.
> 
> It's not a roaring success.



First you clowns decided the PPACA was a failure because there were some glitches in the website.

Now every time a co-op shuts down (the co-ops were always meant to be a stopgap, not a permanent establishment), you congratulate yourselves.

And yet, 90% of Americans have health insurance and even Donnie the Trump was talking about single payer for about five minutes.

The PPACA is not going away...unless it's replaced with Medicare-for-all or something similar.


----------



## P@triot

Arianrhod said:


> First you clowns decided the PPACA was a failure because there were some glitches in the website. Now every time a co-op shuts down (the co-ops were always meant to be a stopgap, not a permanent establishment), you congratulate yourselves. And yet, 90% of Americans have health insurance *and even Donnie the Trump was talking about single payer for about five minutes*. The PPACA is not going away...unless it's replaced with Medicare-for-all or something similar.



Oh the irony.....the _irony_! 

You people have lost your fuck'n minds about Donald Trump. You've rioted in the streets. Destroyed property. Resorted to horrific violence. And then you point to Donald Trump supporting a single payer system. Yeah - Trump is a fuck'n moron. The fact that he supports idiotic single payer system is just one of a mountain of evidence proving as much. The fact that you desire it as well and that you want to mooch off of society for your healthcare proves that you are just as big an idiot.


----------



## Arianrhod

P@triot said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> First you clowns decided the PPACA was a failure because there were some glitches in the website. Now every time a co-op shuts down (the co-ops were always meant to be a stopgap, not a permanent establishment), you congratulate yourselves. And yet, 90% of Americans have health insurance *and even Donnie the Trump was talking about single payer for about five minutes*. The PPACA is not going away...unless it's replaced with Medicare-for-all or something similar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh the irony.....the _irony_!
> 
> You people have lost your fuck'n minds about Donald Trump. You've rioted in the streets. Destroyed property. Resorted to horrific violence. And then you point to Donald Trump supporting a single payer system. Yeah - Trump is a fuck'n moron. The fact that he supports idiotic single payer system is just one of a mountain of evidence proving as much. The fact that you desire it as well and that you want to mooch off of society for your healthcare proves that you are just as big an idiot.
Click to expand...


Were you unaware that he mentioned single-payer several months ago?


----------



## P@triot

Arianrhod said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> First you clowns decided the PPACA was a failure because there were some glitches in the website. Now every time a co-op shuts down (the co-ops were always meant to be a stopgap, not a permanent establishment), you congratulate yourselves. And yet, 90% of Americans have health insurance *and even Donnie the Trump was talking about single payer for about five minutes*. The PPACA is not going away...unless it's replaced with Medicare-for-all or something similar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh the irony.....the _irony_!
> 
> You people have lost your fuck'n minds about Donald Trump. You've rioted in the streets. Destroyed property. Resorted to horrific violence. And then you point to Donald Trump supporting a single payer system. Yeah - Trump is a fuck'n moron. The fact that he supports idiotic single payer system is just one of a mountain of evidence proving as much. The fact that you desire it as well and that you want to mooch off of society for your healthcare proves that you are just as big an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Were you unaware that he mentioned single-payer several months ago?
Click to expand...

I'm aware that he's talked about it for _years_. And I can't help but laugh at the irony at how you people claim Trump is unqualified, incompetent, etc. and then agree with his position.


----------



## Arianrhod

P@triot said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> First you clowns decided the PPACA was a failure because there were some glitches in the website. Now every time a co-op shuts down (the co-ops were always meant to be a stopgap, not a permanent establishment), you congratulate yourselves. And yet, 90% of Americans have health insurance *and even Donnie the Trump was talking about single payer for about five minutes*. The PPACA is not going away...unless it's replaced with Medicare-for-all or something similar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh the irony.....the _irony_!
> 
> You people have lost your fuck'n minds about Donald Trump. You've rioted in the streets. Destroyed property. Resorted to horrific violence. And then you point to Donald Trump supporting a single payer system. Yeah - Trump is a fuck'n moron. The fact that he supports idiotic single payer system is just one of a mountain of evidence proving as much. The fact that you desire it as well and that you want to mooch off of society for your healthcare proves that you are just as big an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Were you unaware that he mentioned single-payer several months ago?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm aware that he's talked about it for _years_.
Click to expand...


So if the PPACA is a "catastrophic failure," and Trump wants to go a step further in that direction, and you support his position...


----------



## P@triot

Arianrhod said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> First you clowns decided the PPACA was a failure because there were some glitches in the website. Now every time a co-op shuts down (the co-ops were always meant to be a stopgap, not a permanent establishment), you congratulate yourselves. And yet, 90% of Americans have health insurance *and even Donnie the Trump was talking about single payer for about five minutes*. The PPACA is not going away...unless it's replaced with Medicare-for-all or something similar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh the irony.....the _irony_!
> 
> You people have lost your fuck'n minds about Donald Trump. You've rioted in the streets. Destroyed property. Resorted to horrific violence. And then you point to Donald Trump supporting a single payer system. Yeah - Trump is a fuck'n moron. The fact that he supports idiotic single payer system is just one of a mountain of evidence proving as much. The fact that you desire it as well and that you want to mooch off of society for your healthcare proves that you are just as big an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Were you unaware that he mentioned single-payer several months ago?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm aware that he's talked about it for _years_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if the PPACA is a "catastrophic failure," and Trump wants to go a step further in that direction, and you support his position...
Click to expand...

Really? _That_ is what you got out of my posts? 

(Hint: a rational person would realize I don't support Trump or 95% of his positions)


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> Oh the irony.....the _irony_!
> 
> You people have lost your fuck'n minds about Donald Trump. You've rioted in the streets. Destroyed property. Resorted to horrific violence. And then you point to Donald Trump supporting a single payer system. Yeah - Trump is a fuck'n moron. The fact that he supports idiotic single payer system is just one of a mountain of evidence proving as much. The fact that you desire it as well and that you want to mooch off of society for your healthcare proves that you are just as big an idiot.



Poodle, you miss the point.  The fact that Trump has dumped the crazy rhetoric of "let's go back to the good old days when your insurance company can cheat you!" that you guys support is very telling.  

It means while most people who hate ObamaCare because it has the word Obama in it, doesn't mean anyone wants to go back to the pre-PPACA world. 

So you've lost the argument.  Now the only question is, do we go forward to single payer or keep trying to make this system work.


----------



## P@triot

The exchanges are dropping like flies. We can now add #15 to the list...

Find Out How Much Each Failed Co-Op Received in Loans


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> The exchanges are dropping like flies. We can now add #15 to the list...



So what?  The Coops were only a stop gap. 

Point is, we've gone to 90% of the population now has health insurance.


----------



## Conservative65

Arianrhod said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Back on track folks.
> 
> Another Co-op tanked.
> 
> It's not a roaring success.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First you clowns decided the PPACA was a failure because there were some glitches in the website.
> 
> Now every time a co-op shuts down (the co-ops were always meant to be a stopgap, not a permanent establishment), you congratulate yourselves.
> 
> And yet, 90% of Americans have health insurance and even Donnie the Trump was talking about single payer for about five minutes.
> 
> The PPACA is not going away...unless it's replaced with Medicare-for-all or something similar.
Click to expand...


Obamacare was a failure when it included subsidies funded by those who provide healthcare coverage for themselves for those who won't.


----------



## Arianrhod

P@triot said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> First you clowns decided the PPACA was a failure because there were some glitches in the website. Now every time a co-op shuts down (the co-ops were always meant to be a stopgap, not a permanent establishment), you congratulate yourselves. And yet, 90% of Americans have health insurance *and even Donnie the Trump was talking about single payer for about five minutes*. The PPACA is not going away...unless it's replaced with Medicare-for-all or something similar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh the irony.....the _irony_!
> 
> You people have lost your fuck'n minds about Donald Trump. You've rioted in the streets. Destroyed property. Resorted to horrific violence. And then you point to Donald Trump supporting a single payer system. Yeah - Trump is a fuck'n moron. The fact that he supports idiotic single payer system is just one of a mountain of evidence proving as much. The fact that you desire it as well and that you want to mooch off of society for your healthcare proves that you are just as big an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Were you unaware that he mentioned single-payer several months ago?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm aware that he's talked about it for _years_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if the PPACA is a "catastrophic failure," and Trump wants to go a step further in that direction, and you support his position...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really? _That_ is what you got out of my posts?
> 
> (Hint: a rational person would realize I don't support Trump or 95% of his positions)
Click to expand...


But you fly into a rage any time a liberal mentions Trump.  Hmmm...


----------



## Conservative65

JoeB131 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> The exchanges are dropping like flies. We can now add #15 to the list...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what?  The Coops were only a stop gap.
> 
> Point is, we've gone to 90% of the population now has health insurance.
Click to expand...


WE haven't gone to anything as long as those now getting it have it subsidized by someone honorable enough to provide it for themselves.  Why do you support leeches getting something they didn't earn?


----------



## Arianrhod

Conservative65 said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Back on track folks.
> 
> Another Co-op tanked.
> 
> It's not a roaring success.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First you clowns decided the PPACA was a failure because there were some glitches in the website.
> 
> Now every time a co-op shuts down (the co-ops were always meant to be a stopgap, not a permanent establishment), you congratulate yourselves.
> 
> And yet, 90% of Americans have health insurance and even Donnie the Trump was talking about single payer for about five minutes.
> 
> The PPACA is not going away...unless it's replaced with Medicare-for-all or something similar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obamacare was a failure when it included subsidies funded by those who provide healthcare coverage for themselves for those who won't.
Click to expand...


Second verse, same as the first...


----------



## Conservative65

Arianrhod said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Back on track folks.
> 
> Another Co-op tanked.
> 
> It's not a roaring success.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First you clowns decided the PPACA was a failure because there were some glitches in the website.
> 
> Now every time a co-op shuts down (the co-ops were always meant to be a stopgap, not a permanent establishment), you congratulate yourselves.
> 
> And yet, 90% of Americans have health insurance and even Donnie the Trump was talking about single payer for about five minutes.
> 
> The PPACA is not going away...unless it's replaced with Medicare-for-all or something similar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obamacare was a failure when it included subsidies funded by those who provide healthcare coverage for themselves for those who won't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Second verse, same as the first...
Click to expand...


Second defense of freeloaders same as the first.  Why do you support leeches that won't do for themselves?


----------



## P@triot

Arianrhod said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh the irony.....the _irony_!
> 
> You people have lost your fuck'n minds about Donald Trump. You've rioted in the streets. Destroyed property. Resorted to horrific violence. And then you point to Donald Trump supporting a single payer system. Yeah - Trump is a fuck'n moron. The fact that he supports idiotic single payer system is just one of a mountain of evidence proving as much. The fact that you desire it as well and that you want to mooch off of society for your healthcare proves that you are just as big an idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Were you unaware that he mentioned single-payer several months ago?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm aware that he's talked about it for _years_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if the PPACA is a "catastrophic failure," and Trump wants to go a step further in that direction, and you support his position...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really? _That_ is what you got out of my posts?
> 
> (Hint: a rational person would realize I don't support Trump or 95% of his positions)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you fly into a rage any time a liberal mentions Trump.  Hmmm...
Click to expand...

Dude....you really need to figure out which way is up. I have bashed Trump more than anyone else on this site - including liberals. You can't figure out who I am and who is saying what. You are _terribly_ confused.


----------



## P@triot

Conservative65 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> The exchanges are dropping like flies. We can now add #15 to the list...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what?  The Coops were only a stop gap.
> 
> Point is, we've gone to 90% of the population now has health insurance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WE haven't gone to anything as long as those now getting it have it subsidized by someone honorable enough to provide it for themselves.  Why do you support leeches getting something they didn't earn?
Click to expand...

Because he is one of the parasites mooching off of society and dragging us down.


----------



## Arianrhod

P@triot said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> Were you unaware that he mentioned single-payer several months ago?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm aware that he's talked about it for _years_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if the PPACA is a "catastrophic failure," and Trump wants to go a step further in that direction, and you support his position...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really? _That_ is what you got out of my posts?
> 
> (Hint: a rational person would realize I don't support Trump or 95% of his positions)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you fly into a rage any time a liberal mentions Trump.  Hmmm...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude....you really need to figure out which way is up. I have bashed Trump more than anyone else on this site - including liberals. You can't figure out who I am and who is saying what. You are _terribly_ confused.
Click to expand...


So you weren't defending him upthread, just using him as a springboard to bash liberals.  How original.


----------



## JoeB131

Conservative65 said:


> WE haven't gone to anything as long as those now getting it have it subsidized by someone honorable enough to provide it for themselves. Why do you support leeches getting something they didn't earn?



Guy I have to wonder if you are some kind of retard. 

Here's the thing. No matter if its run by a big corporation or the government,  health care is socialized.  Either you are paying more in than you are getting out if you are healthy, or you are taking more out than you are paying if you are sick that year.  And frankly, that's probably better than the alternative, which would be getting completely financially wiped out if you got sick.  

now, here's the thing. The government subsidizes those who the private insurance companies would never touch.  You think Cigna wants to insure the 65+ crowd?  Fuck no.  They want people in their 30's and 40's and theyhope to dump them in the 60's off on the government. 



P@triot said:


> Because he is one of the parasites mooching off of society and dragging us down.



Yeah, like when I served in the miitary and then spent the next 25 years in various civilian jobs paying my taxes and contributing to the community. 

I could have been like you reading a copy of Atlas Shrugged and pretending I know how the world works.


----------



## Conservative65

JoeB131 said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> WE haven't gone to anything as long as those now getting it have it subsidized by someone honorable enough to provide it for themselves. Why do you support leeches getting something they didn't earn?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy I have to wonder if you are some kind of retard.
> 
> Here's the thing. No matter if its run by a big corporation or the government,  health care is socialized.  Either you are paying more in than you are getting out if you are healthy, or you are taking more out than you are paying if you are sick that year.  And frankly, that's probably better than the alternative, which would be getting completely financially wiped out if you got sick.
> 
> now, here's the thing. The government subsidizes those who the private insurance companies would never touch.  You think Cigna wants to insure the 65+ crowd?  Fuck no.  They want people in their 30's and 40's and theyhope to dump them in the 60's off on the government.
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because he is one of the parasites mooching off of society and dragging us down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, like when I served in the miitary and then spent the next 25 years in various civilian jobs paying my taxes and contributing to the community.
> 
> I could have been like you reading a copy of Atlas Shrugged and pretending I know how the world works.
Click to expand...


Difference is when I accepted whether or not to use the insurance of my employer, I also has just as much choice to decline that coverage without penalty.  Under Obamacare, there is no choice just different costs, premiums or a penalty.  

If Obamacare is such a good idea, why is it mandated?  Wouldn't such a good idea be something voluntarily accepted?

You keep saying people get wiped out if they can't pay the bills.  That's your fault.  You're the one that think some other person should offset that.  Since you say you do, set the example and prove you care.  I'm not convinced you actually do.  All I hear is you saying so.


----------



## Arianrhod

Conservative65 said:


> You keep saying people get wiped out if they can't pay the bills.  That's your fault.



So you believe that the costs of hospital care and pharmaceuticals and medical devices are reasonable?  Say more about that.

What about doctors?  Charging fair prices?  What a wonderful fantasy!


----------



## Conservative65

Arianrhod said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You keep saying people get wiped out if they can't pay the bills.  That's your fault.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you believe that the costs of hospital care and pharmaceuticals and medical devices are reasonable?  Say more about that.
> 
> What about doctors?  Charging fair prices?  What a wonderful fantasy!
Click to expand...


Far reach to get to even asking such a question.  I said that if someone gets wiped out because they can't pay their medical bills, it's your fault.  You think those people deserve help paying for it.  If they can't and you don't, the fault lies with the one who thinks they should have it paid.

Tell you what, if you think a doctor is charging too much for what he/she does, next time you need something only a doctor is qualified to do, don't use one and get some high school dropout to provide that service to you.  Let me know what happens.  Sorry, get your next of kin to let me know.


----------



## Arianrhod

Conservative65 said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You keep saying people get wiped out if they can't pay the bills.  That's your fault.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you believe that the costs of hospital care and pharmaceuticals and medical devices are reasonable?  Say more about that.
> 
> What about doctors?  Charging fair prices?  What a wonderful fantasy!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Far reach to get to even asking such a question.  I said that if someone gets wiped out because they can't pay their medical bills, it's your fault.  You think those people deserve help paying for it.  If they can't and you don't, the fault lies with the one who thinks they should have it paid.
> 
> Tell you what, if you think a doctor is charging too much for what he/she does, next time you need something only a doctor is qualified to do, don't use one and get some high school dropout to provide that service to you.  Let me know what happens.  Sorry, get your next of kin to let me know.
Click to expand...


So you believe that the costs of hospital care and pharmaceuticals and medical devices are reasonable.  And everyone should have several hundred thousand dollars stashed away in case they need cancer treatment or cardiac surgery.

Got it.


----------



## JoeB131

Conservative65 said:


> Difference is when I accepted whether or not to use the insurance of my employer, I also has just as much choice to decline that coverage without penalty. Under Obamacare, there is no choice just different costs, premiums or a penalty.
> 
> If Obamacare is such a good idea, why is it mandated? Wouldn't such a good idea be something voluntarily accepted?



Do I have to keep explaining this to you? If you didn't have a mandate, people wouldn't buy insurance until they got sick. Everyone has to buy insurance, and insurance companies can't cheat you when you get sick. 

Personally, I think single payer would work better. Or a public option for those who can't get insurance from their employers.  But the insurance companies shot those down. They are going to milk the last dollar they can out of hte current system. 



Conservative65 said:


> You keep saying people get wiped out if they can't pay the bills. That's your fault. You're the one that think some other person should offset that. Since you say you do, set the example and prove you care. I'm not convinced you actually do. All I hear is you saying so.



I already do.  I pay 3% of my salary into health insurance. Since I haven't gotten sick in the last 8 years or so, I am already paying for hte people who do.  

I'd rather have the government run it, because Medicare is much better than Cigna. 

Medicare Part E- Medicare for Everyone. problem solved.


----------



## Conservative65

Arianrhod said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You keep saying people get wiped out if they can't pay the bills.  That's your fault.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you believe that the costs of hospital care and pharmaceuticals and medical devices are reasonable?  Say more about that.
> 
> What about doctors?  Charging fair prices?  What a wonderful fantasy!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Far reach to get to even asking such a question.  I said that if someone gets wiped out because they can't pay their medical bills, it's your fault.  You think those people deserve help paying for it.  If they can't and you don't, the fault lies with the one who thinks they should have it paid.
> 
> Tell you what, if you think a doctor is charging too much for what he/she does, next time you need something only a doctor is qualified to do, don't use one and get some high school dropout to provide that service to you.  Let me know what happens.  Sorry, get your next of kin to let me know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you believe that the costs of hospital care and pharmaceuticals and medical devices are reasonable.  And everyone should have several hundred thousand dollars stashed away in case they need cancer treatment or cardiac surgery.
> 
> Got it.
Click to expand...


They don't need to have is stashed away.  When people like you who believe another person is supposed to provide them with something they can't afford, YOU should have it stashed away in order for you to prove you care like you SAY you do.

I didn't get that.  Are you going to get the high school dropout to provide medical care next time you need something?


----------



## Conservative65

JoeB131 said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Difference is when I accepted whether or not to use the insurance of my employer, I also has just as much choice to decline that coverage without penalty. Under Obamacare, there is no choice just different costs, premiums or a penalty.
> 
> If Obamacare is such a good idea, why is it mandated? Wouldn't such a good idea be something voluntarily accepted?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do I have to keep explaining this to you? If you didn't have a mandate, people wouldn't buy insurance until they got sick. Everyone has to buy insurance, and insurance companies can't cheat you when you get sick.
> 
> Personally, I think single payer would work better. Or a public option for those who can't get insurance from their employers.  But the insurance companies shot those down. They are going to milk the last dollar they can out of hte current system.
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You keep saying people get wiped out if they can't pay the bills. That's your fault. You're the one that think some other person should offset that. Since you say you do, set the example and prove you care. I'm not convinced you actually do. All I hear is you saying so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I already do.  I pay 3% of my salary into health insurance. Since I haven't gotten sick in the last 8 years or so, I am already paying for hte people who do.
> 
> I'd rather have the government run it, because Medicare is much better than Cigna.
> 
> Medicare Part E- Medicare for Everyone. problem solved.
Click to expand...


You haven't explained it yet.  All you've done is claim that you support the government providing you what you won't provide yourself.  

Personally, I think you should provide your own and pay for those who you say can't afford it.  It's not my place to provide to someone else what you think I should.


----------



## JoeB131

Conservative65 said:


> You haven't explained it yet. All you've done is claim that you support the government providing you what you won't provide yourself.
> 
> Personally, I think you should provide your own and pay for those who you say can't afford it. It's not my place to provide to someone else what you think I should.



I probably pay more taxes than you do, Cleetus.


----------



## Conservative65

JoeB131 said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You haven't explained it yet. All you've done is claim that you support the government providing you what you won't provide yourself.
> 
> Personally, I think you should provide your own and pay for those who you say can't afford it. It's not my place to provide to someone else what you think I should.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I probably pay more taxes than you do, Cleetus.
Click to expand...


You keep saying things like that but have yet to prove it.  Where's the proof, freeloader?


----------



## JoeB131

where's your proof?  Heck, you are here all day, that tells me you probably don't have gainful employment.


----------



## Sun Devil 92

Light Beer Commercial.


----------



## P@triot

Wait....I thought Obama said that we needed Obamacare because the costs of healthcare were just too high??? 

Nancy Allamon said the couple literally can’t afford to get sick. *After the passage of Obamacare, their health insurance deductible spiked to $5,000*—money they don’t have. *They also saw their monthly insurance payments rise*.

2 Ohio Counties, Red and Blue, Ready for Obama Era’s End


----------



## dblack

JoeB131 said:


> If you didn't have a mandate, people wouldn't buy insurance until they got sick. Everyone has to buy insurance, and insurance companies can't cheat you when you get sick.



Insurance companies can still 'cheat'. The mandate does nothing about that other than force us to put up with it.



> Personally, I think single payer would work better. Or a public option for those who can't get insurance from their employers.  But the insurance companies shot those down. They are going to milk the last dollar they can out of hte current system.



Me too. ACA was the insurance industry's attempt to avoid single payer. It makes it _less_ likely that the situation will improve, not more. It's step in the _wrong_ direction.


----------



## P@triot

dblack said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you didn't have a mandate, people wouldn't buy insurance until they got sick. Everyone has to buy insurance, and insurance companies can't cheat you when you get sick.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Insurance companies can still 'cheat'. The mandate does nothing about that other than force us to put up with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Personally, I think single payer would work better. Or a public option for those who can't get insurance from their employers.  But the insurance companies shot those down. They are going to milk the last dollar they can out of hte current system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Me too. ACA was the insurance industry's attempt to avoid single payer. It makes it _less_ likely that the situation will improve, not more. *It's step in the wrong direction*.
Click to expand...

You're 100% correct in that it is a step in the wrong direction. But you have the wrong reason. The actual reason it is a step in the wrong direction is because government has absolutely no business being involved in healthcare.


----------



## dblack

P@triot said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you didn't have a mandate, people wouldn't buy insurance until they got sick. Everyone has to buy insurance, and insurance companies can't cheat you when you get sick.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Insurance companies can still 'cheat'. The mandate does nothing about that other than force us to put up with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Personally, I think single payer would work better. Or a public option for those who can't get insurance from their employers.  But the insurance companies shot those down. They are going to milk the last dollar they can out of hte current system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Me too. ACA was the insurance industry's attempt to avoid single payer. It makes it _less_ likely that the situation will improve, not more. *It's step in the wrong direction*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're 100% correct in that it is a step in the wrong direction. But you have the wrong reason. The actual reason it is a step in the wrong direction is because government has absolutely no business being involved in healthcare.
Click to expand...


It's a step in the wrong direction no matter which way you look at it. It's only a step in the _right_ for government and their corporate sponsors.


----------



## Sun Devil 92

A big step.


----------



## Arianrhod

I find it amusing that this thread "called out" the PPACA as a "failure" over three months before it began.

Didn't Miss Cleo die this week?  Must be a temporal anomaly.


----------



## Conservative65

JoeB131 said:


> where's your proof?  Heck, you are here all day, that tells me you probably don't have gainful employment.



Are baseless claims what you call proof of what you stated?  I don't accept it.  Still looking for proof of YOUR claim.


----------



## Conservative65

Arianrhod said:


> I find it amusing that this thread "called out" the PPACA as a "failure" over three months before it began.
> 
> Didn't Miss Cleo die this week?  Must be a temporal anomaly.



It's been explained multiple times.  ANY program where the only way a freeloader that won't by his/her own insurance coverage can get it is for others to be forced to subsidize it is a failure before it starts.  The poor results of such a program are only proof.  When redistribution of wealth is the premise behind it, it's worthless from the get go.


----------



## Sun Devil 92

Conservative65 said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find it amusing that this thread "called out" the PPACA as a "failure" over three months before it began.
> 
> Didn't Miss Cleo die this week?  Must be a temporal anomaly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's been explained multiple times.  ANY program where the only way a freeloader that won't by his/her own insurance coverage can get it is for others to be forced to subsidize it is a failure before it starts.  The poor results of such a program are only proof.  When redistribution of wealth is the premise behind it, it's worthless from the get go.
Click to expand...


Then stop explaining it.

You'll never get the far left to admit that freeloaders exist.  

They are always victims of the rigged system.

And while I agree that the system is rigged in many ways, the freeloaders that are consistently documented are people who have figured out how to scam the system and prefer not to engage in the "normal" practice of providing for themselves (except that they do....by scamming the system).  

Big companies do it too.

The left has no problem villifying them (and rightly so).

But the "average person" on welfare is just an average person (or so they kid themselves into thinking).


----------



## P@triot

Arianrhod said:


> I find it amusing that this thread "called out" the PPACA as a "failure" over three months before it began.
> 
> Didn't Miss Cleo die this week?  Must be a temporal anomaly.


You should probably read the first post in a thread (at least the first post) before commenting. It would actually make sense to you then. Just say'n...


----------



## P@triot

Liberalism doing what it does best - inflicting tremendous harm on everything it touches (people, economies, businesses, etc.).

Her Obamacare Plan Could Be $650 a Month.


----------



## Arianrhod

P@triot said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find it amusing that this thread "called out" the PPACA as a "failure" over three months before it began.
> 
> Didn't Miss Cleo die this week?  Must be a temporal anomaly.
> 
> 
> 
> You should probably read the first post in a thread (at least the first post) before commenting. It would actually make sense to you then. Just say'n...
Click to expand...


I did.  Are you saying you didn't write it on October 23, 2013?


----------



## P@triot

Arianrhod said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find it amusing that this thread "called out" the PPACA as a "failure" over three months before it began.
> 
> Didn't Miss Cleo die this week?  Must be a temporal anomaly.
> 
> 
> 
> You should probably read the first post in a thread (at least the first post) before commenting. It would actually make sense to you then. Just say'n...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did.  Are you saying you didn't write it on October 23, 2013?
Click to expand...

Clearly you didn't read it or you wouldn't have made the comment about the thread being started "three months before it began". You're so intellectually lazy that you want to glance at a 6 or 7 word subject line and form the basis of everything from there.

What was failing at the time was _clearly_ *already in effect* and the links are there to prove it. Would you like to try again?


----------



## Arianrhod

P@triot said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find it amusing that this thread "called out" the PPACA as a "failure" over three months before it began.
> 
> Didn't Miss Cleo die this week?  Must be a temporal anomaly.
> 
> 
> 
> You should probably read the first post in a thread (at least the first post) before commenting. It would actually make sense to you then. Just say'n...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did.  Are you saying you didn't write it on October 23, 2013?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Clearly you didn't read it or you wouldn't have made the comment about the thread being started "three months before it began".
Click to expand...


Tell the class on what date the PPACA was implemented.


----------



## P@triot

Arianrhod said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find it amusing that this thread "called out" the PPACA as a "failure" over three months before it began.
> 
> Didn't Miss Cleo die this week?  Must be a temporal anomaly.
> 
> 
> 
> You should probably read the first post in a thread (at least the first post) before commenting. It would actually make sense to you then. Just say'n...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did.  Are you saying you didn't write it on October 23, 2013?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Clearly you didn't read it or you wouldn't have made the comment about the thread being started "three months before it began".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell the class on what date the PPACA was implemented.
Click to expand...

Tell the class how that is relevant to the initial post that created this thread? _Doh_!


----------



## P@triot

Arianrhod said:


> Tell the class on what date the PPACA was implemented.


Actually - lets dumb this _way_ down since you're struggling so much. Just tell the class what the initial premise of this thread was...


----------



## Arianrhod

P@triot said:


> Just tell the class what the initial premise of this thread was...



IOW, you have no idea when the PPACA was officially implemented, but you posted a thread calling it a catastrophic failure three months before the implementation, based on your perception that running ads for something means it's a failure.

Do you feel the same way about the newest iPhone?


----------



## Sun Devil 92

Reminder: Obamacare Is Still A Disaster | RealClearPolitics

A recent Kaiser Family Foundation study estimates that 664 counties will only feature one single insurer on Obamacare exchanges in 2017. In 2016, it was 225. Four entire states will have only one Obamacare insurer. In one Arizona county, there may be none. Since Obamacare, in effect, solidified in-state insurance cartels, the exchanges are starting to look very much the same. But opening markets up across state (and national) lines is a silly idea, I bet.

At first, Aetna denied that its move was connected to the Justice Department's merger decision. Even in the most generous reading, this turns out not to be exactly true. At The Huffington Post, Jonathan Cohn and Jeffery Young have gotten their hands on a letter from Aetna's CEO that critics seem to believe catches Aetna threatening the administration.


----------



## Arianrhod

Sun Devil 92 said:


> Reminder: Obamacare Is Still A Disaster | RealClearPolitics
> 
> A recent Kaiser Family Foundation study estimates that 664 counties will only feature one single insurer on Obamacare exchanges in 2017. In 2016, it was 225. Four entire states will have only one Obamacare insurer. In one Arizona county, there may be none. Since Obamacare, in effect, solidified in-state insurance cartels, the exchanges are starting to look very much the same. But opening markets up across state (and national) lines is a silly idea, I bet.
> 
> At first, Aetna denied that its move was connected to the Justice Department's merger decision. Even in the most generous reading, this turns out not to be exactly true. At The Huffington Post, Jonathan Cohn and Jeffery Young have gotten their hands on a letter from Aetna's CEO that critics seem to believe catches Aetna threatening the administration.



Three times now!  Gonna post it in every thread in the forum?


----------



## Sun Devil 92

P@triot said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell the class on what date the PPACA was implemented.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually - lets dumb this _way_ down since you're struggling so much. Just tell the class what the initial premise of this thread was...
Click to expand...

 
Good luck.

There is no premise though.....the OP states that there is "glaring evidence....", which there is.


----------



## P@triot

How many times did Obama adamantly *lie* about this? And how many times were conservatives attacked when they said that Obama was *lying*? All the left ever does is *lie* and all the right ever does is tell the truth about the liberal *lies*. 

Obamacare Website No Longer Addresses 'You Can Keep Your Doctor'


----------



## Sun Devil 92

P@triot said:


> How many times did Obama adamantly *lie* about this? And how many times were conservatives attacked when they said that Obama was *lying*? All the left ever does is *lie* and all the right ever does is tell the truth about the liberal *lies*.
> 
> Obamacare Website No Longer Addresses 'You Can Keep Your Doctor'



Whoops.

You should give them a break.


----------



## rdean

*The glaring evidence that Obamacare is a catastrophic FAILURE continues to mount*

I hope not.  Because I plan on joining it at the end of the year.  I refuse to believe the GOP's plan of let him die is the best plan out there.


----------



## hadit

Does anyone seriously still believe that obamadon'tcare was actually set up to be a viable long-term healthcare solution and not a deliberately move to hasten the advent of government takeover of the entire healthcare system?  Anyone?

Remember as well Hillary's failed attempt to take over healthcare when she was unelected and unaccountable.  Does anyone think she's not going to resurrect her failed attempt and try to ram it through again?  That turd made it illegal to make a private contract with a doctor.  The next attempt will be worse.


----------



## Sun Devil 92

rdean said:


> *The glaring evidence that Obamacare is a catastrophic FAILURE continues to mount*
> 
> I hope not.  Because I plan on joining it at the end of the year.  I refuse to believe the GOP's plan of let him die is the best plan out there.



It's not GOPcare you moron.

Pray tell...what will your premiums and deductible's be ?

Hope you got some good savings.


----------



## P@triot

The worst legislation in U.S. _history_. From start to finish. From the illegal and unethical ways it was "passed" to the ignorant design, to the lies used to promote it - there has never been a bigger disaster than Obamacare...

Aetna Has Revealed Obamacare's Many Broken Promises


----------



## francoHFW

P@triot said:


> The worst legislation in U.S. _history_. From start to finish. From the illegal and unethical ways it was "passed" to the ignorant design, to the lies used to promote it - there has never been a bigger disaster than Obamacare...
> 
> Aetna Has Revealed Obamacare's Many Broken Promises


Illegal my butt. Typical more like.

What lies? Some moot PREDICTIONS, maybe. Works great in blue states. Funny...Thanks GOP and crony insurers.


----------



## francoHFW

Sun Devil 92 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many times did Obama adamantly *lie* about this? And how many times were conservatives attacked when they said that Obama was *lying*? All the left ever does is *lie* and all the right ever does is tell the truth about the liberal *lies*.
> 
> Obamacare Website No Longer Addresses 'You Can Keep Your Doctor'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whoops.
> 
> You should give them a break.
Click to expand...

Most people kept their doctor if they looked at what insurers covered them. Again with the GOP and crony insurer obstruction too...


----------



## francoHFW

Of course prices went up in red states which still had GOP crony insurer scam plans....but not so much after factoring in subsidies- which the GOP doesn't do in their bs propaganda....


----------



## Arianrhod

P@triot said:


> The worst legislation in U.S. _history_. From start to finish. From the illegal and unethical ways it was "passed" to the ignorant design, to the lies used to promote it - there has never been a bigger disaster than Obamacare...
> 
> Aetna Has Revealed Obamacare's Many Broken Promises



Oops, another of my posts vanished.  Others can post nothing but a smilie and get away with it, not I.

Perhaps you'd like to compare the PPACA with other "worst" legislations, or has it so blinded you that even slavery looks kewl by comparison?


----------



## P@triot

Arianrhod said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> The worst legislation in U.S. _history_. From start to finish. From the illegal and unethical ways it was "passed" to the ignorant design, to the lies used to promote it - there has never been a bigger disaster than Obamacare...
> 
> Aetna Has Revealed Obamacare's Many Broken Promises
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oops, another of my posts vanished.  Others can post nothing but a smilie and get away with it, not I.
> 
> Perhaps you'd like to compare the PPACA with other "worst" legislations, or has it so blinded you that even slavery looks kewl by comparison?
Click to expand...

Did slavery add trillions of dollars to the national debt? Did slavery require illegal kickbacks and other unethical promises? Did slavery do the exact _opposite_ of what it promised to do?

No? See how stupid you look right now? Yep.


----------



## Arianrhod

P@triot said:


> Did slavery add trillions of dollars to the national debt?



Did the PPACA?  Proof?


----------



## P@triot

Arianrhod said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did slavery add trillions of dollars to the national debt?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did the PPACA?  Proof?
Click to expand...

_Wow_....if you don't know that much you really shouldn't be discussing politics. You should find a fashion site and discuss the latest trends.


----------



## P@triot

Unquestionable the worst legislation in U.S. history. It continues to get worse with each passing day...

Stopping Another Obamacare Bailout


----------



## Arianrhod

P@triot said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did slavery add trillions of dollars to the national debt?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did the PPACA?  Proof?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Wow_....if you don't know that much you really shouldn't be discussing politics.
Click to expand...


If it were true, you could prove it.  Since you can't, we know it isn't.


----------



## P@triot

Arianrhod said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did slavery add trillions of dollars to the national debt?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did the PPACA?  Proof?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Wow_....if you don't know that much you really shouldn't be discussing politics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it were true, you could prove it.  Since you can't, we know it isn't.
Click to expand...

Here are multiple sources.... _oops_! Your statement is as ignorant as saying "prove that people breathe air". It's easily proven. But it shouldn't be necessary since it's so widely known. You're clearly to ignorant of politics to be here discusisng this stuff.

Cost of ObamaCare

Here's How Many Billions Obamacare Will Cost in 2016

Obamacare's big overhead bill? Try $273.6 billion


----------



## P@triot

Even progressives favorite president - Slick Willy Clinton - is on record stating how awful Obamacare is...


----------



## Arianrhod

P@triot said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did slavery add trillions of dollars to the national debt?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did the PPACA?  Proof?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Wow_....if you don't know that much you really shouldn't be discussing politics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it were true, you could prove it.  Since you can't, we know it isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here are multiple sources.... _oops_! Your statement is as ignorant as saying "prove that people breathe air". It's easily proven. But it shouldn't be necessary since it's so widely known. You're clearly to ignorant of politics to be here discusisng this stuff.
> 
> Cost of ObamaCare
> 
> Here's How Many Billions Obamacare Will Cost in 2016
> 
> Obamacare's big overhead bill? Try $273.6 billion
Click to expand...


You've proven one thing, i.e., you don't understand the difference between "trillions" and "billions."  



P@triot said:


> Even progressives favorite president - Slick Willy Clinton - is on record stating how awful Obamacare is...



Are you old enough to remember the Clinton health reform plan?  If not, I'd recommend you research it.  Or just get used to saying "single payer."


----------



## francoHFW

P@triot said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did slavery add trillions of dollars to the national debt?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did the PPACA?  Proof?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Wow_....if you don't know that much you really shouldn't be discussing politics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it were true, you could prove it.  Since you can't, we know it isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here are multiple sources.... _oops_! Your statement is as ignorant as saying "prove that people breathe air". It's easily proven. But it shouldn't be necessary since it's so widely known. You're clearly to ignorant of politics to be here discusisng this stuff.
> 
> Cost of ObamaCare
> 
> Here's How Many Billions Obamacare Will Cost in 2016
> 
> Obamacare's big overhead bill? Try $273.6 billion
Click to expand...

Those are not about the deficit, because O-Care is actually driving down the deficit.
*CBO Obamacare Report Shows Deficit And Debt Are Phony Issues*
www.forbes.com/.../cbo-obama*care*-report-shows-*deficit*-and-debt-are-phony-i...
Forbes
Jun 22, 2015 - This absolutely is not a criticism of the Congressional Budget Office, which last week issued a report on the costs of the Affordable Care Act ... Enzi called the deficit reduction “substantially unclear” and said the deficit impact of ...
*Obama: Health care is driving down the deficit | PolitiFact*
www.politifact.com/truth-*o*.../obama-health-*care*-driving-down-*deficit*/
PolitiFact.com
Oct 8, 2014 - The cost of "health care is now the single-biggest factor driving ... have been debating its potential effect not just on health care but on the ...


----------



## francoHFW

P@triot said:


> Even progressives favorite president - Slick Willy Clinton - is on record stating how awful Obamacare is...


Hillary will fix the problems, Trump will blow up the system and take us back to the bad old days- scam policies, cut-offs, annual caps, no insurance with pre-existing conditions, HUGE rises in premiums, no insurance for poor workers etc etc. Great idea!

Bill is apologizing, but was pointing out that this is an ongoing tinkering job, just stupidly. Of course, the greedy idiot GOP is obstructing everything.


----------



## Sun Devil 92

francoHFW said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did slavery add trillions of dollars to the national debt?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did the PPACA?  Proof?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Wow_....if you don't know that much you really shouldn't be discussing politics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it were true, you could prove it.  Since you can't, we know it isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here are multiple sources.... _oops_! Your statement is as ignorant as saying "prove that people breathe air". It's easily proven. But it shouldn't be necessary since it's so widely known. You're clearly to ignorant of politics to be here discusisng this stuff.
> 
> Cost of ObamaCare
> 
> Here's How Many Billions Obamacare Will Cost in 2016
> 
> Obamacare's big overhead bill? Try $273.6 billion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those are not about the deficit, because O-Care is actually driving down the deficit.
> *CBO Obamacare Report Shows Deficit And Debt Are Phony Issues*
> www.forbes.com/.../cbo-obama*care*-report-shows-*deficit*-and-debt-are-phony-i...
> Forbes
> Jun 22, 2015 - This absolutely is not a criticism of the Congressional Budget Office, which last week issued a report on the costs of the Affordable Care Act ... Enzi called the deficit reduction “substantially unclear” and said the deficit impact of ...
> *Obama: Health care is driving down the deficit | PolitiFact*
> www.politifact.com/truth-*o*.../obama-health-*care*-driving-down-*deficit*/
> PolitiFact.com
> Oct 8, 2014 - The cost of "health care is now the single-biggest factor driving ... have been debating its potential effect not just on health care but on the ...
Click to expand...


2014 ?

2015 ?

Really


----------



## Sun Devil 92

francoHFW said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even progressives favorite president - Slick Willy Clinton - is on record stating how awful Obamacare is...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hillary will fix the problems, Trump will blow up the system and take us back to the bad old days- scam policies, cut-offs, annual caps, no insurance with pre-existing conditions, HUGE rises in premiums, no insurance for poor workers etc etc. Great idea!
> 
> Bill is apologizing, but was pointing out that this is an ongoing tinkering job, just stupidly. Of course, the greedy idiot GOP is obstructing everything.
Click to expand...


HIllary won't do anything without a complicit congress.


----------



## Sun Devil 92

P@triot said:


> Even progressives favorite president - Slick Willy Clinton - is on record stating how awful Obamacare is...



Wow.


----------



## francoHFW

Sun Devil 92 said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did the PPACA?  Proof?
> 
> 
> 
> _Wow_....if you don't know that much you really shouldn't be discussing politics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it were true, you could prove it.  Since you can't, we know it isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here are multiple sources.... _oops_! Your statement is as ignorant as saying "prove that people breathe air". It's easily proven. But it shouldn't be necessary since it's so widely known. You're clearly to ignorant of politics to be here discusisng this stuff.
> 
> Cost of ObamaCare
> 
> Here's How Many Billions Obamacare Will Cost in 2016
> 
> Obamacare's big overhead bill? Try $273.6 billion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those are not about the deficit, because O-Care is actually driving down the deficit.
> *CBO Obamacare Report Shows Deficit And Debt Are Phony Issues*
> www.forbes.com/.../cbo-obama*care*-report-shows-*deficit*-and-debt-are-phony-i...
> Forbes
> Jun 22, 2015 - This absolutely is not a criticism of the Congressional Budget Office, which last week issued a report on the costs of the Affordable Care Act ... Enzi called the deficit reduction “substantially unclear” and said the deficit impact of ...
> *Obama: Health care is driving down the deficit | PolitiFact*
> www.politifact.com/truth-*o*.../obama-health-*care*-driving-down-*deficit*/
> PolitiFact.com
> Oct 8, 2014 - The cost of "health care is now the single-biggest factor driving ... have been debating its potential effect not just on health care but on the ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 2014 ?
> 
> 2015 ?
> 
> Really
Click to expand...

Those are facts, the last 2 years available, and the deficit continues to go down.


----------



## francoHFW

Sun Devil 92 said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even progressives favorite president - Slick Willy Clinton - is on record stating how awful Obamacare is...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hillary will fix the problems, Trump will blow up the system and take us back to the bad old days- scam policies, cut-offs, annual caps, no insurance with pre-existing conditions, HUGE rises in premiums, no insurance for poor workers etc etc. Great idea!
> 
> Bill is apologizing, but was pointing out that this is an ongoing tinkering job, just stupidly. Of course, the greedy idiot GOP is obstructing everything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> HIllary won't do anything without a complicit congress.
Click to expand...

People are sick of obstruction, the GOP may well be splitting on it, and Hillary has skills Obama doesn't have, and she's not black lol...


----------



## francoHFW

Sun Devil 92 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even progressives favorite president - Slick Willy Clinton - is on record stating how awful Obamacare is...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.
Click to expand...

He's not running, apologized, and Hillary's going to fix it, as anyone but the bought off, mindlessly obstructive GOP would allow, and will under Hillary... not trying to wreck great reform. See pre-existing conditions, insurance for poor workers, scams, cut-offs etc.


----------



## P@triot

francoHFW said:


> Hillary will fix the problems, Trump will blow up the system and take us back to the bad old days- scam policies, cut-offs, annual caps, no insurance with pre-existing conditions, *HUGE rises in premiums*, no insurance for poor workers etc etc. Great idea!


Sorry chief....Obama already handled that for all of us. Healthcare costs are through the roof.


francoHFW said:


> Bill is apologizing, but was pointing out that this is an ongoing tinkering job, just stupidly. Of course, the greedy idiot GOP is obstructing everything.


I see you still keep wearing that tinfoil hat Franco. Nobody is obstructing anything. and Bill made no such comments as you desperately want to interpret. He was clear that Obamacare is a shit sandwich and a disaster for this nation. But then again - conservatives already knew that in 2008 - 2009 when they crunched the numbers and accurately predicted everything that happened.


----------



## P@triot

francoHFW said:


> People are sick of obstruction, the GOP may well be splitting on it, and Hillary has skills Obama doesn't have, and she's not black lol...


My dog has skills that Obama doesn't have. We've been telling you that for 8 years. All you've done is perform fellatio on him and declare him the ultimate deity mankind has ever encountered.

Now that he's out, his record is failure, and you're desperate for Hitlery to be in, you're starting a new false narrative.

I've got news for you junior - Obama is buffoon. But he is actually better than Hiltery. He at least is capable of keeping his composure.


----------



## P@triot

francoHFW said:


> and Hillary's going to fix it...


Bwahahaha! "Fix it"?!? Franco....you've spent 6 year emphatically declaring what a resounding success Obamacare is. And now you just admitted that it needs fixing!

Caught in a *lie* as usual.


----------



## Sun Devil 92

francoHFW said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Wow_....if you don't know that much you really shouldn't be discussing politics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If it were true, you could prove it.  Since you can't, we know it isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here are multiple sources.... _oops_! Your statement is as ignorant as saying "prove that people breathe air". It's easily proven. But it shouldn't be necessary since it's so widely known. You're clearly to ignorant of politics to be here discusisng this stuff.
> 
> Cost of ObamaCare
> 
> Here's How Many Billions Obamacare Will Cost in 2016
> 
> Obamacare's big overhead bill? Try $273.6 billion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those are not about the deficit, because O-Care is actually driving down the deficit.
> *CBO Obamacare Report Shows Deficit And Debt Are Phony Issues*
> www.forbes.com/.../cbo-obama*care*-report-shows-*deficit*-and-debt-are-phony-i...
> Forbes
> Jun 22, 2015 - This absolutely is not a criticism of the Congressional Budget Office, which last week issued a report on the costs of the Affordable Care Act ... Enzi called the deficit reduction “substantially unclear” and said the deficit impact of ...
> *Obama: Health care is driving down the deficit | PolitiFact*
> www.politifact.com/truth-*o*.../obama-health-*care*-driving-down-*deficit*/
> PolitiFact.com
> Oct 8, 2014 - The cost of "health care is now the single-biggest factor driving ... have been debating its potential effect not just on health care but on the ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 2014 ?
> 
> 2015 ?
> 
> Really
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those are facts, the last 2 years available, and the deficit continues to go down.
Click to expand...


The sun comes up every morning.

You are an idiot.

The two are facts and are unrelated.

Just like your claim.


----------



## francoHFW

P@triot said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hillary will fix the problems, Trump will blow up the system and take us back to the bad old days- scam policies, cut-offs, annual caps, no insurance with pre-existing conditions, *HUGE rises in premiums*, no insurance for poor workers etc etc. Great idea!
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry chief....Obama already handled that for all of us. Healthcare costs are through the roof.
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bill is apologizing, but was pointing out that this is an ongoing tinkering job, just stupidly. Of course, the greedy idiot GOP is obstructing everything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see you still keep wearing that tinfoil hat Franco. Nobody is obstructing anything. and Bill made no such comments as you desperately want to interpret. He was clear that Obamacare is a shit sandwich and a disaster for this nation. But then again - conservatives already knew that in 2008 - 2009 when they crunched the numbers and accurately predicted everything that happened.
Click to expand...

Well, you parroted the GOP BS propaganda that this will add trillions to the deficit- and I totally debunked that. Our health costs doubled just under W and have been a disgrace for decades. Costs have gone up less under O-Care than they have for a long time, but there are fixes for the problems. Hillary will fix it, Trump will blow it up and take us back to the bad old days.


----------



## francoHFW

Sun Devil 92 said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it were true, you could prove it.  Since you can't, we know it isn't.
> 
> 
> 
> Here are multiple sources.... _oops_! Your statement is as ignorant as saying "prove that people breathe air". It's easily proven. But it shouldn't be necessary since it's so widely known. You're clearly to ignorant of politics to be here discusisng this stuff.
> 
> Cost of ObamaCare
> 
> Here's How Many Billions Obamacare Will Cost in 2016
> 
> Obamacare's big overhead bill? Try $273.6 billion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those are not about the deficit, because O-Care is actually driving down the deficit.
> *CBO Obamacare Report Shows Deficit And Debt Are Phony Issues*
> www.forbes.com/.../cbo-obama*care*-report-shows-*deficit*-and-debt-are-phony-i...
> Forbes
> Jun 22, 2015 - This absolutely is not a criticism of the Congressional Budget Office, which last week issued a report on the costs of the Affordable Care Act ... Enzi called the deficit reduction “substantially unclear” and said the deficit impact of ...
> *Obama: Health care is driving down the deficit | PolitiFact*
> www.politifact.com/truth-*o*.../obama-health-*care*-driving-down-*deficit*/
> PolitiFact.com
> Oct 8, 2014 - The cost of "health care is now the single-biggest factor driving ... have been debating its potential effect not just on health care but on the ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 2014 ?
> 
> 2015 ?
> 
> Really
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those are facts, the last 2 years available, and the deficit continues to go down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The sun comes up every morning.
> 
> You are an idiot.
> 
> The two are facts and are unrelated.
> 
> Just like your claim.
Click to expand...

Right. Don't worry about facts, brainwashed functional moron. There is no evidence O-Care will add to the deficit. Quite the contrary. Duh.


----------



## francoHFW

P@triot said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> and Hillary's going to fix it...
> 
> 
> 
> Bwahahaha! "Fix it"?!? Franco....you've spent 6 year emphatically declaring what a resounding success Obamacare is. And now you just admitted that it needs fixing!
> 
> Caught in a *lie* as usual.
Click to expand...

It will be tinkered with forever. It hasn't been fully implemented yet, and the GOP and crony insurers are blocking competition in the exchanges  and Medicaid in red states, hoping one of theirs will win the presidency. The dam will burst when Hillary gets in. And regulation of ridiculous hospital charges, specialist doctors, and drug prices will be gone after. The party's over. It is a success but can be better.


----------



## francoHFW

P@triot said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> People are sick of obstruction, the GOP may well be splitting on it, and Hillary has skills Obama doesn't have, and she's not black lol...
> 
> 
> 
> My dog has skills that Obama doesn't have. We've been telling you that for 8 years. All you've done is perform fellatio on him and declare him the ultimate deity mankind has ever encountered.
> 
> Now that he's out, his record is failure, and you're desperate for Hitlery to be in, you're starting a new false narrative.
> 
> I've got news for you junior - Obama is buffoon. But he is actually better than Hiltery. He at least is capable of keeping his composure.
Click to expand...

Obama has been totally obstructed by the "No compromise, un-American (probably racist) TP GOP"- TIME. A duped, bought off disgrace. Now imploding.


----------



## Meathead

Seriously, even Democrats know Obamacare is a burden on many working Americans at a time when they can ill afford it.


----------



## francoHFW

Meathead said:


> Seriously, even Democrats know Obamacare is a burden on many working Americans at a time when they can ill afford it.


As he said, not for people who get big subsidies and people on Medicaid, but those who get no help- singles with income over $47k, families of 4 of four over 85k. Hillary has real tax cuts for the middle class and will go after ridiculous hospital/doctor/drug costs and bring prices down.

bore= had


----------



## Meathead

francoHFW said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously, even Democrats know Obamacare is a burden on many working Americans at a time when they can ill afford it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As he said, not for people who get big subsidies and people on Medicaid, but those who get no help- singles with income over $47k, families of 4 of four over 85k. Hillary has real tax cuts for the middle class and will go after ridiculous hospital/doctor/drug costs and bring prices down.
> 
> bore= had
Click to expand...

Well, you've pretty much admitted that Obamacare is a burden on too many working Americans. There is nothing free, and ACA is in fact a way of getting the young and the middle class to pay for  health care of the regular freeloaders.


----------



## francoHFW

Meathead said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously, even Democrats know Obamacare is a burden on many working Americans at a time when they can ill afford it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As he said, not for people who get big subsidies and people on Medicaid, but those who get no help- singles with income over $47k, families of 4 of four over 85k. Hillary has real tax cuts for the middle class and will go after ridiculous hospital/doctor/drug costs and bring prices down.
> 
> bore= had
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, you've pretty much admitted that Obamacare is a burden on too many working Americans. There is nothing free, and ACA is in fact a way of getting the young and the middle class to pay for  health care of the regular freeloaders.
Click to expand...

Which they have for years, just in the stupidest (ER, no doctor or preventive care), most humiliating and deadly way. Taking subsidies and Medicaid into account, the poorer workers pay little, and when regulation of hospitals and drugs etc takes cold, the cost curve will bend down faster. Or you could blow the whole thing up and go back to scams and cutoffs, no pre-existing, and even faster cost rises. Great idea.


----------



## P@triot

More indisputable evidence for progressives to ignore... 

Stopping Another Obamacare Bailout


----------



## Arianrhod

P@triot said:


> More indisputable evidence for progressives to ignore...
> 
> Stopping Another Obamacare Bailout



Isn't there a thread about this already?  How many times do you intend to repeat it?


----------



## P@triot

Arianrhod said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> More indisputable evidence for progressives to ignore...
> 
> Stopping Another Obamacare Bailout
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't there a thread about this already?  How many times do you intend to repeat it?
Click to expand...

How many times do you intend to ignore it?


----------



## JoeB131

I don't know, Poodle, you'be been telling us the sky is falling for three years now with this thread.


----------



## Arianrhod

P@triot said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> More indisputable evidence for progressives to ignore...
> 
> Stopping Another Obamacare Bailout
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't there a thread about this already?  How many times do you intend to repeat it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How many times do you intend to ignore it?
Click to expand...


As often as you reiterate it based on sources that present opinion as evidence and then ask for a donation at the end.


----------



## P@triot

Arianrhod said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> More indisputable evidence for progressives to ignore...
> 
> Stopping Another Obamacare Bailout
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't there a thread about this already?  How many times do you intend to repeat it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How many times do you intend to ignore it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As often as you reiterate it based on sources that present opinion as evidence and then ask for a donation at the end.
Click to expand...

Bwahahaha! There is *no* "opinion" there cupcake. Obamacare has been a catastrophic failure and even the Clintons have gone on record stating as much. Seventeen of the exchanges have gone under and Obama is desperately trying to bail the rest out. Premiums have skyrocketed as have the actual healthcare costs.

Watching progressives deny reality is funny as hell....


----------



## Arianrhod

P@triot said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> More indisputable evidence for progressives to ignore...
> 
> Stopping Another Obamacare Bailout
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't there a thread about this already?  How many times do you intend to repeat it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How many times do you intend to ignore it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As often as you reiterate it based on sources that present opinion as evidence and then ask for a donation at the end.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bwahahaha! There is *no* "opinion" there...
Click to expand...


The article you repeatedly link to is an opinion piece containing not one hard fact.


----------



## P@triot

Arianrhod said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> More indisputable evidence for progressives to ignore...
> 
> Stopping Another Obamacare Bailout
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't there a thread about this already?  How many times do you intend to repeat it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How many times do you intend to ignore it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As often as you reiterate it based on sources that present opinion as evidence and then ask for a donation at the end.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bwahahaha! There is *no* "opinion" there...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The article you repeatedly link to is an opinion piece containing not one hard fact.
Click to expand...

Except that this entire thread is *filled* with _hundreds_ of pages with "hard facts". You've chosen to ignore each and every one of them because they are uncomfortable to your fragile 'lil psyche since those "hard facts" don't align with the progressive ideology you've bought into.


----------



## Arianrhod

P@triot said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't there a thread about this already?  How many times do you intend to repeat it?
> 
> 
> 
> How many times do you intend to ignore it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As often as you reiterate it based on sources that present opinion as evidence and then ask for a donation at the end.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bwahahaha! There is *no* "opinion" there...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The article you repeatedly link to is an opinion piece containing not one hard fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except that this entire thread is *filled* with _hundreds_ of pages with "hard facts".
Click to expand...


I'm referring to the opinion piece you linked to in Post #3608.


----------



## P@triot

Arianrhod said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many times do you intend to ignore it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As often as you reiterate it based on sources that present opinion as evidence and then ask for a donation at the end.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bwahahaha! There is *no* "opinion" there...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The article you repeatedly link to is an opinion piece containing not one hard fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except that this entire thread is *filled* with _hundreds_ of pages with "hard facts".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm referring to the opinion piece you linked to in Post #3608.
Click to expand...

Of course you are....like all progressives you ignore the entire body of evidence and desperately attempt to attack one small piece.


----------



## Arianrhod

P@triot said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> As often as you reiterate it based on sources that present opinion as evidence and then ask for a donation at the end.
> 
> 
> 
> Bwahahaha! There is *no* "opinion" there...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The article you repeatedly link to is an opinion piece containing not one hard fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except that this entire thread is *filled* with _hundreds_ of pages with "hard facts".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm referring to the opinion piece you linked to in Post #3608.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course you are....
Click to expand...


If you don't want anyone to talk about it, why do you keep posting it?

Tell you what: Show us one verifiable datum in that opinion piece.  You get to pick whichever one you want, but you have to prove it.

Repeating the term "glaring evidence" is not proof, Vizzini.


----------



## P@triot

Arianrhod said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bwahahaha! There is *no* "opinion" there...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The article you repeatedly link to is an opinion piece containing not one hard fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except that this entire thread is *filled* with _hundreds_ of pages with "hard facts".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm referring to the opinion piece you linked to in Post #3608.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course you are....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you don't want anyone to talk about it, why do you keep posting it?
> 
> Tell you what: Show us one verifiable datum in that opinion piece.  You get to pick whichever one you want, but you have to prove it.
> 
> Repeating the term "glaring evidence" is not proof, Vizzini.
Click to expand...

I'm happy to talk about it. Or the fact that progressives can't bring themselves to admit what a catastrophic failure Obamacare was.

You want just one? How about three in the first few paragraphs alone:

When President Barack Obama made his case to the American people for Obamacare, he promised that it would both lower health insurance premiums and not add to the national debt. Neither has been true.

One way Obamacare has been adding to the deficit is through illegal bailouts of insurance companies operating Obamacare plans through the Department of Health and Human Services.

The Government Accountability Office highlighted one bailout scheme last week when it released a report finding that since 2014, HHS has been illegally sending billions of “reinsurance” fees to insurance companies instead of sending those dollars to the United States Treasury where they belong.
Now which part of those widely known and accepted *facts* do you need "proven" to you? Even when I post video of Barack Obama promising that his highly illegal and unethical legislation would lower healthcare costs and insurance premiums, you'll just deny it. You'll attack the source, of you'll proclaim that he didn't say what he said, etc. - you know, all of the traditional progressive tactics.


----------



## Arianrhod

P@triot said:


> [*]When President Barack Obama made his case to the American people for Obamacare, he promised that it would both lower health insurance premiums and not add to the national debt. Neither has been true.



Says the author of the opinion piece.  Proof?  Yanno, facts, statistics, data, links, anything?



P@triot said:


> One way Obamacare has been adding to the deficit is through illegal bailouts of insurance companies operating Obamacare plans through the Department of Health and Human Services.



Says the author of the opinion piece.  Proof?  Yanno, facts, statistics, data, links, anything?



P@triot said:


> The Government Accountability Office highlighted one bailout scheme last week when it released a report finding that since 2014, HHS has been illegally sending billions of “reinsurance” fees to insurance companies instead of sending those dollars to the United States Treasury where they belong.



Says the author of the opinion piece.  Proof?  Yanno, facts, statistics, data, links, anything?



P@triot said:


> Now which part of those widely known and accepted *facts* do you need "proven" to you?



Just one will do.  Go for it.


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> Bwahahaha! There is *no* "opinion" there cupcake. Obamacare has been a catastrophic failure and even the Clintons have gone on record stating as much. Seventeen of the exchanges have gone under and Obama is desperately trying to bail the rest out. Premiums have skyrocketed as have the actual healthcare costs.
> 
> Watching progressives deny reality is funny as hell....



Healthcare costs were skyrocketing before the ACA was passed, dumbass. Here's the reality. You aren't going to take health care away from 20 million people and not have serious consequences. So what's going to happen after Hillary wins is that she and Paul Ryan will quietly sit down and fix the problem.


----------



## P@triot

Hitlery Clinton just *admitted* that Obamacare has caused costs (both insurance premiums _and_ the actual healthcare costs) to drastically increase while the coverages have decreased. The exact opposite of what the Dumbocrats promised.

As always - progressive policies create failure.


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> Hitlery Clinton just *admitted* that Obamacare has caused costs (both insurance premiums _and_ the actual healthcare costs) to drastically increase while the coverages have decreased. The exact opposite of what the Dumbocrats promised.
> 
> As always - progressive policies create failure.



No, she didn't.  But that's okay Poodle.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hitlery Clinton just *admitted* that Obamacare has caused costs (both insurance premiums _and_ the actual healthcare costs) to drastically increase while the coverages have decreased. The exact opposite of what the Dumbocrats promised.
> 
> As always - progressive policies create failure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, she didn't.  But that's okay Poodle.
Click to expand...

When the question pointed that out she said "*I agree*". Idiot.


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> When the question pointed that out she said "*I agree*". Idiot.



I think the concept of "Context" is lost on you , Poodle.


----------



## Arianrhod

P@triot said:


> Hitlery Clinton just *admitted* that Obamacare has caused costs (both insurance premiums _and_ the actual healthcare costs) to drastically increase while the coverages have decreased.



Can you cite the exact quote where that was said?  I think you'll find that it was Trump who made the claim.


----------



## P@triot

Arianrhod said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hitlery Clinton just *admitted* that Obamacare has caused costs (both insurance premiums _and_ the actual healthcare costs) to drastically increase while the coverages have decreased.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you cite the exact quote where that was said?  I think you'll find that it was Trump who made the claim.
Click to expand...

It wasn't Trump. One of the males on stage cited all of that in his question and asked what the candidates would do to fix it. Hillary explicitly stated "*I agree*" and then mentioned some vague plans to fix it.


----------



## P@triot

This is the _perfect_ microcosm of Democrats/progressives. Create policies which unequivocally end in failure and then just keep throwing money at it...

Obama Administration May Break the Law to Save Obamacare


----------



## Arianrhod

P@triot said:


> This is the _perfect_ microcosm of Democrats/progressives. Create policies which unequivocally end in failure and then just keep throwing money at it...
> 
> Obama Administration May Break the Law to Save Obamacare



Kindly explain what's illegal about this: "...the Transitional Reinsurance Program. Section 1341 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, authorizes the secretary of Health and Human Services to collect payments from health insurance companies and group health plans to stabilize health insurance markets during the transition to Obamacare’s exchange-based coverage."


----------



## P@triot

Even the Dumbocrats can no longer deny it... 

Gov. Dayton Declares Affordable Care Act 'No Longer Affordable'


----------



## P@triot

The worst legislation in U.S. history. Unconstitutional. Passed illegally. And did the exact opposite of what it promised to do.

Dayton says Affordable Care Act has become unaffordable, needs reforms


----------



## Arianrhod

P@triot, you claim it's illegal.  Kindly explain what's illegal about this: "...the Transitional Reinsurance Program. Section 1341 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, authorizes the secretary of Health and Human Services to collect payments from health insurance companies and group health plans to stabilize health insurance markets during the transition to Obamacare’s exchange-based coverage."


----------



## Sun Devil 92

P@triot said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> As often as you reiterate it based on sources that present opinion as evidence and then ask for a donation at the end.
> 
> 
> 
> Bwahahaha! There is *no* "opinion" there...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The article you repeatedly link to is an opinion piece containing not one hard fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except that this entire thread is *filled* with _hundreds_ of pages with "hard facts".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm referring to the opinion piece you linked to in Post #3608.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course you are....like all progressives you ignore the entire body of evidence and desperately attempt to attack one small piece.
Click to expand...


Oh, and he does not think doctors should be "allowed" to make 300K a year.

He wants the garbage man opening his chest when his time comes.

One thing he can take solace in...he won't need a brain surgeon.


----------



## Sun Devil 92

P@triot said:


> The worst legislation in U.S. history. Unconstitutional. Passed illegally. And did the exact opposite of what it promised to do.
> 
> Dayton says Affordable Care Act has become unaffordable, needs reforms



You won't win the unconstitutional argument.  Roberts, who will go down in history as one of the worst, helped make sure of that.

As for the rest of it, it's here.

It is cratering as we speak.

Just let it fall.


----------



## Sun Devil 92

francoHFW said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here are multiple sources.... _oops_! Your statement is as ignorant as saying "prove that people breathe air". It's easily proven. But it shouldn't be necessary since it's so widely known. You're clearly to ignorant of politics to be here discusisng this stuff.
> 
> Cost of ObamaCare
> 
> Here's How Many Billions Obamacare Will Cost in 2016
> 
> Obamacare's big overhead bill? Try $273.6 billion
> 
> 
> 
> Those are not about the deficit, because O-Care is actually driving down the deficit.
> *CBO Obamacare Report Shows Deficit And Debt Are Phony Issues*
> www.forbes.com/.../cbo-obama*care*-report-shows-*deficit*-and-debt-are-phony-i...
> Forbes
> Jun 22, 2015 - This absolutely is not a criticism of the Congressional Budget Office, which last week issued a report on the costs of the Affordable Care Act ... Enzi called the deficit reduction “substantially unclear” and said the deficit impact of ...
> *Obama: Health care is driving down the deficit | PolitiFact*
> www.politifact.com/truth-*o*.../obama-health-*care*-driving-down-*deficit*/
> PolitiFact.com
> Oct 8, 2014 - The cost of "health care is now the single-biggest factor driving ... have been debating its potential effect not just on health care but on the ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 2014 ?
> 
> 2015 ?
> 
> Really
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those are facts, the last 2 years available, and the deficit continues to go down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The sun comes up every morning.
> 
> You are an idiot.
> 
> The two are facts and are unrelated.
> 
> Just like your claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right. Don't worry about facts, brainwashed functional moron. There is no evidence O-Care will add to the deficit. Quite the contrary. Duh.
Click to expand...


Nobody said it would....moron.

We just said it would cost a lot more than they said it would.

We are still spending 8,500 per person per year.  That hasn't changed.

Some think we are headed to 10,000 (that's 40,000 for a family of four....).  Put that in your crack pipe and smoke it.

You already look stupid.  No need to make it worse.


----------



## Arianrhod

Sun Devil 92 said:


> We are still spending 8,500 per person per year.  That hasn't changed.



That's incorrect.


----------



## Sun Devil 92

P@triot said:


> Even the Dumbocrats can no longer deny it...
> 
> Gov. Dayton Declares Affordable Care Act 'No Longer Affordable'



There you go......

You can't run from the truth.


----------



## francoHFW

Sun Devil 92 said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those are not about the deficit, because O-Care is actually driving down the deficit.
> *CBO Obamacare Report Shows Deficit And Debt Are Phony Issues*
> www.forbes.com/.../cbo-obama*care*-report-shows-*deficit*-and-debt-are-phony-i...
> Forbes
> Jun 22, 2015 - This absolutely is not a criticism of the Congressional Budget Office, which last week issued a report on the costs of the Affordable Care Act ... Enzi called the deficit reduction “substantially unclear” and said the deficit impact of ...
> *Obama: Health care is driving down the deficit | PolitiFact*
> www.politifact.com/truth-*o*.../obama-health-*care*-driving-down-*deficit*/
> PolitiFact.com
> Oct 8, 2014 - The cost of "health care is now the single-biggest factor driving ... have been debating its potential effect not just on health care but on the ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2014 ?
> 
> 2015 ?
> 
> Really
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those are facts, the last 2 years available, and the deficit continues to go down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The sun comes up every morning.
> 
> You are an idiot.
> 
> The two are facts and are unrelated.
> 
> Just like your claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right. Don't worry about facts, brainwashed functional moron. There is no evidence O-Care will add to the deficit. Quite the contrary. Duh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody said it would....moron.
> 
> We just said it would cost a lot more than they said it would.
> 
> We are still spending 8,500 per person per year.  That hasn't changed.
> 
> Some think we are headed to 10,000 (that's 40,000 for a family of four....).  Put that in your crack pipe and smoke it.
> 
> You already look stupid.  No need to make it worse.
Click to expand...

It's not fully implemented yet duh, the GOP insurers and their crony insurers are sabotaging it, and the prices rises have still bent down from the Boosh years (when costs doubled for scams lol). Wait until Hillary goes after ridiculous hospital, doctor and drug prices and gets competition in the exchanges going...


----------



## Sun Devil 92

francoHFW said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2014 ?
> 
> 2015 ?
> 
> Really
> 
> 
> 
> Those are facts, the last 2 years available, and the deficit continues to go down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The sun comes up every morning.
> 
> You are an idiot.
> 
> The two are facts and are unrelated.
> 
> Just like your claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right. Don't worry about facts, brainwashed functional moron. There is no evidence O-Care will add to the deficit. Quite the contrary. Duh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody said it would....moron.
> 
> We just said it would cost a lot more than they said it would.
> 
> We are still spending 8,500 per person per year.  That hasn't changed.
> 
> Some think we are headed to 10,000 (that's 40,000 for a family of four....).  Put that in your crack pipe and smoke it.
> 
> You already look stupid.  No need to make it worse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not fully implemented yet duh, the GOP insurers and their crony insurers are sabotaging it, and the prices rises have still bent down from the Boosh years (when costs doubled for scams lol). Wait until Hillary goes after ridiculous hospital, doctor and drug prices and gets competition in the exchanges going...
Click to expand...


They keep delaying a "good thing".  

I don't suppose you've stopped to wonder why.


----------



## francoHFW

Sun Devil 92 said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those are facts, the last 2 years available, and the deficit continues to go down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The sun comes up every morning.
> 
> You are an idiot.
> 
> The two are facts and are unrelated.
> 
> Just like your claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right. Don't worry about facts, brainwashed functional moron. There is no evidence O-Care will add to the deficit. Quite the contrary. Duh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody said it would....moron.
> 
> We just said it would cost a lot more than they said it would.
> 
> We are still spending 8,500 per person per year.  That hasn't changed.
> 
> Some think we are headed to 10,000 (that's 40,000 for a family of four....).  Put that in your crack pipe and smoke it.
> 
> You already look stupid.  No need to make it worse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not fully implemented yet duh, the GOP insurers and their crony insurers are sabotaging it, and the prices rises have still bent down from the Boosh years (when costs doubled for scams lol). Wait until Hillary goes after ridiculous hospital, doctor and drug prices and gets competition in the exchanges going...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They keep delaying a "good thing".
> 
> I don't suppose you've stopped to wonder why.
Click to expand...

Better to do it step by step, gives people a chance to "get it" like Pelosi said. Especially with all the bs GOP propaganda and sabotage. Dems are such pussies lol...Ditto "Librul" media.


----------



## Arianrhod

francoHFW said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The sun comes up every morning.
> 
> You are an idiot.
> 
> The two are facts and are unrelated.
> 
> Just like your claim.
> 
> 
> 
> Right. Don't worry about facts, brainwashed functional moron. There is no evidence O-Care will add to the deficit. Quite the contrary. Duh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody said it would....moron.
> 
> We just said it would cost a lot more than they said it would.
> 
> We are still spending 8,500 per person per year.  That hasn't changed.
> 
> Some think we are headed to 10,000 (that's 40,000 for a family of four....).  Put that in your crack pipe and smoke it.
> 
> You already look stupid.  No need to make it worse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not fully implemented yet duh, the GOP insurers and their crony insurers are sabotaging it, and the prices rises have still bent down from the Boosh years (when costs doubled for scams lol). Wait until Hillary goes after ridiculous hospital, doctor and drug prices and gets competition in the exchanges going...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They keep delaying a "good thing".
> 
> I don't suppose you've stopped to wonder why.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Better to do it step by step, gives people a chance to "get it" like Pelosi said. Especially with all the bs GOP propaganda and sabotage. Dems are such pussies lol...Ditto "Librul" media.
Click to expand...


Given that the Other Side spent the entire summer having hysterics about where other people pee - not to mention the constant disinformation campaigns on this board - it's doubtful some of them will ever get it.

BTW, what ever happened to the Bathroom Police Movement, anyway?  Too busy gearing up for the War on Christmas?


----------



## francoHFW

Arianrhod said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right. Don't worry about facts, brainwashed functional moron. There is no evidence O-Care will add to the deficit. Quite the contrary. Duh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody said it would....moron.
> 
> We just said it would cost a lot more than they said it would.
> 
> We are still spending 8,500 per person per year.  That hasn't changed.
> 
> Some think we are headed to 10,000 (that's 40,000 for a family of four....).  Put that in your crack pipe and smoke it.
> 
> You already look stupid.  No need to make it worse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not fully implemented yet duh, the GOP insurers and their crony insurers are sabotaging it, and the prices rises have still bent down from the Boosh years (when costs doubled for scams lol). Wait until Hillary goes after ridiculous hospital, doctor and drug prices and gets competition in the exchanges going...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They keep delaying a "good thing".
> 
> I don't suppose you've stopped to wonder why.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Better to do it step by step, gives people a chance to "get it" like Pelosi said. Especially with all the bs GOP propaganda and sabotage. Dems are such pussies lol...Ditto "Librul" media.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Given that the Other Side spent the entire summer having hysterics about where other people pee - not to mention the constant disinformation campaigns on this board - it's doubtful some of them will ever get it.
> 
> BTW, what ever happened to the Bathroom Police Movement, anyway?  Too busy gearing up for the War on Christmas?
Click to expand...

All of them can vote for the big orange idiot sex pervert con man and still get only 40%...lol


----------



## Sun Devil 92

francoHFW said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The sun comes up every morning.
> 
> You are an idiot.
> 
> The two are facts and are unrelated.
> 
> Just like your claim.
> 
> 
> 
> Right. Don't worry about facts, brainwashed functional moron. There is no evidence O-Care will add to the deficit. Quite the contrary. Duh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody said it would....moron.
> 
> We just said it would cost a lot more than they said it would.
> 
> We are still spending 8,500 per person per year.  That hasn't changed.
> 
> Some think we are headed to 10,000 (that's 40,000 for a family of four....).  Put that in your crack pipe and smoke it.
> 
> You already look stupid.  No need to make it worse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not fully implemented yet duh, the GOP insurers and their crony insurers are sabotaging it, and the prices rises have still bent down from the Boosh years (when costs doubled for scams lol). Wait until Hillary goes after ridiculous hospital, doctor and drug prices and gets competition in the exchanges going...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They keep delaying a "good thing".
> 
> I don't suppose you've stopped to wonder why.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Better to do it step by step, gives people a chance to "get it" like Pelosi said. Especially with all the bs GOP propaganda and sabotage. Dems are such pussies lol...Ditto "Librul" media.
Click to expand...


Nobody is getting it (unless "getting it" means getting screwed.

You are a moron.


----------



## Sun Devil 92

JoeB131 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bwahahaha! There is *no* "opinion" there cupcake. Obamacare has been a catastrophic failure and even the Clintons have gone on record stating as much. Seventeen of the exchanges have gone under and Obama is desperately trying to bail the rest out. Premiums have skyrocketed as have the actual healthcare costs.
> 
> Watching progressives deny reality is funny as hell....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Healthcare costs were skyrocketing before the ACA was passed, dumbass. Here's the reality. You aren't going to take health care away from 20 million people and not have serious consequences. So what's going to happen after Hillary wins is that she and Paul Ryan will quietly sit down and fix the problem.
Click to expand...


What problem are they going to fix.

They going to legislate doctors salaries ?

Ryan won't fix anything.


----------



## JoeB131

Sun Devil 92 said:


> You won't win the unconstitutional argument. Roberts, who will go down in history as one of the worst, helped make sure of that.
> 
> As for the rest of it, it's here.
> 
> It is cratering as we speak.
> 
> Just let it fall.



guy, you've been saying that for six years now... Here's the reality.  You aren't going to take health care away from 20 million people...  

Now, if your party was rational, they'd think of ways to fix the problems and get the credit.


----------



## JoeB131

Sun Devil 92 said:


> What problem are they going to fix.
> 
> They going to legislate doctors salaries ?
> 
> Ryan won't fix anything.



Properly fund the exchanges.  Or replace the exchanges with a public option. OR you could simply allow a MediCare buy in for those over 55.  

Of course, the real solution is to do what every other advanced nation has- Single payer.


----------



## Sun Devil 92

JoeB131 said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You won't win the unconstitutional argument. Roberts, who will go down in history as one of the worst, helped make sure of that.
> 
> As for the rest of it, it's here.
> 
> It is cratering as we speak.
> 
> Just let it fall.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> guy, you've been saying that for six years now... Here's the reality.  You aren't going to take health care away from 20 million people...
> 
> Now, if your party was rational, they'd think of ways to fix the problems and get the credit.
Click to expand...


My party ?

What party would that be ?


----------



## Sun Devil 92

JoeB131 said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What problem are they going to fix.
> 
> They going to legislate doctors salaries ?
> 
> Ryan won't fix anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Properly fund the exchanges.  Or replace the exchanges with a public option. OR you could simply allow a MediCare buy in for those over 55.
> 
> Of course, the real solution is to do what every other advanced nation has- Single payer.
Click to expand...


As I've posted 100 times before.....

We are spending over 8,500 per person per year.  Double what most other countries spend.

You think single payer will stop that ?


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> Of course, the real solution is to do what every other advanced nation has- Single payer.


Joey continues to advocate for the U.S. to lower the bar to that of other failed nations. Canada has a single payer system and the wealthy come here to the U.S. for real healthcare. Cuba has a single payer system and it is vintage 3rd world "care". England has a single payer system and they are currently trying to decentralize it because the cost has them on the verge of collapse.

Tell you what Joey....you worry about your own healthcare and I'll worry about mine. Mmm..k? Stop trying to get me to pay your way through life.


----------



## P@triot

So much for "if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor". So much for "if you like your coverage you can keep your coverage". So much for "affordable"!

More Than 1 Million in Obamacare Are Set to Lose Plans as Insurers Quit


----------



## JoeB131

Sun Devil 92 said:


> As I've posted 100 times before.....
> 
> We are spending over 8,500 per person per year. Double what most other countries spend.
> 
> You think single payer will stop that ?



Yes, actually, it will. Most countries with single payer pay half that.  

Here's a great example.  

An MRI costs $1080 in the US but only $280 in France. 

Why? Because the government as a single payer has determined that's a fair price and they aren't going to pay more for that. 

You also can eliminate non-value added things like Nine figure salaries for executives at insurance companies and payouts to stockholders of insurance companies that add nothing to the quality of health care.


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> Joey continues to advocate for the U.S. to lower the bar to that of other failed nations. Canada has a single payer system and the wealthy come here to the U.S. for real healthcare.



Guy, you work on the assumption that what's good for the wealthy is good for the rest of us. 

Besides the fact that Canadian Health Tourism is largely a myth... the fact that we have treatments here that m ost of us don't have access to because our insurance plans won't cover them isn't anything to brag about. Most of us aren't rich. That we can get some old rich asshole to live to 100 with treatments none of us can afford, not impressive. 



P@triot said:


> Cuba has a single payer system and it is vintage 3rd world "care".



Yet they live as long as we do and have a lower infant mortality rate.  



P@triot said:


> Tell you what Joey....you worry about your own healthcare and I'll worry about mine. Mmm..k? Stop trying to get me to pay your way through life.



Poodle, wh en you aren't 25 years old anymore and have to get a real job, and you get your first real medical crisis and have to wrestle with an insurance company to get treatment, then you can come back and talk to me about how your coverage "works".  

Of course, thanks to the ACA, big insurance will have a harder time screwing you over.


----------



## JoeB131

Oh, Medical Tourism is myth...

Phantoms In The Snow: Canadians’ Use Of Health Care Services In The United States

Surprisingly few Canadians travel to the United States for health care, despite the persistence of the myth.

For more than a decade anecdotal reports of waiting lists for elective procedures in Canada and of hordes of Canadian “Medicare refugees” crossing the border in search of medical care in the United States have provided emotive fuel for critics of the Canadian health care system from both sides of the border.1 American opponents of universal public coverage have argued that global constraints on capacity and funding force many Canadians to cross the border in search of services that are unavailable or in short supply in their own country.2 S....

_*Almost 40 percent of the facilities we surveyed reported treating no Canadians, while an additional 40 percent had seen fewer than ten patients*_ (Exhibit 1⇓). Fifteen percent of respondent sites reported treating 10–25 Canadian patients, and only about 5 percent reported seeing more than 25 during the previous year (generally 25–75 patients; none reported more than 100). These findings were fairly consistent across the service categories. The overall response rate was 67 percent, and it varied across type of clinical facility from 56 percent for ambulatory surgery centers to 80 percent for cancer centers.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> Poodle, wh en you aren't 25 years old anymore and have to get a real job, and you get your first real medical crisis and have to wrestle with an insurance company to get treatment, then you can come back and talk to me about how your coverage "works".


Kitty...that's _your_ problem. Stop trying to make it all of society's problem. And stop being such a pussy, kitty. Start an insurance company right now and don't "wrestle" when your customers need treatment. See how easy it was to solve that "problem"?


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cuba has a single payer system and it is vintage 3rd world "care".
> 
> 
> 
> Yet they live as long as we do and have a lower infant mortality rate.
Click to expand...

Then go live there kitty. What is the problem? They have everything you've ever claimed to desire. Universal healthcare. No firearms. No capitalism. What's the problem kitty? Stop being such a pussy. Put your money where your whiskers are.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Joey continues to advocate for the U.S. to lower the bar to that of other failed nations. Canada has a single payer system and the wealthy come here to the U.S. for real healthcare.
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, you work on the assumption that what's good for the wealthy is good for the rest of us.
Click to expand...

No kitty...I work off of the reality that socialism has a 100% failure rate worldwide. It had *never* worked _anywhere_ and it *never* will. And I'm not going to collapse the U.S. because you're a little pussy. I'm not going to surrender liberty, choice, and independence because you're a pussy.


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> Kitty...that's _your_ problem. Stop trying to make it all of society's problem. And stop being such a pussy, kitty. Start an insurance company right now and don't "wrestle" when your customers need treatment. See how easy it was to solve that "problem"?



Sorry, guy, when I pay $6000 a year for medical insurance, and my Doctor says I need an operation, I don' want to argue with my boss or my insurance company about why I need it. 

Which is pretty much what happened to me back in the oughts.  



P@triot said:


> No kitty...I work off of the reality that socialism has a 100% failure rate worldwide. It had *never* worked _anywhere_ and it *never* will. And I'm not going to collapse the U.S. because you're a little pussy. I'm not going to surrender liberty, choice, and independence because you're a pussy.



O



Actually, the same can be said of capitalism... it failed in 2008, 2000, 1991 and 1980. Miserably.   The only thing that prevented complete collapse is the government stepped in and saved the Capitalists.  

So instead of arguing about what works and what fails, in the real, grown up world outside an Ayn Rand novel, you roll with the punches, and you fix the problems when they become obvious.  


P@triot said:


> Then go live there kitty. What is the problem? They have everything you've ever claimed to desire. Universal healthcare. No firearms. No capitalism. What's the problem kitty? Stop being such a pussy. Put your money where your whiskers are.



r I have a better idea. We vote to change this country and we make the rich pay for it.  That's actually easier and better.  

your America of greed is DEAD, DEAD, DEAD.  It died in 2008, and we all became socialists when the government bailed out the banks.


----------



## Sun Devil 92

JoeB131 said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I've posted 100 times before.....
> 
> We are spending over 8,500 per person per year. Double what most other countries spend.
> 
> You think single payer will stop that ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, actually, it will. Most countries with single payer pay half that.
> 
> Here's a great example.
> 
> An MRI costs $1080 in the US but only $280 in France.
> 
> Why? Because the government as a single payer has determined that's a fair price and they aren't going to pay more for that.
> 
> You also can eliminate non-value added things like Nine figure salaries for executives at insurance companies and payouts to stockholders of insurance companies that add nothing to the quality of health care.
Click to expand...


I laugh just as hard now as when you first posted this drivel.

Insurance companies will be right in the middle of a single payer system.

The government let Al Raines and Jamie Gorelick make millions on Fannie Mae.

But you think it won't happen in insurance.

We'll still pay twice as much.


----------



## Sun Devil 92

JoeB131 said:


> Oh, Medical Tourism is myth...
> 
> Phantoms In The Snow: Canadians’ Use Of Health Care Services In The United States
> 
> Surprisingly few Canadians travel to the United States for health care, despite the persistence of the myth.
> 
> For more than a decade anecdotal reports of waiting lists for elective procedures in Canada and of hordes of Canadian “Medicare refugees” crossing the border in search of medical care in the United States have provided emotive fuel for critics of the Canadian health care system from both sides of the border.1 American opponents of universal public coverage have argued that global constraints on capacity and funding force many Canadians to cross the border in search of services that are unavailable or in short supply in their own country.2 S....
> 
> _*Almost 40 percent of the facilities we surveyed reported treating no Canadians, while an additional 40 percent had seen fewer than ten patients*_ (Exhibit 1⇓). Fifteen percent of respondent sites reported treating 10–25 Canadian patients, and only about 5 percent reported seeing more than 25 during the previous year (generally 25–75 patients; none reported more than 100). These findings were fairly consistent across the service categories. The overall response rate was 67 percent, and it varied across type of clinical facility from 56 percent for ambulatory surgery centers to 80 percent for cancer centers.



That's not medical tourism.

Try to keep up.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kitty...that's _your_ problem. Stop trying to make it all of society's problem. And stop being such a pussy, kitty. Start an insurance company right now and don't "wrestle" when your customers need treatment. See how easy it was to solve that "problem"?
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, guy, when I pay $6000 a year for medical insurance, and my Doctor says I need an operation, I don' want to argue with my boss or my insurance company about why I need it. Which is pretty much what happened to me back in the oughts.
Click to expand...

Again kitty....that is _your_ problem. It's not the United States problem.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> No kitty...I work off of the reality that socialism has a 100% failure rate worldwide. It had *never* worked _anywhere_ and it *never* will. And I'm not going to collapse the U.S. because you're a little pussy. I'm not going to surrender liberty, choice, and independence because you're a pussy.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the same can be said of capitalism... it failed in 2008, 2000, 1991 and 1980. Miserably.   The only thing that prevented complete collapse is the government stepped in and saved the Capitalists.
Click to expand...

First of all the U.S. has *never* collapsed kitty. So once again we see you lying. Second, every year you cited above was void of capitalism. Communist Social Security was implemented in the 1930's _stupid_. Communist Medicare was implemented in the 1960's _stupid_. Communist Medicaid was implemented in the 1960's _stupid_. And there have been tens of thousands of regulations controlling them for a century (Affirmative Action, Sarbanes-Oxley, etc.).


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> So *instead of arguing about what works and what fails*, in the real, grown up world outside an Ayn Rand novel, you roll with the punches, and you fix the problems when they become obvious.


What an idiotic statement - even by Kitty standards. How can you "fix" something if you don't understand what works and what doesn't? If it doesn't work and you implement something that fails, you haven't "fixed it". You've made it worse. Stupid.

Second - your problems are _your_ problems to "fix". You have no business making your problems my problems, pussy. If something doesn't work for you - deal with it. It doesn't empower you to force the rest of us into your vision of what "works".


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then go live there kitty. What is the problem? They have everything you've ever claimed to desire. Universal healthcare. No firearms. No capitalism. What's the problem kitty? Stop being such a pussy. Put your money where your whiskers are.
> 
> 
> 
> I have a better idea. We vote to change this country and we make the rich pay for it.  That's actually easier and better.
Click to expand...


1.) Proof that the lazy little kitty is always looking for the "easy" way

2.) You could confiscate 100% of the wealth in this nation from every single person and it wouldn't touch our $19 trillion in debt - much less a devastating universal healthcare system. This shows how ignorant you are. You don't even understand basic economics.

3.) If "voting" were easier than moving to Cuba then you would have single payer 100 years ago kitty. You've had your ass kicked at the polls. Just move to Cuba.


----------



## Arianrhod

P@triot said:


> How can you "fix" something if you don't understand what works and what doesn't?



Your side seems confident it can or you wouldn't be starting thread after thread after thread about it.  (Of course, it's really only the same thread repeated; that's your idea of a "fix.")


----------



## P@triot

Arianrhod said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can you "fix" something if you don't understand what works and what doesn't?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your side seems confident it can or you wouldn't be starting thread after thread after thread about it.  (Of course, it's really only the same thread repeated; that's your idea of a "fix.")
Click to expand...

Hey stupid....why don't you try reading what was written instead of what you want to see?

JoeB said (and I quote) "instead of worrying about what works and what fails...you fix the problem". My response was to illustrate that you can't "fix" a problem if you don't know what works and what fails.

Reading comprehension Arianrhod. Reading comprehension.


----------



## JoeB131

Sun Devil 92 said:


> I laugh just as hard now as when you first posted this drivel.
> 
> Insurance companies will be right in the middle of a single payer system.
> 
> The government let Al Raines and Jamie Gorelick make millions on Fannie Mae.
> 
> But you think it won't happen in insurance.
> 
> We'll still pay twice as much.



Uh, no, we go to single payer, we get rid of the insurance companies and we will all be better off.   It's what the Canadians and the Brits do. 

We have a system now. It's called Medicare.  Just have Medicare Part E, expand it to everyone. Phase it in, start with the 55+ having a buy in.


----------



## JoeB131

Sun Devil 92 said:


> That's not medical tourism.
> 
> Try to keep up.



I have. The thing is, the claim that htere are hoardes of rich Canadians flocking down here for medical treatment they can't get in their own country is lie.  Few hospitals treat Canadians, and on the occassions they do, it's because they were tourists who happened to get sick or injured while they were here.


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> Again kitty....that is _your_ problem. It's not the United States problem.



Poodle, buddy... we got the ACA because everyone KNEW it was everyone's problem. 

Even the insurance industry knows it can't keep doing business the way it did.


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> First of all the U.S. has *never* collapsed kitty. So once again we see you lying. Second, every year you cited above was void of capitalism. Communist Social Security was implemented in the 1930's _stupid_. Communist Medicare was implemented in the 1960's _stupid_. Communist Medicaid was implemented in the 1960's _stupid_. And there have been tens of thousands of regulations controlling them for a century (Affirmative Action, Sarbanes-Oxley, etc.).



Neither has China or any other country that tried "Socialism".  

And when you call something like social security "Communist", I think you guys should totally run on a platform of s hutting down social security and medicare.  Totally do that.  Please fucking do  that.  

It'll be the end of you faster than Trump is doing you in.


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> 1.) Proof that the lazy little kitty is always looking for the "easy" way
> 
> 2.) You could confiscate 100% of the wealth in this nation from every single person and it wouldn't touch our $19 trillion in debt - much less a devastating universal healthcare system. This shows how ignorant you are. You don't even understand basic economics.



That's not true. 

Here, let's educate you. 

Financial position of the United States - Wikipedia

The *financial position of the United States* includes assets of at least $269.6 trillion (1576% of GDP) and debts of $145.8 trillion (852% of GDP) to produce a net worth of at least $123.8 trillion (723% of GDP)[a] as of Q1 2014.

Now, to clarify that for you... Government debt is bad and we need to do something about that, but it's only 20 Trillion out of 146 Trillion in total debt and 269 Trillion in total assets. So it isn't really a problem of being able to afford it, it's how the assets are leveraged. 

Now, on to health care.  The United States spends more per capita than any other nation. 







Japan, for instance, spends only $3000 per citizen, yet their health care is better than ours in every measurable factor- life expectancy, infant mortality, etc.  The average Japanese lives four years longer on average than the average American. 



P@triot said:


> Second - your problems are _your_ problems to "fix". You have no business making your problems my problems, pussy. If something doesn't work for you - deal with it. It doesn't empower you to force the rest of us into your vision of what "works".



No, guy, it's your problem when the rest of us get fed up with your shit. 20 years ago, I've have never voted for a Clinton.  This year my biggest problem with her is she isn't assertive enough.   

That's where we are at. Your side is losing because for most of us, corporatism is a big old shit sandwich.


----------



## Arianrhod

P@triot said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can you "fix" something if you don't understand what works and what doesn't?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your side seems confident it can or you wouldn't be starting thread after thread after thread about it.  (Of course, it's really only the same thread repeated; that's your idea of a "fix.")
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...why don't you try reading what was written instead of what you want to see?
Click to expand...


So it wasn't you who wrote "How can you 'fix' something if you don't understand what works and what doesn't?"?  Did someone hack your account?


----------



## Sun Devil 92

JoeB131 said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's not medical tourism.
> 
> Try to keep up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have. The thing is, the claim that htere are hoardes of rich Canadians flocking down here for medical treatment they can't get in their own country is lie.  Few hospitals treat Canadians, and on the occassions they do, it's because they were tourists who happened to get sick or injured while they were here.
Click to expand...


That is not medical tourism.


----------



## Sun Devil 92

JoeB131 said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I laugh just as hard now as when you first posted this drivel.
> 
> Insurance companies will be right in the middle of a single payer system.
> 
> The government let Al Raines and Jamie Gorelick make millions on Fannie Mae.
> 
> But you think it won't happen in insurance.
> 
> We'll still pay twice as much.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, no, we go to single payer, we get rid of the insurance companies and we will all be better off.   It's what the Canadians and the Brits do.
> 
> We have a system now. It's called Medicare.  Just have Medicare Part E, expand it to everyone. Phase it in, start with the 55+ having a buy in.
Click to expand...


Never going to happen.

We pay way to much.

And Canadians like some parts of their care.

Also, you might be interested to know that Canadians have a very strong private system.

Their "single payer" is great for a broken leg.  

It sucks when it comes to things like cancer.

That comes from Canadians themselves.

Not from this...although it is pretty funny......


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again kitty....that is _your_ problem. It's not the United States problem.
> 
> 
> 
> Poodle, buddy... we got the ACA because everyone KNEW it was everyone's problem. Even the insurance industry knows it can't keep doing business the way it did.
Click to expand...

No...._really_...it's *not*. You entered into a private business agreement. If it went sideways - that is your problem. It is not the problem of the American people or the government.

And no - you didn't get the ACA because it was a public problem. You got the ACA because a few radical progressives lied their way into a position of power and then engaged in a host of illegal actions to achieve their radical desires. If the American people actually _wanted_ the ACA the Dumbocrats wouldn't have hadn't their asses handed to them in the 2010 mid-terms. You wouldn't have seen the Tea Party or all but 18 states turned over to conservatives.

The American people sent a crystal clear message that they didn't want it. Your either tone deaf or a dirt-bag *liar*. I don't think your _that_ tone deaf.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> First of all the U.S. has *never* collapsed kitty. So once again we see you lying. Second, every year you cited above was void of capitalism. Communist Social Security was implemented in the 1930's _stupid_. Communist Medicare was implemented in the 1960's _stupid_. Communist Medicaid was implemented in the 1960's _stupid_. And there have been tens of thousands of regulations controlling them for a century (Affirmative Action, Sarbanes-Oxley, etc.).
> 
> 
> 
> Neither has China or *any other country that tried "Socialism"*.
Click to expand...

Really? That's funny because I keep looking for the U.S.S.R. on modern maps and I can't find it _anywhere_. I wonder why that is?

By the way - Cuba, Ethiopia, and Cambodia all collapsed as well. Greece shut down their banks and allow people to pull $60 per day from the ATM's. That's absolutely collapse. Thank you for illustrating your extraordinary ignorance, kitty.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.) Proof that the lazy little kitty is always looking for the "easy" way
> 
> 2.) You could confiscate 100% of the wealth in this nation from every single person and it wouldn't touch our $19 trillion in debt - much less a devastating universal healthcare system. This shows how ignorant you are. You don't even understand basic economics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not true.
> 
> Here, let's educate you.
> 
> Financial position of the United States - Wikipedia
> 
> The *financial position of the United States* includes assets of at least $269.6 trillion (1576% of GDP) and debts of $145.8 trillion (852% of GDP) to produce a net worth of at least $123.8 trillion (723% of GDP)[a] as of Q1 2014.
Click to expand...

Oh kitty.....you poor little pussy. "Assets" are *not* liquid (that means they *aren't* _cash_ - stupid). One cannot pay bills with "assets". It takes _cash_, stupid. Cold, hard, _cash_.

And if you confiscated every single penny that every single American has it wouldn't even begin to cover the cost. Allow me to educate you, poor little kitty:

*There was approximately $1.46 trillion in circulation as of June 1, 2016, of which $1.4 trillion was in Federal Reserve notes.*

FRB: How much U.S. currency is in circulation?


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> Japan, for instance, spends only $3000 per citizen, yet their health care is better than ours in every measurable factor- life expectancy, infant mortality, etc.  The average Japanese lives four years longer on average than the average American.


That has nothing to do with our healthcare system you ignorant little kitty. That is our lifestyle. Japan doesn't consume fast food like we do. Japan doesn't have issues with Bloods vs. Crips, Hells Angels vs. Mongols, etc. like we do (violence drastically reduces life expectancy you ignorant kitty).

We have the #1 healthcare in the world and it's not even close. Like everything else, you ignorant progressives are trying to lower the bar and drag down our healthcare to the pitiful level of third world socialized nations.


----------



## P@triot

Sun Devil 92 said:


>


Paul Krugman is an asshole of epic proportions and this video proves what an uninformed ideologue he is (just like little kitty Joey there).

Notice his response? "Bad move by my part". What is a "bad move" about asking an honest question and getting an informed response? Absolutely nothing unless one is a disingenuous, lying _asshole_ with an agenda.


----------



## JoeB131

Sun Devil 92 said:


> Never going to happen.
> 
> We pay way to much.
> 
> And Canadians like some parts of their care.
> 
> Also, you might be interested to know that Canadians have a very strong private system.
> 
> Their "single payer" is great for a broken leg.
> 
> It sucks when it comes to things like cancer.
> 
> That comes from Canadians themselves.
> 
> Not from this...although it is pretty funny......



No, it's just stupid.  The fact is, Canadians are not flocking down here for health care. 

They live longer than we do, and they have a lower infant mortality rate, while spending a lot less than we do. 

That's because they aren't paying INsurance CEO's nine-figure salaries to figure out ways NOT to pay for claims.


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> That has nothing to do with our healthcare system you ignorant little kitty. That is our lifestyle. Japan doesn't consume fast food like we do. Japan doesn't have issues with Bloods vs. Crips, Hells Angels vs. Mongols, etc. like we do (violence drastically reduces life expectancy you ignorant kitty).
> 
> We have the #1 healthcare in the world and it's not even close. Like everything else, you ignorant progressives are trying to lower the bar and drag down our healthcare to the pitiful level of third world socialized nations.



When 40% of your population can't access the health care system, it isn't the best in the world, Poodle. 

When you get out in the real world, let us know, little boy.


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> Really? That's funny because I keep looking for the U.S.S.R. on modern maps and I can't find it _anywhere_. I wonder why that is?



Which had nothing to do with Socialism. I'm so sorry you don't understand that. 

Hey you know what else I don't see on modern maps? The British Empire.  Yup. Since the British Empire is gone, that must mean Capitalism is a complete fucking failure. 

Or it means that Indians and Kenyans got sick of being exploited by the English.  Kind of like Khazaks and Ukrainians got sick of being exploited by Russians. 

wow, Poodle, you are such a child. What Talking Snake University did you graduate form last year?


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really? That's funny because I keep looking for the U.S.S.R. on modern maps and I can't find it _anywhere_. I wonder why that is?
> 
> 
> 
> Which had nothing to do with Socialism. I'm so sorry you don't understand that.
Click to expand...

Bwahahaha! What did it have to do with kitty - "Global Warming"? It was socialism, _stupid_. It's unsustainable. There is no innovation and no work done since there is no reward. What grade did you drop out of junior high?


JoeB131 said:


> Hey you know what else I don't see on modern maps? The British Empire.  Yup. Since the British Empire is gone, that must mean Capitalism is a complete fucking failure.


Here stupid....the British "Empire" on a current map.


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> Here stupid....the British "Empire" on a current map



Where does that map say, "British Empire" on it, Poodle?  

Okay, here' what the British empire USED to look like. 






So by your standard, Capitalism must have failed miserably if all these places rejected British rule, right?  Because a lot of those places not only threw the British out, they adopted Socialism. (Oh, yeah, right after they lost their empire, the British established nationalized health care.) 

Or you can actually be a grown up and admit the one truth of history is that empires fall. Whether it be a Capitalist British Empire or a Socialist Soviet Empire.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here stupid....the British "Empire" on a current map
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where does that map say, "British Empire" on it, Poodle?
> 
> Okay, here' what the British empire USED to look like.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So by your standard, Capitalism must have failed miserably if all these places rejected British rule, right?  Because a lot of those places not only threw the British out, they adopted Socialism. (Oh, yeah, right after they lost their empire, the British established nationalized health care.)
> 
> Or you can actually be a grown up and admit the one truth of history is that empires fall. Whether it be a Capitalist British Empire or a Socialist Soviet Empire.
Click to expand...

Hey _stupid_...territories breaking off and declaring independence has *nothing* to do with economic collapse you mental midget.


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> Hey _stupid_...territories breaking off and declaring independence has *nothing* to do with economic collapse you mental midget.



Exactly my point.  The USSR didn't collapse economically. Territories broke off and declared independence. And much like when the British Empire had a transitional thing called the British Commonwealth, the USSR had one called the CIS.  But the cause was the same.  Territories breaking off from an empire.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey _stupid_...territories breaking off and declaring independence has *nothing* to do with economic collapse you mental midget.
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly my point.  The USSR didn't collapse economically. Territories broke off and declared independence. And much like when the British Empire had a transitional thing called the British Commonwealth, the USSR had one called the CIS.  But the cause was the same.  Territories breaking off from an empire.
Click to expand...

No _stupid_...territories didn't "break off". The U.S.S.R. actually collapsed. People waited hours in line for a single loaf of bread only to be turned away when they ran out. The nation _completely_ collapsed, they abandoned idiot socialism/communism, turned to capitalism to rebuild (which worked) and changed their name.


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> No _stupid_...territories didn't "break off". The U.S.S.R. actually collapsed. People waited hours in line for a single loaf of bread only to be turned away when they ran out. The nation _completely_ collapsed, they abandoned idiot socialism/communism, turned to capitalism to rebuild (which worked) and changed their name.



Actually, Capitalist Russia is more of a shithole than Communist Russia was... 

But, no, the problem was the various countries declared independence... not the other way around. 

So you argument that "socialism" failed is wrong... again.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> No _stupid_...territories didn't "break off". The U.S.S.R. actually collapsed. People waited hours in line for a single loaf of bread only to be turned away when they ran out. The nation _completely_ collapsed, they abandoned idiot socialism/communism, turned to capitalism to rebuild (which worked) and changed their name.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, Capitalist Russia is more of a shithole than Communist Russia was...
> 
> But, no, the problem was the various countries declared independence... not the other way around. So you argument that "socialism" failed is wrong... again.
Click to expand...

No matter how many times you lie, you won't be able to change history _kitty_. The U.S.S.R. was ruled with an iron fist. Those countries wouldn't have dared dream about independence, much less plan on independence, much less actually declare independence. The only reason that was able to occur was because of the collapse of the Soviet Union.

We've all been operating under the impression that you're the typical 60 year old hippie who dropped out of junior high and didn't want to hold a job. But now I'm thinking that you're about 12. Anyone who lived through the collapse of the Soviet Union would be as ignorant as you. Then again, you do a lie a lot so maybe you're just lying again.


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> No matter how many times you lie, you won't be able to change history _kitty_. The U.S.S.R. was ruled with an iron fist. Those countries wouldn't have dared dream about independence, much less plan on independence, much less actually declare independence. The only reason that was able to occur was because of the collapse of the Soviet Union.



Yes, because Ronnie REagan yelled at a wall. I know you need to believe whatever shit they taught you at Talking Snake U before they gave you a diploma that isnt' worth the paper its written on. 



P@triot said:


> We've all been operating under the impression that you're the typical 60 year old hippie who dropped out of junior high and didn't want to hold a job. But now I'm thinking that you're about 12. Anyone who lived through the collapse of the Soviet Union would be as ignorant as you. Then again, you do a lie a lot so maybe you're just lying again.



I was in the military when the USSR "collapsed".  And up until it did. the Army was still publishing these threat manuals that claimed the USSR was going to come plowing through the Fulda Gap any day now. Imagine our surprise when the Evil Empire turned out to be a collection of third world countries that didn't particularly like each other.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> No matter how many times you lie, you won't be able to change history _kitty_. The U.S.S.R. was ruled with an iron fist. Those countries wouldn't have dared dream about independence, much less plan on independence, much less actually declare independence. The only reason that was able to occur was because of the collapse of the Soviet Union.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Yes, because Ronnie REagan yelled at a wall*. I know you need to believe whatever shit they taught you at Talking Snake U before they gave you a diploma that isnt' worth the paper its written on.
Click to expand...

It must be baffling for you progressives to see what real leadership looks like. You guys are so used to limp-wristed little girly-boys cowering to other countries and _begging_ for friendship.

Of course - weakness intvites aggression and that's what we've seen when cowards like Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama sit in the White House.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all been operating under the impression that you're the typical 60 year old hippie who dropped out of junior high and didn't want to hold a job. But now I'm thinking that you're about 12. Anyone who lived through the collapse of the Soviet Union would be as ignorant as you. Then again, you do a lie a lot so maybe you're just lying again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was in the military when the USSR "collapsed".
Click to expand...

Ah! Ok. So you're not 12. You're just lying on every post. Well thanks for clarifying that. At least we know what we're dealing with now.


----------



## Arianrhod

P@triot said:


> Ah! Ok. So you're not 12. You're just lying on every post. Well thanks for clarifying that. At least we know what we're dealing with now.



JoeB's Real Life experience in the military during the break-up of the Soviet Union suggests a familiarity with the subject.  In order to prove he's lying, instead of simply repeating yourself, perhaps you can share your own experience and knowledge of the history of that era.


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> It must be baffling for you progressives to see what real leadership looks like. You guys are so used to limp-wristed little girly-boys cowering to other countries and _begging_ for friendship.
> 
> Of course - weakness intvites aggression and that's what we've seen when cowards like Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama sit in the White House.



Right. YOu see, Reagan yelled at a wall, and the wall became so scared that it peed itself. 

Oh, wait. No. The USSR didn't disolve until three years after Reagan wandered from the White House in an Alzheimer's induced daze...


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> Ah! Ok. So you're not 12. You're just lying on every post. Well thanks for clarifying that. At least we know what we're dealing with now.



Uh, dude, I've stated many times here I'm in my fifties.  

you  on the other hand, are clearly in your 20's and have no real life experience. That's obvious.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah! Ok. So you're not 12. You're just lying on every post. Well thanks for clarifying that. At least we know what we're dealing with now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, dude, I've stated many times here I'm in my fifties.
> 
> you  on the other hand, are clearly in your 20's and have no real life experience. That's obvious.
Click to expand...

Well since I'm not - you are _clearly_ a moron


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> Well since I'm not - you are _clearly_ a moron



except you really haven't proven that. Your posts sh ow a lack of life experience... I doubt you've done much of anything.


----------



## Arianrhod

P@triot said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah! Ok. So you're not 12. You're just lying on every post. Well thanks for clarifying that. At least we know what we're dealing with now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, dude, I've stated many times here I'm in my fifties.
> 
> you  on the other hand, are clearly in your 20's and have no real life experience. That's obvious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well since I'm not - you are _clearly_ a moron
Click to expand...


Can you prove either?

Can you answer Post #3692?

I suspect the answer to both is "no."  Feel free to prove me wrong.


----------



## JoeB131

Poodle j ust said in another thread that Leftists were all claiming Clinton didn't have sex with the intern. 

Had he been an adult during that time, he'd know that most people on the left concluded he did and it really wasn't anyone's business.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well since I'm not - you are _clearly_ a moron
> 
> 
> 
> 
> except you really haven't proven that. Your posts sh ow a lack of life experience... I doubt you've done much of anything.
Click to expand...

My posts frustrate you because they are indisputable and in conflict with your desperate desire to have other people take care of you in life.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> Poodle j ust said in another thread that Leftists were all claiming Clinton didn't have sex with the intern.
> 
> Had he been an adult during that time, he'd know that most people on the left concluded he did and it really wasn't anyone's business.


Uh....nice try asshat. But you and every other libtards _vehemently_ denied it and cried "conspiracy" as always. Then Bill Clinton admitted it and you obedient little bitches came up with the new narrative suddenly that it was "nobody's business".

Kitty proving once again that he *lies* in _every_ post.


----------



## Arianrhod

P@triot said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well since I'm not - you are _clearly_ a moron
> 
> 
> 
> 
> except you really haven't proven that. Your posts sh ow a lack of life experience... I doubt you've done much of anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My posts frustrate you because they are indisputable and in conflict with your desperate desire to have other people take care of you in life.
Click to expand...


Can you prove that?  Of course not.  You're just tossing out one baseless assumption after another to try to run from the fact that you know little to nothing about the dissolution of the Soviet Union, much less the PPACA or, well, much of anything you post about here.

Feel free to prove me wrong.


----------



## Arianrhod

P@triot said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Poodle j ust said in another thread that Leftists were all claiming Clinton didn't have sex with the intern.
> 
> Had he been an adult during that time, he'd know that most people on the left concluded he did and it really wasn't anyone's business.
> 
> 
> 
> Uh....nice try asshat. But you and every other libtards _vehemently_ denied it and cried "conspiracy" as always.
Click to expand...


Proof?


----------



## P@triot

Arianrhod said:


> Can you prove that?  Of course not.  You're just tossing out one baseless assumption after another to try to run from the fact that you know little to nothing about the dissolution of the Soviet Union, much less the PPACA or, well, much of anything you post about here.
> 
> Feel free to prove me wrong.


I've _been_ proving you wrong. I lived through it all and consumed vast amounts of information about it. Your responses indicate that your about 15 years old (am I right?). All your doing is agreeing with little kitty over there despite the fact that he is dead wrong (which is why he has yet to add one single shred of evidence supporting is obnoxious and desperate position). Now...can you prove that I'm wrong? Maybe after you stop playing with your Star Wars figures? I won't hold my breath. Especially since you *never* add links to anything.


----------



## P@triot

Arianrhod said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Poodle j ust said in another thread that Leftists were all claiming Clinton didn't have sex with the intern.
> 
> Had he been an adult during that time, he'd know that most people on the left concluded he did and it really wasn't anyone's business.
> 
> 
> 
> Uh....nice try asshat. But you and every other libtards _vehemently_ denied it and cried "conspiracy" as always.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Proof?
Click to expand...

Proof? Show me proof that progressives didn't deny it and cry "conspiracy theory" back then. Come on Arianrhod, put your money where your mouth is just _once_. Instead of crying all the time and putting the burden on other people (because you know you're wrong) - step up and prove that communism didn't collapse the U.S.S.R. and progressives didn't vehemently deny that Clinton was havin affairs until he admitted it. I'll wait little boy.


----------



## Arianrhod

P@triot said:


> I lived through it all and consumed vast amounts of information about it.



Then you should be able to cite some of it here.  Go for it.


----------



## Arianrhod

P@triot said:


> Proof? Show me proof that progressives didn't deny it and cry "conspiracy theory" back then.



The burden of proof is on you.  You made a claim.  Now back it up.  Or do you always expect other people to do your homework for you?


----------



## P@triot

Arianrhod said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I lived through it all and consumed vast amounts of information about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you should be able to cite some of it here.  Go for it.
Click to expand...

I have cited it! Since you weren't around, haven't studied history, and are completely ignorant of the topic, all you do is type *"proof"*? You've ignored everything I have already cited.


----------



## P@triot

Arianrhod said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Proof? Show me proof that progressives didn't deny it and cry "conspiracy theory" back then.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The burden of proof is on you.  You made a claim.  Now back it up.  Or do you always expect other people to do your homework for you?
Click to expand...

*You* made the claim! You said I was "lying". *Prove it*. The fact that you're running from your own comments now says it all.


----------



## Arianrhod

P@triot said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Proof? Show me proof that progressives didn't deny it and cry "conspiracy theory" back then.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The burden of proof is on you.  You made a claim.  Now back it up.  Or do you always expect other people to do your homework for you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *You* made the claim! You said I was "lying".
Click to expand...


Nope.

Look, if you can't prove your claims, there's no point in temporizing.  We'll concur that they're baseless and move on.

Alternatively, you can tell us what in your vast knowledge and/or experience makes you an expert on the Soviet Union.  That's of much more interest to me than this picayune stuff.


----------



## P@triot

Arianrhod said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Proof? Show me proof that progressives didn't deny it and cry "conspiracy theory" back then.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The burden of proof is on you.  You made a claim.  Now back it up.  Or do you always expect other people to do your homework for you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *You* made the claim! You said I was "lying".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope.
> 
> Look, if you can't prove your claims, there's no point in temporizing.  We'll concur that they're baseless and move on.
> 
> Alternatively, you can tell us what in your vast knowledge and/or experience makes you an expert on the Soviet Union.  That's of much more interest to me than this picayune stuff.
Click to expand...

Exactly! Since you clearly can't support your baseless and outrageous claims, it's painfully obvious that I'm right. Now are you mature enough to admit it?


----------



## Arianrhod

P@triot said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Proof? Show me proof that progressives didn't deny it and cry "conspiracy theory" back then.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The burden of proof is on you.  You made a claim.  Now back it up.  Or do you always expect other people to do your homework for you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *You* made the claim! You said I was "lying".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope.
> 
> Look, if you can't prove your claims, there's no point in temporizing.  We'll concur that they're baseless and move on.
> 
> Alternatively, you can tell us what in your vast knowledge and/or experience makes you an expert on the Soviet Union.  That's of much more interest to me than this picayune stuff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly! Since you clearly can't support your baseless and outrageous claims, it's painfully obvious that I'm right. Now are you mature enough to admit it?
Click to expand...


Kindly link to the post or posts where I have made "baseless and outrageous claims."

Or tell us where you get your information about the Soviet Union?  Why are you afraid to do that?


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> My posts frustrate you because they are indisputable and in conflict with your desperate desire to have other people take care of you in life.



No, your post frustrates me like my 4 year old nephew pretending he's Spiderman annoys me after it stops being cute. I mean they're cute in a child-like way, but then the grownups are talking. 



P@triot said:


> Uh....nice try asshat. But you and every other libtards _vehemently_ denied it and cried "conspiracy" as always. Then Bill Clinton admitted it and you obedient little bitches came up with the new narrative suddenly that it was "nobody's business".



Again, just more evidence you weren't there at the time.  Other than Clinton's lawyers, nobody really claimed that.  

YOu see, back in the day, before your boy George W. Bush fucked up the economy and cost me tens of thousands of dollars I worked very hard for, I used to be one of those Republican types who said, "Subornation of Perjury" like that was a real thing.  And you know what... nobody cared.  

Nobody Cared.  MOst people assumed he had an affair, because, shit, this was Bill Clinton we were talking about after all. It's not like we didn't already know he was a horndog. 

SO if you had been there and out of short pants, you'd know that most people said, 'Hey, we have an awesome economy, who cares whether he did an intern!"


----------



## Sun Devil 92

JoeB131 said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Never going to happen.
> 
> We pay way to much.
> 
> And Canadians like some parts of their care.
> 
> Also, you might be interested to know that Canadians have a very strong private system.
> 
> Their "single payer" is great for a broken leg.
> 
> It sucks when it comes to things like cancer.
> 
> That comes from Canadians themselves.
> 
> Not from this...although it is pretty funny......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's just stupid.  The fact is, Canadians are not flocking down here for health care.
> 
> They live longer than we do, and they have a lower infant mortality rate, while spending a lot less than we do.
> 
> That's because they aren't paying INsurance CEO's nine-figure salaries to figure out ways NOT to pay for claims.
Click to expand...


What's stupid ?

That they have a two tiered health care system that includes a heavy dose of private insurance ?


----------



## Sun Devil 92

JoeB131 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> That has nothing to do with our healthcare system you ignorant little kitty. That is our lifestyle. Japan doesn't consume fast food like we do. Japan doesn't have issues with Bloods vs. Crips, Hells Angels vs. Mongols, etc. like we do (violence drastically reduces life expectancy you ignorant kitty).
> 
> We have the #1 healthcare in the world and it's not even close. Like everything else, you ignorant progressives are trying to lower the bar and drag down our healthcare to the pitiful level of third world socialized nations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When 40% of your population can't access the health care system, it isn't the best in the world, Poodle.
> 
> When you get out in the real world, let us know, little boy.
Click to expand...


Single payer won't change that.

Our costs have to come down FIRST.


----------



## JoeB131

Sun Devil 92 said:


> What's stupid ?
> 
> That they have a two tiered health care system that includes a heavy dose of private insurance ?



Yawn, guy, keep pretending it's that. 



Sun Devil 92 said:


> Single payer won't change that.
> 
> Our costs have to come down FIRST.



Single Payer would bring down prices.


----------



## Sun Devil 92

JoeB131 said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's stupid ?
> 
> That they have a two tiered health care system that includes a heavy dose of private insurance ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yawn, guy, keep pretending it's that.
Click to expand...


What do you call it ?

Or are you saying there is no private insurance in Canada ?


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> SO if you had been there and out of short pants, you'd know that most people said, 'Hey, we have an awesome economy, who cares whether he did an intern!"


Nah...that become your new position after years of _vehemently_ denying it (just like you progressives do today) and crying "vast right-wing conspiracy" (just like you progressives do today).

As always - you got caught lying and as always - you're not mature enough to admit it.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> Single Payer would bring down prices.


It's not societies job to "bring prices down" for you because you're not capable of growing up and taking care of yourself. And government simply doesn't have the authority to act on that anyway. It's the type of fail-fail that could only come from progressives who are ignorant of U.S. laws.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> When *40% of your population* can't access the health care system, it isn't the best in the world, Poodle.


Well _that_ is one hell of an outrageous claim. Proof? How come you never post a single quote, video, link, etc. to all of your bullshit?

(Psst...stupid....100% of the population has "access" to healthcare because it is _illegal_ for a hospital to turn away someone in a life and death situation).

What is that - 30 posts in a row now kitty where you have _blatantly_ *lied*?


----------



## Arianrhod

Just as an aside, P@triot, while I wait for you to produce even one tiny bit of evidence to prove your numerous claims in this thread, why do you hate progress?


----------



## P@triot

Arianrhod said:


> Just as an aside, P@triot, while I wait for you to produce even one tiny bit of evidence to prove your numerous claims in this thread, why do you hate progress?


I don't. I hate fascism, socialism, etc. _Everything_ you and your progressive pals stand for.

The real question is - why do you hate liberty so much?


----------



## Arianrhod

P@triot said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just as an aside, P@triot, while I wait for you to produce even one tiny bit of evidence to prove your numerous claims in this thread, why do you hate progress?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't. I hate fascism, socialism, etc. _Everything_ you and your progressive pals stand for.
Click to expand...


So you don’t hate progress, only the people who initiate it.  Brilliant.

Either that or you have no idea what the word means no matter how many times you use it.

Now, as for Posts #3709 and 3711, I’ll take it you’re incapable of answering them, which reverts to my initial impression, i.e., that you just throw stuff out there without any concept of what it means, where it comes from, or whether or not it’s accurate.

When you can provide evidence to the contrary, let me know.




P@triot said:


> The real question is - why do you hate liberty so much?



Prove it.


----------



## P@triot

Arianrhod said:


> Prove it.


Do you ever notice that when you get your ass kicked with facts your only pitiful (and might I add - immature) response is "prove it"?


----------



## P@triot

Arianrhod said:


> So you don’t hate progress, *only* the people who initiate it.


*Prove it*​


----------



## P@triot

Arianrhod said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just as an aside, P@triot, while I wait for you to produce even one tiny bit of evidence to prove your numerous claims in this thread, why do you hate progress?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't. I hate fascism, socialism, etc. _Everything_ you and your progressive pals stand for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you don’t hate progress, only the people who initiate it.
Click to expand...

My dear, dear _boy_... progressivism regresses society. It does not "progress" it.

Economically you fools want to take us back to the late 1800's with Karl Marx's economic theory (which has failed)

Politically you want to take us back to the late 1700's with King George III dictatorial control (which has also failed)

In terms of energy you want to outlaw nuclear, coil, oil, and fracking and return us to the 1600's where all we have is fire for heat and light
So much for "progress" uh lad?


----------



## Arianrhod

P@triot said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you don’t hate progress, *only* the people who initiate it.
> 
> 
> 
> *Prove it*​
Click to expand...


You use "progressive" as a pejorative.

And we can conclude that you know nothing about the dissolution of the Soviet Union because you've ducked the question numerous times.


----------



## Arianrhod

P@triot said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just as an aside, P@triot, while I wait for you to produce even one tiny bit of evidence to prove your numerous claims in this thread, why do you hate progress?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't. I hate fascism, socialism, etc. _Everything_ you and your progressive pals stand for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you don’t hate progress, only the people who initiate it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My dear, dear _boy_... progressivism regresses society. It does not "progress" it.
> 
> Economically you fools want to take us back to the late 1800's with Karl Marx's economic theory (which has failed)
> 
> Politically you want to take us back to the late 1700's with King George III dictatorial control (which has also failed)
> 
> In terms of energy you want to outlaw nuclear, coil, oil, and fracking and return us to the 1600's where all we have is fire for heat and light
> So much for "progress" uh lad?
Click to expand...


All of this is your opinion, not fact.

And all four bullet points are baseless, without proof, and incorrect.


----------



## P@triot

Arianrhod said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> The real question is - why do you hate liberty so much?
> 
> 
> 
> Prove it.
Click to expand...

Ok. Go read all of your posts.

Boom! Done. Proven. Now answer the question junior. *Why do you hate liberty so much*? (And for that matter - why are you so afraid to answer the question?)


----------



## P@triot

Arianrhod said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> My dear, dear _boy_... progressivism regresses society. It does not "progress" it.
> 
> Economically you fools want to take us back to the late 1800's with Karl Marx's economic theory (which has failed)
> 
> Politically you want to take us back to the late 1700's with King George III dictatorial control (which has also failed)
> 
> In terms of energy you want to outlaw nuclear, coil, oil, and fracking and return us to the 1600's where all we have is fire for heat and light
> So much for "progress" uh lad?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All of this is *your opinion*, *not* fact. And all four bullet points are baseless, without proof, and *incorrect*.
Click to expand...


*Prove it!!!*​


----------



## P@triot

Arianrhod said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you don’t hate progress, *only* the people who initiate it.
> 
> 
> 
> *Prove it*​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You use "progressive" as a pejorative.
> 
> And we can conclude that you know nothing about the dissolution of the Soviet Union because you've ducked the question numerous times.
Click to expand...

I haven't "ducked" it. I _owned_ your ass with it.


----------



## Arianrhod

P@triot said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you don’t hate progress, *only* the people who initiate it.
> 
> 
> 
> *Prove it*​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You use "progressive" as a pejorative.
> 
> And we can conclude that you know nothing about the dissolution of the Soviet Union because you've ducked the question numerous times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I haven't "ducked" it. I _owned_ your ass with it.
Click to expand...


Not in this thread.  

Kindly link to where you answered my question about your knowledge and experience RE: the Soviet Union.


----------



## P@triot

Arianrhod said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just as an aside, P@triot, while I wait for you to produce even one tiny bit of evidence to prove your numerous claims in this thread, why do you hate progress?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't. I hate fascism, socialism, etc. _Everything_ you and your progressive pals stand for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you don’t hate progress, only the people who initiate it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My dear, dear _boy_... progressivism regresses society. It does not "progress" it.
> 
> Economically you fools want to take us back to the late 1800's with Karl Marx's economic theory (which has failed)
> 
> Politically you want to take us back to the late 1700's with King George III dictatorial control (which has also failed)
> 
> In terms of energy you want to outlaw nuclear, coil, oil, and fracking and return us to the 1600's where all we have is fire for heat and light
> So much for "progress" uh lad?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All of this is your opinion, not fact.
> 
> And all four bullet points are baseless, without proof, and incorrect.
Click to expand...

Really junior? So progressives don't want an economic system of "from each according to their ability to each according to their needs"? And progressives don't want to do that by controlling the federal government and *forcing* Americans into it? And progressives haven't tried to outlaw coal, oil, fracking, etc.?

Tell me something - do you _like_ looking like an idiot in front of everyone?


----------



## P@triot

Arianrhod said:


> Not in this thread.
> 
> Kindly link to where you answered my question about your knowledge and experience RE: the Soviet Union.


Yes. In _this_ thread. Really. I've been thinking that you're just a typical progressive liar but maybe you're just _really_ stupid? Do you have a learning disability? Are you illiterate? Are you maybe dyslexic? I'm not trying to make fun of you (honest). I need to know so I can work with you on these threads. Let me know (_please_). Because I already gave you a comprehensive list right here in this very thread within the past 2 hours or so (_maybe_ 3 at most).


----------



## Arianrhod

P@triot said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just as an aside, P@triot, while I wait for you to produce even one tiny bit of evidence to prove your numerous claims in this thread, why do you hate progress?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't. I hate fascism, socialism, etc. _Everything_ you and your progressive pals stand for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you don’t hate progress, only the people who initiate it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My dear, dear _boy_... progressivism regresses society. It does not "progress" it.
> 
> Economically you fools want to take us back to the late 1800's with Karl Marx's economic theory (which has failed)
> 
> Politically you want to take us back to the late 1700's with King George III dictatorial control (which has also failed)
> 
> In terms of energy you want to outlaw nuclear, coil, oil, and fracking and return us to the 1600's where all we have is fire for heat and light
> So much for "progress" uh lad?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All of this is your opinion, not fact.
> 
> And all four bullet points are baseless, without proof, and incorrect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really junior? So progressives don't want an economic system of "from each according to their ability to each according to their needs"? And progressives don't want to do that by controlling the federal government and *forcing* Americans into it? And progressives haven't tried to outlaw coal, oil, fracking, etc.?
Click to expand...


Link(s)?



P@triot said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not in this thread.
> 
> Kindly link to where you answered my question about your knowledge and experience RE: the Soviet Union.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. In _this_ thread. Really. I've been thinking that you're just a typical progressive liar but maybe you're just _really_ stupid? Do you have a learning disability? Are you illiterate? Are you maybe dyslexic? I'm not trying to make fun of you (honest). I need to know so I can work with you on these threads. Let me know (_please_). Because I already gave you a comprehensive list right here in this very thread within the past 2 hours or so (_maybe_ 3 at most).
Click to expand...


You gave me a list of your _opinions_.  I would like to know the source(s) of your opinions.

You do know how to post links, don't you?


----------



## P@triot

Arianrhod said:


> You do know how to post links, don't you?


Clearly you don't. We have yet to see a _single_ link from you anywhere. Meanwhile, just in this thread alone, I'd bet I'm close to 60 links. Just in _this_ thread. Maybe even more.

Why are you so angry that I'm obliterating your ideology with facts? Why does that bother you so much?


----------



## P@triot

Arianrhod said:


> You gave me a list of your _opinions_.  I would like to know the source(s) of your opinions.


Bwahahaha! Options are choices junior. I didn't give you "options". I provided you with a comprehensive list of sources that I leveraged to gain the knowledge I have about the collapse of the U.S.S.R.

Please expound on your learning disability. What is it and how can I assist you on this board? Is there a certain way I can post things that would help you?


----------



## P@triot

Arianrhod said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Really* junior*?* *So progressives don't want* an economic system of "from each according to their ability to each according to their needs"*?* *And progressives don't want* to do that by controlling the federal government and *forcing* Americans into it*?* *And progressives haven't* tried to outlaw coal, oil, fracking, etc.*?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Link(s)?
Click to expand...

I asked you a question (see highlighted sections above). You want "links" to a question I asked you? _Ok_... 

Here it is: #3732

Now...answer the question. Or are you afraid to answer the questions? Why are you afraid to answer the questions? They are just _simple_ questions.


----------



## Arianrhod

^My question to you about the Soviet Union, reiterated several times, predates yours by several hours.

You can't answer it.  When you can, get back to me.


----------



## P@triot

Arianrhod said:


> ^My question to you about the Soviet Union, reiterated several times, predates yours by several hours.


Yeah _stupid_. That's how it works. You ask a question. I respond with an answer. Hence...your question "predates" my answer.


----------



## P@triot

P@triot said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Really* junior*?* *So progressives don't want* an economic system of "from each according to their ability to each according to their needs"*?* *And progressives don't want* to do that by controlling the federal government and *forcing* Americans into it*?* *And progressives haven't* tried to outlaw coal, oil, fracking, etc.*?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Link(s)?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I asked you a question (see highlighted sections above). You want "links" to a question I asked you? _Ok_...
> 
> Here it is: #3732
> 
> Now...answer the question. Or are you afraid to answer the questions? Why are you afraid to answer the questions? They are just _simple_ questions.
Click to expand...

Since you clearly cannot dispute what I stated Arianrhod, I think we can all agree that you agree with the facts. The progressives want to regress all of society back to the 1800's economically, 1700's politically, and 1600's with regards to energy. Cool. Finally we are on the same page my friend![/QUOTE]


----------



## Arianrhod

P@triot said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> ^My question to you about the Soviet Union, reiterated several times, predates yours by several hours.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah _stupid_. That's how it works. You ask a question. I respond with an answer. Hence...your question "predates" my answer.
Click to expand...


You haven't answered it.


----------



## Arianrhod

P@triot said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Really* junior*?* *So progressives don't want* an economic system of "from each according to their ability to each according to their needs"*?* *And progressives don't want* to do that by controlling the federal government and *forcing* Americans into it*?* *And progressives haven't* tried to outlaw coal, oil, fracking, etc.*?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Link(s)?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I asked you a question (see highlighted sections above). You want "links" to a question I asked you? _Ok_...
> 
> Here it is: #3732
> 
> Now...answer the question. Or are you afraid to answer the questions? Why are you afraid to answer the questions? They are just _simple_ questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since you clearly cannot dispute what I stated ...
Click to expand...


You stated an opinion.  I'm waiting for facts.


----------



## P@triot

Arianrhod said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Really* junior*?* *So progressives don't want* an economic system of "from each according to their ability to each according to their needs"*?* *And progressives don't want* to do that by controlling the federal government and *forcing* Americans into it*?* *And progressives haven't* tried to outlaw coal, oil, fracking, etc.*?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Link(s)?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I asked you a question (see highlighted sections above). You want "links" to a question I asked you? _Ok_...
> 
> Here it is: #3732
> 
> Now...answer the question. Or are you afraid to answer the questions? Why are you afraid to answer the questions? They are just _simple_ questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since you clearly cannot dispute what I stated ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You stated an opinion.  I'm waiting for facts.
Click to expand...

No - I stated *facts*. You lied and denied them. I asked you to clarify how I was wrong and then you ran like a little bitch. Why are you so afraid to simply say "yes I'm right" or "no - and here is why"? Because you can't dispute what I stated but you're too immature to admit I was correct?


----------



## P@triot

Arianrhod said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> ^My question to you about the Soviet Union, reiterated several times, predates yours by several hours.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah _stupid_. That's how it works. You ask a question. I respond with an answer. Hence...your question "predates" my answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You haven't answered it.
Click to expand...

No, _really_ - I did. Is there an adult there you could perhaps ask for assistance?


----------



## Arianrhod

P@triot said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Really* junior*?* *So progressives don't want* an economic system of "from each according to their ability to each according to their needs"*?* *And progressives don't want* to do that by controlling the federal government and *forcing* Americans into it*?* *And progressives haven't* tried to outlaw coal, oil, fracking, etc.*?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Link(s)?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I asked you a question (see highlighted sections above). You want "links" to a question I asked you? _Ok_...
> 
> Here it is: #3732
> 
> Now...answer the question. Or are you afraid to answer the questions? Why are you afraid to answer the questions? They are just _simple_ questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since you clearly cannot dispute what I stated ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You stated an opinion.  I'm waiting for facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No - I stated *facts*.
Click to expand...


Where are the links?


----------



## Arianrhod

P@triot said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> ^My question to you about the Soviet Union, reiterated several times, predates yours by several hours.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah _stupid_. That's how it works. You ask a question. I respond with an answer. Hence...your question "predates" my answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You haven't answered it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, _really_ - I did.
Click to expand...


Where are the links?


----------



## P@triot

Arianrhod said:


> Where are the links?


According to you there aren't any. So please explain to us all how I'm wrong. Why are you so afraid? (Psst...it's ok...we all know the answer already. You can just go ahead and say it).


----------



## P@triot

Arianrhod said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> ^My question to you about the Soviet Union, reiterated several times, predates yours by several hours.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah _stupid_. That's how it works. You ask a question. I respond with an answer. Hence...your question "predates" my answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You haven't answered it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, _really_ - I did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where are the links?
Click to expand...

I'm not going to link back to posts I made because you can't read or can't find them. They are in this thread and posted within the past few hours. You really are a progressive - you're too lazy to even click in a website. Sorry buttercup, mommy and daddy might do your homework for you but I'm not going to.


----------



## Arianrhod

P@triot said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where are the links?
> 
> 
> 
> According to you there aren't any. So please explain to us all how I'm wrong. Why are you so afraid? (Psst...it's ok...we all know the answer already. You can just go ahead and say it).
Click to expand...




P@triot said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> ^My question to you about the Soviet Union, reiterated several times, predates yours by several hours.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah _stupid_. That's how it works. You ask a question. I respond with an answer. Hence...your question "predates" my answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You haven't answered it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, _really_ - I did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where are the links?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not going to link back to posts I made because you can't read or can't find them. They are in this thread and posted within the past few hours. You really are a progressive - you're too lazy to even click in a website. Sorry buttercup, mommy and daddy might do your homework for you but I'm not going to.
Click to expand...


In which of your posts did you share the sources of your intimate knowledge of the dissolution of the Soviet Union?

That's all I'm asking for.

Keep temporizing, though.  It undermines any credibility you believed you had.


----------



## P@triot

Arianrhod said:


> Kindly link to the post or posts


You want links? 

(Here are _less_ than 1/10th of the links I've posted in this thread)

Post ##3117
Obamacare, where the liberal dream crashes and burns

Post ##3121
Family With Rare Medical Conditions Denied Obamacare Coverage, Now Struggling With Expense Of New Plan

Post ##3142
Explosive Report: How Obamacare Will Drive People Out of the Workforce

Post ##3146
Obamacare Raises Medicaid Cost as Insurers Shift Tax Bill - Bloomberg

Post ##3154
I'm quitting my job. Thanks Obamacare! - Yahoo Finance

Post ##3155
Former Obamacare navigator actually a convicted terrorist

Post ##3176
Your workplace health insurance costs $1,200 more - Economy

Post ##3177
Latest Obamacare Delay, Insurance Cancellations, and Uninsured Signups

Post ##3182
Union Group: Obamacare Is Making Inequality Worse

Post ##3188
Obamacare and Health Insurance Premiums: Have You Saved $2,500?

Post ##3191
Does the Obamacare Deadline | Individual Mandate Facts

Post ##3193
Top Dem pollster: 'Don't defend' Obamacare, call it 'flawed from the beginning' | WashingtonExaminer.com

Post ##3196
Restaurant Passes On The Cost Of Obamacare

Post ##3199
Liberal group finds Obamacare will cost tax payers $53,000 per enrollee


----------



## P@triot

Arianrhod said:


> Kindly link


You want links? 

(Here are _less_ than 1/10th of the links I've posted in this thread)

Post ##3117
Obamacare, where the liberal dream crashes and burns

Post ##3121
Family With Rare Medical Conditions Denied Obamacare Coverage, Now Struggling With Expense Of New Plan

Post ##3142
Explosive Report: How Obamacare Will Drive People Out of the Workforce

Post ##3146
Obamacare Raises Medicaid Cost as Insurers Shift Tax Bill - Bloomberg

Post ##3154
I'm quitting my job. Thanks Obamacare! - Yahoo Finance

Post ##3155
Former Obamacare navigator actually a convicted terrorist

Post ##3176
Your workplace health insurance costs $1,200 more - Economy

Post ##3177
Latest Obamacare Delay, Insurance Cancellations, and Uninsured Signups

Post ##3182
Union Group: Obamacare Is Making Inequality Worse

Post ##3188
Obamacare and Health Insurance Premiums: Have You Saved $2,500?

Post ##3191
Does the Obamacare Deadline | Individual Mandate Facts

Post ##3193
Top Dem pollster: 'Don't defend' Obamacare, call it 'flawed from the beginning' | WashingtonExaminer.com

Post ##3196
Restaurant Passes On The Cost Of Obamacare

Post ##3199
Liberal group finds Obamacare will cost tax payers $53,000 per enrollee


----------



## P@triot

Arianrhod said:


> You do know how to post links, don't you?


You want links? 

(Here are _less_ than 1/10th of the links I've posted in this thread)

Post ##3117
Obamacare, where the liberal dream crashes and burns

Post ##3121
Family With Rare Medical Conditions Denied Obamacare Coverage, Now Struggling With Expense Of New Plan

Post ##3142
Explosive Report: How Obamacare Will Drive People Out of the Workforce

Post ##3146
Obamacare Raises Medicaid Cost as Insurers Shift Tax Bill - Bloomberg

Post ##3154
I'm quitting my job. Thanks Obamacare! - Yahoo Finance

Post ##3155
Former Obamacare navigator actually a convicted terrorist

Post ##3176
Your workplace health insurance costs $1,200 more - Economy

Post ##3177
Latest Obamacare Delay, Insurance Cancellations, and Uninsured Signups

Post ##3182
Union Group: Obamacare Is Making Inequality Worse

Post ##3188
Obamacare and Health Insurance Premiums: Have You Saved $2,500?

Post ##3191
Does the Obamacare Deadline | Individual Mandate Facts

Post ##3193
Top Dem pollster: 'Don't defend' Obamacare, call it 'flawed from the beginning' | WashingtonExaminer.com

Post ##3196
Restaurant Passes On The Cost Of Obamacare

Post ##3199
Liberal group finds Obamacare will cost tax payers $53,000 per enrollee


----------



## P@triot

Arianrhod said:


> Link(s)?


You want links? 

(Here are _less_ than 1/10th of the links I've posted in this thread)

Post ##3117
Obamacare, where the liberal dream crashes and burns

Post ##3121
Family With Rare Medical Conditions Denied Obamacare Coverage, Now Struggling With Expense Of New Plan

Post ##3142
Explosive Report: How Obamacare Will Drive People Out of the Workforce

Post ##3146
Obamacare Raises Medicaid Cost as Insurers Shift Tax Bill - Bloomberg

Post ##3154
I'm quitting my job. Thanks Obamacare! - Yahoo Finance

Post ##3155
Former Obamacare navigator actually a convicted terrorist

Post ##3176
Your workplace health insurance costs $1,200 more - Economy

Post ##3177
Latest Obamacare Delay, Insurance Cancellations, and Uninsured Signups

Post ##3182
Union Group: Obamacare Is Making Inequality Worse

Post ##3188
Obamacare and Health Insurance Premiums: Have You Saved $2,500?

Post ##3191
Does the Obamacare Deadline | Individual Mandate Facts

Post ##3193
Top Dem pollster: 'Don't defend' Obamacare, call it 'flawed from the beginning' | WashingtonExaminer.com

Post ##3196
Restaurant Passes On The Cost Of Obamacare

Post ##3199
Liberal group finds Obamacare will cost tax payers $53,000 per enrollee


----------



## P@triot

Arianrhod said:


> Where are the links?


You want links? 

(Here are _less_ than 1/10th of the links I've posted in this thread)

Post ##3117
Obamacare, where the liberal dream crashes and burns

Post ##3121
Family With Rare Medical Conditions Denied Obamacare Coverage, Now Struggling With Expense Of New Plan

Post ##3142
Explosive Report: How Obamacare Will Drive People Out of the Workforce

Post ##3146
Obamacare Raises Medicaid Cost as Insurers Shift Tax Bill - Bloomberg

Post ##3154
I'm quitting my job. Thanks Obamacare! - Yahoo Finance

Post ##3155
Former Obamacare navigator actually a convicted terrorist

Post ##3176
Your workplace health insurance costs $1,200 more - Economy

Post ##3177
Latest Obamacare Delay, Insurance Cancellations, and Uninsured Signups

Post ##3182
Union Group: Obamacare Is Making Inequality Worse

Post ##3188
Obamacare and Health Insurance Premiums: Have You Saved $2,500?

Post ##3191
Does the Obamacare Deadline | Individual Mandate Facts

Post ##3193
Top Dem pollster: 'Don't defend' Obamacare, call it 'flawed from the beginning' | WashingtonExaminer.com

Post ##3196
Restaurant Passes On The Cost Of Obamacare

Post ##3199
Liberal group finds Obamacare will cost tax payers $53,000 per enrollee


----------



## P@triot

Arianrhod said:


> Where are the links?


You want links? 

(Here are _less_ than 1/10th of the links I've posted in this thread)

Post ##3117
Obamacare, where the liberal dream crashes and burns

Post ##3121
Family With Rare Medical Conditions Denied Obamacare Coverage, Now Struggling With Expense Of New Plan

Post ##3142
Explosive Report: How Obamacare Will Drive People Out of the Workforce

Post ##3146
Obamacare Raises Medicaid Cost as Insurers Shift Tax Bill - Bloomberg

Post ##3154
I'm quitting my job. Thanks Obamacare! - Yahoo Finance

Post ##3155
Former Obamacare navigator actually a convicted terrorist

Post ##3176
Your workplace health insurance costs $1,200 more - Economy

Post ##3177
Latest Obamacare Delay, Insurance Cancellations, and Uninsured Signups

Post ##3182
Union Group: Obamacare Is Making Inequality Worse

Post ##3188
Obamacare and Health Insurance Premiums: Have You Saved $2,500?

Post ##3191
Does the Obamacare Deadline | Individual Mandate Facts

Post ##3193
Top Dem pollster: 'Don't defend' Obamacare, call it 'flawed from the beginning' | WashingtonExaminer.com

Post ##3196
Restaurant Passes On The Cost Of Obamacare

Post ##3199
Liberal group finds Obamacare will cost tax payers $53,000 per enrollee


----------



## P@triot

Arianrhod said:


> In which of your posts did you share the sources of your intimate knowledge of the dissolution of the Soviet Union?


The fact that you don't know illustrates your ineptitude, your illiteracy, or your ignorance (most likely all 3). Everyone here can _plainly_ see it. Why can't you?

By the way - you asked for links and I gave you a TON. Why are you so quiet over there?


----------



## Arianrhod

P@triot said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where are the links?
> 
> 
> 
> You want links?
> 
> (Here are _less_ than 1/10th of the links I've posted in this thread)
> 
> Post ##3117
> Obamacare, where the liberal dream crashes and burns
> 
> Post ##3121
> Family With Rare Medical Conditions Denied Obamacare Coverage, Now Struggling With Expense Of New Plan
> 
> Post ##3142
> Explosive Report: How Obamacare Will Drive People Out of the Workforce
> 
> Post ##3146
> Obamacare Raises Medicaid Cost as Insurers Shift Tax Bill - Bloomberg
> 
> Post ##3154
> I'm quitting my job. Thanks Obamacare! - Yahoo Finance
> 
> Post ##3155
> Former Obamacare navigator actually a convicted terrorist
> 
> Post ##3176
> Your workplace health insurance costs $1,200 more - Economy
> 
> Post ##3177
> Latest Obamacare Delay, Insurance Cancellations, and Uninsured Signups
> 
> Post ##3182
> Union Group: Obamacare Is Making Inequality Worse
> 
> Post ##3188
> Obamacare and Health Insurance Premiums: Have You Saved $2,500?
> 
> Post ##3191
> Does the Obamacare Deadline | Individual Mandate Facts
> 
> Post ##3193
> Top Dem pollster: 'Don't defend' Obamacare, call it 'flawed from the beginning' | WashingtonExaminer.com
> 
> Post ##3196
> Restaurant Passes On The Cost Of Obamacare
> 
> Post ##3199
> Liberal group finds Obamacare will cost tax payers $53,000 per enrollee
Click to expand...


So you've made the same post five times, but I see nothing about the Soviet Union.

That was the question I asked you.

Which you still have not answered.


----------



## P@triot

Arianrhod said:


> So you've made the same post five times


Each one was in response to a different post where you said "links" because you've had your ass handed to you with indisputable facts and you're trying like hell to avoid that reality (avoiding reality is what progressives do).


Arianrhod said:


> but I see nothing about the Soviet Union. That was the question I asked you.


Yeah...uh...I already answered that. And this thread is about Obamacare - going off topic is a violation of board rules junior.


----------



## Arianrhod

P@triot said:


> Yeah...uh...I already answered that.



No, you haven't.  You went off on a tangent about the Soviet Union, JoeB corrected your opinion with actual fact, and you've been tap-dancing ever since.

You're an excellent example of why RWNJs never know what's going on and are going to be very disappointed when the PPACA doesn't disappear just because they want it to.

Thank you.

Now you may have the last word.


----------



## P@triot

Arianrhod said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...uh...I already answered that.
> 
> 
> 
> No, you haven't.  You went off on a tangent about the Soviet Union, JoeB corrected your opinion *with actual fact*, and you've been tap-dancing ever since.
Click to expand...

*Links?* *Prove it*. You can't - I win. Game over junior.


----------



## P@triot

Arianrhod said:


> You're an excellent example of why RWNJs never know what's going on and are going to be very disappointed when the PPACA doesn't disappear just because they want it to.


Just curious - how come you never add links to your bat-shit crazy posts? I've yet to come across one from you yet.


----------



## P@triot

Arianrhod said:


> No, you haven't.  You went off on a tangent about the Soviet Union, JoeB corrected your opinion with actual fact, and you've been tap-dancing ever since.


Wait..._what_? JoeB has yet to add a _single_ link. How can you declare what he said as "fact" Arianrhod when you demand links? _Why_ the double standard? _Boom_! Just proved that you're an uninformed, partisan hack.


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> Nah...that become your new position after years of _vehemently_ denying it (just like you progressives do today) and crying "vast right-wing conspiracy" (just like you progressives do today).
> 
> As always - you got caught lying and as always - you're not mature enough to admit it.



Again, guy, you weren't there. Or at least not an adult. I had these arguments with people. 

The thing was, after Clinton fessed up, his popularity shot up to 67%. When the 1998 midterms rolled around and Republicans tried to impeach him, the voters threw out a lot of Republicans. Newt was forced to resign as party leader because of the poor showing. 

If  you hadn't been in short pants at the time, you'd know this. 



P@triot said:


> It's not societies job to "bring prices down" for you because you're not capable of growing up and taking care of yourself. And government simply doesn't have the authority to act on that anyway. It's the type of fail-fail that could only come from progressives who are ignorant of U.S. laws.



Actually, it does if the people say it does. Here's the thing, in france, and MRI costs $280, in the US it's $1110.  You might think this is capitalism at it's best, but sensible people just see this as exploiting the pain of others.  



P@triot said:


> Well _that_ is one hell of an outrageous claim. Proof? How come you never post a single quote, video, link, etc. to all of your bullshit?
> 
> (Psst...stupid....100% of the population has "access" to healthcare because it is _illegal_ for a hospital to turn away someone in a life and death situation).
> 
> What is that - 30 posts in a row now kitty where you have _blatantly_ *lied*?



Uh, guy, bankrupting yourself to go to a hospital emergency room is not access. I'm sorry you don't get this. But the 40% figure is accurate. 

Again, have to assume you are too young to have ever dealt with 'managed health care". It's Kafkaesque what these insurance companies put you through.


----------



## JoeB131

Sun Devil 92 said:


> What do you call it ?
> 
> Or are you saying there is no private insurance in Canada ?



do Shut up. You're boring me.


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> My dear, dear _boy_... progressivism regresses society. It does not "progress" it.
> 
> Economically you fools want to take us back to the late 1800's with Karl Marx's economic theory (which has failed)
> 
> Politically you want to take us back to the late 1700's with King George III dictatorial control (which has also failed)
> 
> In terms of energy you want to outlaw nuclear, coil, oil, and fracking and return us to the 1600's where all we have is fire for heat and light
> So much for "progress" uh lad?



Poodle thinks King George III was a "dictator".  You can tell he has a child-like view of politics and history.  seriously, did your history book come with crayons?


----------



## JoeB131

You ever get the feeling Poodle didn't have enough people pay attention to him when he was little? Or they shot him up with Ritalin when he acted out?


----------



## Arianrhod

P@triot said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're an excellent example of why RWNJs never know what's going on and are going to be very disappointed when the PPACA doesn't disappear just because they want it to.
> 
> 
> 
> Just curious - how come you never add links to your bat-shit crazy posts? I've yet to come across one from you yet.
Click to expand...


You haven't been paying attention.


----------



## Sun Devil 92

JoeB131 said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you call it ?
> 
> Or are you saying there is no private insurance in Canada ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> do Shut up. You're boring me.
Click to expand...


As in...."uh oh.....you've caught me in my lies" ?

Thought so.


----------



## Sun Devil 92

JoeB131 said:


> Again, have to assume you are too young to have ever dealt with 'managed health care". It's Kafkaesque what these insurance companies put you through.



What they put YOU through.  

Apparently the rest of us were treated better.


----------



## P@triot

Sun Devil 92 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, have to assume you are too young to have ever dealt with 'managed health care". It's Kafkaesque what these insurance companies put you through.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What they put YOU through. Apparently the rest of us were treated better.
Click to expand...

Joseph believes _his_ problems should become society's problems...


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> Poodle thinks *King* George III was a "dictator".  You can tell he has a child-like view of politics and history.  seriously, did your history book come with crayons?


----------



## JoeB131

Sun Devil 92 said:


> What they put YOU through.
> 
> Apparently the rest of us were treated better.



Again, any fuckwad who says that has obviously never had to fight an insurance company to get them to do what they promised.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> Again, guy, you weren't there. Or at least not an adult. I had these arguments with people.


Again *liar*...I _was_. While you were drunk and stoned, I was tuned in.


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Poodle thinks *King* George III was a "dictator".  You can tell he has a child-like view of politics and history.  seriously, did your history book come with crayons?
Click to expand...


So by your bizarre logic, is QUEEN Elizabeth II a "Dictator"? I'm just curious if you think this is the case. 

The fact is, by 1776, the British Monarchy had become a constitutional monarchy with no real power.


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> Again *liar*...I _was_. While you were drunk and stoned, I was tuned in.



Tuned into what, Nickelodeon? Come on, Short Pants, you aren't convincing anyone you lived through those times.

Real world. Most people thought it wasn't anyone's business if Clinton had sex with an intern or not, and most people felt bad for him when they saw what that shithead Ken Starr put his family through.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> The thing was, after Clinton fessed up, his popularity shot up to 67%. When the 1998 midterms rolled around and Republicans tried to impeach him, the voters threw out a lot of Republicans. Newt was forced to resign as party leader because of the poor showing.


The thing is...that has *nothing* to you progressives denying that Clinton was doing all of that. That's what you people do - deny reality at all costs and cry "right-wing conspiracy" in the face of facts.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Poodle thinks *King* George III was a "dictator".  You can tell he has a child-like view of politics and history.  seriously, did your history book come with crayons?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The fact is, by 1776, the British Monarchy had become a constitutional monarchy with no real power.
Click to expand...

The *fact* _is_...you have *no* facts.  Ask an adult to help you look up the "Boston Tea Party" _stupid_ (and no - that's not a Ted Cruz support group  ).


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> The thing is...that has *nothing* to you progressives denying that Clinton was doing all of that. That's what you people do - deny reality at all costs and cry "right-wing conspiracy" in the face of facts.



Except Progressives never really denied that he did.  Most people assumed he did, which is why you didn't see anyone say in August 1998, "I'm shocked, shocked to find out he really had sex with the intern!"  

Naw.  Everyone knew he did. It was just a division of those who thought this was really a bad thing, and those who thought it was nobody's business. 

Now, like I said, back before I got royally fucked over by an insurance company and permanently cured of Conservative thought, I was one of the former who argued that "Subornation of Perjury was the worst thing ever", and most normal people replied to me, "Meh, the economy's good, that's none of our business."


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> The *fact* _is_...you have *no* facts. Ask an adult to help you look up the "Boston Tea Party" _stupid_ (and no - that's not a Ted Cruz support group  ).



Okay, hte Boston Tea Party was an attack on a private company's assets...  What you all seem to forget is the taxes that the Founding Slave Rapists were upset about where all being collected by the British East India Company.


----------



## JoeB131

so back to the question, Short Pants, do you think that Elizabeth the Second is an evil Dictator?


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> Actually, it does if the people say it does.


Actually - it doesn't. It doesn't matter what the people say unless the people amend the U.S. Constitution. If racist tools like you vote to hang black people tomorrow, it doesn't make it "legal". The Constitution still protects their right to life against animals such as yourself.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> Here's the thing, in france, and MRI costs $280, in the US it's $1110.  You might think this is capitalism at it's best, but sensible people just see this as exploiting the pain of others.


For starters...you get what you pay for. We have the most exceptional healthcare in the _world_. You're going to pay for that. A Lamborghini costs a lot more than a Taurus chief.

Second - it's the idiot socialism by uneducated, uninformed progressives such as yourself that lead to a $10 aspirin at hospitals. Because you people don't want to take personal responsibility and pay your own way through life, the hospitals have to make up the loss of caring for you mooches. That means charging me 5x what they should (because they sure as hell aren't going to eat that cost created by _you_).


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> You might think this is capitalism at it's best, but sensible people just see this as exploiting the pain of others.


If it wasn't for capitalism, you wouldn't even have that MRI machine. It was capitalism which lead to the innovation that raised the standard of living for all of humanity.

For thousands of years, the standard of living never changed. Mankind toiled away in huts and caves without electricity, machines, technology, etc. Once America established a free nation with a free market (and other nations followed suit), the standard of living drastically spiked and continued in that direction. It's a simple fact that idealistic tools like you can't accept.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> Uh, guy, bankrupting yourself to go to a hospital emergency room is not access. I'm sorry you don't get this. But the 40% figure is accurate.


Uh....*no* it's *not*. That's why you can post a link backing up your *lie*. 100% of the American people have "access" to healthcare you tool because it is illegal to turn them away.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> Again, have to assume you are too young to have ever dealt with 'managed health care". It's Kafkaesque what these insurance companies put you through.


Wait....wait...wait....the guy who whines like a little girl about "Atlas Shrugged" wants to keep referencing Kafka?!?


----------



## Sun Devil 92

JoeB131 said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What they put YOU through.
> 
> Apparently the rest of us were treated better.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, any fuckwad who says that has obviously never had to fight an insurance company to get them to do what they promised.
Click to expand...


Up yours, turdblossom.

You represent the arrogant left who needs to screw with an entire system simply because you don't like what it did to YOU.

The fact that it might be good for most is of no consequence to YOU.

YOU only care about one thing...YOU.

My insurance companies have always paid what they said they would.  Ask me if I feel guilty.


----------



## Sun Devil 92

JoeB131 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> The *fact* _is_...you have *no* facts. Ask an adult to help you look up the "Boston Tea Party" _stupid_ (and no - that's not a Ted Cruz support group  ).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, hte Boston Tea Party was an attack on a private company's assets...  What you all seem to forget is the taxes that the Founding Slave Rapists were upset about where all being collected by the British East India Company.
Click to expand...


Those Founding Slave Rapists are the reason you have a country like this to live in.

I realize that YOU really only care about yourself.  

Move.


----------



## P@triot

Hey Arianrhod - here is a link for you (and on topic too!). Now do what you _always_ do... *demand* links when there isn't one and *deny* links when there is one. 

Once was a shock. Twice was an outrage. Thrice is a nightmare that won't end.

Over the past three years, my family's private, individual health insurance plan — a high-deductible Preferred Provider Organization — has been canceled three times. Our first death notice, from Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield, arrived in the fall of 2013. Our second, from Rocky Mountain Health Plans, came last August. Three weeks ago, we received another ominous "notice of plan discontinuation" from Anthem informing us that the insurer "will no longer offer your current health plan in the State of Colorado."

Remember when Obama emphatically stated "*if you like your plan, you can keep your plan*"??? Well...they liked their plan. And three times now it has been canceled on them because of Obamacare. Ready to admit that Obama is a liar? Ready to admit that the federal government is inept? Ready to admit that the Dumbocrats are corrupt?

Malkin: Obama Lied. My Third Health Plan Just Died


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> Again, any fuckwad who says that has obviously never had to fight an insurance company to get them to do what they promised.


Actually....we have. We're just not sniveling little bitches about it, like you are. We're grown adults who realize that life isn't a bed or roses and that there are challenges.

But hey....keep trying to make your problems all of society's problems. It's working out soooooo well for you chief. Pretty much _everyone_ hates you and your life continues to get more miserable.


----------



## P@triot

Sun Devil 92 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, hte Boston Tea Party was an attack on a private company's assets...  What you all seem to forget is the taxes that the Founding Slave Rapists were upset about where all being collected by the British East India Company.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those Founding Slave Rapists are the reason you have a country like this to live in. I realize that YOU really only care about yourself. Move.
Click to expand...


----------



## P@triot

Sun Devil 92 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> The *fact* _is_...you have *no* facts. Ask an adult to help you look up the "Boston Tea Party" _stupid_ (and no - that's not a Ted Cruz support group  ).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, hte Boston Tea Party was an attack on a private company's assets...  What you all seem to forget is the taxes that the Founding Slave Rapists were upset about where all being collected by the British East India Company.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those Founding Slave Rapists are the reason you have a country like this to live in.
> 
> I realize that YOU really only care about yourself.
> 
> Move.
Click to expand...

Dude...you *nailed* it Sun Devil. He doesn't give a shit about those that sacrificed to hand him this phenomenal nation. All he cares about is himself. Typical selfish progressive. Let other people die for freedom and then trade in those freedoms like poker chips for pitiful government table scraps.


----------



## Arianrhod

P@triot said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, guy, you weren't there. Or at least not an adult. I had these arguments with people.
> 
> 
> 
> Again *liar*...I _was_.
Click to expand...


Which is why you'll stop being shy about your vast expertise on the Soviet Union and share your sources with us.


----------



## P@triot

Arianrhod said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, guy, you weren't there. Or at least not an adult. I had these arguments with people.
> 
> 
> 
> Again *liar*...I _was_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is why you'll stop being shy about your vast expertise on the Soviet Union and share your sources with us.
Click to expand...

I've done that already. Probably 10 pages back now. If I add a link to it - will you admit that you're not only ignorant about the topic at hand, but that you're a liar as well?


----------



## Arianrhod

P@triot said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, guy, you weren't there. Or at least not an adult. I had these arguments with people.
> 
> 
> 
> Again *liar*...I _was_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is why you'll stop being shy about your vast expertise on the Soviet Union and share your sources with us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've done that already. Probably 10 pages back now. If I add a link to it - will you admit that you're not only ignorant about the topic at hand, but that you're a liar as well?
Click to expand...


If you post a link to the source or sources of your knowledge about the Soviet Union in your very next post, I will read the material you've linked to and form an opinion about it.


----------



## P@triot

Arianrhod said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, guy, you weren't there. Or at least not an adult. I had these arguments with people.
> 
> 
> 
> Again *liar*...I _was_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is why you'll stop being shy about your vast expertise on the Soviet Union and share your sources with us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've done that already. Probably 10 pages back now. If I add a link to it - will you admit that you're not only ignorant about the topic at hand, but that you're a liar as well?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you post a link to the source or sources of your knowledge about the Soviet Union in your very next post, I will read the material you've linked to and form an opinion about it.
Click to expand...

Ahahahahahaha! Somebody knows they are wrong...


----------



## Arianrhod

P@triot said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, guy, you weren't there. Or at least not an adult. I had these arguments with people.
> 
> 
> 
> Again *liar*...I _was_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is why you'll stop being shy about your vast expertise on the Soviet Union and share your sources with us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've done that already. Probably 10 pages back now. If I add a link to it - will you admit that you're not only ignorant about the topic at hand, but that you're a liar as well?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you post a link to the source or sources of your knowledge about the Soviet Union in your very next post, I will read the material you've linked to and form an opinion about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ahahahahahaha! Somebody knows they are wrong...
Click to expand...


It's nice of you to admit it.  I hope you've learned that it's always advisable to read something before you form an opinion about it.

So when will you post the link(s)?


----------



## Sun Devil 92

P@triot said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, guy, you weren't there. Or at least not an adult. I had these arguments with people.
> 
> 
> 
> Again *liar*...I _was_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is why you'll stop being shy about your vast expertise on the Soviet Union and share your sources with us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've done that already. Probably 10 pages back now. If I add a link to it - will you admit that you're not only ignorant about the topic at hand, but that you're a liar as well?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you post a link to the source or sources of your knowledge about the Soviet Union in your very next post, I will read the material you've linked to and form an opinion about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ahahahahahaha! Somebody knows they are wrong...
Click to expand...


I suggest you walk away from this SFB's poster.  

I know who it is and put them on ignore a long time ago.

All you'll get is "you need primary sources" and all she will post is opinion and obfuscation.  

Facts don't matter when your (in her case...a very tiny) mind is made up.


----------



## Arianrhod

Sun Devil 92 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again *liar*...I _was_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is why you'll stop being shy about your vast expertise on the Soviet Union and share your sources with us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've done that already. Probably 10 pages back now. If I add a link to it - will you admit that you're not only ignorant about the topic at hand, but that you're a liar as well?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you post a link to the source or sources of your knowledge about the Soviet Union in your very next post, I will read the material you've linked to and form an opinion about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ahahahahahaha! Somebody knows they are wrong...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I suggest you walk away from this SFB's poster.
> 
> I know who it is and put them on ignore a long time ago.
> 
> All you'll get is "you need primary sources" and all she will post is opinion and obfuscation.
> 
> Facts don't matter when your (in her case...a very tiny) mind is made up.
Click to expand...


I've been asking him for facts for two days.  All I get is ad hominems.

But I'm sure he's looking for those links to the history of the Soviet Union and he'll post them any...minute...now...

He doesn't need you to hold his hand, Junior Mod.


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> Actually - it doesn't. It doesn't matter what the people say unless the people amend the U.S. Constitution. If racist tools like you vote to hang black people tomorrow, it doesn't make it "legal". The Constitution still protects their right to life against animals such as yourself.



So, um, making sure poor children get health coverage is just the same as hanging black people because the Founding Slave Rapists didn't mention health care?  

Again, are you like 25, Short Pants?  



P@triot said:


> Hey Arianrhod - here is a link for you (and on topic too!). Now do what you _always_ do... *demand* links when there isn't one and *deny* links when there is one.
> 
> Once was a shock. Twice was an outrage. Thrice is a nightmare that won't end.
> 
> Over the past three years, my family's private, individual health insurance plan — a high-deductible Preferred Provider Organization — has been canceled three times. Our first death notice, from Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield, arrived in the fall of 2013. Our second, from Rocky Mountain Health Plans, came last August. Three weeks ago, we received another ominous "notice of plan discontinuation" from Anthem informing us that the insurer "will no longer offer your current health plan in the State of Colorado."
> 
> Remember when Obama emphatically stated "*if you like your plan, you can keep your plan*"??? Well...they liked their plan. And three times now it has been canceled on them because of Obamacare. Ready to admit that Obama is a liar? Ready to admit that the federal government is inept? Ready to admit that the Dumbocrats are corrupt?
> 
> Malkin: Obama Lied. My Third Health Plan Just Died



Right, So Michelle Malkin, Token Asian Sellout, is doing SOOOOO badly that she has to pay a whopping $12,000 a year for health insurance on a six figure salary.


----------



## JoeB131

Sun Devil 92 said:


> Up yours, turdblossom.
> 
> You represent the arrogant left who needs to screw with an entire system simply because you don't like what it did to YOU.
> 
> The fact that it might be good for most is of no consequence to YOU.
> 
> YOU only care about one thing...YOU.



Uh, yeah, if I pay $6000 a year for insurance, I expect all my hospital bills to be paid. Period. 

I expect people to do what the promised. 

Of course, the current system is a shit sandwich for most people. It's why Obama got elected TWICE to change it. 

We spend more money than any country in the world and we get the worst results amongst advanced countries... but people like you and short pants think it's wonderful as long as a few douchebags get rich.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually - it doesn't. It doesn't matter what the people say unless the people amend the U.S. Constitution. If racist tools like you vote to hang black people tomorrow, it doesn't make it "legal". The Constitution still protects their right to life against animals such as yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, um, making sure poor children get health coverage is just the same as hanging black people because the Founding Slave Rapists didn't mention health care?
Click to expand...


Bingo, _stupid_! If you communists want government healthcare, then convince the American people you are right and legally amend the U.S. Constitution. If you can't (and you *can't*) then respect the fact that the American people have spoken and unilaterally reject your bat-shit crazy ideology.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> Right, So Michelle Malkin, *Token Asian Sellout, *is doing SOOOOO badly that she has to pay a whopping $12,000 a year for health insurance on a six figure salary.


Gee...Joseph here isn't a typical progressive racist or anything...


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> Dude...you *nailed* it Sun Devil. He doesn't give a shit about those that sacrificed to hand him this phenomenal nation. All he cares about is himself. Typical selfish progressive. Let other people die for freedom and then trade in those freedoms like poker chips for pitiful government table scraps.



Hey, Fuckwad, only ONE of us has a DD214.  

So only one of us actually made sacrifices for this wonderful nation. (which is wonderful if you are rich, but for the rest of us, not so much.) 

If I'm at the mercy of a soulless corporations that decides to cheat me out of health coverage after I've worked for it, that's not freedom.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> Right, So Michelle Malkin, Token Asian Sellout...


That's an amazing statement coming from the _ultimate_ selfish American sellout...


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> Bingo, _stupid_! If you communists want government healthcare, then convince the American people you are right and legally amend the U.S. Constitution. If you can't (and you *can't*) then respect the fact that the American people have spoken and unilaterally reject your bat-shit crazy ideology.



Guy, in case you haven't been paying attention, SCOTUS has ruled the ACA constitutional.  

Obama won two elections. Hillary will win the next one. If anyone has been rejected, its you nuts.


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right, So Michelle Malkin, Token Asian Sellout...
> 
> 
> 
> That's an amazing statement coming from the _ultimate_ selfish American sellout...
Click to expand...


again, where's Anchor Baby Michelle's DD214.  Oh, that's right. She doesn't have one.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude...you *nailed* it Sun Devil. He doesn't give a shit about those that sacrificed to hand him this phenomenal nation. All he cares about is himself. Typical selfish progressive. Let other people die for freedom and then trade in those freedoms like poker chips for pitiful government table scraps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, Fuckwad, only ONE of us has a DD214.
Click to expand...

And only *one* of us has sold out this country for greed and selfishness...


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> Uh, yeah, if I pay $6000 a year for insurance, I expect all my hospital bills to be paid. Period. I expect people to do what the promised.


And they did. If they didn't - then you take them to court. That's how it works chief.


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> And only *one* of us has sold out this country for greed and selfishness...



Uh, guy, how is deciding that the government can probably run health care better than private companies, "selling out", exactly?  

I swore an oath to protect and defend the United States. Not Cigna.  

You see, you have this thing called "Medicare", and it works just fine, and no one has ever really questioned its constitutionality.


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> And they did. If they didn't - then you take them to court. That's how it works chief.



Not really. 

In fact, the courts have ruled that if you get your insurance from an employer, you have no legal standing to sue the insurance company. The agreement was between the employer and the insurance company  

YOu really don't understand how this works at all, do you?  Again, probably about 25, never had a serious medical issue.


----------



## Arianrhod

P@triot said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude...you *nailed* it Sun Devil. He doesn't give a shit about those that sacrificed to hand him this phenomenal nation. All he cares about is himself. Typical selfish progressive. Let other people die for freedom and then trade in those freedoms like poker chips for pitiful government table scraps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, Fuckwad, only ONE of us has a DD214.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And only *one* of us has sold out this country for greed and selfishness...
Click to expand...


You mean the one who has no respect for veterans and who still hasn't posted the links he promised me?


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> If I'm at the mercy of a soulless corporations that decides to cheat me out of health coverage after I've worked for it, that's not freedom.


You're not at the mercy of corporations. Never have been. That's just the typical liberal false narrative. You can't make a rational case for your socialism and you don't want to admit you want society to pay your way through life.


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> You're not at the mercy of corporations. Never have been. That's just the typical liberal false narrative. You can't make a rational case for your socialism and you don't want to admit you want society to pay your way through life.



Guy, I made three times as much money last year for the company I worked for than they paid me. I'm not complaining, I like this company and they are paying me a decent wage for my talents.  

You think in this stupid rubric of capitalism/socialism when in fact, neither animal has or can actually exist. 

The question is, who is more likely to try to provide good service, a government program focused on serving the people who elected it, or a soulless corporation only answerable to its stockholders? 

That question answers itself.


----------



## P@triot

Arianrhod said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude...you *nailed* it Sun Devil. He doesn't give a shit about those that sacrificed to hand him this phenomenal nation. All he cares about is himself. Typical selfish progressive. Let other people die for freedom and then trade in those freedoms like poker chips for pitiful government table scraps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, Fuckwad, only ONE of us has a DD214.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And only *one* of us has sold out this country for greed and selfishness...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean the one who has no respect for veterans and who still hasn't posted the links he promised me?
Click to expand...

I'm still waiting for you to post links supporting your outrageous statement that JoeB "corrected" what was stated with "facts". Why haven't you posted anything yet?


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> The question is, who is more likely to try to provide good service, a government program focused on serving the people who elected it, or a soulless corporation only answerable to its stockholders?


Well considering the catastrophic ineptitude of the federal government ($19.5 trillion in debt and climbing, $6 billion in misplaced contracts by the state department, etc.), you just proved that a corporation will exponentially provide a better service.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> Guy, in case you haven't been paying attention, SCOTUS has ruled the ACA constitutional. Obama won two elections. Hillary will win the next one. If anyone has been rejected, its you nuts.


Then you should have no problem amending the U.S. Constitution so what is the problem?


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> And they did. If they didn't - then you take them to court. That's how it works chief.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not really.
> 
> In fact, the courts have ruled that if you get your insurance from an employer, you have no legal standing to sue the insurance company. The agreement was between the employer and the insurance company
Click to expand...

Proof? Links? When did the courts rule this? What year was it ruled? Was it a single state or does it apply to all 50 states? Lie much???


----------



## Arianrhod

P@triot said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude...you *nailed* it Sun Devil. He doesn't give a shit about those that sacrificed to hand him this phenomenal nation. All he cares about is himself. Typical selfish progressive. Let other people die for freedom and then trade in those freedoms like poker chips for pitiful government table scraps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, Fuckwad, only ONE of us has a DD214.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And only *one* of us has sold out this country for greed and selfishness...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean the one who has no respect for veterans and who still hasn't posted the links he promised me?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm still waiting for you to post links supporting your outrageous statement that JoeB "corrected" what was stated with "facts". Why haven't you posted anything yet?
Click to expand...


Can you reword that in comprehensible English?  Either before or after you post the links you promised me in Post #3793.


----------



## Arianrhod

P@triot said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> And they did. If they didn't - then you take them to court. That's how it works chief.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not really.
> 
> In fact, the courts have ruled that if you get your insurance from an employer, you have no legal standing to sue the insurance company. The agreement was between the employer and the insurance company
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Proof? Links? When did the courts rule this? What year was it ruled? Was it a single state or does it apply to all 50 states? Lie much???
Click to expand...


Is your Google broken?


----------



## P@triot

Arianrhod said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm still waiting for you to post links supporting your outrageous statement that JoeB "corrected" what was stated with "facts". Why haven't you posted anything yet?
> 
> 
> 
> Can you reword that in comprehensible English?  Either before or after you post the links you promised me in Post #3793.
Click to expand...

Yeah....uh...that is perfect English there chief. Either your desperate to avoid your inability to support you lie or your learning disability needs to be addressed.


----------



## P@triot

Arianrhod said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> And they did. If they didn't - then you take them to court. That's how it works chief.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not really.
> 
> In fact, the courts have ruled that if you get your insurance from an employer, you have no legal standing to sue the insurance company. The agreement was between the employer and the insurance company
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Proof? Links? When did the courts rule this? What year was it ruled? Was it a single state or does it apply to all 50 states? Lie much???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is your Google broken?
Click to expand...

Nope. It works just fine and it says that he's lying. It also says that you are lying. But everyone knew that already.


----------



## Arianrhod

P@triot said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> And they did. If they didn't - then you take them to court. That's how it works chief.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not really.
> 
> In fact, the courts have ruled that if you get your insurance from an employer, you have no legal standing to sue the insurance company. The agreement was between the employer and the insurance company
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Proof? Links? When did the courts rule this? What year was it ruled? Was it a single state or does it apply to all 50 states? Lie much???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is your Google broken?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope. It works just fine and it says that he's lying.
Click to expand...


Kindly post the link(s) to that information.  I'd really like to see it.


----------



## Arianrhod

P@triot said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm still waiting for you to post links supporting your outrageous statement that JoeB "corrected" what was stated with "facts". Why haven't you posted anything yet?
> 
> 
> 
> Can you reword that in comprehensible English?  Either before or after you post the links you promised me in Post #3793.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah....uh...that is perfect English there chief. Either your desperate to avoid your inability to support you lie or your learning disability needs to be addressed.
Click to expand...


No, this is perfect English: "Yeah....uh...that is perfect English there*, C*hief. Either you*'*r*e* desperate to avoid your inability to support you*r* lie or your learning disability needs to be addressed."

At least you admitted you have no respect for veterans.  That's progress.

But you have no support for your claims about the Soviet Union, so again they're nothing but your opinion, probably parroted from someone else.

And if you assume that everyone who disagrees with you is "lying," I wonder what that says about you?


----------



## P@triot

Arianrhod said:


> But you have no support for your claims about the Soviet Union, so again they're nothing but your opinion, probably parroted from someone else.


I'm sorry...is _your_ Google broke sweetie?


----------



## P@triot

Arianrhod said:


> No, this is perfect English: "Yeah....uh...that is perfect English there*, C*hief. Either you*'*r*e* desperate to avoid your inability to support you*r* lie or your learning disability needs to be addressed."


Sweetie...."chief" would *not* be capitalized. It is *not* a proper noun. What grade did you get pregnant and have to drop out of junior high?


----------



## Arianrhod

P@triot said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, this is perfect English: "Yeah....uh...that is perfect English there*, C*hief. Either you*'*r*e* desperate to avoid your inability to support you*r* lie or your learning disability needs to be addressed."
> 
> 
> 
> Sweetie...."chief" would *not* be capitalized. It is *not* a proper noun.
Click to expand...


When used as a form of address, it is.  (I notice you haven't commented on your other errors.)



P@triot said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you have no support for your claims about the Soviet Union, so again they're nothing but your opinion, probably parroted from someone else.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry...is _your_ Google broke sweetie?
Click to expand...


Google isn't psychic.  It doesn't know what sources you claim to have posted earlier in this thread.

Quite possibly because you never did.

Here's what's puzzling: Normal people, when they make a statement and want to prove it, are only too happy to say "I read this here..." and post links.

Someone who keeps making specious claims is just MSU, then lashing out at everyone around him accusing them of lying.  What does that say about him?


----------



## Sun Devil 92

JoeB131 said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Up yours, turdblossom.
> 
> You represent the arrogant left who needs to screw with an entire system simply because you don't like what it did to YOU.
> 
> The fact that it might be good for most is of no consequence to YOU.
> 
> YOU only care about one thing...YOU.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, yeah, if I pay $6000 a year for insurance, I expect all my hospital bills to be paid. Period.
> 
> I expect people to do what the promised.
> 
> Of course, the current system is a shit sandwich for most people. It's why Obama got elected TWICE to change it.
> 
> We spend more money than any country in the world and we get the worst results amongst advanced countries... but people like you and short pants think it's wonderful as long as a few douchebags get rich.
Click to expand...


You want some mustard.

Most people I know are just happy as can be with what they've got.

Obama lost the house in record time because of Obamacare.  So, no it's not why he got elected twice.

Hope and Change turned out to be Bull and S**t.


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> Well considering the catastrophic ineptitude of the federal government ($19.5 trillion in debt and climbing, $6 billion in misplaced contracts by the state department, etc.), you just proved that a corporation will exponentially provide a better service.



How many corporations go completely out of business. the main reason WHY the government is 19T in debt right now is that the banks wrecked the economy and the government had to bail them out.  

But you keep sucking up at the corporate teet, buddy. Some day they will love you, Short Pants. 



P@triot said:


> Proof? Links? When did the courts rule this? What year was it ruled? Was it a single state or does it apply to all 50 states? Lie much???



Guy, are you fucking stupid?  I've talked about this a number of times. 

Family fights insurance loophole, mourns teen denied a transplant


----------



## JoeB131

Sun Devil 92 said:


> You want some mustard.
> 
> Most people I know are just happy as can be with what they've got.
> 
> Obama lost the house in record time because of Obamacare. So, no it's not why he got elected twice.
> 
> Hope and Change turned out to be Bull and S**t.



Uh, guy, the only reason the Stupid Party controls the house is because of Gerrymandering. not because people agree with the stupid, evil and greedy shit they do. 

And Demographics are not your friend. There aren't enough old white males to keep your stupidity afloat. You guys are on the wrong side of history


----------



## P@triot

Obamacare has done the exact opposite of what they promised it would do and emails show the Dumbocrats knew that. This was all about power and control (as it always is with the Dumbocrats) and nothing else.

Obamacare Rates Grow, Options Shrink in Kansas, Missouri


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> Obamacare has done the exact opposite of what they promised it would do and emails show the Dumbocrats knew that. This was all about power and control (as it always is with the Dumbocrats) and nothing else.
> 
> Obamacare Rates Grow, Options Shrink in Kansas, Missouri



The insured rate is a 90%.  ACA has done exactly as promised.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> How many corporations go completely out of business.


Plenty. And when they go out of business, you simply move to a competitor for their goods and services. When the federal government collapses, the entire nation is screwed and there are no other options.


JoeB131 said:


> the main reason WHY the government is 19T in debt right now is that the banks wrecked the economy and the government had to bail them out.


Thank you for illustrating the astounding incompetence of the federal government (as well as your own) and proving why you're wrong (as usual). I don't want to turn my healthcare over to bumbling buffoons who put themselves $19 trillion in debt because they engage in *illegal* activities.

By the way _stupid_, the main reason WHY the federal government is almost $20 trillion in debt is because of the unaffordable unconstitutional entitlements that you now want to increase because you're a fuck'n child who can't take care of himself.


JoeB131 said:


> But you keep sucking up at the corporate teet, buddy. Some day they will love you, Short Pants.


But you keep sucking at that government teet junior. Keep convincing yourself that the government "cares" about you. At least with corporations they stand to lose your business and it forces them to cater to you. You have absolutely no leverage over the federal government, _stupid_.


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> Plenty. And when they go out of business, you simply move to a competitor for their goods and services. When the federal government collapses, the entire nation is screwed and there are no other options.



Hey, guy, when companies collapse, people lose jobs... I know this is a hard concept for you to get.  Then again, I suspect you don't have a job.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obamacare has done the exact opposite of what they promised it would do and emails show the Dumbocrats knew that. This was all about power and control (as it always is with the Dumbocrats) and nothing else.
> 
> Obamacare Rates Grow, Options Shrink in Kansas, Missouri
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The insured rate is a 90%.  ACA has done exactly as promised.
Click to expand...

No _stupid_...it hasn't. They said it would drive down costs and increase availability. The exact opposite has happened. Wouldn't expect an uninformed progressive to be aware of those realities though. You just keep on being a good little blind, obedient lapdog to your Dumbocrat masters.


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> Thank you for illustrating the astounding incompetence of the federal government (as well as your own) and proving why you're wrong (as usual). I don't want to turn my healthcare over to bumbling buffoons who put themselves $19 trillion in debt because they engage in *illegal* activities.



Except they didn't. Guy, why do you keep pretending that the government can't do things the Founding Slave Rapists didn't put into writing?  This argument was had over 100 years ago, and your side lost. 



P@triot said:


> By the way _stupid_, the main reason WHY the federal government is almost $20 trillion in debt is because of the unaffordable unconstitutional entitlements that you now want to increase because you're a fuck'n child who can't take care of himself.



No, it's 20 million dollars in debt because we don't make the rich pay their fair share. When the rich pay their fair share, we have no problem affording these things.  



P@triot said:


> But you keep sucking at that government teet junior. Keep convincing yourself that the government "cares" about you. At least with corporations they stand to lose your business and it forces them to cater to you. You have absolutely no leverage over the federal government, _stupid_.



I'm not benefiting from any gummit programs right now, Short Pants. 

Actually, the only thing I've learned about corporations is that they WILL fuck you at the first opportunity.  It's why they need to be kept on a very short leash, and occassionally thrown in prison.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Plenty. And when they go out of business, you simply move to a competitor for their goods and services. When the federal government collapses, the entire nation is screwed and there are no other options.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, guy, when companies collapse, people lose jobs...
Click to expand...

Yeah? So? And?

When the federal government collapses...people lose a lot more than just jobs _stupid_.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for illustrating the astounding incompetence of the federal government (as well as your own) and proving why you're wrong (as usual). I don't want to turn my healthcare over to bumbling buffoons who put themselves $19 trillion in debt because they engage in *illegal* activities.
> 
> 
> 
> Except they didn't. Guy, why do you keep pretending that the government can't do things the Founding Slave Rapists didn't put into writing?  This argument was had over 100 years ago, and your side lost.
Click to expand...

There is no "pretending" here junior. Your inability to accept reality doesn't change it. The U.S. Constitution is the *law* you high school dropout. It specifically states what the federal government can and cannot do. If only you could read, you would understand that.


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> Yeah? So? And?
> 
> When the federal government collapses...people lose a lot more than just jobs _stupid_.



And if my Aunt had balls, she'd be my  uncle. 



P@triot said:


> There is no "pretending" here junior. Your inability to accept reality doesn't change it. The U.S. Constitution is the *law* you high school dropout. It specifically states what the federal government can and cannot do. If only you could read, you would understand that.



Here's the problem with that. The people who actual interpret the Constitution have said entitlements are constitutional. They've said the Federal Reserve is constitutional. They've said the ACA is constitutional. they've said gay marriage is constitutional. 

Since they are the ones who make the decisions and some sad loser reading Ayn Rand isn't.... that's kind of the end of the discussion. 

Oh yeah, and Hillary will be appointing Scalia's replacement... buh-bye, "Orignal Intent", Hello Living Constitution, Baby!!!


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> By the way _stupid_, the main reason WHY the federal government is almost $20 trillion in debt is because of the unaffordable unconstitutional entitlements that you now want to increase because you're a fuck'n child who can't take care of himself.
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's 20 million dollars in debt because we don't make the rich pay their fair share. When the rich pay their fair share, we have no problem affording these things.
Click to expand...

First of all - we're $20 *trillion* in debt. Not a measly $20 million. Second, we've long since debunked your false narrative about the wealthy. They are screwed over by greedy, jealous people such as yourself. Third, you could confiscate all wealth from every single person in America and it wouldn't even cover 1/10th of the national debt. And now you want to add the most expensive burden possible to it.

That's a special kind of stupid that could _only_ come from progressives like you.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah? So? And?
> 
> When the federal government collapses...people lose a lot more than just jobs _stupid_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if my Aunt had balls, she'd be my  uncle.
Click to expand...

In other words...you have no rational response at all. 

Thank you!


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> Actually, the only thing I've learned about corporations is that they WILL fuck you at the first opportunity.  It's why they need to be kept on a very short leash, and occassionally thrown in prison.


Not nearly as hard as the federal government will fuck you. And at least with corporations you have options. Competitors.


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> First of all - we're $20 *trillion* in debt. Not a measly $20 million. Second, we've long since debunked your false narrative about the wealthy. They are screwed over by greedy, jealous people such as yourself. Third, you could confiscate all wealth from every single person in America and it wouldn't even cover 1/10th of the national debt. And now you want to add the most expensive burden possible to it.
> 
> That's a special kind of stupid that could _only_ come from progressives like you.



When the rich pay their fair share, we can afford nice things. We've done it, it works. 

We had our greatest prosperity when the rich paid rates of  up to 93%.  

We have plenty of wealth to cover out debts.  We just aren't collecting it.


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> Not nearly as hard as the federal government will fuck you. And at least with corporations you have options. Competitors.



Yeah. You see, the problem is, you only look at competitors AFTER they've screwed you. That's like closing the barn door after the horse got out.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> Here's the problem with that. The people who actual interpret the Constitution have said entitlements are constitutional. They've said the Federal Reserve is constitutional. They've said the ACA is constitutional. they've said gay marriage is constitutional.


Here's the problem with that - the U.S. Constitution does not empower _any_ governing body to "interpret" it. But again, that would require you to be able to read to understand.

The U.S. Constitution is the *law* junior. It cannot be open to "interpretation" any more than a 25mph speed limit can. The law cannot be "open interpretation" because if it was, it cannot be adhered to. If you interpreted a 25mph speed limit to mean 35 and an officer interpreted it to mean 15, you'd get a ticket every single day, stupid.

Laws are set in stone, written in black and white, and are not "open to interpretation". Seriously boot licker, how stupid do you feel right now? You look _really_ stupid.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> First of all - we're $20 *trillion* in debt. Not a measly $20 million. Second, we've long since debunked your false narrative about the wealthy. They are screwed over by greedy, jealous people such as yourself. Third, you could confiscate all wealth from every single person in America and it wouldn't even cover 1/10th of the national debt. And now you want to add the most expensive burden possible to it.
> 
> That's a special kind of stupid that could _only_ come from progressives like you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When the rich pay their fair share, we can afford nice things. We've done it, it works. We had our greatest prosperity when the rich paid rates of  up to 93%. We have plenty of wealth to cover out debts.  We just aren't collecting it.
Click to expand...

Uh....no we don't stupid. I already proved that. We have more debt than all money in circulation in the entire U.S. economy.

We just need parasites like _you_ to pay *your fair share* by paying for yourself and then we'll be just fine.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not nearly as hard as the federal government will fuck you. And at least with corporations you have options. Competitors.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah. You see, the problem is, you only look at competitors AFTER they've screwed you. That's like closing the barn door after the horse got out.
Click to expand...

The federal government screws everyone all the time. Thanks for proving I'm right.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> Oh yeah, and Hillary will be appointing Scalia's replacement... buh-bye, "Orignal Intent", Hello Living Constitution, Baby!!!


Why even have a U.S. Constitution then? Just tear it up and make the U.S. Supreme Court the "law". Your comment here really illustrates the depth of your ignorance.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> Oh yeah, and Hillary will be appointing Scalia's replacement... buh-bye, "Orignal Intent", Hello Living Constitution, Baby!!!


What's the matter junior - pissed off that the American people unilaterally reject your bat-shit crazy progressive ideology? If they didn't, you could easily just amend the constitution to *legally* fit your bat-shit crazy desires.

Pretty sad that you have to stoop to illegal activities to get your way.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not nearly as hard as the federal government will fuck you. And at least with corporations you have options. Competitors.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah. You see, the problem is, you only look at competitors AFTER they've screwed you. That's like closing the barn door after the horse got out.
Click to expand...

Well if you shoppped around and did your homework, that wouldn't be a problem. Just pick the proper corporation. But that would take personal responsibility - something your lazy and entitled ass refuses to do.


----------



## Arianrhod

P@triot said:


> Just pick the proper corporation.



This is by far the most inadvertently amusing post of this overlong thread.

"Pick the proper corporation."  As if it were like choosing the color of your next iPhone. "Oh, it doesn't come in pink?  Well, I'll have to settle for the green one, I guess."

In-fucking-credible.


----------



## Sun Devil 92

JoeB131 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obamacare has done the exact opposite of what they promised it would do and emails show the Dumbocrats knew that. This was all about power and control (as it always is with the Dumbocrats) and nothing else.
> 
> Obamacare Rates Grow, Options Shrink in Kansas, Missouri
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The insured rate is a 90%.  ACA has done exactly as promised.
Click to expand...


That is so funny.

It's like having a car with no engine.

Here is your insurance.....now, let me explain how expensive it will be to utilize it.


----------



## Sun Devil 92

P@triot said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> By the way _stupid_, the main reason WHY the federal government is almost $20 trillion in debt is because of the unaffordable unconstitutional entitlements that you now want to increase because you're a fuck'n child who can't take care of himself.
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's 20 million dollars in debt because we don't make the rich pay their fair share. When the rich pay their fair share, we have no problem affording these things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all - we're $20 *trillion* in debt. Not a measly $20 million. Second, we've long since debunked your false narrative about the wealthy. They are screwed over by greedy, jealous people such as yourself. Third, you could confiscate all wealth from every single person in America and it wouldn't even cover 1/10th of the national debt. And now you want to add the most expensive burden possible to it.
> 
> That's a special kind of stupid that could _only_ come from progressives like you.
Click to expand...


Bang on.

We spend 8,700 per person per year on health care.

We are not fixing anything by shifting costs around.


----------



## Arianrhod

Sun Devil 92 said:


> We spend 8,700 per person per year on health care.
> 
> We are not fixing anything by shifting costs around.



For months you've been saying "$8,500."  Now you've changed it to $8,700.  You've obviously found some more current data to show that, and you'll share it with us, won't you?

You've also stated we have to bring costs down first.  I'm sure you'll tell us your plan to expedite that in your very next post.

Unless you're secretly Paul Ryan.


----------



## Sun Devil 92

JoeB131 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> First of all - we're $20 *trillion* in debt. Not a measly $20 million. Second, we've long since debunked your false narrative about the wealthy. They are screwed over by greedy, jealous people such as yourself. Third, you could confiscate all wealth from every single person in America and it wouldn't even cover 1/10th of the national debt. And now you want to add the most expensive burden possible to it.
> 
> That's a special kind of stupid that could _only_ come from progressives like you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When the rich pay their fair share, we can afford nice things. We've done it, it works.
> 
> We had our greatest prosperity when the rich paid rates of  up to 93%.
> 
> We have plenty of wealth to cover out debts.  We just aren't collecting it.
Click to expand...


Please define a fair share.

Have never seen you answer this one.


----------



## Sun Devil 92

P@triot said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yeah, and Hillary will be appointing Scalia's replacement... buh-bye, "Orignal Intent", Hello Living Constitution, Baby!!!
> 
> 
> 
> Why even have a U.S. Constitution then? Just tear it up and make the U.S. Supreme Court the "law". Your comment here really illustrates the depth of your ignorance.
Click to expand...


What's so funny is that living Constitution has created the wealth disparity Josephine cries about so regularly.

Big business has used government (including the SCOTUS) to line their pockets.  

Hello Living Constitituion ===== Permanent Poverty.

Welcome to the cardboard box.


----------



## P@triot

Sun Devil 92 said:


> What's so funny is that living Constitution has created the wealth disparity Josephine cries about so regularly. Big business has used government (including the SCOTUS) to line their pockets.  Hello Living Constitituion ===== Permanent Poverty. Welcome to the cardboard box.


What's even funnier is that progressives could amend the U.S. Constitution to achieve their desires but they don't. Why? Because the American people have unilaterally rejected their bat-shit crazy ideology.

Jospeh knows he can't get the votes legally so he advocates to achieve his nonsense illegally.


----------



## Sun Devil 92

P@triot said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's so funny is that living Constitution has created the wealth disparity Josephine cries about so regularly. Big business has used government (including the SCOTUS) to line their pockets.  Hello Living Constitituion ===== Permanent Poverty. Welcome to the cardboard box.
> 
> 
> 
> What's even funnier is that progressives could amend the U.S. Constitution to achieve their desires but they don't. Why? Because the American people have unilaterally rejected their bat-shit crazy ideology.
> 
> Jospeh knows he can't get the votes legally so he advocates to achieve his nonsense illegally.
Click to expand...


Of course.

Such a taunt only indicates that Joe has clearly breathed long and deeply the DailyKos talking points that G.S. want him to absorb.


----------



## beagle9

True story about healthcare as I know it...  I went to have an infection taken care of a while back... I had a (rising) come up, and it had swollen/got infected.  Ok so at the doctor he looked at it, and began to squeeze this infection out of me.  No numbing medicine or anything yeeouch.  

I like to had hit the ceiling, but I wasn't going to show him that lol.  When he got done it felt better, but it looked like hell.  He then said well that ought to do it, and that I didn't need an anti-biotic or anything really.  He then put a bandaid over it, and when my wife removed that bandaid it looked like hell ... I ask him before I left to give me an anti-biotic for infection anyway, and this after all that mess that went on... wow.  He said ok.  

So next I went to the pharmacy to get the prescription filled, and they asked for my insurance card.  I gave it to her, and then after a while she came back and said that my insurance didn't cover the medicine.  I said wow, and so I thought this medicine must be expensive right ?  So I ask how much is the medicine??  She said $20.00 dollars.. I thought wow you mean I pay $96.00 dollars a week in total for healthcare, and it won't even give me a discount on a $20.00 bottle of medicine ???  Kidding me right ??  I rarely ever, and haven't in years use my healthcare, so am I getting ripped off or what ?????   What is going to be the answer for the American people (me I work for a living), but how can we fix this dam disaster that is these monopolies who are killing us, and are stealing our DAM money ????  

Who knows what that squeezing is gonna cost when get that bill... Hell the Insurance will probably deny the whole dam claim. The doctor was in the network, but wow what a situation that was.


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> Here's the problem with that - the U.S. Constitution does not empower _any_ governing body to "interpret" it. But again, that would require you to be able to read to understand.



sorry, guy we had this argument 200 years ago... 



P@triot said:


> Well if you shoppped around and did your homework, that wouldn't be a problem. Just pick the proper corporation. But that would take personal responsibility - something your lazy and entitled ass refuses to do.



No, guy, I think that all corporations should be required to NOT cheat their customers or employees.  Otherwise, we might as well go to socialism, which is where we are going to end up anyway, Short Pants.  I may not live to see it, but given you are barely out of college, your fellow Millennials have got something for your ass.


----------



## JoeB131

Arianrhod said:


> This is by far the most inadvertently amusing post of this overlong thread.
> 
> "Pick the proper corporation." As if it were like choosing the color of your next iPhone. "Oh, it doesn't come in pink? Well, I'll have to settle for the green one, I guess."
> 
> In-fucking-credible.



SHort Pants likes to drink the Corporate Koolaid like a good little consumer-bot.


----------



## JoeB131

Sun Devil 92 said:


> That is so funny.
> 
> It's like having a car with no engine.
> 
> Here is your insurance.....now, let me explain how expensive it will be to utilize it.



Meh... my insurance is cheaper now and covers more... so much for that theory. 

But simple enough solution. Public Option for the working poor.


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> What's even funnier is that progressives could amend the U.S. Constitution to achieve their desires but they don't. Why? Because the American people have unilaterally rejected their bat-shit crazy ideology.



Except you guys aren't winning national elections... If you hadn't stolen Florida in 2000, you'd have been 0-6 in presidential races.   Wait... You'll lose another one in three weeks.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> Otherwise, we might as well go to socialism, which is where we are going to end up anyway, Short Pants.  I may not live to see it, but given you are barely out of college, your fellow Millennials have got something for your ass.


Nah...we've _owned_ your ass for over 100 years and we'll own your ass for the next 100 years. The American people aren't caving to you bat-shit crazy communists. Let me just show you who you are at your core and what you support (the answer to both is unethical corruption):


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> But simple enough solution. Public Option for the working poor.


Even simpler solution: you start an insurance company for the "working poor". Boom! See how easy it is to solve problems in the free market?


----------



## Arianrhod

P@triot said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But simple enough solution. Public Option for the working poor.
> 
> 
> 
> Even simpler solution: you start an insurance company for the "working poor". Boom! See how easy it is to solve problems in the free market?
Click to expand...


That's exactly how health insurers like BC/BS got their start, as nonprofits offering insurance to workers.  Then they got preempted by the for-profit Aetnas, etc.

So how would you go back to reestablishing that goal?  Where would you get your seed money?  How would you manage premiums and outlays?  

For once it sounds as if you may have a plan instead of just ranting.

Tell us more.


----------



## P@triot

Arianrhod said:


> So how would you go back to reestablishing that goal?  Where would you get your seed money?  How would you manage premiums and outlays? For once it sounds as if you may have a plan instead of just ranting. Tell us more.


Well *I* wouldn't - I'm not the one whining. But Joseph there could get his "seed money" the way all businessss do. He could take out a loan from a bank, he could solicit investments from venture capitalists, he could save his own money to start it, etc.

Additionally, all of the little socialists whining could create a massive co-op and put all of their money together for a voluntary "single payer system" (exactly like the Amish do). Funny how all of them whine about socialism but none of them put _their_ money with their mouths are.

There are endless free market solutions. But Joey isn't interested in solutions. He's interested in figuring out ways to make society pay his way through life for him.


----------



## Sun Devil 92

JoeB131 said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is so funny.
> 
> It's like having a car with no engine.
> 
> Here is your insurance.....now, let me explain how expensive it will be to utilize it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meh... my insurance is cheaper now and covers more... so much for that theory.
> 
> But simple enough solution. Public Option for the working poor.
Click to expand...


Your situation is everyone's....??

Really ?  

Now that's funny.


----------



## P@triot

Sun Devil 92 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Meh... my insurance is cheaper now and covers more... so much for that theory.But simple enough solution. Public Option for the working poor.
> 
> 
> 
> Your situation is everyone's....?? Really ? Now that's funny.
Click to expand...

The sad thing is he really does want his situation to be _everyone's_. He's one of those "misery loves company". He can't stand that other people have something he doesn't or lives a life he wants.


----------



## Arianrhod

P@triot said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> So how would you go back to reestablishing that goal?  Where would you get your seed money?  How would you manage premiums and outlays? For once it sounds as if you may have a plan instead of just ranting. Tell us more.
> 
> 
> 
> Well *I* wouldn't - I'm not the one whining. But Joseph there could get his "seed money" the way all businessss do. He could take out a loan from a bank, he could solicit investments from venture capitalists, he could save his own money to start it, etc.
> 
> Additionally, all of the little socialists whining could create a massive co-op and put all of their money together for a voluntary "single payer system" (exactly like the Amish do). Funny how all of them whine about socialism but none of them put _their_ money with their mouths are.
> 
> There are endless free market solutions. But Joey isn't interested in solutions. He's interested in figuring out ways to make society pay his way through life for him.
Click to expand...


If there truly were endless free market solutions, you'd be able to list and discuss them.  I notice you haven't.  Instead all you're doing is attacking another poster whose experience is not the free ride you've had so far.

Whether it's your employer or Mommy & Daddy paying for your health insurance, it's obvious you have no more idea about how insurance works than you do about the Soviet Union,

In case you're interested, I don't expect to convince you of anything.  You, like Sunny Boy, inadvertently serve the purpose of showing anyone who's uncertain of the intellectual level of the RWNJ that it's this: Make unsubstantiated statements, insult anyone who asks for backup, then slime around from one thread to the next saying "I've got this poster on Ignore; you should do the same."

It's an excellent measure of knowledge and intelligence.  Keep up the good work!


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> Nah...we've _owned_ your ass for over 100 years and we'll own your ass for the next 100 years. The American people aren't caving to you bat-shit crazy communists. Let me just show you who you are at your core and what you support (the answer to both is unethical corruption):



Guy, again, you haven't won an honest election since 1988.  There aren't enough angry old white guys to keep you afloat. 

America will be a European Style Social Democracy with socialized medicine and gun control.  Deal with it. 



P@triot said:


> Well *I* wouldn't - I'm not the one whining. But Joseph there could get his "seed money" the way all businessss do. He could take out a loan from a bank, he could solicit investments from venture capitalists, he could save his own money to start it, etc.



again, it's like saying a rape victim should take buy a strap on dildo and show us all how it's done right. 

Guy, I don't want to be a capitalist. I want to ABOLISH capitalists.  With extreme prejudice. Or at least keep them on a short enough leash where they can't hurt anyone. 



P@triot said:


> Additionally, all of the little socialists whining could create a massive co-op and put all of their money together for a voluntary "single payer system" (exactly like the Amish do). Funny how all of them whine about socialism but none of them put _their_ money with their mouths are.



Sure we are. We are voting to change the country.  Check back with us in three weeks, when your Orange Haired Nazi (who has been really running against capitalism, too) takes a classic thrubbing. 



P@triot said:


> The sad thing is he really does want his situation to be _everyone's_. He's one of those "misery loves company". He can't stand that other people have something he doesn't or lives a life he wants.



Naw, guy, I've got this thing called "compassion".  I know that there are people worse off than I am. Frankly, I consider myself blessed, in that I was born a white male in a racist society. I want a society that is more equitable. 

I don't think a society where 1% of the population has 43% of the wealth and children die of treatable diseases is a society that is just or moral. 

I'm sorry you don't understand this.


----------



## Sun Devil 92

JoeB131 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nah...we've _owned_ your ass for over 100 years and we'll own your ass for the next 100 years. The American people aren't caving to you bat-shit crazy communists. Let me just show you who you are at your core and what you support (the answer to both is unethical corruption):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, again, you haven't won an honest election since 1988.  There aren't enough angry old white guys to keep you afloat.
> 
> America will be a European Style Social Democracy with socialized medicine and gun control.  Deal with it.
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well *I* wouldn't - I'm not the one whining. But Joseph there could get his "seed money" the way all businessss do. He could take out a loan from a bank, he could solicit investments from venture capitalists, he could save his own money to start it, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> again, it's like saying a rape victim should take buy a strap on dildo and show us all how it's done right.
> 
> Guy, I don't want to be a capitalist. I want to ABOLISH capitalists.  With extreme prejudice. Or at least keep them on a short enough leash where they can't hurt anyone.
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Additionally, all of the little socialists whining could create a massive co-op and put all of their money together for a voluntary "single payer system" (exactly like the Amish do). Funny how all of them whine about socialism but none of them put _their_ money with their mouths are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure we are. We are voting to change the country.  Check back with us in three weeks, when your Orange Haired Nazi (who has been really running against capitalism, too) takes a classic thrubbing.
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> The sad thing is he really does want his situation to be _everyone's_. He's one of those "misery loves company". He can't stand that other people have something he doesn't or lives a life he wants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Naw, guy, I've got this thing called "compassion".  I know that there are people worse off than I am. Frankly, I consider myself blessed, in that I was born a white male in a racist society. I want a society that is more equitable.
> 
> I don't think a society where 1% of the population has 43% of the wealth and children die of treatable diseases is a society that is just or moral.
> 
> I'm sorry you don't understand this.
Click to expand...


There is this foolishness about changing the country again.

Federal elections don't change the country.  They put people in power who basically get rich off the system we have in D.C.

In spite of your fairy tales, Obama has done little to change this country and Hillary won't either (the house will likely see to that as it has the past six years....it would be no different with Trump).  

Single Payer will never happen and we should be grateful.  The same people who are getting rich now, will only get better off if we give them that kind of power.  You think that they won't be involved ?  You make me laugh.  They'll make sure any system lines their pockets.

Compassion isn't necessarily giving people what they want.  In fact, it is often more compassionate to let them struggle a little.  But your "compassion" won't help the issue of the 1%.  It will only make it worse.


----------



## P@triot

Arianrhod said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> So how would you go back to reestablishing that goal?  Where would you get your seed money?  How would you manage premiums and outlays? For once it sounds as if you may have a plan instead of just ranting. Tell us more.
> 
> 
> 
> Well *I* wouldn't - I'm not the one whining. But Joseph there could get his "seed money" the way all businessss do. He could take out a loan from a bank, he could solicit investments from venture capitalists, he could save his own money to start it, etc.
> 
> Additionally, all of the little socialists whining could create a massive co-op and put all of their money together for a voluntary "single payer system" (exactly like the Amish do). Funny how all of them whine about socialism but none of them put _their_ money with their mouths are.
> 
> There are endless free market solutions. But Joey isn't interested in solutions. He's interested in figuring out ways to make society pay his way through life for him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If there truly were endless free market solutions, you'd be able to list and discuss them.  I notice you haven't.  Instead all you're doing is attacking another poster whose experience is not the free ride you've had so far.
Click to expand...

Typical ignorant ideologue progressive. Asks for an answer, gets one, then denies it and runs the other way.

I just gave you solutions in a comprehensive answer and it left you with no where to go with your ideology so you simply turned to personal insults and then ran away like a little girl.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well *I* wouldn't - I'm not the one whining. But Joseph there could get his "seed money" the way all businessss do. He could take out a loan from a bank, he could solicit investments from venture capitalists, he could save his own money to start it, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, I don't want to be a capitalist. I want to ABOLISH capitalists.  With extreme prejudice. Or at least keep them on a short enough leash where they can't hurt anyone.
Click to expand...

In other words...that would require Joseph to actually work and what he's looking for is society to pay his way through life. Just like I said.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Additionally, all of the little socialists whining could create a massive co-op and put all of their money together for a voluntary "single payer system" (exactly like the Amish do). Funny how all of them whine about socialism but none of them put _their_ money with their mouths are.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure we are. We are voting to change the country.
Click to expand...

Boom! Just like I said. Not willing to put their money where their mouths are. Voting for handouts is *not* the same thing as stepping up and sharing what you have with others. You're not willing to be a part of the solution - you're just looking for handouts.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> Guy, I don't want to be a capitalist. I want to ABOLISH capitalists.  With extreme prejudice. Or at least keep them on a short enough leash where they can't hurt anyone.


Capitalism is choice. Government eliminates all options and creates a single point of failure. Joseph is looking to recreate the old Soviet Union where everything is rusted, there is no food on the shelves, and and _everyone_ is "equal" in their poverty and misery. Here's yet another in the endless examples of government ineptitude:

"And he should be correct. In a normal free market, the vast demand for transportation to and from the game would leave private providers drooling to take advantage of the thousands of fare-paying fans seeking late night service. Indeed, many private services did ramp up their efforts to give Nats fans a way to get home.

Not so for Metro, whose officials are too busy protecting negligent employees, demanding more money from taxpayers, and playing catch-up for years of neglected maintenance to even consider providing an additional service that consumers would want.

And why would they consider providing additional service? Even though Metro has acknowledged its plummeting ridership (the lowest since 2009) is a direct result of its tanking service quality, it knows that *taxpayers will always be there to pick up the tab*."

This hits on all of the key points of government and communism. Instead of being catered to (as they are in the private sector) the customer is completely ignored and neglected since the government knows there is no competition and thus no other options. They also know they can't go out of business due to unlimited access to tax payer dollars so there is no incentive to provide quality. This all basic stuff that history has proven about socialism and even Joey knows it but he doesn't care. He's selfish as hell and is willing to sacrifice the entire nation and all future generations just so he doesn't have to provide for himself.

Once Again, DC Metro Proves It Doesn’t Deserve More Funding


----------



## P@triot

Arianrhod said:


> In case you're interested, I don't expect to convince you of anything.


Let's be honest sweetie...nobody here is "interested" in anything you have to say. We are 388 pages into this thread and you've yet to add a single link to support your ignorant and immature idealism (ironically enough while crying about links from others).

When presented with information you requested (such as free market options) you ignore the facts and run like hell. I'm betting you're about 19 (maybe younger) and have yet to spend a day in the real world. You're all ideology, no reality. And you have 0 knowledge of history.


----------



## Arianrhod

P@triot said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> In case you're interested, I don't expect to convince you of anything.
> 
> 
> 
> Let's be honest sweetie...nobody here is "interested" in anything you have to say.
Click to expand...


Just the nobody who presumes to call me "sweetie," because he can't seem to stop replying to my posts.



P@triot said:


> We are 388 pages into this thread and you've yet to add a single link to support your ignorant and immature idealism (ironically enough while crying about links from others).
> 
> When presented with information you requested...



When you stop temporizing and actually present the information - not something you made up, but something you derived from an outside source, such as books, websites, personal experience - anything real, I'll be happy to discuss it with you.

Until then, keep temporizing.  You're showing the entire board the vacuity of your "arguments."  Anyone who's undecided will be helped in their decision-making, though not in the way you'd prefer.

Keep going.


----------



## JoeB131

Sun Devil 92 said:


> Single Payer will never happen and we should be grateful. The same people who are getting rich now, will only get better off if we give them that kind of power. You think that they won't be involved ? You make me laugh. They'll make sure any system lines their pockets.



What are you fucking stupid?  Ed Hanaway, the Scumwad CEO of Cigna who killed Nataline Sarkisyan, was paid nearly $100,000,000 in pension and stock options when he retired.  The idea is to get away from that greed, and Single Payer would do it. 

Again, the rest of the world has figured this out.  America is the retard writing down "2+2=Cat" and wondering why the rest of the class is laughing at us.


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> Capitalism is choice. Government eliminates all options and creates a single point of failure. Joseph is looking to recreate the old Soviet Union where everything is rusted, there is no food on the shelves, and and _everyone_ is "equal" in their poverty and misery. Here's yet another in the endless examples of government ineptitude:



Yawn, guy.  Russia is just as much a shit-show under "Capitalist" Putin and it was just as much of a shit show under the Tsar before they shot his inbred ass.  

What I want is for America to be like France or Germany or any civilized country where they don't worship greed.


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> Boom! Just like I said. Not willing to put their money where their mouths are. Voting for handouts is *not* the same thing as stepping up and sharing what you have with others. You're not willing to be a part of the solution - you're just looking for handouts.



Guy, I probably make more money than you do.. and my earning this year will put me in the Fourth Quintile of wage earners (Somewhere between 63K- 117K a year.)  Most years, I was in the middle quintile.  

And what my experience of "How bad can Cigna Screw me" taught me that these things are meaningless.  One good illness can wipe you out completely. 

The system you advocate doesn't work.  Not when 62% of bankruptcies are linked to medical crisis and 75% of those people had health insurance when the crisis started.  

The real question here is should healthcare be a public service like fire or police protection, or should it be a consumer good like Doritos.  The rest of the world already had this conversation, and decided on the former.  They pay less and get better results. 

A few assholes benefit from the status quo, which is why we don't get change. We put a few things in like Medicare or Medicaid to keep the plebs from demanding the change, and we subsidize the shit out of private insurance. (Trust me, if you got rid of employer group plans and made everyone negotiate with big insurance, the system would collapse in a year.)


----------



## Sun Devil 92

JoeB131 said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Single Payer will never happen and we should be grateful. The same people who are getting rich now, will only get better off if we give them that kind of power. You think that they won't be involved ? You make me laugh. They'll make sure any system lines their pockets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are you fucking stupid?  Ed Hanaway, the Scumwad CEO of Cigna who killed Nataline Sarkisyan, was paid nearly $100,000,000 in pension and stock options when he retired.  The idea is to get away from that greed, and Single Payer would do it.
> 
> Again, the rest of the world has figured this out.  America is the retard writing down "2+2=Cat" and wondering why the rest of the class is laughing at us.
Click to expand...


And how does your post, at all, address what I wrote ?

Guys like Hanaway are going to keep getting theirs. 

Don't believe me, look at Al Raines or Jammie Gorlick.

You are the moron.  

But given your open disdain for the current system, why don't you pack up and move somewhere that they'd like to have your sorry ass.


----------



## Sun Devil 92

JoeB131 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Boom! Just like I said. Not willing to put their money where their mouths are. Voting for handouts is *not* the same thing as stepping up and sharing what you have with others. You're not willing to be a part of the solution - you're just looking for handouts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, I probably make more money than you do.. and my earning this year will put me in the Fourth Quintile of wage earners (Somewhere between 63K- 117K a year.)  Most years, I was in the middle quintile.
> 
> And what my experience of "How bad can Cigna Screw me" taught me that these things are meaningless.  One good illness can wipe you out completely.
> 
> The system you advocate doesn't work.  Not when 62% of bankruptcies are linked to medical crisis and 75% of those people had health insurance when the crisis started.
> 
> The real question here is should healthcare be a public service like fire or police protection, or should it be a consumer good like Doritos.  The rest of the world already had this conversation, and decided on the former.  They pay less and get better results.
> 
> A few assholes benefit from the status quo, which is why we don't get change. We put a few things in like Medicare or Medicaid to keep the plebs from demanding the change, and we subsidize the shit out of private insurance. (Trust me, if you got rid of employer group plans and made everyone negotiate with big insurance, the system would collapse in a year.)
Click to expand...


None of this is germane to the point.


----------



## P@triot

Arianrhod said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> In case you're interested, I don't expect to convince you of anything.
> 
> 
> 
> Let's be honest sweetie...nobody here is "interested" in anything you have to say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just the nobody who presumes to call me "sweetie," because he can't seem to stop replying to my posts.
Click to expand...

Well I like to set the record straight when progressives *lie*. That's all. Start telling the truth and there will be no need for me to respond. Like this example right here. You're lying about why I'm responding.


----------



## P@triot

Arianrhod said:


> When you stop temporizing and actually present the information - not something you made up, but something you derived from an outside source, such as books, websites, personal experience - anything real, I'll be happy to discuss it with you.


Your post right here is post #3877. Just two posts above - in post #3875 - I added an "outside source" in the form of a link. Do you think I run that site sweetie? I don't. You just got caught in yet another lie.


Arianrhod said:


> Until then, keep temporizing.  You're showing the entire board the vacuity of your "arguments."  Anyone who's undecided will be helped in their decision-making, though not in the way you'd prefer.


If that were even remotely true - it wouldn't bother you progressives so much. You people lose your flip'n minds and get all jacked up over my posts because they are 100% indisputable fact backed up by a host of supporting data.


Arianrhod said:


> Keep going.


Oh I intend to sweetie. I'm not a lazy progressive like JoeB. I fight like hell for my country. I won't allow it to be taken by lazy and incompetent socialists. Not on my watch.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> *What I want is for America to be like France*...


I rest my case folks...

*France’s unemployment rate has soared to an 18-year high of 10.6%*, *against a European Union average of 9.8%* and 5.4% in Britain. Facing re-election next year an increasingly desperate President Hollande proposes to pay French employers to hire young unemployed people as a means to *restore confidence in his country’s “broken” economic model*, one which is marred by low output and stagnant growth.

*France’s state of economic emergency was declared at the same time as Germany faces its most difficult start to a year in recent memory*, reports _The Express_. With consumer confidence plummeting, *industrial production growth in the EU’s biggest economy has slipped to zero per cent*.

France Declares State of Economic Emergency

See folks....dillhole here isn't the least bit interested in prosperity. The only thing he is interested in is having society pay his way through life and dragging everyone down to his miserable level so that his sick and twisted mind feels "equal" to everyone else - even if that means everyone is equal in poverty and misery. He said himself that he wants France and Germany (and generally says Europe) - all of which are on the verge of collapse. Greece has completed collapsed already and the EU average unemployment is 9.8%. That's what dillhole Joey wants to bring to the U.S. Thanks but no thanks "guy". You can take your European model and shove it up your bi-sexual ass. Or you can put your money where you miserable mouth is for just once in your life and get the hell out of the country you claim to hate so much.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> What I want is for America to be like France or Germany...


The headline says it all folks. Dillhole Joey here wants to bring poverty and misery to the U.S. so he doesn't have to hold a job and so that his fragile 'lil psyche isn't so damaged by the rest of us excelling in life while he fails. He wants to mirror one country in a "state of economic emergency" and another country facing "financial ruin". Gee Joey....sounds great! Yeah...no. No thanks "guy". You love thinks up your bi-sexaul ass. Take your socialism and stick it there.

*EU on brink: France declares 'state of economic emergency' as Germany faces financial ruin*
PUBLISHED: 05:07, Wed, Jan 20, 2016 | UPDATED: 17:56, Wed, Jan 20, 2016

EU on brink: France declares 'state of economic emergency' as Germany faces financial ruin


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Boom! Just like I said. Not willing to put their money where their mouths are. Voting for handouts is *not* the same thing as stepping up and sharing what you have with others. You're not willing to be a part of the solution - you're just looking for handouts.
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, I probably make more money than you do...
Click to expand...

So what is the problem then? Stop voting to destroy the U.S. and create your only little socialist "utopia". Start a co-op where all the little socialists like yourselves put into the pot and nobody gets denied. Let me know how it goes. And you can't cry "capitalism" on a co-op because none of you are making money off of it. It's just there for your little socialist desires.


----------



## Arianrhod

P@triot said:


> So what is the problem then? Stop voting to destroy the U.S. and create your only little socialist "utopia". Start a co-op where all the little socialists like yourselves put into the pot and nobody gets denied. Let me know how it goes. And you can't cry "capitalism" on a co-op because none of you are making money off of it. It's just there for your little socialist desires.



Kindly explain why you feel it's "socialist" for a patient with cancer or any of several chronic degenerative conditions to receive treatment.


----------



## P@triot

Arianrhod said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what is the problem then? Stop voting to destroy the U.S. and create your only little socialist "utopia". Start a co-op where all the little socialists like yourselves put into the pot and nobody gets denied. Let me know how it goes. And you can't cry "capitalism" on a co-op because none of you are making money off of it. It's just there for your little socialist desires.
> 
> 
> 
> Kindly explain why you feel it's "socialist" for a patient with cancer or any of several chronic degenerative conditions to receive treatment.
Click to expand...

That's like saying "tell us why you beat your wife". I don't beat my wife. And I've *never* said a _word_ about a patient receiving treatment. Treatment isn't the issue. It's the mechanism of payment that is the issue. If you want to ask me about _that_ in an honest way, I'm ready to talk. Otherwise, let me know when you're ready to grow up and have an adult discussion.


----------



## Arianrhod

P@triot said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what is the problem then? Stop voting to destroy the U.S. and create your only little socialist "utopia". Start a co-op where all the little socialists like yourselves put into the pot and nobody gets denied. Let me know how it goes. And you can't cry "capitalism" on a co-op because none of you are making money off of it. It's just there for your little socialist desires.
> 
> 
> 
> Kindly explain why you feel it's "socialist" for a patient with cancer or any of several chronic degenerative conditions to receive treatment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's like saying "tell us why you beat your wife". I don't beat my wife. And I've *never* said a _word_ about a patient receiving treatment. Treatment isn't the issue. It's the mechanism of payment that is the issue. If you want to ask me about _that_ in an honest way, I'm ready to talk. Otherwise, let me know when you're ready to grow up and have an adult discussion.
Click to expand...



So you do believe it's "socialist" for someone with a terrible disease to want treatment for it.  Now I know how seriously to take you going forward.


----------



## P@triot

Arianrhod said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what is the problem then? Stop voting to destroy the U.S. and create your only little socialist "utopia". Start a co-op where all the little socialists like yourselves put into the pot and nobody gets denied. Let me know how it goes. And you can't cry "capitalism" on a co-op because none of you are making money off of it. It's just there for your little socialist desires.
> 
> 
> 
> Kindly explain why you feel it's "socialist" for a patient with cancer or any of several chronic degenerative conditions to receive treatment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's like saying "tell us why you beat your wife". I don't beat my wife. And I've *never* said a _word_ about a patient receiving treatment. Treatment isn't the issue. It's the mechanism of payment that is the issue. If you want to ask me about _that_ in an honest way, I'm ready to talk. Otherwise, let me know when you're ready to grow up and have an adult discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you do believe it's "socialist" for someone with a terrible disease to want treatment for it.  Now I know how seriously to take you going forward.
Click to expand...

That's like saying "tell us why you beat your wife". I don't beat my wife. And I've *never* said a _word_ about a patient receiving treatment. Treatment isn't the issue. It's the mechanism of payment that is the issue. If you want to ask me about _that_ in an honest way, I'm ready to talk. Otherwise, let me know when you're ready to grow up and have an adult discussion.


----------



## Arianrhod

P@triot said:


> Ask a way *[sic.]!*



What do you believe is the purpose of hospitals, clinics, and medical personnel, i.e., health care?


----------



## P@triot

Arianrhod said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ask a way *[sic.]!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you believe is the purpose of hospitals, clinics, and medical personnel, i.e., health care?
Click to expand...

Too broad. That varies drastically from institution to institution. You need to be much more specific than that. That question illustrates you lack of knowledge on the subject matter (and your immaturity). For instance:

St. Jude's *hospital* provides healthcare to children at no cost to the families. They operate on fundraising.

The Cleveland Clinic *hospital* on the other hand charges a lot of money but uses those profits to conduct some of the most advanced research in the world to advance the healthcare industry and save lives.

Both hospitals but each with a vastly different focus and goal. It is clear in your mind the answer was "to help people" or "to cure people". You have the simplistic (not to mention inaccurate) views of a small child. Would you like to continue? I'm willing but it seems as though this will be a _painful_ exercise due to your lack of knowledge about the topic.


----------



## Arianrhod

P@triot said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ask a way *[sic.]!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you believe is the purpose of hospitals, clinics, and medical personnel, i.e., health care?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Too broad. That varies drastically from institution to institution. You need to be much more specific than that. That question illustrates you lack of knowledge on the subject matter (and your immaturity). For instance:
> 
> St. Jude's *hospital* provides healthcare to children at no cost to the families. They operate on fundraising.
> 
> The Cleveland Clinic *hospital* on the other hand charges a lot of money but uses those profits to conduct some of the most advanced research in the world to advance the healthcare industry and save lives.
> 
> Both hospitals but each with a vastly different focus and goal. It is clear in your mind the answer was "to help people" or "to cure people". You have the simplistic (not to mention inaccurate) views of a small child. Would you like to continue? I'm willing but it seems as though this will be a _painful_ exercise due to your lack of knowledge about the topic.
Click to expand...


So you wouldn't agree that the fundamental purpose is to treat people who are sick or injured?


----------



## JoeB131

Sun Devil 92 said:


> And how does your post, at all, address what I wrote ?
> 
> Guys like Hanaway are going to keep getting theirs.



NO, they won't. But keep kicking and screaming at the thought a poor person will get to see the same doctor you will. 



P@triot said:


> So what is the problem then? Stop voting to destroy the U.S. and create your only little socialist "utopia". Start a co-op where all the little socialists like yourselves put into the pot and nobody gets denied. Let me know how it goes. And you can't cry "capitalism" on a co-op because none of you are making money off of it. It's just there for your little socialist desires.



Guy, the only people who 'destroyed' this country was  you shitheads undoing what FDR and his sucessors did to make us GREAT.  We are going to create a utopia, called "America". All we have to do is crush you stupids.  



P@triot said:


> The headline says it all folks. Dillhole Joey here wants to bring poverty and misery to the U.S. so he doesn't have to hold a job and so that his fragile 'lil psyche isn't so damaged by the rest of us excelling in life while he fails.



Guy, France and Germany are paradises compared to the US.  



P@triot said:


> I rest my case folks...



Guy, seriously, you are citing breibart?


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> That's like saying "tell us why you beat your wife". I don't beat my wife. And I've *never* said a _word_ about a patient receiving treatment. Treatment isn't the issue. It's the mechanism of payment that is the issue. If you want to ask me about _that_ in an honest way, I'm ready to talk. Otherwise, let me know when you're ready to grow up and have an adult discussion.



Shortpants, adults don't stomp their little feet like Ayn Rand and scream socialism when someone suggests the government can run health care better than Cigna.


----------



## P@triot

Arianrhod said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ask a way *[sic.]!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you believe is the purpose of hospitals, clinics, and medical personnel, i.e., health care?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Too broad. That varies drastically from institution to institution. You need to be much more specific than that. That question illustrates you lack of knowledge on the subject matter (and your immaturity). For instance:
> 
> St. Jude's *hospital* provides healthcare to children at no cost to the families. They operate on fundraising.
> 
> The Cleveland Clinic *hospital* on the other hand charges a lot of money but uses those profits to conduct some of the most advanced research in the world to advance the healthcare industry and save lives.
> 
> Both hospitals but each with a vastly different focus and goal. It is clear in your mind the answer was "to help people" or "to cure people". You have the simplistic (not to mention inaccurate) views of a small child. Would you like to continue? I'm willing but it seems as though this will be a _painful_ exercise due to your lack of knowledge about the topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you wouldn't agree that the fundamental purpose is to treat people who are sick or injured?
Click to expand...

The "fundamental purpose" varies from institution to institution. Some are "teaching" hospitals with the "fundamental purpose" of training tomorrow's healthcare providers. Others are "research" hospitals with a "fundamental purpose" of breakthroughs on cures and treatments. Still others are focused on strictly providing care.

Now let me ask you something - what do you believe is the purpose of a car dealership?


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> Guy, France and Germany are paradises compared to the US.


And _stupid_ here doubles-down on his insanely ignorant comment... 

If they are a "paradise" - how come you don't move there? _Boom_!


----------



## Arianrhod

P@triot said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ask a way *[sic.]!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you believe is the purpose of hospitals, clinics, and medical personnel, i.e., health care?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Too broad. That varies drastically from institution to institution. You need to be much more specific than that. That question illustrates you lack of knowledge on the subject matter (and your immaturity). For instance:
> 
> St. Jude's *hospital* provides healthcare to children at no cost to the families. They operate on fundraising.
> 
> The Cleveland Clinic *hospital* on the other hand charges a lot of money but uses those profits to conduct some of the most advanced research in the world to advance the healthcare industry and save lives.
> 
> Both hospitals but each with a vastly different focus and goal. It is clear in your mind the answer was "to help people" or "to cure people". You have the simplistic (not to mention inaccurate) views of a small child. Would you like to continue? I'm willing but it seems as though this will be a _painful_ exercise due to your lack of knowledge about the topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you wouldn't agree that the fundamental purpose is to treat people who are sick or injured?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The "fundamental purpose" varies from institution to institution. Some are "teaching" hospitals with the "fundamental purpose" of training tomorrow's healthcare providers. Others are "research" hospitals with a "fundamental purpose" of breakthroughs on cures and treatments. Still others are focused on strictly providing care.
> 
> Now let me ask you something - what do you believe is the purpose of a car dealership?
Click to expand...


So you're unaware that teaching hospitals treat patients?  My, my.


----------



## Arianrhod

JoeB131 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's like saying "tell us why you beat your wife". I don't beat my wife. And I've *never* said a _word_ about a patient receiving treatment. Treatment isn't the issue. It's the mechanism of payment that is the issue. If you want to ask me about _that_ in an honest way, I'm ready to talk. Otherwise, let me know when you're ready to grow up and have an adult discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shortpants, adults don't stomp their little feet like Ayn Rand and scream socialism when someone suggests the government can run health care better than Cigna.
Click to expand...


You have to wonder how many Randians are aware that she sponged off her friends and lovers all her life, then glommed onto Medicare when her nicotine addiction got the best of her...


----------



## P@triot

Arianrhod said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ask a way *[sic.]!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you believe is the purpose of hospitals, clinics, and medical personnel, i.e., health care?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Too broad. That varies drastically from institution to institution. You need to be much more specific than that. That question illustrates you lack of knowledge on the subject matter (and your immaturity). For instance:
> 
> St. Jude's *hospital* provides healthcare to children at no cost to the families. They operate on fundraising.
> 
> The Cleveland Clinic *hospital* on the other hand charges a lot of money but uses those profits to conduct some of the most advanced research in the world to advance the healthcare industry and save lives.
> 
> Both hospitals but each with a vastly different focus and goal. It is clear in your mind the answer was "to help people" or "to cure people". You have the simplistic (not to mention inaccurate) views of a small child. Would you like to continue? I'm willing but it seems as though this will be a _painful_ exercise due to your lack of knowledge about the topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you wouldn't agree that the fundamental purpose is to treat people who are sick or injured?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The "fundamental purpose" varies from institution to institution. Some are "teaching" hospitals with the "fundamental purpose" of training tomorrow's healthcare providers. Others are "research" hospitals with a "fundamental purpose" of breakthroughs on cures and treatments. Still others are focused on strictly providing care.
> 
> Now let me ask you something - what do you believe is the purpose of a car dealership?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you're unaware that teaching hospitals treat patients?  My, my.
Click to expand...

Not at all. And never said that. Why do you have to build a strawman in _every_ post? And why didn't you answer the question? It's baffling how you're so afraid of a discussion. I can only conclude that you realize you are incapable of supporting and defending your position.


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> And _stupid_ here doubles-down on his insanely ignorant comment...
> 
> If they are a "paradise" - how come you don't move there? _Boom_!



Because we can fix this country, dummy.  We can't fix you, someone fucked up a long time ago.  

But we can fix the country.


----------



## JoeB131

Arianrhod said:


> You have to wonder how many Randians are aware that she sponged off her friends and lovers all her life, then glommed onto Medicare when her nicotine addiction got the best of her...



oh, they are aware of it.  And they even rationalize it.


----------



## P@triot

Arianrhod said:


> You have to wonder how many Randians are aware that she sponged off her friends and lovers all her life, then glommed onto Medicare when her nicotine addiction got the best of her...


You mean the Medicare (and other unconstitutional federal government entitlements) that took over her half of her money?!? Gee...I wonder why she took Medicare!

Like I've always said - the fact that you progressives make it mandatory says it all (ahem....*fascism*!). Give people the option to opt out sweetie and you wouldn't see people like Ayn Rand on the system.

I just obliterated yet another progressive false narrative. You must be running out of them


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> You mean the Medicare (and other unconstitutional federal government entitlements) that took over her half of her money?!? Gee...I wonder why she took Medicare!



Uh. No. Even today, Medicare only takes 2%.  Ayn Rand died in 1982. Medicare wasn't started until 1966 and she started using it in 1976.  So she paying into it for less than 10 years.  So she paid 2% into it for 10 years and collected it for 6.  Sweet.  



P@triot said:


> Like I've always said - the fact that you progressives make it mandatory says it all (ahem....*fascism*!). Give people the option to opt out sweetie and you wouldn't see people like Ayn Rand on the system.



NO, because they'd all die after they could no longer work.  Here's the thing. Before Medicare, life expectency in the US was only 65.  People didn't live that long. Now the average life expectancy is 78 years.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> And _stupid_ here doubles-down on his insanely ignorant comment...
> 
> If they are a "paradise" - how come you don't move there? _Boom_!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because we can fix this country, dummy.  We can't fix you, someone fucked up a long time ago. But we can fix the country.
Click to expand...

But....but....but...those nations are a "*paradise*". Even if you can "fix" the U.S. there is a *huge* difference between "fixed" and "paradise".


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> But....but....but...those nations are a "*paradise*". Even if you can "fix" the U.S. there is a *huge* difference between "fixed" and "paradise".



I'd be happy to return the country to a time before Nixon and Reagan fucked it up. You see, unlike you I'm old enough to remember what a middle class looks like. It was kind of awesome.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean the Medicare (and other unconstitutional federal government entitlements) that took over her half of her money?!? Gee...I wonder why she took Medicare!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh. No. Even today, Medicare only takes 2%.  Ayn Rand died in 1982. Medicare wasn't started until 1966 and she started using it in 1976.  So she paying into it for less than 10 years.  So she paid 2% into it for 10 years and collected it for 6.  Sweet.
Click to expand...

Nice *false* *narrative* as usual. The federal government placed a gun to her head and stole money for Medicaid, for Social Security, for unemployment, and in the form of income tax, sales tax, property tax, gas tax, and more. In addition, she doesn't stop paying Medicare the day she goes in it. She paid that until 1982. So she paid that for 16 years *liar*. Not 10 years. They stole more than 50% of her income.

Why don't progressives allow the American people the *choice* to opt out? Why do you fascist fear choice so much?


----------



## Arianrhod

P@triot said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you believe is the purpose of hospitals, clinics, and medical personnel, i.e., health care?
> 
> 
> 
> Too broad. That varies drastically from institution to institution. You need to be much more specific than that. That question illustrates you lack of knowledge on the subject matter (and your immaturity). For instance:
> 
> St. Jude's *hospital* provides healthcare to children at no cost to the families. They operate on fundraising.
> 
> The Cleveland Clinic *hospital* on the other hand charges a lot of money but uses those profits to conduct some of the most advanced research in the world to advance the healthcare industry and save lives.
> 
> Both hospitals but each with a vastly different focus and goal. It is clear in your mind the answer was "to help people" or "to cure people". You have the simplistic (not to mention inaccurate) views of a small child. Would you like to continue? I'm willing but it seems as though this will be a _painful_ exercise due to your lack of knowledge about the topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you wouldn't agree that the fundamental purpose is to treat people who are sick or injured?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The "fundamental purpose" varies from institution to institution. Some are "teaching" hospitals with the "fundamental purpose" of training tomorrow's healthcare providers. Others are "research" hospitals with a "fundamental purpose" of breakthroughs on cures and treatments. Still others are focused on strictly providing care.
> 
> Now let me ask you something - what do you believe is the purpose of a car dealership?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you're unaware that teaching hospitals treat patients?  My, my.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not at all.
Click to expand...


So you'd agree that the fundamental purpose is to treat people who are sick or injured?  Anything else - teaching, research, etc. - is secondary to that primary goal.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> But....but....but...those nations are a "*paradise*". Even if you can "fix" the U.S. there is a *huge* difference between "fixed" and "paradise".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd be happy to return the country to a time before Nixon and Reagan fucked it up. You see, unlike you I'm old enough to remember what a middle class looks like. It was kind of awesome.
Click to expand...

Funny....you proclaim that we have drastically become more progressive/socialist over the years and that you will "win". Then you admit that we don't have a middle class anymore.

Thank you for proving for me the failures of progressivism.


----------



## P@triot

Arianrhod said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Too broad. That varies drastically from institution to institution. You need to be much more specific than that. That question illustrates you lack of knowledge on the subject matter (and your immaturity). For instance:
> 
> St. Jude's *hospital* provides healthcare to children at no cost to the families. They operate on fundraising.
> 
> The Cleveland Clinic *hospital* on the other hand charges a lot of money but uses those profits to conduct some of the most advanced research in the world to advance the healthcare industry and save lives.
> 
> Both hospitals but each with a vastly different focus and goal. It is clear in your mind the answer was "to help people" or "to cure people". You have the simplistic (not to mention inaccurate) views of a small child. Would you like to continue? I'm willing but it seems as though this will be a _painful_ exercise due to your lack of knowledge about the topic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you wouldn't agree that the fundamental purpose is to treat people who are sick or injured?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The "fundamental purpose" varies from institution to institution. Some are "teaching" hospitals with the "fundamental purpose" of training tomorrow's healthcare providers. Others are "research" hospitals with a "fundamental purpose" of breakthroughs on cures and treatments. Still others are focused on strictly providing care.
> 
> Now let me ask you something - what do you believe is the purpose of a car dealership?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you're unaware that teaching hospitals treat patients?  My, my.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you'd agree that the fundamental purpose is to treat people who are sick or injured?  Anything else - teaching, research, etc. - is secondary to that primary goal.
Click to expand...

Again...you continue with your straw man. It's a sign of a person on the wrong side of the facts.


----------



## Arianrhod

P@triot said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have to wonder how many Randians are aware that she sponged off her friends and lovers all her life, then glommed onto Medicare when her nicotine addiction got the best of her...
> 
> 
> 
> You mean the Medicare (and other unconstitutional federal government entitlements) that took over her half of her money?!?
Click to expand...


Proof?


----------



## Arianrhod

P@triot said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you wouldn't agree that the fundamental purpose is to treat people who are sick or injured?
> 
> 
> 
> The "fundamental purpose" varies from institution to institution. Some are "teaching" hospitals with the "fundamental purpose" of training tomorrow's healthcare providers. Others are "research" hospitals with a "fundamental purpose" of breakthroughs on cures and treatments. Still others are focused on strictly providing care.
> 
> Now let me ask you something - what do you believe is the purpose of a car dealership?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you're unaware that teaching hospitals treat patients?  My, my.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you'd agree that the fundamental purpose is to treat people who are sick or injured?  Anything else - teaching, research, etc. - is secondary to that primary goal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again...you continue with your straw man. It's a sign of a person on the wrong side of the facts.
Click to expand...


So now you don't agree that the primary purpose of hospitals, clinics, and medical personnel is to treat patients.  Let me know when you make up your mind.


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> Nice *false* *narrative* as usual. The federal government placed a gun to her head and stole money for Medicaid, for Social Security, for unemployment, and in the form of income tax, sales tax, property tax, gas tax, and more. In addition, she doesn't stop paying Medicare the day she goes in it. She paid that until 1982. So she paid that for 16 years *liar*. Not 10 years. They stole more than 50% of her income.
> 
> Why don't progressives allow the American people the *choice* to opt out? Why do you fascist fear choice so much?



Because if you give them the option to "opt out", they'll just insist on it anyway. 

But to the point, no one "put a gun to her head". 

Taxes are fair payment for services rendered. Just like when you pay a vendor for something, really. 

WHen you clowns move to Randian Paradise, Somalia, I'll take you all seriously. 

Otherwise, you are just a guy who wants to live in a civilized society, but don't want to pay for it.


----------



## JoeB131

Arianrhod said:


> So now you don't agree that the primary purpose of hospitals, clinics, and medical personnel is to treat patients. Let me know when you make up your mind.



No, the primary purpose of them is to make money for the all wise 'job creators". Don't you know nothing? 

You see, Short Pants goes to bed at night worried the rich have enough Dressage Horses.


----------



## P@triot

Arianrhod said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> The "fundamental purpose" varies from institution to institution. Some are "teaching" hospitals with the "fundamental purpose" of training tomorrow's healthcare providers. Others are "research" hospitals with a "fundamental purpose" of breakthroughs on cures and treatments. Still others are focused on strictly providing care.
> 
> Now let me ask you something - what do you believe is the purpose of a car dealership?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you're unaware that teaching hospitals treat patients?  My, my.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you'd agree that the fundamental purpose is to treat people who are sick or injured?  Anything else - teaching, research, etc. - is secondary to that primary goal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again...you continue with your straw man. It's a sign of a person on the wrong side of the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So now you don't agree that the primary purpose of hospitals, clinics, and medical personnel is to treat patients.  Let me know when you make up your mind.
Click to expand...

That's now 5 straw men in a row. That might be a record!


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> So now you don't agree that the primary purpose of hospitals, clinics, and medical personnel is to treat patients. Let me know when you make up your mind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, the primary purpose of them is to make money for the all wise 'job creators". Don't you know nothing? You see, Short Pants goes to bed at night worried the rich have enough Dressage Horses.
Click to expand...

Because Joey is ignorant of basic economics and business, he doesn't understand that a poor person has *never* created a single job in the history of the planet. It is the wealthy that create jobs, produce goods, provide services, etc. Basic economics. I bet your wishing you hadn't dropped out of high school now, uh?


----------



## P@triot

Arianrhod said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean the Medicare (and other unconstitutional federal government entitlements) that took over her half of her money?!?
> 
> 
> 
> Proof?
Click to expand...

Is your Google broke sweetie?


----------



## P@triot

Arianrhod said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean the Medicare (and other unconstitutional federal government entitlements) that took over her half of her money?!?
> 
> 
> 
> Proof?
Click to expand...

You mean you _need_ proof of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Unemployment, Obamacare, etc.?!?


----------



## P@triot

Arianrhod said:


> What do you believe is the purpose of hospitals, clinics, and medical personnel, i.e., health care?


For the third time now sweetie - what do _you_ believe is the purpose of automobile dealership?


----------



## dblack

JoeB131 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't progressives allow the American people the *choice* to opt out? Why do you fascist fear choice so much?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because if you give them the option to "opt out", they'll just insist on it anyway.
Click to expand...

Just to clarify, government doesn't give options. It take them away.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> Yawn, guy.  Russia is just as much a shit-show under "Capitalist" Putin and it was just as much of a shit show under the Tsar before they shot his inbred ass.
> 
> What I want is for America to be like France or Germany or any civilized country where they don't worship greed.


It's tragically hilarious to watch ignorant people like Joseph cry about corporations while fellating the federal government (which is exponentially more corrupt, more unethical, and more poorly run than any corporation in U.S. _history_).

No corporation has ever been this inept and run up these kinds of debt...

The federal government spent $3.9 trillion in fiscal 2016, which ended Sept. 30, or $168 billion more than in fiscal 2015. The federal government ran a deficit of $588 billion, an increase of $149 billion. That’s a one-third increase in the deficit since last year.

Government Just Spent $168 Billion More Than Year Before


----------



## Sun Devil 92

P@triot said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, France and Germany are paradises compared to the US.
> 
> 
> 
> And _stupid_ here doubles-down on his insanely ignorant comment...
> 
> If they are a "paradise" - how come you don't move there? _Boom_!
Click to expand...


Yep....get the hell out.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice *false* *narrative* as usual. The federal government placed a gun to her head and stole money for Medicaid, for Social Security, for unemployment, and in the form of income tax, sales tax, property tax, gas tax, and more. In addition, she doesn't stop paying Medicare the day she goes in it. She paid that until 1982. So she paid that for 16 years *liar*. Not 10 years. They stole more than 50% of her income.
> 
> Why don't progressives allow the American people the *choice* to opt out? Why do you fascist fear choice so much?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because if you give them the option to "opt out", they'll just insist on it anyway.
Click to expand...

Bwahahahahaha! How can they "insist" on anything? If they opt out, they have no legal grounds, they receive nothing, and they are in no position of power to "insist" on anything.

In other words - you can't support your bat-shit crazy position.


----------



## Sun Devil 92

JoeB131 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> And _stupid_ here doubles-down on his insanely ignorant comment...
> 
> If they are a "paradise" - how come you don't move there? _Boom_!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because we can fix this country, dummy.  We can't fix you, someone fucked up a long time ago.
> 
> But we can fix the country.
Click to expand...


No.  A moron like you probably can't change the battery in a flashlight.

Your attempts to fix the country have only resulted in a more broken country.


----------



## Sun Devil 92

JoeB131 said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> So now you don't agree that the primary purpose of hospitals, clinics, and medical personnel is to treat patients. Let me know when you make up your mind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, the primary purpose of them is to make money for the all wise 'job creators". Don't you know nothing?
> 
> You see, Short Pants goes to bed at night worried the rich have enough Dressage Horses.
Click to expand...


And you can't sleep at night burning in your envy.


----------



## Arianrhod

P@triot said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you're unaware that teaching hospitals treat patients?  My, my.
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you'd agree that the fundamental purpose is to treat people who are sick or injured?  Anything else - teaching, research, etc. - is secondary to that primary goal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again...you continue with your straw man. It's a sign of a person on the wrong side of the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So now you don't agree that the primary purpose of hospitals, clinics, and medical personnel is to treat patients.  Let me know when you make up your mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's now 5 straw men in a row. That might be a record!
Click to expand...


Still haven't made up your mind, then.


----------



## Arianrhod

P@triot said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you believe is the purpose of hospitals, clinics, and medical personnel, i.e., health care?
> 
> 
> 
> For the third time now sweetie - what do _you_ believe is the purpose of automobile dealership?
Click to expand...


My name isn't "sweetie."  When you're finished addressing her, riddle me this: Is there a forum for that?  This one's about health care.


----------



## P@triot

Phew! Good thing Obamacare lowered costs (as they promised and insisted it would) and increased coverage (as they promised and insisted it would)...

*In 2014, the year Obamacare took effect, Warren Jones paid $318 in monthly health insurance premiums. In 2015, the price went up to $394 per month, then to $491 for 2016.*

Obamacare Rates Grow, Options Shrink in Kansas, Missouri


----------



## P@triot

Arianrhod said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you believe is the purpose of hospitals, clinics, and medical personnel, i.e., health care?
> 
> 
> 
> For the third time now sweetie - what do _you_ believe is the purpose of automobile dealership?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My name isn't "sweetie."  When you're finished addressing her, riddle me this: Is there a forum for that?  This one's about health care.
Click to expand...

Yes...and answering that question will allow me to address your healthcare concerns. So for the fourth time now: what do _you_ believe is the purpose of automobile dealership?


----------



## P@triot

Arianrhod said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you'd agree that the fundamental purpose is to treat people who are sick or injured?  Anything else - teaching, research, etc. - is secondary to that primary goal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again...you continue with your straw man. It's a sign of a person on the wrong side of the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So now you don't agree that the primary purpose of hospitals, clinics, and medical personnel is to treat patients.  Let me know when you make up your mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's now 5 straw men in a row. That might be a record!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still haven't made up your mind, then.
Click to expand...

And now that is the _sixth_ straw man in a row. My mind was not only made up the first time you asked that question, but I gave a thorough, clear, concise answer. How that baffles you is comical.


----------



## Arianrhod

P@triot said:


> My mind was not only made up the first time you asked that question, but I gave a through, clear, concise answer.



And then you contradicted yourself.


----------



## P@triot

Arianrhod said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> My mind was not only made up the first time you asked that question, but I gave a through, clear, concise answer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And then you contradicted yourself.
Click to expand...

No...really...I didn't. At no point.

Soooo.....about those automobile dealerships???


----------



## Arianrhod

P@triot said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> My mind was not only made up the first time you asked that question, but I gave a through, clear, concise answer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And then you contradicted yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No...really...I didn't. At no point.
> 
> Soooo.....about those automobile dealerships???
Click to expand...


I'd recommend you start a thread in the correct forum.  Once again, this forum is about health care.  Although anyone who doesn't understand that hospitals, clinics, and medical personnel's primary role is to treat patients probably wouldn't understand that, either.


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> Because Joey is ignorant of basic economics and business, he doesn't understand that a poor person has *never* created a single job in the history of the planet. It is the wealthy that create jobs, produce goods, provide services, etc. Basic economics. I bet your wishing you hadn't dropped out of high school now, uh?



Rich People don't create jobs.  

Consumer demand creates jobs.  

The problem is, you suckups keep mistaking a parasite for a vital organ. 

The government is just as good at creating jobs as rich people are... and usually for things we actually need.


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> It's tragically hilarious to watch ignorant people like Joseph cry about corporations while fellating the federal government (which is exponentially more corrupt, more unethical, and more poorly run than any corporation in U.S. _history_).



Not really. The US Government is wonderful.  I really look back at my time in the military with a lot of fondness.  The Corporations I've worked for have been all sort of evil and stupid. (And frankly, the American owned ones worse than the foreign ones.)  



P@triot said:


> The federal government spent $3.9 trillion in fiscal 2016, which ended Sept. 30, or $168 billion more than in fiscal 2015. The federal government ran a deficit of $588 billion, an increase of $149 billion. That’s a one-third increase in the deficit since last year.



Because- again- the rich aren't paying their fair share.  Get rid of the Bush and Reagan Tax cuts, we wouldn't have these problems.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> The government is just as good at creating jobs as rich people are... and usually for things we actually need.


The _exact_ *opposite* is true but you're just too ignorant to realize. Government produces waste because they can - they just keep reaching into the American people's pockets (you wouldn't know since you're a parasite). The private sector creates the most critical goods and services because they have to - otherwise they go out of business.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> The federal government spent $3.9 trillion in fiscal 2016, which ended Sept. 30, or $168 billion more than in fiscal 2015. The federal government ran a deficit of $588 billion, an increase of $149 billion. That’s a one-third increase in the deficit since last year.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because- again- the rich aren't paying their fair share.  Get rid of the Bush and Reagan Tax cuts, we wouldn't have these problems.
Click to expand...

Bwahahaha! What does spending have to do with income, _stupid_? That was weak and ignorant - even by your astoundingly stupid standards.

Here's the thing - if the the parasite class like _you_ aren't paying their "fair share" (and they sure as hell aren't) then any rational person would *cut* spending. It's very simple - you don't spend money you don't have. It's so simple, only ignorant progressives like yourself and Obama can't understand it.


----------



## Arianrhod

P@triot said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The government is just as good at creating jobs as rich people are... and usually for things we actually need.
> 
> 
> 
> The _exact_ *opposite* is true but you're just too ignorant to realize. Government produces waste because they can - they just keep reaching into the American people's pockets (you wouldn't know since you're a parasite). The private sector creates the most critical goods and services because they have to - otherwise they go out of business.
Click to expand...


Interesting binary hypothesis: Gubmint Bad/Corporations Goooood.

No doubt, like everything else in which you claim expertise, you have plenty of research and experience to support your hypothesis, which you'll be happy to share with us, amiright?


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> Bwahahaha! What does spending have to do with income, _stupid_? That was weak and ignorant - even by your astoundingly stupid standards.
> 
> Here's the thing - if the the parasite class like _you_ aren't paying their "fair share" (and they sure as hell aren't) then any rational person would *cut* spending. It's very simple - you don't spend money you don't have. It's so simple, only ignorant progressives like yourself and Obama can't understand it.



There's pleny of money. We just need to take it away from the Wealthy and give it to the working people  

Problem.Fucking.Solved.  

The thing with stupid people like you is you think it's awesome when the rich exploit the people who do the actual work, and then you wonder why they keep voting for more government.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> Not really. The US Government is wonderful.


Oh yeah. $20 *trillion* in debt (the most in the _world_ and about and about 10,000x's more than the worst corporate debt in history). Lost and incomplete State Department contracts to the tune of $6 billion. Tens of thousands of properties across the nation unaccounted for. Waste, fraud, abuse.

And then there is this little gem. The Secret Service (which...with the exception of Special Forces....is the most well run, professional outfit in all of government) is not even capable of handling their primary function - _security_ - when it comes to technology!!!

Oh yeah Joseph..."government is wonderful". Idiot. 

Secret Service cybersecurity audit shows 'unacceptable' flaws


----------



## P@triot

Arianrhod said:


> No doubt, like everything else in which you claim expertise, you have plenty of *research* and experience to support your hypothesis, which you'll be happy to *share with us*, amiright?


Is your Google broke, sweetie?


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> The _exact_ *opposite* is true but you're just too ignorant to realize. Government produces waste because they can - they just keep reaching into the American people's pockets (you wouldn't know since you're a parasite). The private sector creates the most critical goods and services because they have to - otherwise they go out of business.



actually, htey produce a lot of crap people don't need.. but never mind.  You're a good little consumer..


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> Oh yeah. $20 *trillion* in debt (the most in the _world_ and about and about 10,000x's more than the worst corporate debt in history). Lost and incomplete State Department contracts to the tune of $6 billion. Tens of thousands of properties across the nation unaccounted for. Waste, fraud, abuse.
> 
> And then there is this little gem. The Secret Service (which...with the exception of Special Forces....is the most well run, professional outfit in all of government) is not even capable of handling their primary function - _security_ - when it comes to technology!!!
> 
> Oh yeah Joseph..."government is wonderful". Idiot.



Yawn, guy. Make the rich pay their fair share. Problem solved.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> There's pleny of money. We just need to take it away from the Wealthy and give it to the working people


'Lil Jospeh is so stupid...he doesn't even realize that the U.S. government has more debt than the entire currency in circulation.

'Lil Joseph is a _special_ kind of stupid.


----------



## Arianrhod

P@triot said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> No doubt, like everything else in which you claim expertise, you have plenty of *research* and experience to support your hypothesis, which you'll be happy to *share with us*, amiright?
> 
> 
> 
> Is your Google broke, sweetie?
Click to expand...


Once again you expect me to do your homework for you.  How does that work for you IRL?

If you truly had any concept of what you were posting about - whether it be the Soviet Union, the roles of government and the private sector or, well, anything at all - you'd jump at the chance to showcase your knowledge.

Instead you're just showcasing the fact that you know nothing at all.

Keep up the good work.  You're an excellent example of your species.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> Yawn, guy. Make the rich pay their fair share. Problem solved.


Well on _that_ we do agree. We need to cut taxes for the wealthy by about 60% so that they are paying a "fair share". And then we need parasites like you and your progressive pals to start paying taxes so that you parasites are paying your "fair share".

But the debt still exceeds all currency in circulation - so even if the government confiscates 100% of the money, we still have a monumental problem.

Look....this is way above your "pay grade" buttercup. Why don't you sit back, let the adults handle this, and you just keep dreaming about that Mary Poppins utopia that brings a little tear to your eye. Mmm...k?


----------



## P@triot

Arianrhod said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is your Google broke, sweetie?
> 
> 
> 
> Once again you expect me to do your homework for you.  How does that work for you IRL?
Click to expand...

*Boom*...._bitch_!!! Just caught you *lying*, contradicting yourself, and accusing _others_ of what you are guilty of!!! Game over!!!

Post #3819:


Arianrhod said:


> Is your Google broken?


----------



## Arianrhod

P@triot said:


> But the debt still exceeds all currency in circulation - so even if the government confiscates 100% of the money, we still have a monumental problem.



Someone needs a tutorial in debt v deficit...


----------



## P@triot

Arianrhod said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is your Google broke, sweetie?
> 
> 
> 
> Once again you expect me to do your homework for you.  How does that work for you IRL?
Click to expand...

Aaahhhhh!!! You were dumb enough to take the bait!!! You demand links from others (even on obvious stuff) and you refuse to provide links for anything you post.

Post #3819:


Arianrhod said:


> Is your Google broken?


----------



## Arianrhod

P@triot said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is your Google broke, sweetie?
> 
> 
> 
> Once again you expect me to do your homework for you.  How does that work for you IRL?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Boom*...._bitch_!!! Just caught you *lying*, contradicting yourself, and accusing _others_ of what you are guilty of!!! Game over!!!
Click to expand...


If that's what you need to comfort yourself because you know you have no knowledge about the Soviet Union, government v private sector, debt v deficit, or even what the word "lying" means, that isn't something you should necessarily advertise.


----------



## P@triot

Arianrhod said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the debt still exceeds all currency in circulation - so even if the government confiscates 100% of the money, we still have a monumental problem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Someone needs a tutorial in debt v deficit...
Click to expand...

No someone doesn't stupid.... Deficit is the annual gap in income vs. expense and debt is the running total of those annual deficits.

Let me know  if you need me to explain anything else to you, _stupid_.


----------



## P@triot

Arianrhod said:


> If that's what you need to comfort yourself...


You got caught..._bitch_!!! Caught you *lying*, contradicting yourself, and accusing _others_ of what you are guilty of!!! Game over!!!

Post #3819:


Arianrhod said:


> Is your Google broken?


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> Look....this is way above your "pay grade" buttercup. Why don't you sit back, let the adults handle this, and you just keep dreaming about that Mary Poppins utopia that brings a little tear to your eye. Mmm...k?



short pants, you are the one acting like a child here.  Did you take me off ignore because no one pays attention tyou you anymore?


----------



## Arianrhod

P@triot said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the debt still exceeds all currency in circulation - so even if the government confiscates 100% of the money, we still have a monumental problem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Someone needs a tutorial in debt v deficit...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No someone doesn't stupid....
Click to expand...


You don't stupid?  You're just punctuation-challenged, then.  Not to mention ignorant of the history of the Soviet Union, why there is no binary separation between government and corporate, etc., etc., etc., etc...


----------



## P@triot

Arianrhod said:


> If that's what you need to comfort yourself because you know you have no knowledge about the Soviet Union, government v private sector, debt v deficit, or even what the word "lying" means, that isn't something you should necessarily advertise.


Sweetie...I _owned_ you and Joseph on the Soviet Union, economics, debt, etc. And now I just _owned_ your ass on how to bait a dumb ass and prove that they are lying, projecting, unethical dirt-bags!

Post #3819:


Arianrhod said:


> Is your Google broken?


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look....this is way above your "pay grade" buttercup. Why don't you sit back, let the adults handle this, and you just keep dreaming about that Mary Poppins utopia that brings a little tear to your eye. Mmm...k?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> short pants, you are the one acting like a child here.  Did you take me off ignore because no one pays attention tyou you anymore?
Click to expand...

No...just had more time to correct all of your disinformation. I will probably have to revert back to ignoring your drivel in the near future. When there is limited time, one cannot afford to waste it on fiction.


----------



## Arianrhod

P@triot said:


> I _owned_ you and Joseph on the Soviet Union, economics, debt, etc.



You've made numerous unsupported statements of your own opinion, nothing more.

As I say, you're a credit to your species.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> Not really. The US Government is wonderful.  I really look back at my time in the military with a lot of fondness.  The Corporations I've worked for have been all sort of evil and stupid. (And frankly, the American owned ones worse than the foreign ones.)


So that begs the obvious question...why not just apply for a government job? 

(It's rhetorical - we all know that the real reason is because you want to mooch off of society).


----------



## P@triot

Arianrhod said:


> You've made numerous unsupported statements of your own opinion, nothing more.


_More_ projection sweetie...? Show us at least 10 links you've posted in the last ten 10 days. I can show 10 links in the last 24 hours.

Apparently you _really_ enjoy being bent over, uh? Cause you certainly keep coming back for more. 
Post #3819:


Arianrhod said:


> Is your Google broken?


----------



## Arianrhod

P@triot said:


> I can show 10 links in the last 24 hours.



What are you waiting for?


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> There's pleny of money.


You're right - if we end parasites such as yourself.


JoeB131 said:


> We just need to take it away from the Wealthy and give it to the working people


If the "working people" were working - they would have money already.


JoeB131 said:


> Problem.Fucking.Solved.


Problem doesn't exist. And even if it did, it's not your problem to solve.


JoeB131 said:


> The thing with stupid people like you is you think it's awesome when the rich exploit the people who do the actual work, and then you wonder why they keep voting for more government.


Nah....I know why you progressives vote for more government. You're parasites.


----------



## P@triot

Arianrhod said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can show 10 links in the last 24 hours.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are you waiting for?
Click to expand...

For you to show us 10 links in the last 10 days. And you couldn't do it...


----------



## P@triot

Arianrhod said:


> Not to mention ignorant of the history of the Soviet Union, *why* there is no binary separation between government and *corporate*, etc., etc., etc., etc...


Clearly you are grammatically challenged... 

Did you mean to say "*where* there is no binary separation between government and *corporations*"?!? Tell us...what grade did you get pregnant and have to drop out of junior high?


----------



## Arianrhod

P@triot said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can show 10 links in the last 24 hours.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are you waiting for?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For you to show us 10 links in the last 10 days. And you couldn't do it...
Click to expand...


I didn't promise 10 links; you did.  What are you waiting for?



P@triot said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not to mention ignorant of the history of the Soviet Union, *why* there is no binary separation between government and *corporate*, etc., etc., etc., etc...
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly you are grammatically challenged...
> 
> Did you mean to say "*where* there is no binary separation between government and *corporations*"?!? Tell us...what grade did you get pregnant and have to drop out of junior high?
Click to expand...


Those of us who work in the corporate sector know that "corporate" is an acceptable short form for "the corporate sector."  (And I meant "why," not "where."  You're the one who believes there is a binary separation; most ignorami do.)  Ignorant children who spend their time name-calling on message boards instead of providing the links they promised clearly don't know much.

What are you waiting for?

Here, let me help you: When you started calling JoeB a liar RE: the Soviet Union, if you really had contradictory information, you'd have said "Here is a link to a book, an article, a website, etc. where I've gotten my information."

Instead, all you do is flame and dance.

In short, like most of your species, you have nothing.  Keep dancing.  We're laughing.


----------



## P@triot

Arianrhod said:


> Ignorant children who spend their time name-calling on message boards instead of providing the links they promised clearly don't know much.


Well that certainly explains why _you_ *never* post links to back up your childish and ignorant comments... Instead you immaturely respond "is your Google broke?" and then lose your tiny little mind when someone uses your own line against you.


----------



## Arianrhod

P@triot said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ignorant children who spend their time name-calling on message boards instead of providing the links they promised clearly don't know much.
> 
> 
> 
> Well that certainly explains why _you_ *never* post links...
Click to expand...


To people like you who are asked, and promise, and then fail to delivery?  You're absolutely right.

Grownups get links when requested.

Tell us what you know about the Soviet Union.


----------



## P@triot

Arianrhod said:


> I didn't promise 10 links; you did.


I *didn't* "promise" _anything_. Once again we see your reading comprehension problem rearing its ugly head.


Arianrhod said:


> What are you waiting for?


For you to post the proof that you've added some links. After all, every time you lose an argument you demand that everyone else add a link to "prove" it. Why don't you hold yourself to that same standard sweetie???


----------



## P@triot

Arianrhod said:


> Grownups get links when requested.


Bwahahahahaha! So you admit you're not a grownup since you respond like this when asked for links to corroborate your lies...

Post #3819:


Arianrhod said:


> Is your Google broken?


----------



## P@triot

Arianrhod said:


> Tell us what you know about the Soviet Union.


More than you and Joseph combined. Though you are still of high school age (dropout unfortunately) so you didn't live through it like Joey and I did. Still, you should have opened a book and studied once in awhile.


----------



## Arianrhod

P@triot said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell us what you know about the Soviet Union.
> 
> 
> 
> More than you and Joseph combined.
Click to expand...


Then you wouldn't be ashamed to show us.


----------



## P@triot

Arianrhod said:


> Grownups get links when requested.


Post #3819:


Arianrhod said:


> Is your Google broken?


----------



## P@triot

Arianrhod said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell us what you know about the Soviet Union.
> 
> 
> 
> More than you and Joseph combined.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you wouldn't be ashamed to show us.
Click to expand...

I did! I told you everything you needed to know and then some. Because you're too lazy to do your homework or because your "Google is broke" is not my problem.

I've learned volumes of information over the years sweetie. Unlike you I don't start Googling a topic when a thread is started and then jump in on it. I lived through it and have studied it extensively. I know what I know and the onus is on you to provide links backing up your claim that I'm "wrong".


----------



## P@triot

Arianrhod said:


> Then you wouldn't be ashamed to show us.


How many guys have you tried _that_ desperate line on over the years sweetie...?


----------



## Arianrhod

P@triot said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell us what you know about the Soviet Union.
> 
> 
> 
> More than you and Joseph combined.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you wouldn't be ashamed to show us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did! I told you everything you needed to know and then some.
Click to expand...


Not in this thread you haven't.  C'mon, live dangerously and post a link.  Just one link.  Are you reluctant because you know your source is bogus and you'll be laughed at?  Or is it that you have no source at all?


----------



## P@triot

Arianrhod said:


> Not in this thread you haven't.  C'mon, live dangerously and post a link.  Just one link.


Uh....sweetie? I've probably posted 70 links in _this_ thread alone. Every time you post, you actually get dumber. Have an adult show you how to click on page 1 of this thread and start counting.


----------



## Arianrhod

P@triot said:


> I've probably posted 70 links in _this_ thread alone.



Then you shouldn't have any problem reposting your links to information about the Soviet Union.  Take pride in them.  Unless you're embarrassed by them.  You spend way more time claiming you posted them than it would take to repost them.  It's obvious why.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> Not really. The US Government is wonderful.


Come on, _stupid_, tell us again how corrupt corporations are... 

Picking his way through the Soviet archives that Boris Yeltsin had just thrown open, in 1991 Tim Sebastian, a reporter for the London _Times_, came across an arresting memorandum. Composed in 1983 by Victor Chebrikov, the top man at the KGB, the memorandum was addressed to Yuri Andropov, the top man in the entire USSR. *The subject: Sen. Edward Kennedy*.

Kennedy’s message was simple. He proposed an unabashed quid pro quo. Kennedy would lend Andropov a hand in dealing with President Reagan. In return, the Soviet leader would lend the Democratic Party a hand in challenging Reagan in the 1984 presidential election.

Ted Kennedy's Soviet Gambit


----------



## P@triot

Arianrhod said:


> Then you shouldn't have any problem reposting your links to information about the Soviet Union.


My last post (previous to this one and directly following yours here) was a link to the Soviet Union. Enjoy sweetie...


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> Not really. The US Government is wonderful.


So Joey cries like a little bitch about corporate "corruption" - meanwhile the evil broad he wants running the country not only surrendered the materials we need to create nuclear weapons, she sold them to our enimies for profit. If a corporation did this, little Joey would never stop crying about it.

Here’s the high-level summary. There are more details below.

• Canadian company Uranium One owned uranium mines in the US and Kazakhstan.

• Uranium One's mines account for 20% of the uranium mined in the US. Uranium is used for nuclear weapons, and it's considered a strategic asset to the US.

• Russia’s state-owned atomic agency, Rosatom, bought a 17% stake in Uranium One in June 2009.

• The Russian atomic agency decided it wanted to own 51% of Uranium One in June 2010. To take a majority stake in Uranium One, it needed approval from a special committee that included the State Department, which Hillary Clinton led at the time.

• Investors in Uranium One gave money to the Clinton Foundation starting in 2005 and through 2011. On June 29, 2010, Bill Clinton was paid $500,000 to speak in Russia by an investment bank with ties to Russia's government that had a buy rating on Uranium One’s stock.

• In January 2013, despite assurances to the contrary, a subsidiary of Rosatom took over 100% of the company and delisted it from the Toronto Stock Exchange.

• Clinton was required to disclose all of her foundation's contributors before she became secretary of state, but the Clintons did not disclose millions of dollars donated by the chairman of Uranium One while the review of the deal was ongoing.

The Clinton Foundation received millions from investors as Putin took over 20% of US uranium deposits


----------



## Arianrhod

P@triot said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you shouldn't have any problem reposting your links to information about the Soviet Union.
> 
> 
> 
> My last post (previous to this one and directly following yours here) was a link to the Soviet Union.
Click to expand...


It's an article about a meeting between Ted Kennedy and some Soviet officials.  Apparently you believe no U.S. official ever met with Soviet officials in their 70-year history.

It says nothing about your claim that socialism and socialism alone was the demise of the Soviet Union.

Unless you're imputing powers to Ted Kennedy that even the Great God Reagan didn't have.

Piss poor.

But now I know what to expect from you.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> There's pleny of money. We just need to take it away from the Wealthy and give it to the working people
> 
> Problem.Fucking.Solved.


Here you go, _stupid_. A quick economics lesson for you - compliments of the Congressional Budget Office. If you confiscated 100% of the wealth from the wealthy - it wouldn't even begin to scrape the bottom of the entitlement barrel. *Idiot*.


----------



## P@triot

Arianrhod said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you shouldn't have any problem reposting your links to information about the Soviet Union.
> 
> 
> 
> My last post (previous to this one and directly following yours here) was a link to the Soviet Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's an article about a meeting between Ted Kennedy and some Soviet officials.  Apparently you believe no U.S. official ever met with Soviet officials in their 70-year history.
Click to expand...

No sweetie...it's an article about Ted Kennedy and the Dumbocrats asking the Soviet Union to help them rig the U.S. election.

You're trying to *lie* about something that is in black & white and available for everyone to see. But now I know what to expect from _you_...


----------



## Arianrhod

P@triot said:


> [it's an article about Ted Kennedy and the Dumbocrats asking the Soviet Union to help them rig the U.S. election.



(a) No, it isn't and
(B) It's got nothing to do with your claim of expert knowledge on the fall of the Soviet Union

So, obfuscation and failure.

You're doing great.


----------



## P@triot

Arianrhod said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> [it's an article about Ted Kennedy and the Dumbocrats asking the Soviet Union to help them rig the U.S. election.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (a) No, it isn't and
Click to expand...

You're the only one I know that would attempt to deny the contents of an article posted for everyone to see with their own eyes... 

On a side note - are you planning on getting a GED after your baby gets a little older?


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> So that begs the obvious question...why not just apply for a government job?
> 
> (It's rhetorical - we all know that the real reason is because you want to mooch off of society).



Those jobs are very hard to come by, because we aren't adequately funding those services..  

But I work a private sector job and I have a private business... and will probably clear $80K this year.  and I will happily pay my taxes.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> So that begs the obvious question...why not just apply for a government job?
> 
> (It's rhetorical - we all know that the real reason is because you want to mooch off of society).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those jobs are very hard to come by, because we aren't adequately funding those services...
Click to expand...

Funny - I see the military you claim to "love" recruiting all over the nation 24x7. Doesn't seem that hard to come by to me. Same with all of the other government jobs (unless one is totally unqualified and unfit for hiring of course).


----------



## Sun Devil 92

JoeB131 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> So that begs the obvious question...why not just apply for a government job?
> 
> (It's rhetorical - we all know that the real reason is because you want to mooch off of society).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those jobs are very hard to come by, because we aren't adequately funding those services..
> 
> But I work a private sector job and I have a private business... and will probably clear $80K this year.  and I will happily pay my taxes.
Click to expand...


Thank you for not working for the government.

We need a lot fewer of those rhodents around.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> Oh yeah, and Hillary will be appointing Scalia's replacement... buh-bye, "Orignal Intent", Hello Living Constitution, Baby!!!


----------



## Arianrhod

P@triot said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> [it's an article about Ted Kennedy and the Dumbocrats asking the Soviet Union to help them rig the U.S. election.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (a) No, it isn't and
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're the only one I know that would attempt to deny the contents of an article posted for everyone to see with their own eyes...
Click to expand...


Can you cite the precise passage where Ted Kennedy single-handedly destroyed the Soviet Union?  If you believe that, what about The Great God Reagan's contribution?  And why are you applauding this:


----------



## Sun Devil 92

P@triot said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's pleny of money. We just need to take it away from the Wealthy and give it to the working people
> 
> Problem.Fucking.Solved.
> 
> 
> 
> Here you go, _stupid_. A quick economics lesson for you - compliments of the Congressional Budget Office. If you confiscated 100% of the wealth from the wealthy - it wouldn't even begin to scrape the bottom of the entitlement barrel. *Idiot*.
> 
> View attachment 94620
Click to expand...


Oh, it's from Heritage...the math MUST BE WRONG !!!

ROTF


----------



## P@triot

Everything that conservatives said would happen with Obamacare has happened. And everything Obama and the Dumbocrats promised was a *lie*.

Obamacare Premiums To Soar By An Average Of 25%


----------



## Sun Devil 92

P@triot said:


> Everything that conservatives said would happen with Obamacare has happened. And everything Obama and the Dumbocrats promised was a *lie*.
> 
> Obamacare Premiums To Soar By An Average Of 25%



Maybe it won't be that high....and Obama will claim that is our 2,500 savings.


----------



## P@triot

Hahahahahaha! Look at that Arianrhod and JoeB131 - even the most radical left-wing lying propaganda machine of the Dumbocrat Party - MSNBC - must finally admit what a catastrophic failure Obamacare has been:

‘Morning Joe’ panel: Everything conservatives said about Obamacare has come true


----------



## P@triot




----------



## P@triot

It was *never* about "affordable" healthcare or "coverage" and everyone knows it. This was the same thing it is always about with Dumbocrats - _control_.

Robert Laszewski is a policy adviser and analyst for the health insurance industry. He’s correctly predicted Obamacare’s pitfalls since Day One.

Democrats Ignored This Expert's Warnings About Obamacare


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P@triot

P F Tinmore said:


>


Well there is some "logic". Because 643,000 people aren't responsible, we should force 330 million Americans to go bankrupt.


----------



## P@triot

The Dumbocrats doing what they do best - destroying _everything_ that they touch. In this case, the healthcare system in the U.S.

Taxpayer Subsidies Won't Fix Obamacare


----------



## P@triot

Conservatives accurately predicted this right down to the smallest detail...

My Defective Obamacare Health Insurance Product Just Blew Up - The Federalist


----------



## Sun Devil 92

P F Tinmore said:


>



That's funny.


----------



## P@triot

It's impossible to overstate just how awful Obamacare is...

Obamacare Punishes Hard Work


----------



## P@triot

Now _this_ is how it is done. The free market innovating solutions for profit - which ultimately leads to lower prices, more efficiency, and better results.

Startup Fights South Carolina Law on Online Eye Exams


----------



## Sun Devil 92

P@triot said:


> Now _this_ is how it is done. The free market innovating solutions for profit - which ultimately leads to lower prices, more efficiency, and better results.
> 
> Startup Fights South Carolina Law on Online Eye Exams



And there you have it.  The AMA is a monopoly that keeps doctors in the money.


----------



## dblack

Sun Devil 92 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now _this_ is how it is done. The free market innovating solutions for profit - which ultimately leads to lower prices, more efficiency, and better results.
> 
> Startup Fights South Carolina Law on Online Eye Exams
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And there you have it.  The AMA is a monopoly that keeps doctors in the money.
Click to expand...


And the ACA provides similar security for the insurance companies.


----------



## P@triot

Progressivism requires one to suspend all reality in favor of an ideology. Their entire ideology has been a spectacular failure world-wide and _still_ they push for it. It has caused healthcare costs to skyrocket and caused the collapse of the middle-class:

Taxpayers are being squeezed financially in Obamacare’s tightening vice.

On one side, taxpayers already are funding Obamacare entitlements, notwithstanding President Barack Obama’s high-profile promise to spare middle-class Americans from new taxation. Liberals in Congress and elsewhere are seeking remedies, among them *heavier taxpayer subsidies* and bigger deficits, *that will squeeze taxpayers even more*.

On the other side, *those whose income is too high to qualify for subsidies must pay for overly expensive Obamacare coverage without any assistance*.

Obamacare’s Squeeze Play on Taxpayers


----------



## P@triot

What a disaster. Just like conservatives said it would be...

Obamacare Tax Subsidies Will Increase by $9.8 Billion Due to Premium Hikes


----------



## Sun Devil 92

dblack said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now _this_ is how it is done. The free market innovating solutions for profit - which ultimately leads to lower prices, more efficiency, and better results.
> 
> Startup Fights South Carolina Law on Online Eye Exams
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And there you have it.  The AMA is a monopoly that keeps doctors in the money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the ACA provides similar security for the insurance companies.
Click to expand...


Your federal government at work.....keeping the top 1% in place.


----------



## P@triot

Obamacare has been unquestionably the biggest failed legislation of all time. Literally nothing about it has been successful.

Another Obamacare Co-Op Exits Exchanges, Leaving Only 5 Co-Ops in 2017


----------



## P@triot

There is literally no end to the disaster that is Obamacare. Dumbocrats _really_ outdid themselves on this one...

New Finding Shows How Devastated ACA Exchanges Are


----------



## P@triot

Before the health care law was implemented, Schriftman was paying $218 per month for coverage from Independence Blue Cross with a $5,000 deductible. In 1974, long before the Obamacare seed was planted, Schriftman recalled paying just $12 per month for his very first health insurance plan.

This year, though, Schriftman’s policy with Independence Blue Cross is costing him $784 per month with a $6,500 deductible.

Pennsylvania Man Faces $784 in Premiums Under Obamacare


----------



## Conservative65

RDD_1210 said:


> It is sad that this has to happen.
> 
> It's also sad that the GOP has convinced people of "death panels", "losing freedom" and all the other hysterical nonsense that you sheep believe, that have actually made you think you hate a law that is a Republican idea.
> 
> So yeah, it's sad that a campaign needs to be waged to combat such blatant misinformation.



I keep hearing that the law is a Republican idea.  If you make that claim, why do so many of you give credit to Obama for doing something you say he didn't come up with?


----------



## P@triot

Progressives lack of understanding of basic economics and basic business is _killing_ this nation. It's why we've had such high unemployment under Barack Obama, why we have 94 million people out of the labor force, and why we have $20 trillion in debt.

“You have to fund your development through your *profits*,” Womack said during my 2011 visit to Terre Haute. “And if you have *no profits*, you’re *not* building restaurants.”

Womack, a 30-year restaurant veteran, faced unique challenges in the industry, *where profit margins ranged from 5% to 7%*. Restaurants already produce the lowest revenue per employee, meaning there was a *high labor cost* associated with implementing the new law.

Womack said he was able to weather the recession. He remained hopeful Congress would make changes to the law or the 2012 election would usher in a president who would repeal it.  When that didn’t happen, he simply wasn’t confident about the long-term prospects of running a casual-dining operation. IHOP, with servers and cooks, is a labor-intensive business. At the time he sold last year, Womack had 16 restaurants and more than 1,000 employees. “We felt that environment was not the place to be for the next 10 to 20 years,” he said.

Facing the prospect of Obamacare’s employer mandate on Jan. 1, 2015, Womack opted to sell his 16 IHOP restaurants last year to Romulus Restaurant Group.

Four years after testifying before Congress and urging Obamacare’s repeal, Womack remains alarmed at the law’s impact on his industry. He foresaw the challenges of offering attractive coverage in 2011 and is now facing that reality.

“Insurance rates are through the roof. Every year we get handed a 30% to 40% increase,” he said. “The only way we have to offset that is cutting our coverage way back. That’s happened every year since the law passed.”
So to recap - healthcare costs have gone through the roof (the exact opposite of what Obama and the Dumbocrats had promised), employees have lost their jobs due to costs, those that remained had hours cut back, and owners have had to close their doors or sell their businesses - all because progressives don't understand basic economics or how business operates. They actually (and laughably) thought that business owners would simply eat the cost of Obamacare regulations and the wealth redistribution they so desperately desired would magically happen as a result. Instead, people went from poor insurance and jobs to worse insurance and unemployment.

IHOP Owner Says Obamacare a Factor to Sell 16 Restaurants


----------



## P@triot




----------



## dblack

If Trump insists on keeping the pre-existing conditions ban, we'll get ACA regardless of what they call it.


----------



## P@triot

What a disaster...

How Obamacare Will Cost Native American Tribes Millions


----------



## P@triot

I called it 4 years ago. The Dumbocrats are still too stupid to figure it out...

*"Health insurers know the end of Obamacare is near"
*
Aetna CEO Says Obamacare in a 'Death Spiral'


----------



## Sun Devil 92

P@triot said:


> I called it 4 years ago. The Dumbocrats are still too stupid to figure it out...
> 
> *"Health insurers know the end of Obamacare is near"
> *
> Aetna CEO Says Obamacare in a 'Death Spiral'



Good.

When can we drive a stake through it's heart ?


----------



## P@triot

Obamacare was the most catastrophic, idiotic, and embarrassing legislation in U.S. _history_...

Major Obamacare Insurer Blue Cross Blue Shield Won’t Turn a Profit in 2017


----------



## P@triot

Obamacare was the most catastrophic, idiotic, and embarrassing legislation in U.S. _history_...

If Government Fails to Fund Subsidies, Obamacare Premiums Will Rise by 19%


----------



## The Derp

P@triot said:


> Major Obamacare Insurer Blue Cross Blue Shield Won’t Turn a Profit in 2017



All Obamacare does is show that for-profit private health insurance makes no sense whatsoever.  What does a private insurance company actually do?  They administer reimbursement to providers from the pool of premiums you pay into.  For this administration, insurance companies can take as much as 20 cents of every dollar you pay for themselves.  20% of your premium goes straight into the black hole that is for-profit insurance and is not used for your care.  So why are we paying a 20% admin fee to have a private company do the exact same thing (and using the same standards) Medicare does but for a fraction of the cost?  Further, because there are multiple payors in the market, the bargaining power lies with providers and drug companies who can play insurers off one another for higher fees.  That's why you see stupid things like exorbitant costs for prescription drugs whereas single-payer nations do not.  There is nothing an insurance company does that improves your care or outcomes , and that is evidenced by the fact that the US health care system ranks below all other single-payer nations in nearly every single measurable health metric (i.e. life expectancy, infant mortality, cost per patient).

Furthermore, the average cost to insure a worker in an employer-provided plan (according to the Kaiser Family Foundation) is about $17,000/worker.  The worker usually pays an average of $5,000 to that, and the employer pays an average of $12,000.  So a business of 50 employees that provides coverage to its workers is spending about $600,000 a year to provide its workers with coverage.  Contrast that with the single-payer proposal Sanders put forward during the Democratic Primary; do away with Medicare payroll tax, do away with Obamacare, do away with Medicaid, do away with S-Chip, and do away with private insurance and put in its place a single payer that is funded by a 6.2% payroll tax on workers and a 6.2% payroll tax on business profits.  The average income in this country is about $53,000, which means the average worker would pay $3,286 a year for universal, single-payer health care (vs. $5,000 a year + deductibles, co-insurance, rx drugs, etc. for an employer-provided plan).  For a small business of 50 employees to pay $600,000 a year for coverage would mean that small business would have to make close to $10M *in profit*.  Which is virtually unheard of for any small business unless it's a hedge fund in which case, screw those gamblers anyway.

There is no benefit to having private health insurance.  It does nothing to improve or enhance your care, is not outcome-focused, nor is it justifiable from a moral standpoint.


----------



## The Derp

P@triot said:


> I called it 4 years ago. The Dumbocrats are still too stupid to figure it out...
> *"Health insurers know the end of Obamacare is near"*
> Aetna CEO Says Obamacare in a 'Death Spiral'



So please help me understand...if Conservatives knew Obamacare was going to be a big, hot mess 7 years ago, why did they not have a viable replacement plan ready to go?


----------



## dblack

The Derp said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Major Obamacare Insurer Blue Cross Blue Shield Won’t Turn a Profit in 2017
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All Obamacare does is show that for-profit private health insurance makes no sense whatsoever.
Click to expand...


ACA highlights the folly of trying to use private insurance as a social safety net.


----------



## The Derp

P@triot said:


> Obamacare was the most catastrophic, idiotic, and embarrassing legislation in U.S. _history_...
> If Government Fails to Fund Subsidies, Obamacare Premiums Will Rise by 19%



No surprise that private health insurance costs a lot of money.  It's not a really sustainable business model, particularly as millions of Boomers move into Medicare.  When it comes down to it, the role an insurance company plays in your health care is minimal at best, parasitic at worst.  To understand that, you only need look at the sole function of an insurance company; mitigating risk.  Which is just another phrase for administration of reimbursements.  Which is just another phrase for paper-pushing.  All an insurance company does is administer payment to your provider from the pool of premiums you paid into already.  So they are basically taking as much as a 20% fee to move money from your insurance pool to your doctor.  Medicare does the exact same administration (and private insurers use Medicare as the standard), but does it for a fraction of the cost, for the most sick among us; elderly folks, disabled persons, children.  I happen to think paying a 20% fee to move money is a rip-off and have not heard a clear, coherent argument as to why it's better to have BCBS reimburse your providers vs. having Medicare do it?

I think the fundamental problem with health insurance reform (and that's all Obamacare was, BTW) is that most people don't even know what health insurance actually is, or what health insurance companies actually do.  They do not employ your doctor (unless it's Kaiser).  They are not taking your temperature.  They are not performing your surgery.  They are not sticking a finger up your butt to check your prostate.  They have nothing to do with your actual health care, other than restrict access.


----------



## The Derp

dblack said:


> ACA highlights the folly of trying to use insurance as a social safety net.



Yup.  That's why there's no Public Option; if there was, people would gravitate to it because they'll realize it serves the same function, but costs a fraction of what private insurance does.  And the health insurance lobby can't have that, right???


----------



## dblack

The Derp said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> ACA highlights the folly of trying to use insurance as a social safety net.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup.  That's why there's no Public Option; if there was, people would gravitate to it because they'll realize it serves the same function, but costs a fraction of what private insurance does.  And the health insurance lobby can't have that, right???
Click to expand...


A 'public option' is still insurance, with most of the same pitfalls.

This is really a struggle between those who want to fix the health care market and those who don't want it to be a market at all


----------



## The Derp

dblack said:


> A 'public option' is still insurance, with most of the same pitfalls.
> This is really a struggle between those who want to fix the health care market and those who don't want it to be a market at all



What pitfalls are those?  Because a single payer doesn't have to worry about profit margins, nor does a single payer allow a fragmented insurance market where providers and drug companies can play payors (insurers) off one another to get higher margins.  Single-payer systems are also outcome-based, meaning that the incentive for the providers to treat you correctly is there because otherwise, they have to pay the costs out of their own pockets...which is precisely how Obama reformed Medicare when COnservatives accused him of stealing from it.  That wasn't what he did.  What he did was reform Medicare to where it no longer reimbursed doctors for treatment for conditions that derived from the initial treatment.  For example, say grandpa goes to the hospital to get a kidney removed.  While recovering from surgery, the patient gets a staph infection.  Previously, Medicare would reimburse the provider for the initial kidney removal *and* the staph infection that resulted from post-surgery due to any number of factors (cleanliness of the hospital, misdiagnosis, neglect, etc.).  The ACA reformed Medicare so that providers no longer get reimbursed for the conditions that arise from the care they provided.  That is an outcome-based model, and one that private insurers *do not do*.  So private insurers (largely) reimburse the provider regardless of the quality of care they performed.  That's done in the service of profits, and why insurance premiums increase.

Fact is, everyone needs health care at some point in their lives.  The profit motive tied to the administration of payments to your provider for that health care is not something that improves or enhances the care your provider gives you.  It only restricts access.  That's why it's a scam and why a single-payer system makes more sense.


----------



## dblack

The Derp said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> A 'public option' is still insurance, with most of the same pitfalls.
> This is really a struggle between those who want to fix the health care market and those who don't want it to be a market at all
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What pitfalls are those?
Click to expand...

Insurance, especially group plans that don't charge premiums based on the individual, drives inflation because people no longer have incentives to make value decisions. No one cares what health care costs because they're not paying for their health care costs.  

The biggest problem with the health care market is that we are over-insured. Insurance works as a hedge against risk, but as a means of financing normal expenses it's a terrible way to go. Most consumers don't even understand insurance - they think it's a club you join to get free health care.


----------



## The Derp

dblack said:


> Insurance, especially group plans that don't charge premiums based on the individual, drives inflation because people no longer have incentives to make value decisions. No one cares what health care costs because they're not paying for their health care costs.



OK, but you're looking at that through the prism of for-profit, are you not?  In a single payer system there is only a _*single*_ payer.  So there are no such things as group plans.  And since there is a single payer, that means the bargaining power shifts from providers and drug companies to patients who can use their leverage as the single payer to negotiate for cheaper prices for everything.  And everyone pays for health care in a single-payer plan.  A fixed percentage of the income.  Sanders proposed 6.2% and he got to that figure by doing the math of eliminating the costs for private insurance (premiums, deductibles, co-insurance, drug costs, etc.), eliminating Medicaid, S-Chip, even Obamacare and replacing it all with Medicare-for-All that covers everything, doesn't require any out-of-pocket costs to patients, and gives the bargaining power to the single payer while taking it away from providers and drug companies, who are profit-driven. The reason health care costs go up is simply because of for-profit insurance.  It's possible to have government-run single-payer and still have private, for-profit providers.  In fact, a single payer would improve outcomes because you would have doctors competing for patients instead of insurance companies competing for customers.  That's why we trail every first-world nation in every measurable health metric there is including cost.



dblack said:


> Insurance works as a hedge against risk, but as a means of financing normal expenses it's a terrible way to go. Most consumers don't even understand insurance - they think it's a club you join to get free health care.



I don't know if they think that.  But I do know that most people don't understand the function of an insurance company.  When you say a hedge against risk, who's risk?  Not the patients, because they pay premium dollars regardless.  Not the providers, because they have to take every patient.  So it's really the risk to the profits of the insurer, isn't it?  What I don't understand is why the privatization of administering reimbursements is necessary or better than just having Medicare do it?  Insurance companies have so little to do with health care, they don't even employ doctors!  None of the people who work at insurance companies have any medical training.   Yet we give them unimaginable power to profit off our sickness while doing nothing to treat it?  There's something morally reprehensible about that.


----------



## dblack

The Derp said:


> since there is a single payer, that means the bargaining power shifts from providers and drug companies to patients who can use their leverage as the single payer to negotiate for cheaper prices for everything.



Bargaining power? If there's only one source of payment, there's really no need to bargain.



dblack said:


> Insurance works as a hedge against risk, but as a means of financing normal expenses it's a terrible way to go. Most consumers don't even understand insurance - they think it's a club you join to get free health care.





The Derp said:


> I don't know if they think that.  But I do know that most people don't understand the function of an insurance company.  When you say a hedge against risk, who's risk?  Not the patients, because they pay premium dollars regardless.  Not the providers, because they have to take every patient.  So it's really the risk to the profits of the insurer, isn't it?



No. I don't know where to begin. You don't seem to understand insurance either. Should I bother explaining it?



> Yet we give them unimaginable power to profit off our sickness while doing nothing to treat it?  There's something morally reprehensible about that.



Morally reprehensible? Maybe. I just think it's stupid. That's why I buy as little insurance as I can possibly afford. Do you think being stupid should be illegal?


----------



## debbiedowner

The Derp said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Insurance, especially group plans that don't charge premiums based on the individual, drives inflation because people no longer have incentives to make value decisions. No one cares what health care costs because they're not paying for their health care costs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK, but you're looking at that through the prism of for-profit, are you not?  In a single payer system there is only a _*single*_ payer.  So there are no such things as group plans.  And since there is a single payer, that means the bargaining power shifts from providers and drug companies to patients who can use their leverage as the single payer to negotiate for cheaper prices for everything.  And everyone pays for health care in a single-payer plan.  A fixed percentage of the income.  Sanders proposed 6.2% and he got to that figure by doing the math of eliminating the costs for private insurance (premiums, deductibles, co-insurance, drug costs, etc.), eliminating Medicaid, S-Chip, even Obamacare and replacing it all with Medicare-for-All that covers everything, doesn't require any out-of-pocket costs to patients, and gives the bargaining power to the single payer while taking it away from providers and drug companies, who are profit-driven. The reason health care costs go up is simply because of for-profit insurance.  It's possible to have government-run single-payer and still have private, for-profit providers.  In fact, a single payer would improve outcomes because you would have doctors competing for patients instead of insurance companies competing for customers.  That's why we trail every first-world nation in every measurable health metric there is including cost.
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Insurance works as a hedge against risk, but as a means of financing normal expenses it's a terrible way to go. Most consumers don't even understand insurance - they think it's a club you join to get free health care.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know if they think that.  But I do know that most people don't understand the function of an insurance company.  When you say a hedge against risk, who's risk?  Not the patients, because they pay premium dollars regardless.  Not the providers, because they have to take every patient.  So it's really the risk to the profits of the insurer, isn't it?  What I don't understand is why the privatization of administering reimbursements is necessary or better than just having Medicare do it?  Insurance companies have so little to do with health care, they don't even employ doctors!  None of the people who work at insurance companies have any medical training.   Yet we give them unimaginable power to profit off our sickness while doing nothing to treat it?  There's something morally reprehensible about that.
Click to expand...


In fact, a single payer would improve outcomes because you would have doctors competing for patients instead of insurance companies competing for customers. 

THAT WHAT PROVIDER NETWORKS ARE "COMPETING FOR PATIENTS"

Insurance companies have so little to do with health care, they don't even employ doctors!  None of the people who work at insurance companies have any medical training. 

MOST HEALTH INSURERS HAVE DOCTORS ON STAFF AND PLENTY OF RN'S.


----------



## The Derp

debbiedowner said:


> THAT WHAT PROVIDER NETWORKS ARE "COMPETING FOR PATIENTS"



No, they don't.  Provider Networks compete for _*insurers*_.  Provider Networks do not negotiate rates with you, nor do you reimburse them for the care they provide.  The insurer does that.  Providers play insurers off one another to get higher reimbursements by increasing their fees.  You have nothing to do with that.  Providers aren't competing for patients in an open market.  They're competing for patients among the insurance plans they accept.  Patients are secondary.




debbiedowner said:


> MOST HEALTH INSURERS HAVE DOCTORS ON STAFF AND PLENTY OF RN'S.



No they don't.  You are confusing Providers with Insurers.  Insurers have nothing to do with your care.  All they do is administer reimbursement to your provider for the care they provide.  Unless it's Kaiser, no insurance company employs any medical staff at all.  In fact, insurers don't even have physicians on staff that determine what is covered and what isn't.  That is determined by accountants, not doctors.


----------



## The Derp

dblack said:


> Bargaining power? If there's only one source of payment, there's really no need to bargain.



Right, the single payer can set the fees.  Which is how you control health care costs.  Why do you think Conservatives wanted to prevent Medicare from negotiating for cheaper prescription drug prices as a part of their Medicare Part-D?  Because they knew allowing Medicare to do so would result in lower costs for drugs, and that runs in direct conflict with drug companies who want to increase profits and lobby heavily -with as much as 20% of your premium- to prevent that sort of thing from happening.




dblack said:


> No. I don't know where to begin. You don't seem to understand insurance either. Should I bother explaining it?



Oh, I understand it fine.  You seem to be ascribing more to insurance than what it actually does.  Keep in mind, I am talking about _*private insurance*_, not the concept of insurance as a whole.  _*Private insurance*_ does nothing more than the administration of reimbursement to providers.  Which is exactly what Medicare does, but Medicare doesn't carve out as much as 20% of the premium for itself like insurance companies do.  As much as 20 cents of every dollar you pay in premiums goes into the pocket of the insurance company and is not used for your care.  And what do we get for this 20%?  Nothing.  We get absolutely nothing for it.  In fact, we aren't even a part of that transaction.  That's done entirely between the insurer and provider.  You have nothing to do with that.  My question, that is still unanswered, is why is privatizing the function of administration of reimbursements even necessary at all?  It does nothing to improve or enhance your care.  All it does is restrict access.




dblack said:


> Morally reprehensible? Maybe. I just think it's stupid. That's why I buy as little insurance as I can possibly afford. Do you think being stupid should be illegal?



No, I think Conservatism should be illegal until we can determine the extent of Russian influence in the GOP, Trump, and the right-wing media that promotes it.


----------



## jillian

P@triot said:


> As the Dumbocrats on USMB love to crow about - Obamacare was passed into law by Congress, signed into law by the president, and upheld by the Supreme Court. So _why_ exactly does the federal government have to piss away billions to *promote* an existing law?!? Has this _ever_ been done with any other law in U.S. _history_?
> 
> They begged the NBA to help promote it and the NBA said yes. They begged the NFL to help promote it, and the NFL told them to go fuck themselves (doh!). So why are they so desperate to reach people through Hollywood and sports? Because even the Dumbocrats know this is a miserable failure, and they _know_ it is going to be repealed eventually unless they can do major damage control and brainwash the masses (especially the young and impressionable - hence the NBA, NFL, etc.) that this is a "good" thing.
> 
> Super Bowl champ Baltimore Ravens getting paid $130,000 to promote Obamacare | WashingtonExaminer.com



anything else you want to make up, nutter butter?


----------



## dblack

The Derp said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bargaining power? If there's only one source of payment, there's really no need to bargain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right, the single payer can set the fees.  Which is how you control health care costs.
Click to expand...

Government would control health care altogether, which is the goal, near as i can tell.





The Derp said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. I don't know where to begin. You don't seem to understand insurance either. Should I bother explaining it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I understand it fine.
Click to expand...


Are you sure? You seem confused about the concept of using insurance as a hedge against risk.




The Derp said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Morally reprehensible? Maybe. I just think it's stupid. That's why I buy as little insurance as I can possibly afford. Do you think being stupid should be illegal?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I think Conservatism should be illegal until we can determine the extent of Russian influence in the GOP, Trump, and the right-wing media that promotes it.
Click to expand...


Cute. But I was referring to your claim that people who allow insurance companies to profit from their health care are "morally reprehensible". You want to make that illegal. I'm trying to understand why.


----------



## The Derp

dblack said:


> Government would control health care altogether, which is the goal, near as i can tell.



How does government taking over the mechanism by which your doctor is reimbursed for your care translate to government control of health care?  How health care is paid and how health care is delivered are two mutually exclusive things.




dblack said:


> re you sure? You seem confused about the concept of using insurance as a hedge against risk.



Who's risk?  The payors.  Who is the payor?  The insurance company.  So it's not _*your risk*_, it's _*risk*_ to the profits of the payor.  I don't think you really understand what the _*risk*_ is in this equation.




dblack said:


> Cute. But I was referring to your claim that people who allow insurance companies to profit from their health care are "morally reprehensible". You want to make that illegal. I'm trying to understand why.



Yes, I do want to make it illegal because it is reprehensible and does nothing to improve or enhance your care.  We are paying insurance companies as much as 20% of our premiums to do what?  Administration.  You wouldn't accept a 20% admin fee when buying a car, so why would you accept a 20% admin fee to have someone in Hartford, with no medical training, press a button to send payment to your provider?  It makes no sense.  It's like the "why are you hitting yourself" game.


----------



## dblack

The Derp said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Government would control health care altogether, which is the goal, near as i can tell.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How does government taking over the mechanism by which your doctor is reimbursed for your care translate to government control of health care?  How health care is paid and how health care is delivered are two mutually exclusive things.
Click to expand...


Heh... right. If you control the purse strings, you control everything - as you've proven. If government is supplying the cash, than can simply mandate which services they will pay for, which they won't, how much they will pay, who is eligible, who isn't, etc, etc....




The Derp said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you sure? You seem confused about the concept of using insurance as a hedge against risk.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who's risk?  The payors.  Who is the payor?  The insurance company.  So it's not _*your risk*_, it's _*risk*_ to the profits of the payor.  I don't think you really understand what the _*risk*_ is in this equation.
Click to expand...


Wow.. you really don't get what a hedge is. Do some reading: Hedge (finance) - Wikipedia
Individuals live with the risk that they might get sick and not be able to afford an available cure. They pay insurance companies a monthly fee (a premium) to cover some or all of the costs if the risk is realized.

How did everyone in this country get so confused about health insurance?


----------



## The Derp

dblack said:


> Heh... right. If you control the purse strings, you control everything - as you've proven. If government is supplying the cash, than can simply mandate which services they will pay for, which they won't, how much they will pay, who is eligible, who isn't, etc, etc....



Government isn't supplying the cash..._*taxpayers are*_.  Government is just the entity that makes sure the cash gets to the doctor who treated you.  And right now, insurance companies already mandate what services they pay for, and they do that because of the profit motive.  No profit motive = no denial of claims.  The _*only reason*_ a health insurer won't pay a medical claim is because doing so would affect their profit margin.  That's it.  That's the only reason why that would happen.  In a single-payer system, that wouldn't be the case so long as the system is well-funded.  A 6.2% payroll tax to replace Medicare tax and employer-provided insurance would be able to fully fund Medicare, removing the need for Parts A-D, and thus, reducing expenses for people on Medicare and on private insurance right now.  It makes no sense that as a society, we spend 20 cents of every dollar to health care.  That's entirely because of insurance companies.  There is no other reason.





dblack said:


> Wow.. you really don't get what a hedge is. Do some reading: Hedge (finance) - WikipediaIndividuals live with the risk that they might get sick and not be able to afford an available cure. They pay insurance companies a monthly fee (a premium) to cover some or all of the costs if the risk is realized.



Right, and that is in a for-profit model, not a single-payer model.  In a single-payer model, there is no risk because everyone is in the same insurance pool.  So I don't know why you all get so fixated on the "mitigating risk" while ignoring the fact that risk is only mitigated _*because insurance companies are profit-driven*_.  Remove the profit motive and you remove the risk.  It's that simple.  Again, that's why single payer systems beat ours in nearly every measurable health metric there is, including cost.  If what you're saying is true, then the universal, single-payer systems would result in _*more*_ health care spending, not less.  So what we have here is a case of reality clashing with fantasy.  There is no way to reduce costs and provide universal coverage in a for-profit health insurance system.  It is impossible.  So why are we bothering with this?  There is no advantage to having the transaction between an insurance company and your provider privatized.  It does not improve or enhance your care at all.  In fact, it restricts it.  It restricts your choice of doctor.  It restricts your options for treatment.  And it does that in service not of your health, but of the insurance company's profit margins.  By defending for-profit health insurance, you are defending price gouging, rescission, and claim denials.  None of which does anything to improve or enhance your health care.


----------



## The Derp

dblack said:


> How did everyone in this country get so confused about health insurance?



Because Conservatives lie about it.


----------



## dblack

The Derp said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> How did everyone in this country get so confused about health insurance?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because Conservatives lie about it.
Click to expand...


And you believe them!


----------



## The Derp

dblack said:


> And you believe them!



I don't.  Not sure why you would think that.  Conservatives follow your rhetoric on health care, not mine.  To this day, no one has been able to make the case why privatizing the administration of reimbursements benefits patients.


----------



## dblack

The Derp said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you believe them!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't.  Not sure why you would think that.  Conservatives follow your rhetoric on health care, not mine.  To this day, no one has been able to make the case why privatizing the administration of reimbursements benefits patients.
Click to expand...


I'm not interested in your little left/right posting match. Both parties are dominated by people who want to use government as a club to force others to bend to their will. Why can't the busybodies just mind their own business?


----------



## The Derp

dblack said:


> I'm not interested in your little left/right posting match. Both parties are dominated by people who want to use government as a club to force others to bend to their will. Why can't the busybodies just mind their own business?



Spare me the melodrama!  You're the one here defending insurance companies!


----------



## The Derp

dblack said:


> I'm not interested in your little left/right posting match. Both parties are dominated by people who want to use government as a club to force others to bend to their will. Why can't the busybodies just mind their own business?



How is your will being bent by force?  Do you want some cheese to go with that whine?


----------



## dblack

The Derp said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not interested in your little left/right posting match. Both parties are dominated by people who want to use government as a club to force others to bend to their will. Why can't the busybodies just mind their own business?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is your will being bent by force?  Do you want some cheese to go with that whine?
Click to expand...


It's not, yet. But if the fascists take over health care, we'll all be impacted.


----------



## dblack

The Derp said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not interested in your little left/right posting match. Both parties are dominated by people who want to use government as a club to force others to bend to their will. Why can't the busybodies just mind their own business?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare me the melodrama!  You're the one here defending insurance companies!
Click to expand...


You clearly don't understand my position at all. I'm not defending insurance companies. I'm just trying to counter some of the mis-information surrounding health care reform. It's the biggest obstacle to actually resolving the problem.


----------



## debbiedowner

The Derp said:


> debbiedowner said:
> 
> 
> 
> THAT WHAT PROVIDER NETWORKS ARE "COMPETING FOR PATIENTS"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they don't.  Provider Networks compete for _*insurers*_.  Provider Networks do not negotiate rates with you, nor do you reimburse them for the care they provide.  The insurer does that.  Providers play insurers off one another to get higher reimbursements by increasing their fees.  You have nothing to do with that.  Providers aren't competing for patients in an open market.  They're competing for patients among the insurance plans they accept.  Patients are secondary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> debbiedowner said:
> 
> 
> 
> MOST HEALTH INSURERS HAVE DOCTORS ON STAFF AND PLENTY OF RN'S.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No they don't.  You are confusing Providers with Insurers.  Insurers have nothing to do with your care.  All they do is administer reimbursement to your provider for the care they provide.  Unless it's Kaiser, no insurance company employs any medical staff at all.  In fact, insurers don't even have physicians on staff that determine what is covered and what isn't.  That is determined by accountants, not doctors.
Click to expand...


Again a provider only gets into a network so the insurance company sends more patients to him and not to lose the ones he/she has, otherwise no sense in signing a contract with an insurance company.

I don't know where you get your info from but most major insurer's have doctor's and RN's on staff. No the doctor's don't treat you.

Oh I suspect you are a sock for healthmyths, sound just like him.


----------



## debbiedowner

dblack said:


> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not interested in your little left/right posting match. Both parties are dominated by people who want to use government as a club to force others to bend to their will. Why can't the busybodies just mind their own business?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare me the melodrama!  You're the one here defending insurance companies!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You clearly don't understand my position at all. I'm not defending insurance companies. I'm just trying to counter some of the mis-information surrounding health care reform. It's the biggest obstacle to actually resolving the problem.
Click to expand...


Most people don't care to know the mis-information.


----------



## debbiedowner

The Derp said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Heh... right. If you control the purse strings, you control everything - as you've proven. If government is supplying the cash, than can simply mandate which services they will pay for, which they won't, how much they will pay, who is eligible, who isn't, etc, etc....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Government isn't supplying the cash..._*taxpayers are*_.  Government is just the entity that makes sure the cash gets to the doctor who treated you.  And right now, insurance companies already mandate what services they pay for, and they do that because of the profit motive.  No profit motive = no denial of claims.  The _*only reason*_ a health insurer won't pay a medical claim is because doing so would affect their profit margin.  That's it.  That's the only reason why that would happen.  In a single-payer system, that wouldn't be the case so long as the system is well-funded.  A 6.2% payroll tax to replace Medicare tax and employer-provided insurance would be able to fully fund Medicare, removing the need for Parts A-D, and thus, reducing expenses for people on Medicare and on private insurance right now.  It makes no sense that as a society, we spend 20 cents of every dollar to health care.  That's entirely because of insurance companies.  There is no other reason.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.. you really don't get what a hedge is. Do some reading: Hedge (finance) - WikipediaIndividuals live with the risk that they might get sick and not be able to afford an available cure. They pay insurance companies a monthly fee (a premium) to cover some or all of the costs if the risk is realized.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, and that is in a for-profit model, not a single-payer model.  In a single-payer model, there is no risk because everyone is in the same insurance pool.  So I don't know why you all get so fixated on the "mitigating risk" while ignoring the fact that risk is only mitigated _*because insurance companies are profit-driven*_.  Remove the profit motive and you remove the risk.  It's that simple.  Again, that's why single payer systems beat ours in nearly every measurable health metric there is, including cost.  If what you're saying is true, then the universal, single-payer systems would result in _*more*_ health care spending, not less.  So what we have here is a case of reality clashing with fantasy.  There is no way to reduce costs and provide universal coverage in a for-profit health insurance system.  It is impossible.  So why are we bothering with this?  There is no advantage to having the transaction between an insurance company and your provider privatized.  It does not improve or enhance your care at all.  In fact, it restricts it.  It restricts your choice of doctor.  It restricts your options for treatment.  And it does that in service not of your health, but of the insurance company's profit margins.  By defending for-profit health insurance, you are defending price gouging, rescission, and claim denials.  None of which does anything to improve or enhance your health care.
Click to expand...


The _*only reason*_ a health insurer won't pay a medical claim is because doing so would affect their profit margin. That's it.

Maybe the claim was coded wrong, maybe it wasn't legit, yea I know it's hard to get anything through your head but sometimes those are the cases.


----------



## debbiedowner

The Derp said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not interested in your little left/right posting match. Both parties are dominated by people who want to use government as a club to force others to bend to their will. Why can't the busybodies just mind their own business?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare me the melodrama!  You're the one here defending insurance companies!
Click to expand...



Ok I said in an earlier thread you may be a sock for healthmyths I may be wrong you sound like Edward whatever.


----------



## sealybobo

P@triot said:


> As the Dumbocrats on USMB love to crow about - Obamacare was passed into law by Congress, signed into law by the president, and upheld by the Supreme Court. So _why_ exactly does the federal government have to piss away billions to *promote* an existing law?!? Has this _ever_ been done with any other law in U.S. _history_?
> 
> They begged the NBA to help promote it and the NBA said yes. They begged the NFL to help promote it, and the NFL told them to go fuck themselves (doh!). So why are they so desperate to reach people through Hollywood and sports? Because even the Dumbocrats know this is a miserable failure, and they _know_ it is going to be repealed eventually unless they can do major damage control and brainwash the masses (especially the young and impressionable - hence the NBA, NFL, etc.) that this is a "good" thing.
> 
> Super Bowl champ Baltimore Ravens getting paid $130,000 to promote Obamacare | WashingtonExaminer.com



Hey look you are a liar

Conservatives are working on changes to the GOP health overhaul bill.  At the heart of those negotiations is the law's requirement that most insurance plans offer 10 specific categories of "essential health benefits." They include hospital care, doctor and outpatient visits and prescription drug coverage, along with things like maternity care, mental health and preventive care services. 

The want to strip required benefits, arguing that the coverage guarantees were driving up premium prices.  "The insurance mandates are a primary driver of [premium] spikes," Ted Cruz, R-Texas, wrote in March. 

But health analysts and economists say that eliminating those benefits won't bring premiums down. 

*Essential Health Benefits*

Under the Affordable Care Act, every health insurance plan must cover the following services:

•Ambulatory services (care you get without being admitted to the hospital)
•Emergency services
•Hospitalization (like surgery and overnight stays)
•Pregnancy, maternity and newborn care 
•Mental health and substance use disorder services, including behavioral health treatment (this includes counseling and psychotherapy)
•Prescription drugs
•Rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices
•Laboratory services
•Preventive care and chronic disease management
•Pediatric services, including oral and vision care (but adult dental and vision coverage aren't essential health benefits)

Republicans want to get rid of things like maternity care and mental health and substance abuse treatment as things that drive up premiums for people who will never use such services.  But here’s the problem.  These things don’t raise the prices that much.  Hospital care, doctor visits and prescription drugs "are the three big ones.  Unless they were talking about ditching those, the other ones only have a marginal impact.

Maternity care and mental health and substance abuse, he says, "are probably less than 5 percent" of premium costs.


----------



## P@triot

sealybobo said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> As the Dumbocrats on USMB love to crow about - Obamacare was passed into law by Congress, signed into law by the president, and upheld by the Supreme Court. So _why_ exactly does the federal government have to piss away billions to *promote* an existing law?!? Has this _ever_ been done with any other law in U.S. _history_?
> 
> They begged the NBA to help promote it and the NBA said yes. They begged the NFL to help promote it, and the NFL told them to go fuck themselves (doh!). So why are they so desperate to reach people through Hollywood and sports? Because even the Dumbocrats know this is a miserable failure, and they _know_ it is going to be repealed eventually unless they can do major damage control and brainwash the masses (especially the young and impressionable - hence the NBA, NFL, etc.) that this is a "good" thing.
> 
> Super Bowl champ Baltimore Ravens getting paid $130,000 to promote Obamacare | WashingtonExaminer.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey look you are a liar
Click to expand...

Congrats....that was your dumbest post ever. You called me a "liar" and then didn't address a _single_ thing I stated in my post. You went off on a tangent about stuff I never mentioned.


----------



## P@triot

*Thank goodness for the "Affordable" Healthcare Act! *​
Yeah...prices have absolutely skyrocketed ever since Barack Obama and the Dumbocrats unconstitutionally stuck their nose into the healthcare industry. Now Maryland could see 150% increases just this year alone.

Health Insurers in Maryland Request Premium Rate Hikes as High as 150%


----------



## dblack

P@triot said:


> *Thank goodness for the "Affordable" Healthcare Act! *​
> Yeah...prices have absolutely skyrocketed ever since Barack Obama and the Dumbocrats unconstitutionally stuck their nose into the healthcare industry. Now Maryland could see 150% increases just this year alone.
> 
> Health Insurers in Maryland Request Premium Rate Hikes as High as 150%



I'm not fan of ACA, but I don't know how you can claim it's a failure. The insurance industry is enjoying record profits. And Trumpcare will be even better! I bet they end up having the IRS just deposit the tax credits directly into your insurance company's bank.


----------



## debbiedowner

P@triot said:


> *Thank goodness for the "Affordable" Healthcare Act! *​
> Yeah...prices have absolutely skyrocketed ever since Barack Obama and the Dumbocrats unconstitutionally stuck their nose into the healthcare industry. Now Maryland could see 150% increases just this year alone.
> 
> Health Insurers in Maryland Request Premium Rate Hikes as High as 150%



Man that is more than outrageous. Even the average is outrageous. I would say cigna requesting 150% they probably be happy with 80% in which case no one is going to approve and this is their exit.


----------



## debbiedowner

dblack said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Thank goodness for the "Affordable" Healthcare Act! *​
> Yeah...prices have absolutely skyrocketed ever since Barack Obama and the Dumbocrats unconstitutionally stuck their nose into the healthcare industry. Now Maryland could see 150% increases just this year alone.
> 
> Health Insurers in Maryland Request Premium Rate Hikes as High as 150%
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not fan of ACA, but I don't know how you can claim it's a failure. The insurance industry is enjoying record profits. And Trumpcare will be even better! I bet they end up having the IRS just deposit the tax credits directly into your insurance company's bank.
Click to expand...


The tax credits will be refunded to you in your tax return. Instead of being paid upfront like now you won't see them until you file your taxes next year. Therefore most of the ones receiving a subsidy now will not be able to afford health insurance the year before they get their tax credits. 

Only a few insurance companies reaped profits but none the less they received them. One of the largest that pulled out of most markets this year lost only because they did what they do with group the first year, low ball premium's. You can't be profitable if you low ball the first year in aca and then expect to make it up, it won't happen. Group they made it up next year by raising premiums in the 20% range. But overall that same company made huge profits from their other division's.


----------



## dblack

debbiedowner said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Thank goodness for the "Affordable" Healthcare Act! *​
> Yeah...prices have absolutely skyrocketed ever since Barack Obama and the Dumbocrats unconstitutionally stuck their nose into the healthcare industry. Now Maryland could see 150% increases just this year alone.
> 
> Health Insurers in Maryland Request Premium Rate Hikes as High as 150%
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Man that is more than outrageous. Even the average is outrageous. I would say cigna requesting 150% they probably be happy with 80% in which case no one is going to approve and this is their exit.
Click to expand...


And they'll get most of what they ask for. This ought to give you some pause to consider: What is harder, lobbying government for a bump in their rates, knowing that their customers can't refuse to buy, or selling overpriced insurance to people who can't afford it? The insurance industry wrote ACA.


----------



## dblack

debbiedowner said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Thank goodness for the "Affordable" Healthcare Act! *​
> Yeah...prices have absolutely skyrocketed ever since Barack Obama and the Dumbocrats unconstitutionally stuck their nose into the healthcare industry. Now Maryland could see 150% increases just this year alone.
> 
> Health Insurers in Maryland Request Premium Rate Hikes as High as 150%
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not fan of ACA, but I don't know how you can claim it's a failure. The insurance industry is enjoying record profits. And Trumpcare will be even better! I bet they end up having the IRS just deposit the tax credits directly into your insurance company's bank.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The tax credits will be refunded to you in your tax return. Instead of being paid upfront like now you won't see them until you file your taxes next year. Therefore most of the ones receiving a subsidy now will not be able to afford health insurance the year before they get their tax credits.
Click to expand...


Yeah, but with the Republicans in charge, the insurance industry will get even more money, in the long run. We just have to be patient.


----------



## debbiedowner

dblack said:


> debbiedowner said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Thank goodness for the "Affordable" Healthcare Act! *​
> Yeah...prices have absolutely skyrocketed ever since Barack Obama and the Dumbocrats unconstitutionally stuck their nose into the healthcare industry. Now Maryland could see 150% increases just this year alone.
> 
> Health Insurers in Maryland Request Premium Rate Hikes as High as 150%
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Man that is more than outrageous. Even the average is outrageous. I would say cigna requesting 150% they probably be happy with 80% in which case no one is going to approve and this is their exit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And they'll get most of what they ask for. This ought to give you some pause to consider: What is harder, lobbying government for a bump in their rates, knowing that your customers can't refuse to buy, or selling overpriced insurance to people who can't afford it. The insurance industry wrote ACA.
Click to expand...


They did help somewhat, it was the insurance companies that demanded the individual mandate. Actually I believe that the CEO of Cigna at that time had a lot of input if I remember right.


----------



## debbiedowner

dblack said:


> debbiedowner said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Thank goodness for the "Affordable" Healthcare Act! *​
> Yeah...prices have absolutely skyrocketed ever since Barack Obama and the Dumbocrats unconstitutionally stuck their nose into the healthcare industry. Now Maryland could see 150% increases just this year alone.
> 
> Health Insurers in Maryland Request Premium Rate Hikes as High as 150%
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not fan of ACA, but I don't know how you can claim it's a failure. The insurance industry is enjoying record profits. And Trumpcare will be even better! I bet they end up having the IRS just deposit the tax credits directly into your insurance company's bank.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The tax credits will be refunded to you in your tax return. Instead of being paid upfront like now you won't see them until you file your taxes next year. Therefore most of the ones receiving a subsidy now will not be able to afford health insurance the year before they get their tax credits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, but with the Republicans in charge, the insurance industry will get even more money, in the long run. We just have to be patient.
Click to expand...


You see that is the problem with aca and the present pending legislation, they have to have insurance companies to play along or it ain't gona happen. They have to give them something and it's money.


----------



## dblack

debbiedowner said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> debbiedowner said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Thank goodness for the "Affordable" Healthcare Act! *​
> Yeah...prices have absolutely skyrocketed ever since Barack Obama and the Dumbocrats unconstitutionally stuck their nose into the healthcare industry. Now Maryland could see 150% increases just this year alone.
> 
> Health Insurers in Maryland Request Premium Rate Hikes as High as 150%
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Man that is more than outrageous. Even the average is outrageous. I would say cigna requesting 150% they probably be happy with 80% in which case no one is going to approve and this is their exit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And they'll get most of what they ask for. This ought to give you some pause to consider: What is harder, lobbying government for a bump in their rates, knowing that your customers can't refuse to buy, or selling overpriced insurance to people who can't afford it. The insurance industry wrote ACA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They did help somewhat, it was the insurance companies that demanded the individual mandate. Actually I believe that the CEO of Cigna at that time had a lot of input if I remember right.
Click to expand...


Google LIz Fowler.


----------



## P@triot

Since Obamacare was passed - we have seen an increase of 80,000 deaths more per year. Nothing ends in failure like left-wing policy.

Deaths since Obamacare show big government’s unintended consequences


----------



## francoHFW

P@triot said:


> Since Obamacare was passed - we have seen an increase of 80,000 deaths more per year. Nothing ends in failure like left-wing policy.
> 
> Deaths since Obamacare show big government’s unintended consequences


Has nothing to do with ACA. Typical RW BS.


----------



## westwall

francoHFW said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since Obamacare was passed - we have seen an increase of 80,000 deaths more per year. Nothing ends in failure like left-wing policy.
> 
> Deaths since Obamacare show big government’s unintended consequences
> 
> 
> 
> Has nothing to do with ACA. Typical RW BS.
Click to expand...







By all means present some facts that support your contention.  i truly would like to know.


----------



## francoHFW

westwall said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since Obamacare was passed - we have seen an increase of 80,000 deaths more per year. Nothing ends in failure like left-wing policy.
> 
> Deaths since Obamacare show big government’s unintended consequences
> 
> 
> 
> Has nothing to do with ACA. Typical RW BS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By all means present some facts that support your contention.  i truly would like to know.
Click to expand...

The deaths are from ODs on illegal drugs. There is plenty of evidence that lives are being saved with ACA. The Blaze is a giant pile of crappe...


----------



## westwall

francoHFW said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since Obamacare was passed - we have seen an increase of 80,000 deaths more per year. Nothing ends in failure like left-wing policy.
> 
> Deaths since Obamacare show big government’s unintended consequences
> 
> 
> 
> Has nothing to do with ACA. Typical RW BS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By all means present some facts that support your contention.  i truly would like to know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The deaths are from ODs on illegal drugs. There is plenty of evidence that lives are being saved with ACA. The Blaze is a giant pile of crappe...
Click to expand...






Then please present that evidence.  And not from your versions of the blaze which I agree is not credible.  So, the same rules apply to whichever links you provide.


----------



## francoHFW

westwall said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since Obamacare was passed - we have seen an increase of 80,000 deaths more per year. Nothing ends in failure like left-wing policy.
> 
> Deaths since Obamacare show big government’s unintended consequences
> 
> 
> 
> Has nothing to do with ACA. Typical RW BS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By all means present some facts that support your contention.  i truly would like to know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The deaths are from ODs on illegal drugs. There is plenty of evidence that lives are being saved with ACA. The Blaze is a giant pile of crappe...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then please present that evidence.  And not from your versions of the blaze which I agree is not credible.  So, the same rules apply to whichever links you provide.
Click to expand...

Google lives saved by ACA and there are many pages...
*Obamacare Saved Thousands From Colon Cancer Death, Report ...*
www.nbcnews.com/.../obamacare-saved-thousands-colon-cancer-death-report-finds-n...
Jan 23, 2017 - The Affordable Care Act likely extended the lives of thousands of seniors who took advantage of free screening exams and were diagnosed ...
*Obama's claim the Affordable Care Act was a 'major reason' in ...*
https://www.washingtonpost.com/.../obamas-claim-the-affordable-care-act-was-a-majo...
Apr 1, 2015 - The Affordable Care Act is “a major reason why we've seen 50,000 ... we draw a straight line from the Affordable Care Act to those saved lives?


----------



## P@triot

francoHFW said:


> The deaths are from ODs on illegal drugs. There is plenty of evidence that lives are being saved with ACA. The Blaze is a giant pile of crappe...


Dude...you sound like an idiot. The statistical fact is that we are seeing 80,000 more deaths per year after Obamacare than before. So I don't care how many live you _think_ are being "saved" - the *fact* is, it is a *negative* net result.


----------



## Billo_Really

P@triot said:


> As the Dumbocrats on USMB love to crow about - Obamacare was passed into law by Congress, signed into law by the president, and upheld by the Supreme Court. So _why_ exactly does the federal government have to piss away billions to *promote* an existing law?!? Has this _ever_ been done with any other law in U.S. _history_?
> 
> They begged the NBA to help promote it and the NBA said yes. They begged the NFL to help promote it, and the NFL told them to go fuck themselves (doh!). So why are they so desperate to reach people through Hollywood and sports? Because even the Dumbocrats know this is a miserable failure, and they _know_ it is going to be repealed eventually unless they can do major damage control and brainwash the masses (especially the young and impressionable - hence the NBA, NFL, etc.) that this is a "good" thing.
> 
> Super Bowl champ Baltimore Ravens getting paid $130,000 to promote Obamacare | WashingtonExaminer.com


All you got to do to fix the ACA, is add in the public option.  Done deal.


----------



## debbiedowner

P@triot said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> The deaths are from ODs on illegal drugs. There is plenty of evidence that lives are being saved with ACA. The Blaze is a giant pile of crappe...
> 
> 
> 
> Dude...you sound like an idiot. The statistical fact is that we are seeing 80,000 more deaths per year after Obamacare than before. So I don't care how many live you _think_ are being "saved" - the *fact* is, it is a *negative* net result.
Click to expand...


could it be from the fact the population is older? Can you say yes? No one lives forever.


----------



## francoHFW

debbiedowner said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> The deaths are from ODs on illegal drugs. There is plenty of evidence that lives are being saved with ACA. The Blaze is a giant pile of crappe...
> 
> 
> 
> Dude...you sound like an idiot. The statistical fact is that we are seeing 80,000 more deaths per year after Obamacare than before. So I don't care how many live you _think_ are being "saved" - the *fact* is, it is a *negative* net result.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> could it be from the fact the population is older? Can you say yes? No one lives forever.
Click to expand...

And the opioid epidemic is huge- seriously could be 60 k this year...


----------



## francoHFW

debbiedowner said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> The deaths are from ODs on illegal drugs. There is plenty of evidence that lives are being saved with ACA. The Blaze is a giant pile of crappe...
> 
> 
> 
> Dude...you sound like an idiot. The statistical fact is that we are seeing 80,000 more deaths per year after Obamacare than before. So I don't care how many live you _think_ are being "saved" - the *fact* is, it is a *negative* net result.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> could it be from the fact the population is older? Can you say yes? No one lives forever.
Click to expand...

Yikes, it was 59k in 2016....
Drug Deaths in America Are Rising Faster Than Ever


----------



## P@triot

Billo_Really said:


> All you got to do to fix the ACA, is add in the public option.  Done deal.


There is no fixing the Obamacare. It's a mess. The absolute best thing to do is to repeal it and get government the hell out of healthcare.

In the private sector - set up "associations" or "co-ops" for anyone to join to pool large resources and allow them to negotiate good prices. Boom! Problem solved. Healthcare costs plummet and healthcare becomes "portable" as it's not tied to your job.

Rand Paul offers interesting plan to dramatically transform U.S. health care system


----------



## P@triot

debbiedowner said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> The deaths are from ODs on illegal drugs. There is plenty of evidence that lives are being saved with ACA. The Blaze is a giant pile of crappe...
> 
> 
> 
> Dude...you sound like an idiot. The statistical fact is that we are seeing 80,000 more deaths per year after Obamacare than before. So I don't care how many live you _think_ are being "saved" - the *fact* is, it is a *negative* net result.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> could it be from the fact the population is older? Can you say yes? No one lives forever.
Click to expand...

And what....people lived forever _before_ Obamacare?!?


----------



## francoHFW

P@triot said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> The deaths are from ODs on illegal drugs. There is plenty of evidence that lives are being saved with ACA. The Blaze is a giant pile of crappe...
> 
> 
> 
> Dude...you sound like an idiot. The statistical fact is that we are seeing 80,000 more deaths per year after Obamacare than before. So I don't care how many live you _think_ are being "saved" - the *fact* is, it is a *negative* net result.
Click to expand...

Cutting the uninsured by 20 million and making coverage GUARANTEED saves a LOT of lives, dupe.


----------



## P@triot

francoHFW said:


> Cutting the uninsured by 20 million and making coverage GUARANTEED saves a LOT of lives, dupe.


Obamacare cost 10 million people to lose their healthcare coverage initial and has since cost an additional 2 million per year, you dimwit.

No matter how you try to spin this you buffoon, we are losing an additional 80,000 per year since Obamacare. It's not "saving" lives you idiot. First you deny science, then you deny gender, and now your dumb ass denies statistics.


----------



## P@triot

francoHFW said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> The deaths are from ODs on illegal drugs. There is plenty of evidence that lives are being saved with ACA. The Blaze is a giant pile of crappe...
> 
> 
> 
> Dude...you sound like an idiot. The statistical fact is that we are seeing 80,000 more deaths per year after Obamacare than before. So I don't care how many live you _think_ are being "saved" - the *fact* is, it is a *negative* net result.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cutting the uninsured by 20 million and making coverage GUARANTEED saves a LOT of lives, dupe.
Click to expand...

Obviously not dimwit - 80,000 more deaths per year after Obvious than before proves you're an idiot, a science denier, and a partisan hack.


----------



## francoHFW

*Repealing the Affordable Care Act will kill more than 43,000 people ...*
https://www.washingtonpost.com/.../repealing-the-affordable-care-act-will-kill-more-tha...
Jan 23, 2017 - The impact of Republicans' war on Obamacare will likely be worse than ... of American livesthat were previously protected by provisions of the ... who gained coverage across several states, one life was saved per year.


----------



## francoHFW

P@triot said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> The deaths are from ODs on illegal drugs. There is plenty of evidence that lives are being saved with ACA. The Blaze is a giant pile of crappe...
> 
> 
> 
> Dude...you sound like an idiot. The statistical fact is that we are seeing 80,000 more deaths per year after Obamacare than before. So I don't care how many live you _think_ are being "saved" - the *fact* is, it is a *negative* net result.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cutting the uninsured by 20 million and making coverage GUARANTEED saves a LOT of lives, dupe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Obviously not dimwit - 80,000 more deaths per year after Obvious than before proves you're an idiot, a science denier, and a partisan hack.
Click to expand...

link?


----------



## P@triot

francoHFW said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously not dimwit - 80,000 more deaths per year after Obvious than before proves you're an idiot, a science denier, and a partisan hack.
> 
> 
> 
> link?
Click to expand...

Wait...are you serious? You're really this stupid? In post #4062 I added the exact link you're requesting. You responded in post #4063 and have been arguing against it ever since. And now you don't even know what you're arguing against?

My word, you are the dimwit to end all dimwits.


----------



## P@triot

francoHFW said:


> *Repealing the Affordable Care Act will kill more than 43,000 people ...*
> Jan 23, 2017 - The impact of Republicans' war on Obamacare will *likely* be worse than ... of American livesthat were previously protected by provisions of the ... who gained coverage across several states, one life was saved per year.


You are so easy to dupe. It is freaking _hilarious_...


----------



## francoHFW

P@triot said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> The deaths are from ODs on illegal drugs. There is plenty of evidence that lives are being saved with ACA. The Blaze is a giant pile of crappe...
> 
> 
> 
> Dude...you sound like an idiot. The statistical fact is that we are seeing 80,000 more deaths per year after Obamacare than before. So I don't care how many live you _think_ are being "saved" - the *fact* is, it is a *negative* net result.
Click to expand...

RESPECTABLE link? Anything to do with the 60k opioid deaths last year? 80 this year? Nonsensical idea....


----------



## francoHFW

P@triot said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously not dimwit - 80,000 more deaths per year after Obvious than before proves you're an idiot, a science denier, and a partisan hack.
> 
> 
> 
> link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wait...are you serious? You're really this stupid? In post #4062 I added the exact link you're requesting. You responded in post #4063 and have been arguing against it ever since. And now you don't even know what you're arguing against?
> 
> My word, you are the dimwit to end all dimwits.
Click to expand...

The dimwits are Beck and you...HS grad ex-cokehead DJs like him and Rush are a joke, for dupes only...


----------



## P@triot

francoHFW said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously not dimwit - 80,000 more deaths per year after Obvious than before proves you're an idiot, a science denier, and a partisan hack.
> 
> 
> 
> link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wait...are you serious? You're really this stupid? In post #4062 I added the exact link you're requesting. You responded in post #4063 and have been arguing against it ever since. And now you don't even know what you're arguing against?
> 
> My word, you are the dimwit to end all dimwits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The dimwits are Beck and you...
Click to expand...

Dude...your dumb ass argued about statistical facts in a link and then asked for a link to the link you were arguing about.


----------



## P@triot

francoHFW said:


> RESPECTABLE link? Anything to do with the 60k opioid deaths last year? 80 this year? Nonsensical idea....


Come on my fragile little snowflake - be a drama queen again and tell us all how everyone is going to "die" when Obamacare is revealed.


----------



## francoHFW

P@triot said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously not dimwit - 80,000 more deaths per year after Obvious than before proves you're an idiot, a science denier, and a partisan hack.
> 
> 
> 
> link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wait...are you serious? You're really this stupid? In post #4062 I added the exact link you're requesting. You responded in post #4063 and have been arguing against it ever since. And now you don't even know what you're arguing against?
> 
> My word, you are the dimwit to end all dimwits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The dimwits are Beck and you...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude...your dumb ass argued about statistical facts in a link and then asked for a link to the link you were arguing about.
Click to expand...

Idiotic GOP propaganda, dupe.


----------



## P@triot

Nothing ends in failure like left-wing policy...


> (WASHINGTON) — The number of U.S. adults without health insurance has grown by some 2 million this year, according to a major new survey that finds recent coverage gains beginning to erode.


Obamacare has run all of the insurance companies out of the "exchanges". So we have 80,000 more deaths per year thanks to Obamacare and millions losing their health insurance thanks to Obamacare.

Healthcare: Uninsured U.S. Adults Increase by Two Million


----------



## debbiedowner

P@triot said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> All you got to do to fix the ACA, is add in the public option.  Done deal.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no fixing the Obamacare. It's a mess. The absolute best thing to do is to repeal it and get government the hell out of healthcare.
> 
> In the private sector - set up "associations" or "co-ops" for anyone to join to pool large resources and allow them to negotiate good prices. Boom! Problem solved. Healthcare costs plummet and healthcare becomes "portable" as it's not tied to your job.
> 
> Rand Paul offers interesting plan to dramatically transform U.S. health care system
Click to expand...


Repeal ain't gona happen so move on with your life.


----------



## debbiedowner

P@triot said:


> Nothing ends in failure like left-wing policy...
> 
> 
> 
> (WASHINGTON) — The number of U.S. adults without health insurance has grown by some 2 million this year, according to a major new survey that finds recent coverage gains beginning to erode.
> 
> 
> 
> Obamacare has run all of the insurance companies out of the "exchanges". So we have 80,000 more deaths per year thanks to Obamacare and millions losing their health insurance thanks to Obamacare.
> 
> Healthcare: Uninsured U.S. Adults Increase by Two Million
Click to expand...


 All insurance companies?


----------



## P@triot

debbiedowner said:


> Repeal ain't gona happen so move on with your life.


Bwahahaha! It's _already_ been repealed in the House. Just needs to be repealed in the Senate and it's a done deal.


----------



## P@triot

debbiedowner said:


> Repeal ain't gona happen so move on with your life.


Remember when you geniuses said "Donald Trump ain't gona be president so move on with your life".


----------



## debbiedowner

P@triot said:


> debbiedowner said:
> 
> 
> 
> Repeal ain't gona happen so move on with your life.
> 
> 
> 
> Bwahahaha! It's _already_ been repealed in the House. Just needs to be repealed in the Senate and it's a done deal.
Click to expand...



Be serious, neither are repeals.

re·peal
rəˈpēl/
_verb_

*1*.
revoke or annul (a law or congressional act).
"the legislation was repealed five months later"
synonyms: revoke, rescind, cancel, reverse, annul, nullify, declare null and void, quash, abolish; More

_noun_

*1*.
the action of revoking or annulling a law or congressional act.
"the House voted in favor of repeal"
synonyms: revocation, rescinding, cancellation, reversal, annulment, nullification, quashing, abolition; More


----------



## P@triot

debbiedowner said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> debbiedowner said:
> 
> 
> 
> Repeal ain't gona happen so move on with your life.
> 
> 
> 
> Bwahahaha! It's _already_ been repealed in the House. Just needs to be repealed in the Senate and it's a done deal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Be serious, neither are repeals.
Click to expand...

They aren't? What are they - "fake" repeals?


----------



## debbiedowner

P@triot said:


> debbiedowner said:
> 
> 
> 
> Repeal ain't gona happen so move on with your life.
> 
> 
> 
> Bwahahaha! It's _already_ been repealed in the House. Just needs to be repealed in the Senate and it's a done deal.
Click to expand...





P@triot said:


> debbiedowner said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> debbiedowner said:
> 
> 
> 
> Repeal ain't gona happen so move on with your life.
> 
> 
> 
> Bwahahaha! It's _already_ been repealed in the House. Just needs to be repealed in the Senate and it's a done deal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Be serious, neither are repeals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They aren't? What are they - "fake" repeals?
Click to expand...


Did you read the definition smart one?

Did you read the senate bill since Cruz has added his amendment? I thought you were for lower govt payments to insurance companies? Did you read that ain't gona happen, in fact more. I don't care what they do but if I would have voted for someone on their promises of full repeal (which they said) I certainly would be disappointed.  If they want to do what they are putting forward then it's crap.

They might be above to kill two birds with one stone, save Medicare and insure most people by expanding Medicare to 50 and above and between 50 and 65 charge a reasonable premium for Part A and charge the same the senior's pay today for Part B, raise payroll taxes by .5% or 1% and you satisfy just about everyone in U.S., not to mention carrying Medicare out many more years. This would lower the premiums for 1-49 age group and even though there are sick people between 50-64 there are many more healthy to offset the sick. Just a thought but I am not a lawmaker, but did sleep at a holiday inn last night.

You seem to think I have a lot of skin in this game, the only skin I have is selling it during open enrollment periods and whatever which way they go would like to learn the ins and outs, but 2018 is already a go as is.


----------



## debbiedowner

debbiedowner said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> debbiedowner said:
> 
> 
> 
> Repeal ain't gona happen so move on with your life.
> 
> 
> 
> Bwahahaha! It's _already_ been repealed in the House. Just needs to be repealed in the Senate and it's a done deal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What are you a s
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> debbiedowner said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> debbiedowner said:
> 
> 
> 
> Repeal ain't gona happen so move on with your life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bwahahaha! It's _already_ been repealed in the House. Just needs to be repealed in the Senate and it's a done deal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Be serious, neither are repeals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They aren't? What are they - "fake" repeals?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you read the definition smart one?
> 
> Did you read the senate bill since Cruz has added his amendment? I thought you were for lower govt payments to insurance companies? Did you read that ain't gona happen, in fact more. I don't care what they do but if I would have voted for someone on their promises of full repeal (which they said) I certainly would be disappointed.  If they want to do what they are putting forward then it's crap.
> 
> They might be above to kill two birds with one stone, save Medicare and insure most people by expanding Medicare to 50 and above and between 50 and 65 charge a reasonable premium for Part A and charge the same the senior's pay today for Part B, raise payroll taxes by .5% or 1% and you satisfy just about everyone in U.S., not to mention carrying Medicare out many more years. This would lower the premiums for 1-49 age group and even though there are sick people between 50-64 there are many more healthy to offset the sick. Just a thought but I am not a lawmaker, but did sleep at a holiday inn last night.
> 
> You seem to think I have a lot of skin in this game, the only skin I have is selling it during open enrollment periods and whatever which way they go would like to learn the ins and outs, but 2018 is already a go as is.
Click to expand...


All this is coinciding with the training site for certification for 2018, it goes down July 21 and the new certification comes up mid August.


----------



## P@triot

debbiedowner said:


> They might be above to kill two birds with one stone, *save Medicare* and insure most people by expanding Medicare to 50 and above and between 50 and 65 charge a reasonable premium for Part A and charge the same the senior's pay today for Part B, raise payroll taxes by .5% or 1% and you satisfy just about everyone in U.S., not to mention carrying Medicare out many more years.


And that is they key phrase there. When Dumbocrats pushed for Social Security in the 1930's, Republicans warned that it was unsustainable. History has proven them right. When Dumbocrats pushed for Medicare in the 1960's, Republicans warned that it was unsustainable. History has proven them right. It is now insolvent (per Barack Insane Obama himself). When Dumbocrats pushed for Obamacare in 2010, Republicans warned that it was catastrophic. History has proven them right.

The scary part? Over the years, the catastrophic failure of left-wing policy has come sooner and sooner. It took 60 years for Social Security to become a major problem. It took 40 years for Medicare to become a major problem. It took 4 years for Obamacare to collapse.


----------



## debbiedowner

P@triot said:


> debbiedowner said:
> 
> 
> 
> They might be above to kill two birds with one stone, *save Medicare* and insure most people by expanding Medicare to 50 and above and between 50 and 65 charge a reasonable premium for Part A and charge the same the senior's pay today for Part B, raise payroll taxes by .5% or 1% and you satisfy just about everyone in U.S., not to mention carrying Medicare out many more years.
> 
> 
> 
> And that is they key phrase there. When Dumbocrats pushed for Social Security in the 1930's, Republicans warned that it was unsustainable. History has proven them right. When Dumbocrats pushed for Medicare in the 1960's, Republicans warned that it was unsustainable. History has proven them right. It is now insolvent (per Barack Insane Obama himself). When Dumbocrats pushed for Obamacare in 2010, Republicans warned that it was catastrophic. History has proven them right.
> 
> The scary part? Over the years, the catastrophic failure of left-wing policy has come sooner and sooner. It took 60 years for Social Security to become a major problem. It took 40 years for Medicare to become a major problem. It took 4 years for Obamacare to collapse.
Click to expand...


Social Security History

Social Security history


----------

