MILLIONS of cancelled insurance policies because of Obamacare...

[TooTall]

American mainstream media:

1. Bush LIED!
2. Obama misspoke!

And yet, some still think the American mainstream media is trustworthy.

If Bush lied, I ask two very simple questions. Did all of these prominent Democrats lie as well and do you think Bush was merely believing what they told him?

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 | Source

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 | Source
"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 | Source

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 | Source

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 | Source

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 | Source

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 | Source

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 | Source

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 | Source

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002 | Source

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 | Source

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 | Source

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 | Source

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

Next. Obama's statements on healthcare were rated "pants on fire" by politifacts. Question. Does that indicate that Obama was lying to you?

According to Obama, "What we said was you can keep (your plan) if it hasn’t changed since the law passed."
But we found at least 37 times since Obama’s inauguration where he or a top administration official made a variation of the pledge that if you like your plan, you can keep it, and we never found an instance in which he offered the caveat that it only applies to plans that hadn’t changed after the law’s passage. And seven of those 37 cases came after the release of the HHS regulations that defined the "grandfathering" process, when the impact would be clear.
While Sebelius’ teleconference with reporters did provide that sort of caveat, in other instances, such as her blog post, she focused on the upside, not the downside. Her one mention of the extent to which grandfathered plans might be doomed strikes us as the equivalent of the fine print on a television commercial running in heavy rotation. Obama is ignoring the overwhelming majority of times he addressed the issue, where most people would have heard it. We rate his claim Pants on Fire.

PolitiFact | Barack Obama says that what he'd said was you could keep your plan 'if it hasn?t changed since the law passed'

 

[Mac1958]

...myself I'm saving 300 dollars a month that 2500 bucks is a estimated yearly cost ... you do the math ... my self I saving 3600 dollars a year ...

That's good. People who earn under a certain arbitrary amount will be subsidized by those of us who don't qualify for subsidies from others. So we're paying the freight.

You're welcome.

.

 

[billyerock1991]

American mainstream media:

1. Bush LIED!
2. Obama misspoke!

And yet, some still think the American mainstream media is trustworthy.

If Bush lied, I ask two very simple questions. Did all of these prominent Democrats lie as well and do you think Bush was merely believing what they told him?

Ive seen this spin sooooo many times ... I ask you in any of these statements here that you've posted please show us where any of them said we need to go to war with Iraq???? can you point that out to us anywhere it said we need to go to war with Iraq???? anywhere ???? anywhere ???? anywhere ???? didn't think so

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 | Source

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 | Source
"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 | Source

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 | Source

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 | Source

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 | Source

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 | Source

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 | Source

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 | Source

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002 | Source

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 | Source

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 | Source

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 | Source

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

Next. Obama's statements on healthcare were rated "pants on fire" by politifacts. Question. Does that indicate that Obama was lying to you?

According to Obama, "What we said was you can keep (your plan) if it hasn’t changed since the law passed."
But we found at least 37 times since Obama’s inauguration where he or a top administration official made a variation of the pledge that if you like your plan, you can keep it, and we never found an instance in which he offered the caveat that it only applies to plans that hadn’t changed after the law’s passage. And seven of those 37 cases came after the release of the HHS regulations that defined the "grandfathering" process, when the impact would be clear.
While Sebelius’ teleconference with reporters did provide that sort of caveat, in other instances, such as her blog post, she focused on the upside, not the downside. Her one mention of the extent to which grandfathered plans might be doomed strikes us as the equivalent of the fine print on a television commercial running in heavy rotation. Obama is ignoring the overwhelming majority of times he addressed the issue, where most people would have heard it. We rate his claim Pants on Fire.

PolitiFact | Barack Obama says that what he'd said was you could keep your plan 'if it hasn?t changed since the law passed'

can you show us any thing thats fact worthy

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Nice.

Any actual thoughts on the OP? Or are we just going to fling poo?

I kind of understood that we would lose coverage for quite a few folks - old policies needed to be re-written or cancelled altogether to accommodate the new law.

By the millions and that it would cost people more? The administration has now come out and admitted that most policies would cost more.

Blatantly going against the lie that Obama told that he would reduce every household plan by 2,500 bucks.

How did your fishing go by the way?

What this law is exposing is just how badly insurance cartels were ripping off Americans. You right wing morons have NO clue about concepts like VALUE.

Begin to educate yourself retards.

The shocking truth about Obamacare's rate shock

Here is your word for the day: VALUE

To the retarded right wing child brain, these are EXACTLY the same...

I love it when economically inept posters start trying to provide pretzel logic abiout things like value. Here are a couple of things to consider about value, Derp.

1) value is a determination of both exchange and use
2) If I'm not going to use something, its value is decreased immediately in use. For instance, I'll never use prenatal care services and therefore, would never, under market circumstances, pay for it.
3) If I'm on a budget, my exchange for a service must fall within the means to pay. Telling me that this is a better plan even though it is out of mu budget range, does little for me in value. As I can not make the payments. Or perhaps must give up food or shelter.

Telling someone they need a plan they cant afford is foolish, stupid and shows just how completely aside from reality your type is.

 

[billyerock1991]

...myself I'm saving 300 dollars a month that 2500 bucks is a estimated yearly cost ... you do the math ... my self I saving 3600 dollars a year ...

That's good. People who earn under a certain arbitrary amount will be subsidized by those of us who don't qualify for subsidies from others. So we're paying the freight.

You're welcome.

.

actually your not paying the freight ... your are paying what it actually cost base on your income ... if you can afford it ... the subsidies that some people get has no affiliation with your cost ... you are assuming that because you don't get a subsidy you will pay more then you are now... just like you assumed that I was getting a subsidy ... its painfully shows me you haven't gone on line or called in to see what it will cost you ... you just spew the right wing talking points ... than say oh yeah!!!!

 

[TakeAStepBack]

...myself I'm saving 300 dollars a month that 2500 bucks is a estimated yearly cost ... you do the math ... my self I saving 3600 dollars a year ...

That's good. People who earn under a certain arbitrary amount will be subsidized by those of us who don't qualify for subsidies from others. So we're paying the freight.

You're welcome.

.

actually your not paying the freight ... your are paying what it actually cost base on your income ... if you can afford it ... the subsidies that some people get has no affiliation with your cost ... you are assuming that because you don't get a subsidy you will pay more then you are now... just like you assumed that I was getting a subsidy ... its painfully shows me you haven't gone on line or called in to see what it will cost you ... you just spew the right wing talking points ... than say oh yeah!!!!

It's you're too, Jeebus

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

...myself I'm saving 300 dollars a month that 2500 bucks is a estimated yearly cost ... you do the math ... my self I saving 3600 dollars a year ...

That's good. People who earn under a certain arbitrary amount will be subsidized by those of us who don't qualify for subsidies from others. So we're paying the freight.

You're welcome.

.

You are paying for people who AREN'T insured now in the form of unpaid medical bills that get passed on to the tax payers via REPEATED bailouts to hospitals ~

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

That's good. People who earn under a certain arbitrary amount will be subsidized by those of us who don't qualify for subsidies from others. So we're paying the freight.

You're welcome.

.

actually your not paying the freight ... your are paying what it actually cost base on your income ... if you can afford it ... the subsidies that some people get has no affiliation with your cost ... you are assuming that because you don't get a subsidy you will pay more then you are now... just like you assumed that I was getting a subsidy ... its painfully shows me you haven't gone on line or called in to see what it will cost you ... you just spew the right wing talking points ... than say oh yeah!!!!

It's you're too, Jeebus

Good thing we have our own human spell-checkers here at USMB.




He does help pick up the slack by paying more, however, people in better health are paying higher premiums to help out us old geezers.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

That's a grammar problem, dude.

 

[billyerock1991]

I love it when economically inept posters start trying to provide pretzel logic abiout things like value. Here are a couple of things to consider about value, Derp.

1) value is a determination of both exchange and use
2) If I'm not going to use something, its value is decreased immediately in use. For instance, I'll never use prenatal care services and therefore, would never, under market circumstances, pay for it.
3) If I'm on a budget, my exchange for a service must fall within the means to pay. Telling me that this is a better plan even though it is out of mu budget range, does little for me in value. As I can not make the payments. Or perhaps must give up food or shelter.

Telling someone they need a plan they cant afford is foolish, stupid and shows just how completely aside from reality your type is.

here is the most stupidest poster Ive seen in a while.... health care is based on your income .. if you income shows you can afford it, it will show up in what you pay... that's why there are subsidies for people who can't afford it... that's why there is medicaid for those who really can't afford it ... that's why this post of yours is the stupidest one Ive see so far ... but I have faith in republicans and their stupid remarks

 

[Mac1958]

...myself I'm saving 300 dollars a month that 2500 bucks is a estimated yearly cost ... you do the math ... my self I saving 3600 dollars a year ...

That's good. People who earn under a certain arbitrary amount will be subsidized by those of us who don't qualify for subsidies from others. So we're paying the freight.

You're welcome.

.

actually your not paying the freight ... your are paying what it actually cost base on your income ... if you can afford it ... the subsidies that some people get has no affiliation with your cost ... you are assuming that because you don't get a subsidy you will pay more then you are now... just like you assumed that I was getting a subsidy ... its painfully shows me you haven't gone on line or called in to see what it will cost you ... you just spew the right wing talking points ... than say oh yeah!!!!

If you're getting subsidies, you're paying less, unless you're just lying. Those of us who are not getting subsidies are paying more. And yes, I have gone online, and I'll be paying about $4,200 a year more for a plan with higher deductibles and no improvements.

I guess you're not going to say "thanks". I wasn't expecting you to.

And it's "you're" and "than", not "your" and "then".

You are paying for people who AREN'T insured now in the form of unpaid medical bills that get passed on to the tax payers via REPEATED bailouts to hospitals ~

You bet, the system (actually, "systems", there's Medicare, Medicaid, VA, group health, individual health, indigent and high-risk groups, what a clusterfuck) needs desperately to be improved and streamlined. This ACA pig does not accomplish that. The mere fact that one party pushed through a "health care law" does not mean it's not shitty.

.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

here is the most stupidest poster Ive seen in a while.... health care is based on your income .. if you income shows you can afford it, it will show up in what you pay... that's why there are subsidies for people who can't afford it... that's why there is medicaid for those who really can't afford it ... that's why this post of yours is the stupidest one Ive see so far ... but I have faith in republicans and their stupid remarks

Did you make it through high school? We should probably be focused on proper education instead of mandating people to pay additional taxes....

 

[billyerock1991]

That's a grammar problem, dude.

oh ya got me ... now what ??? you're still the stupidest poster here ... excuse me...

you're still the most stupidest poster here

 

[billyerock1991]

Did you make it through high school? We should probably be focused on proper education instead of mandating people to pay additional taxes....

and yet you're the most stupidest poster here

 

[freedombecki]

...probably W's fault also?...

You think I'm kidding about how Dishonest Liberals can be?...

Imagine if ANY of Bush Policies cancelled MILLIONS of insurance plans...

Post in this thread Honestly... if you can.



peace...

I honestly think a few journalists are starting to get it: the crybaby stuff just masks the next agenda aimed at removing all the underpinnings of a free society to replace it with an absolute lock-step oligarchy while the left polishes an alliance to make Hillary "I forget" Clinton look like some kind of a heroine. *sigh*

I'm not buying the Brenda Lee stuff from Obama.

/sardonic

[ame="http://youtu.be/KBkGdbci-wM"]Brenda Lee - I'm Sorry - YouTube[/ame]

 

[billyerock1991]

That's good. People who earn under a certain arbitrary amount will be subsidized by those of us who don't qualify for subsidies from others. So we're paying the freight.

You're welcome.

.

actually you're not paying the freight ... you are paying what it actually cost base on your income ... if you can afford it ... the subsidies that some people get has no affiliation with your cost ... you are assuming that because you don't get a subsidy you will pay more then you are now... just like you assumed that I was getting a subsidy ... its painfully shows me you haven't gone on line or called in to see what it will cost you ... you just spew the right wing talking points ... then say oh yeah!!!!

If you're getting subsidies, you're paying less, unless you're just lying. Those of us who are not getting subsidies are paying more. And yes, I have gone online, and I'll be paying about $4,200 a year more for a plan with higher deductibles and no improvements.

I guess you're not going to say "thanks". I wasn't expecting you to.

And it's "you're" and "than", not "your" and "then".

You are paying for people who AREN'T insured now in the form of unpaid medical bills that get passed on to the tax payers via REPEATED bailouts to hospitals ~

You bet, the system (actually, "systems", there's Medicare, Medicaid, VA, group health, individual health, indigent and high-risk groups, what a clusterfuck) needs desperately to be improved and streamlined. This ACA pig does not accomplish that. The mere fact that one party pushed through a "health care law" does not mean it's not shitty.

.

Like I said I doubt that you really went on line because even ed schults is paying for his policy which is 1150 dollars a month for both he and his wife... that he revealed on his news cast the other night ... so if you are paying more as you allegedly say you are, man up and pay the price ... cause you can afford it ... you implied that you weren't able to pay for it .... that it was too costly .. as I said its based on how much you make ... and you're not paying the freight ... what you pay has no relevance to what a person who gets a subsidy pays there's nothing to thank you for ...

 

[Mac1958]

Like I said I doubt that you really went on line because even ed schults is paying for his policy which is 1150 dollars a month for both he and his wife... that he revealed on his news cast the other night ... so if you are paying more as you allegedly say you are, man up and pay the price ... cause you can afford it ... you implied that you weren't able to pay for it .... that it was too costly .. as I said its based on how much you make ... and you're not paying the freight ... what you pay has no relevance to what a person who gets a subsidy pays there's nothing to thank you for ...

I invite you to show me where I implied that I can't afford it. And that's not the point.

And yes, I know the standard response to those of us who have to pay more is "tough shit". And the standard response to those of us who were told we'd save $2,500 per year for this pig is "tough shit". Great stuff.

And you clearly don't understand business economics. The insurance companies had to increase their premiums across the board to keep up with the increased regulations and arbitrary standards. So those of us who aren't going to receive subsidies will have to pay more for services we do not need, so that you can take advantage of those services.

And precisely where in the hell do you think these subsidies are coming from? Do you know where the government gets the money to help you out? It comes from taxpayers, most of it from the same people who will not get subsidies, who pay most of the income taxes in this country.

.

 

[Bfgrn]

By the millions and that it would cost people more? The administration has now come out and admitted that most policies would cost more.

Blatantly going against the lie that Obama told that he would reduce every household plan by 2,500 bucks.

How did your fishing go by the way?

What this law is exposing is just how badly insurance cartels were ripping off Americans. You right wing morons have NO clue about concepts like VALUE.

Begin to educate yourself retards.

The shocking truth about Obamacare's rate shock

Here is your word for the day: VALUE

To the retarded right wing child brain, these are EXACTLY the same...

I love it when economically inept posters start trying to provide pretzel logic abiout things like value. Here are a couple of things to consider about value, Derp.

1) value is a determination of both exchange and use
2) If I'm not going to use something, its value is decreased immediately in use. For instance, I'll never use prenatal care services and therefore, would never, under market circumstances, pay for it.
3) If I'm on a budget, my exchange for a service must fall within the means to pay. Telling me that this is a better plan even though it is out of mu budget range, does little for me in value. As I can not make the payments. Or perhaps must give up food or shelter.

Telling someone they need a plan they cant afford is foolish, stupid and shows just how completely aside from reality your type is.

Hey Einstein, why don't you start by educating yourself about how insurance works. You are an economic midget.

Lost in this analysis is any sense of what the Affordable Care Act does and why, much less any link to the reality of what insurance is and what it does. Exhibit A in the latter case is the set of charges about the rank unfairness of forcing people to pay for coverage they do not need. My wife and I are a couple in their 60s—and we pay for maternity coverage, as we have for decades after we needed it, as part of our group insurance via my employer. When I was in my 20s, I paid—as part of my group insurance at a university—for all kinds of coverage for ailments that hit those in their 60s but were not at all relevant for me. That is what insurance offered to groups of people does.

 

[gipper]

American mainstream media:

1. Bush LIED!
2. Obama misspoke!

And yet, some still think the American mainstream media is trustworthy.

If Bush lied, I ask two very simple questions. Did all of these prominent Democrats lie as well and do you think Bush was merely believing what they told him?

Ive seen this spin sooooo many times ... I ask you in any of these statements here that you've posted please show us where any of them said we need to go to war with Iraq???? can you point that out to us anywhere it said we need to go to war with Iraq???? anywhere ???? anywhere ???? anywhere ???? didn't think so





Next. Obama's statements on healthcare were rated "pants on fire" by politifacts. Question. Does that indicate that Obama was lying to you?

According to Obama, "What we said was you can keep (your plan) if it hasn’t changed since the law passed."
But we found at least 37 times since Obama’s inauguration where he or a top administration official made a variation of the pledge that if you like your plan, you can keep it, and we never found an instance in which he offered the caveat that it only applies to plans that hadn’t changed after the law’s passage. And seven of those 37 cases came after the release of the HHS regulations that defined the "grandfathering" process, when the impact would be clear.
While Sebelius’ teleconference with reporters did provide that sort of caveat, in other instances, such as her blog post, she focused on the upside, not the downside. Her one mention of the extent to which grandfathered plans might be doomed strikes us as the equivalent of the fine print on a television commercial running in heavy rotation. Obama is ignoring the overwhelming majority of times he addressed the issue, where most people would have heard it. We rate his claim Pants on Fire.

PolitiFact | Barack Obama says that what he'd said was you could keep your plan 'if it hasn?t changed since the law passed'

can you show us any thing thats fact worthy

The point of my post was the dishonesty of the American main stream media.

As far as W and BO are concerned, I find both men to be disgusting dishonest statists.

If only the MSM were honest, America would be a better nation.

 

[Politico]

actually your not paying the freight ... your are paying what it actually cost base on your income ... if you can afford it ... the subsidies that some people get has no affiliation with your cost ... you are assuming that because you don't get a subsidy you will pay more then you are now... just like you assumed that I was getting a subsidy ... its painfully shows me you haven't gone on line or called in to see what it will cost you ... you just spew the right wing talking points ... than say oh yeah!!!!

Bullshit. How about we use that precious subsidy calculator you folks keep praising. Let's see here. Single individual making oh 10k a year. We won't even get into whether they're disabled and waiting a decade for benefits like so many in the country. No kids so they don't qualify for medicaid. Ok $3359 for insurance, wow can't afford that obviously. Hmm what's their subsidy. Oh snap a big fat zero! Well tickle me blueballed. Oh and wait looky here. When he does his taxes he has a refund of $100 coming. But sadly it goes to the government because 1% of 10k is more than $95. Yeah I am sure he is pretty fucking thrilled right now.