Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
What I proved was you were a dumbass by stating the 2012 election that gave Obama the win was a result of voter fraud "in a couple of counties in Ohio and florida."It's rampant! Rampant I tell ya.If they are still in the legal process there would have been filings. Please provide the links to the filings.
Ohio A-G reports on voter fraud cases
Ohio Attorney Generals information
COLUMBUS Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine announced an update on the 20 cases referred to his office by Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted to be investigated for possible voter fraud as a result of Ohios voluntary involvement in the Interstate Crosscheck Program.
Agents from the Attorney Generals Office Bureau of Criminal Investigation (BCI) have investigated nineteen of the cases, and are in the process of investigating the remaining case. Nineteen cases have been turned over to county prosecutors offices.
Of the 20 cases:
Ohioans should have confidence in the elections process, and know that no amount of fraud is acceptable, said DeWine. These cases show that if you cheat, you will be held accountable.
- Evidence in five cases was insufficient to prove criminality
- Thirteen cases have been turned over to county prosecutors offices
- One case remains under investigation
- Kim Trombetta plead guilty of one count of falsification in Butler County
Our commitment to cleaning up Ohios voter rolls and to share data with other states helps to ensure that we are dealing in facts and evidence when it comes to voter fraud, Husted said. I want to thank Attorney General DeWine and county prosecutors for their work to get to the bottom of these cases.
Ohio A-G reports on voter fraud cases « The VW independent
Thanks for proving my point.
Wow. You supposedly got an MBA from Harvard, and you didn't even know Bush went there?No, but I am sure the term "idiot" showed up on most of yours.
for the record I have an MBA from Harvard and survived that educational experience without becoming a liberal.
For someone allegedly with an MBA from Harvard Business School you certainly don't post like one. Then again the previous POTUS allegedly had one too. There must be some website where you can download them.
I think W went to the liberal bastion of Princeton. not Harvard. and no, you don't get them on line, its a very difficult curriculum and not everyone makes it through.
But it did pay off well for me. I thank the liberal profs at Harvard for that.
Yes, that is what I posted originally! Converting the ACA into a Single-payer system would take a simple amendment to enable people to purchase Medicare on the exchanges.
It sounds like you're talking about something more like the 'public option' rather than 'single payer', right?
That was just a different name for the same concept. Medicare is Single-payer irrespective of what you want to call it.
It sounds like you're talking about something more like the 'public option' rather than 'single payer', right?
That was just a different name for the same concept. Medicare is Single-payer irrespective of what you want to call it.
My understanding is that they were significantly different approaches. The idea behind a public option would be more or less what you're describing - government subsidized insurance that people could buy. Whereas true 'single payer' would be taxpayer funded insurance that covers everyone by default.
This website seems to agree:
Public Option Vs. Single Payer
What the radical reactionaries on the far right think does not matter.
They cannot ignore constitutional, electoral process and SCOTUS opinion, all of which negates their disagreement.
The constitutionality of this issue is over unless SCOTUS otherwise opines in the future.
C'mon Jizz Boy, prove what I said was wrong.
I would like to find out how it feels for a supporter of obamacare to know that they support the biggest tax ever on the middle class and poor? They'll never answer that question.
C'mon Jizz Boy, prove what I said was wrong.
I would like to find out how it feels for a supporter of obamacare to know that they support the biggest tax ever on the middle class and poor? They'll never answer that question.
False question and false definition of me.
You are not mainstream. You are a simple far right reactionary who does understand none of the American narrative. Unlike Antares, you are trying to understand, I will grant you that.
But the constitutional issue is over until SCOTUS reviews it again. As long as Roberts is CJSCOTUS, that will not be for some time.
That was just a different name for the same concept. Medicare is Single-payer irrespective of what you want to call it.
My understanding is that they were significantly different approaches. The idea behind a public option would be more or less what you're describing - government subsidized insurance that people could buy. Whereas true 'single payer' would be taxpayer funded insurance that covers everyone by default.
This website seems to agree:
Public Option Vs. Single Payer
Medicare is taxpayer funded insurance that covers everyone over 64 by default and has the government as the single-payer. The "public option" would just allow any member of the "public" under 65 to purchase Medicare as their insurer as an "option" to Aetna, Cigna, et al.
It sounds like you're talking about something more like the 'public option' rather than 'single payer', right?
That was just a different name for the same concept. Medicare is Single-payer irrespective of what you want to call it.
My understanding is that they were significantly different approaches. The idea behind a public option would be more or less what you're describing - government subsidized insurance that people could buy. Whereas true 'single payer' would be taxpayer funded insurance that covers everyone by default.
This website seems to agree:
Public Option Vs. Single Payer
I would like to find out how it feels for a supporter of obamacare to know that they support the biggest tax ever on the middle class and poor? They'll never answer that question.
False question and false definition of me.
You are not mainstream. You are a simple far right reactionary who does understand none of the American narrative. Unlike Antares, you are trying to understand, I will grant you that.
But the constitutional issue is over until SCOTUS reviews it again. As long as Roberts is CJSCOTUS, that will not be for some time.
SCOTUS found it to be Constitutional based upon it being a "Tax" despite the lawyers for the Administration's entire argument being based on it NOT being a Tax.
Poor Jizz Boy.
False question and false definition of me.
You are not mainstream. You are a simple far right reactionary who does understand none of the American narrative. Unlike Antares, you are trying to understand, I will grant you that.
But the constitutional issue is over until SCOTUS reviews it again. As long as Roberts is CJSCOTUS, that will not be for some time.
SCOTUS found it to be Constitutional based upon it being a "Tax" despite the lawyers for the Administration's entire argument being based on it NOT being a Tax.
Poor Jizz Boy.
That you don't like the fact that it is constitutional does not mean anything at all.
That you don't like me doesn't bother me, Antares.
Go for it.
My understanding is that they were significantly different approaches. The idea behind a public option would be more or less what you're describing - government subsidized insurance that people could buy. Whereas true 'single payer' would be taxpayer funded insurance that covers everyone by default.
This website seems to agree:
Public Option Vs. Single Payer
Medicare is taxpayer funded insurance that covers everyone over 64 by default and has the government as the single-payer. The "public option" would just allow any member of the "public" under 65 to purchase Medicare as their insurer as an "option" to Aetna, Cigna, et al.
Right, public option. That's what you were suggesting, right? That the exchanges could be modified to allow the general public to purchase Medicare (or something like it)?
'Single payer' refers to something like what Canada has. I think the article I linked to goes along with the way most people use the terms.
Medicare is taxpayer funded insurance that covers everyone over 64 by default and has the government as the single-payer. The "public option" would just allow any member of the "public" under 65 to purchase Medicare as their insurer as an "option" to Aetna, Cigna, et al.
Right, public option. That's what you were suggesting, right? That the exchanges could be modified to allow the general public to purchase Medicare (or something like it)?
'Single payer' refers to something like what Canada has. I think the article I linked to goes along with the way most people use the terms.
Yes, the public option is a hybrid of the single-payer system found in Canada. The primary difference being enrollment is optional rather than automatic coverage by the government.
The RW argument against it is that it would be "unfair competition" to the for profit insurers. The positive aspect is that it would hold down the costs of insurance.
The country must be doing well if this is the only line of bullshit going on right now. I'm disappointed to come here and find nothing but boring topics like this.
Why aren't you right wing fucks screaming about something entertaining like gun control or black people? Get back to your roots.
Right, public option. That's what you were suggesting, right? That the exchanges could be modified to allow the general public to purchase Medicare (or something like it)?
'Single payer' refers to something like what Canada has. I think the article I linked to goes along with the way most people use the terms.
Yes, the public option is a hybrid of the single-payer system found in Canada. The primary difference being enrollment is optional rather than automatic coverage by the government.
The RW argument against it is that it would be "unfair competition" to the for profit insurers. The positive aspect is that it would hold down the costs of insurance.
LOL, unfair?
It would eliminate them.
The country must be doing well if this is the only line of bullshit going on right now. I'm disappointed to come here and find nothing but boring topics like this.
Why aren't you right wing fucks screaming about something entertaining like gun control or black people? Get back to your roots.
Then leave, nobody has missed you.
Yes, the public option is a hybrid of the single-payer system found in Canada. The primary difference being enrollment is optional rather than automatic coverage by the government.
The RW argument against it is that it would be "unfair competition" to the for profit insurers. The positive aspect is that it would hold down the costs of insurance.
LOL, unfair?
It would eliminate them.
Strange that it hasn't done so in any of the other civilized nations that use single-payer.
SCOTUS found it to be Constitutional based upon it being a "Tax" despite the lawyers for the Administration's entire argument being based on it NOT being a Tax.
Poor Jizz Boy.
That you don't like the fact that it is constitutional does not mean anything at all.
That you don't like me doesn't bother me, Antares.
Go for it.
Poor Jakey, your challenge was to prove my post wrong, you couldn't so you instead chose to make it about you.
My post was/is correct...and old man you aren't worth emotion either way...you incorrectly assume I feel anything toward you at all...I do not.
You are a peripheral entity seeking relevance and finding none.....
The country must be doing well if this is the only line of bullshit going on right now. I'm disappointed to come here and find nothing but boring topics like this.
Why aren't you right wing fucks screaming about something entertaining like gun control or black people? Get back to your roots.
Then leave, nobody has missed you.
I'm here to be entertained but man, you right wingers have really fallen off. Even Fox News isn't fun anymore. All your attempts to derail the country have failed, your party is in complete disarray, you look like a bunch of bitter brain dead racist children and now you can't find anything fun to get kooky about. Can't we get another Sarah Palin for Prez or Glenn Beck thread? We're crying about paranoid third person rumors about national health care now?
Get your game together you loony fucks.
LOL, unfair?
It would eliminate them.
Strange that it hasn't done so in any of the other civilized nations that use single-payer.
Yawn, post market share, its your assertion.
