Is Obama a liar?

Yeah, cause Republicans don't lie ... :eusa_shifty:

You are apparently very young and naive. Are you sure you didn't misspell your user name when you joined up here? In case you did, Here's a new, more appropriate avatar for you:

Fawn-Deer-deer-30735550-300-268.jpg

And you must be old and stupid if you think Republicans are any more honest than Democrats.
I'm old, but I'm far from stupid, Fawn.
 
Obama is incorrigible.

He has heard the stories of the harm the ACA has already done. The people who are having to spend their life savings or sell their cars to pay for their new insurance requirements if they can even afford them after that.

But his new lie is:

"we are making the insurance market better for everyone"

He just can't help himself.

It is insulting and sad. Sad for the people facing immediate consequences. Sad for the nation which enables this pathological behavior.

You say that as though there weren't horror stories before ObamaCare. :eusa_boohoo: The people who lost everything just to pay for healthcare ... the people who died because they couldn't afford it. When it comes to healthcare -- there are always going to be horror stories no matter what the policies are.

Sure. Some people get wiped out by catastrophic illness. It's life, but your cancer is not my fault. I should not be expected to fund your treatment. The good news is I don't expect you to fund mine either. All I want is Social Security and Medicare; things I have paid for for the last 50 years.
Your sentiment is surely not too different than those towards social security and medicare when those programs started up. Just like in 50 years from now when many folks only want their social security and ObamaCare.
 
Don't change the subject ... we're not talking about states' rights. We're talking about the viability of ObamaCare. You claim it's designed to fail, yet there's already an example of it in action and it has not failed.

You haven't given any example of Obamacare not failing.

As if it's incumbent upon me to prove someone else wrong after they fail to prove themselves right.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Then show us how successful it's been.
 
Don't change the subject ... we're not talking about states' rights. We're talking about the viability of ObamaCare. You claim it's designed to fail, yet there's already an example of it in action and it has not failed.

This is up -- RIGHT NOW!!

Title I. Quality, Affordable Health Care for All Americans | The White House

Screen-shot-2013-11-05-at-1.13.45-PM-550x341.png


dimocraps just keep getting dumber

Without a date on that, you have nothing to prove it wasn't accurate at the time it was posted.

uhhhh, stupid....?

It's up RIGHT NOW!!!!!!
 
Ame®icano;8103702 said:
Ame®icano;8103570 said:
I thought that is RomneyCare.
Btw, you should read about something called State rights.

Don't change the subject ... we're not talking about states' rights. We're talking about the viability of ObamaCare. You claim it's designed to fail, yet there's already an example of it in action and it has not failed.

Please quote where have I claimed that it's designed to fail.

My apologies ... I mistook you for another poster who said that.
 
Don't change the subject ... we're not talking about states' rights. We're talking about the viability of ObamaCare. You claim it's designed to fail, yet there's already an example of it in action and it has not failed.

This is up -- RIGHT NOW!!

Title I. Quality, Affordable Health Care for All Americans | The White House

Screen-shot-2013-11-05-at-1.13.45-PM-550x341.png


dimocraps just keep getting dumber

Without a date on that, you have nothing to prove it wasn't accurate at the time it was posted.

Then they should have said you can keep your insurance until ACA is implemented, not that you can keep it, period.
 
obamacare is designed to fail so that government will have to jump in and "fix it" with single payer.

Bullshit. ObamaCare is already in place in Massachusetts. Did it fail there?


It had enough wrong with it that it should have been used as something to learn from, not a pattern to copy to the whole nation on a grand scale.

Says you. Folks from Massachusetts say otherwise...

Massachusetts poll finds high satisfaction under 'RomneyCare'
 
You say that as though there weren't horror stories before ObamaCare. :eusa_boohoo: The people who lost everything just to pay for healthcare ... the people who died because they couldn't afford it. When it comes to healthcare -- there are always going to be horror stories no matter what the policies are.

Sure. Some people get wiped out by catastrophic illness. It's life, but your cancer is not my fault. I should not be expected to fund your treatment. The good news is I don't expect you to fund mine either. All I want is Social Security and Medicare; things I have paid for for the last 50 years.
Your sentiment is surely not too different than those towards social security and medicare when those programs started up. Just like in 50 years from now when many folks only want their social security and ObamaCare.

I would have been against in if I had been around in the 30's, yes. I think it is a bad program and could be improved by privatizing it over time, but the fact remains, I paid in for 46 years and I will collect.
 
Bullshit. ObamaCare is already in place in Massachusetts. Did it fail there?

Insurance premiums are higher in Massachusetts than almost anywhere, and they have risen at a faster pace since Romneycare was implemented. That's ONE state, with a pretty high median income level, where most people already had health insurance.
 
This is up -- RIGHT NOW!!

Title I. Quality, Affordable Health Care for All Americans | The White House

Screen-shot-2013-11-05-at-1.13.45-PM-550x341.png


dimocraps just keep getting dumber

Without a date on that, you have nothing to prove it wasn't accurate at the time it was posted.

uhhhh, stupid....?

It's up RIGHT NOW!!!!!!

Really? You really want to talk about stupid??

That page speaks of the "proposal," indicating it was published before the law was passed -- meaning it's entirely possible that the statement on that page was 100% accurate at the time it was put on the web.

Does that make it accurate now? No. But unless you can date it, which it appears you can't, it could very well have been true when it was published.
 
Sure. Some people get wiped out by catastrophic illness. It's life, but your cancer is not my fault. I should not be expected to fund your treatment. The good news is I don't expect you to fund mine either. All I want is Social Security and Medicare; things I have paid for for the last 50 years.
Your sentiment is surely not too different than those towards social security and medicare when those programs started up. Just like in 50 years from now when many folks only want their social security and ObamaCare.

I would have been against in if I had been around in the 30's, yes. I think it is a bad program and could be improved by privatizing it over time, but the fact remains, I paid in for 46 years and I will collect.
Same way many Americans will feel about ObamaCare in 50 years.
 
Ame®icano;8103688 said:
The United States Supreme Court ruled yes.

The SCOTUS ruled that taxing for ACA is constitutional.

What I asked is something completely different.
But you obviously have no clue what I was asking about.

No, you asked about the penalty. The penalty is Constitutional because this is a tax and if someone is penalized because they didn't get insurance, that is tantamount to not paying all of your taxes. -- Constitutional because the SCOTUS rules as such.

Get it now?

Obviously your selective brain sees only what it needs to see and jump on it. Read my post again. There is clearly written: "If State doesn't offer exchange".

The ACA law, as it say now, says that the tax credit only applies to those shopping at an exchange run by a state government, not at the federal exchanges. So it there is no exchange, how one can get tax credit or be penalized?

Please read as many times it takes you to understand. Please read the whole thing. Once you do, try answering my question.
 
Ame®icano;8103702 said:
Don't change the subject ... we're not talking about states' rights. We're talking about the viability of ObamaCare. You claim it's designed to fail, yet there's already an example of it in action and it has not failed.

Please quote where have I claimed that it's designed to fail.

My apologies ... I mistook you for another poster who said that.

That would be me.
obama's intent was to have a single payer system but realized that doing so in one fell swoop had no chance of passing. So, he designed a system that had to fail.
It will fail. Hopefully, it will fail in 2015 or before so there is a Conservative government in place to fix it. God help us if it waits past the 2016 elections. If we end up with Hillary, obama gets his way.
 
Bullshit. ObamaCare is already in place in Massachusetts. Did it fail there?

Insurance premiums are higher in Massachusetts than almost anywhere, and they have risen at a faster pace since Romneycare was implemented. That's ONE state, with a pretty high median income level, where most people already had health insurance.

Exactly. Much which should have been learned from it instead of trying to impose it nationwide on a much more diverse and less affluent population.
 
Dems always underestimate the gullibility and stubbornness of the Pub dupe, and the greed of insurers, who could have cooperated and just upgraded the crap policies....
 

Forum List

Back
Top