Now the evidence is released. ObamaCare passed due to illegal voters voting in 2008.

[Rikurzhen]

Obamacares is law. Except it

You communists are a laugh riot. The Defense of Marriage Act was law too. So too were numerous changes to State Constitutions. Did you guys accept those laws?

 

[Rikurzhen]

Amazing!

Not ONE Obamacare pro/con evidently contradicted or agreed with the below FACTS.

Is the simple gross 1,000% exaggerated number too hard to swallow?

Folks especially those against Obamacare, do you realize if MORE Americans totally comprehended the enormity of this exaggeration i.e. Obama said before ACA passed: “I don’t have to explain to you that nearly 46 million Americans don’t have health insurance coverage today. In the wealthiest nation on Earth, 46 million of our fellow citizens have no coverage.”

He said it dozens more times, including in June 2013: “We are not a nation that accepts nearly 46 million uninsured men,women and children.”

This totally fabricated, grossly overstated number 46 million is what EVERYONE including critics use BUT IT IS SO WRONG!!!!

1) 10 million were NOT legal citizens.... - The Census admits 10 million of the "46 million uninsured" ARE NOT CITIZENS!
Proof:10 million are not citizens Income Poverty and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States 2009 - Income Wealth - Newsroom - U.S. Census Bureau
Please I ask you go check this out ... The 46 million used by the Census includes 10 million people NOT eligible for insurance i.e. not citizens!

2) 14 million per the CENSUS were eligible for Medicaid but didn't know it! Again the Census tells us they UNDERCOUNTED those that should have been enrolled in Medicaid. But where was Obama's administration on getting them enrolled?
Proof:14 million due to Medicaid ineptness eligible before ACA: http://coverageforall.org/pdf/BC-BS_Uninsured-America.pdf

3) 18 million Americans that are under 34 didn't need health insurance but could afford (they make over $50,000) but don't want employers health plan were counted as "uninsured"! They don't want it and more importantly need it!
Proof:18 million never wanted or need health insurance: CRISIS OF THE UNINSURED 2009

Add these numbers up and it is 42 million people of the supposedly 46 million that are either illegal, don't know, or don't want!

Do you think ACA would have passed if the "YES" voters knew there with just 4 million people really needing health insurance?

Where were the Congressional investigations on the 14 million that were eligible BEFORE ACA for Medicaid but Obama didn't get them registered?

Where were the news stories explaining these 3 simple facts .. 10 million not citizens..14 million Medicaid eligible..18 million don't want!

WHY don't more people recognize this PHONY number exaggerated the uninsured by over a 1,000%!

10 million are not legal citizens!
14 million simply don't know they are covered by Medicaid!
18 million don't want, don't need, can afford employers' health plans!
42 million supposedly "uninsured" that are legal, are already eligible for Medicaid and DON"T want insurance !!!

Obamacares is law. Except it

Millions of People Have Health Insurance Thanks to Obamacare

Dred Scott was law, and no we didn't have to accept it just because the democrats said so.

You meant conservatives right? It was liberals/progressives who fought it, along with conservatives slavery....

It was old-time Christians who fought it, moron.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Do you have anything more recent, like in this century, or at least since the late 1960's when the GOP embraced the well documented "Southern Strategy" in which the Gop effectively embraced the racist ideals of the much earlier Democratic party? Actually the swap started back in 1948 when the Dems added an equal rights plank to their platform. Why does the GOP have such great memories from a century ago, but you have trouble remembering the vile things your party has done recently?

The BIG LIE of the Southern Strategy has really infected you liberals. Educate yourself.

Southern Strategy

If the parties had in some meaningful way flipped on civil rights, one would expect that to show up in the electoral results in the years following the Democrats’ 1964 about-face on the issue. Nothing of the sort happened: Of the 21 Democratic senators who opposed the 1964 act, only one would ever change parties. Nor did the segregationist constituencies that elected these Democrats throw them out in favor of Republicans: The remaining 20 continued to be elected as Democrats or were replaced by Democrats. It was, on average, nearly a quarter of a century before those seats went Republican. If southern rednecks ditched the Democrats because of a civil-rights law passed in 1964, it is strange that they waited until the late 1980s and early 1990s to do so.​

Here's how propagandists construct the Big Lie. They take some facts, overlook others, and the actually outright lie about the conclusions. What is the Big Lie about the Southern Strategy? Nixon did it. He flipped the South by appealing to their racism. Most of the South went for Wallace in 1968. The traditionally liberal parts of the country went for Humphrey and the rest of the nation went for Nixon. When the rest of the nation supports Nixon there are no nefarious motives assigned, but when a few Southern states follow the lead of the rest of the nation then they're doing it for the wrong reasons. What was their alternative, vote for Wallace or Humphrey and neither of those was palatable. Nixon didn't do anything.

Come 1972, the Big Lie has us believe that Nixon clamped a lock-down on the South. Well, he did the same everywhere except in Massachusetts. Now what happened in 1976, did that lock-down hold? Nope, look at all of those Democratic electoral votes in the South - a solid Democratic victory through every state which should be impossible if the Republicans had a lock on the Southern vote.

Jump forward to the Clinton years and let's see how much of a lock the Republicans have on the South. After the Reagan years, it should have been impossible for Clinton to win many of those states, remember the Southern Democrats were all Republicans now, except for the fact that evidence shows this not to be the case.

So what did happen in the South? This:

The Republican ascendancy in Dixie is associated with the rise of the southern middle class, the increasingly trenchant conservative critique of Communism and the welfare state, the Vietnam controversy and the rise of the counterculture, law-and-order concerns rooted in the urban chaos that ran rampant from the late 1960s to the late 1980s, and the incorporation of the radical Left into the Democratic party. Individual events, especially the freak show that was the 1968 Democratic convention, helped solidify conservatives’ affiliation with the Republican party. Democrats might argue that some of these concerns — especially welfare and crime — are “dog whistles” or “code” for race and racism, but this criticism is shallow in light of the evidence and the real saliency of those issues among U.S. voters of all backgrounds and both parties for decades. Indeed, Democrats who argue that the best policies for black Americans are those that are soft on crime and generous with welfare are engaged in much the same sort of cynical racial calculation President Johnson was practicing when he informed skeptical southern governors that his plan for the Great Society was “to have them ******* voting Democratic for the next two hundred years.” Johnson’s crude racism is, happily, largely a relic of the past, but his strategy endures.​

Here's a piece from RealClearPolitics which highlights how deeply ingrained the Big Lie has become:

But in the course of this argument, Bouie makes the following statement: “White Southerners jumped ship from Democratic presidential candidates in the 1960s, and this was followed by a similar shift on the congressional level, and eventually, the state legislative level. That the [last] two took time doesn’t discount the first.”

If you polled pundits, you’d probably get 90 percent agreement with this statement. And if you polled political scientists, you’d likely get a majority to sign off on it. That’s maddening, because it’s incorrect.

I’ve written at length on this, both in my book and here, but it is worth revisiting. In truth, the white South began breaking away from the Democrats in the 1920s, as population centers began to develop in what was being called the “New South” (remember, at the beginning of the 20th century, New Orleans was the only thing approximating what we currently think of as a city in the South).

In the 1930s and 1940s, FDR performed worse in the South in every election following his 1932 election. By the mid-1940s, the GOP was winning about a quarter of the Southern vote in presidential elections. . . .

Perhaps the biggest piece of evidence that something significant was afoot is Richard Nixon’s showing in 1960. He won 46.1 percent of the vote to John F. Kennedy’s 50.5 percent. One can write this off to JFK’s Catholicism, but writing off three elections in a row becomes problematic, especially given the other developments bubbling up at the local level. It’s even more problematic when you consider that JFK had the nation’s most prominent Southerner on the ticket with him.

But the biggest problem with the thesis comes when you consider what had been going on in the interim: Two civil rights bills pushed by the Eisenhower administration had cleared Congress, and the administration was pushing forward with the Brown decision, most famously by sending the 101st Airborne Division to Arkansas to assist with the integration of Little Rock Central High School.

It’s impossible to separate race and economics completely anywhere in the country, perhaps least of all in the South. But the inescapable truth is that the GOP was making its greatest gains in the South while it was also pushing a pro-civil rights agenda nationally. What was really driving the GOP at this time was economic development. As Southern cities continued to develop and sprout suburbs, Southern exceptionalism was eroded; Southern whites simply became wealthy enough to start voting Republican.​

 

[Carla_Danger]

Amazing!

Not ONE Obamacare pro/con evidently contradicted or agreed with the below FACTS.

Is the simple gross 1,000% exaggerated number too hard to swallow?

Folks especially those against Obamacare, do you realize if MORE Americans totally comprehended the enormity of this exaggeration i.e. Obama said before ACA passed: “I don’t have to explain to you that nearly 46 million Americans don’t have health insurance coverage today. In the wealthiest nation on Earth, 46 million of our fellow citizens have no coverage.”

He said it dozens more times, including in June 2013: “We are not a nation that accepts nearly 46 million uninsured men,women and children.”

This totally fabricated, grossly overstated number 46 million is what EVERYONE including critics use BUT IT IS SO WRONG!!!!

1) 10 million were NOT legal citizens.... - The Census admits 10 million of the "46 million uninsured" ARE NOT CITIZENS!
Proof:10 million are not citizens Income Poverty and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States 2009 - Income Wealth - Newsroom - U.S. Census Bureau
Please I ask you go check this out ... The 46 million used by the Census includes 10 million people NOT eligible for insurance i.e. not citizens!

2) 14 million per the CENSUS were eligible for Medicaid but didn't know it! Again the Census tells us they UNDERCOUNTED those that should have been enrolled in Medicaid. But where was Obama's administration on getting them enrolled?
Proof:14 million due to Medicaid ineptness eligible before ACA: http://coverageforall.org/pdf/BC-BS_Uninsured-America.pdf

3) 18 million Americans that are under 34 didn't need health insurance but could afford (they make over $50,000) but don't want employers health plan were counted as "uninsured"! They don't want it and more importantly need it!
Proof:18 million never wanted or need health insurance: CRISIS OF THE UNINSURED 2009

Add these numbers up and it is 42 million people of the supposedly 46 million that are either illegal, don't know, or don't want!

Do you think ACA would have passed if the "YES" voters knew there with just 4 million people really needing health insurance?

Where were the Congressional investigations on the 14 million that were eligible BEFORE ACA for Medicaid but Obama didn't get them registered?

Where were the news stories explaining these 3 simple facts .. 10 million not citizens..14 million Medicaid eligible..18 million don't want!

WHY don't more people recognize this PHONY number exaggerated the uninsured by over a 1,000%!

10 million are not legal citizens!
14 million simply don't know they are covered by Medicaid!
18 million don't want, don't need, can afford employers' health plans!
42 million supposedly "uninsured" that are legal, are already eligible for Medicaid and DON"T want insurance !!!

Obamacares is law. Except it

Millions of People Have Health Insurance Thanks to Obamacare

Dred Scott was law, and no we didn't have to accept it just because the democrats said so.

You meant conservatives right? It was liberals/progressives who fought it, along with conservatives slavery....

Nope, I meant the democrat party, the party of slavery, Jim Crow, Poll taxes, segregation, the KKK and thus Dred Scott. That's who.

Oh those conservatives from the South, today's GOP base. Weird you don't know the GOP/Dems switched sides a few times the past 150+ years?

Yeppers, we swapped after the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Oh those conservatives from the South, today's GOP base. Weird you don't know the GOP/Dems switched sides a few times the past 150+ years?

I find it odd that so many liberals attack the racists of the South, whites who live in communities where blacks constitute 30% or more of the population, while they live in whiteopias like, say Monterey, CA, where blacks constitute only 2.8% of the population.

You'd think that the racists would move to Monterey and the diversity loving liberals would move to the South where they could drink deep of the fabulous diversity that they so value with their uttered words, but remarkably not with the way they actually choose to live their lives.

 

[Carla_Danger]

Amazing!

Not ONE Obamacare pro/con evidently contradicted or agreed with the below FACTS.

Is the simple gross 1,000% exaggerated number too hard to swallow?

Folks especially those against Obamacare, do you realize if MORE Americans totally comprehended the enormity of this exaggeration i.e. Obama said before ACA passed: “I don’t have to explain to you that nearly 46 million Americans don’t have health insurance coverage today. In the wealthiest nation on Earth, 46 million of our fellow citizens have no coverage.”

He said it dozens more times, including in June 2013: “We are not a nation that accepts nearly 46 million uninsured men,women and children.”

This totally fabricated, grossly overstated number 46 million is what EVERYONE including critics use BUT IT IS SO WRONG!!!!

1) 10 million were NOT legal citizens.... - The Census admits 10 million of the "46 million uninsured" ARE NOT CITIZENS!
Proof:10 million are not citizens Income Poverty and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States 2009 - Income Wealth - Newsroom - U.S. Census Bureau
Please I ask you go check this out ... The 46 million used by the Census includes 10 million people NOT eligible for insurance i.e. not citizens!

2) 14 million per the CENSUS were eligible for Medicaid but didn't know it! Again the Census tells us they UNDERCOUNTED those that should have been enrolled in Medicaid. But where was Obama's administration on getting them enrolled?
Proof:14 million due to Medicaid ineptness eligible before ACA: http://coverageforall.org/pdf/BC-BS_Uninsured-America.pdf

3) 18 million Americans that are under 34 didn't need health insurance but could afford (they make over $50,000) but don't want employers health plan were counted as "uninsured"! They don't want it and more importantly need it!
Proof:18 million never wanted or need health insurance: CRISIS OF THE UNINSURED 2009

Add these numbers up and it is 42 million people of the supposedly 46 million that are either illegal, don't know, or don't want!

Do you think ACA would have passed if the "YES" voters knew there with just 4 million people really needing health insurance?

Where were the Congressional investigations on the 14 million that were eligible BEFORE ACA for Medicaid but Obama didn't get them registered?

Where were the news stories explaining these 3 simple facts .. 10 million not citizens..14 million Medicaid eligible..18 million don't want!

WHY don't more people recognize this PHONY number exaggerated the uninsured by over a 1,000%!

10 million are not legal citizens!
14 million simply don't know they are covered by Medicaid!
18 million don't want, don't need, can afford employers' health plans!
42 million supposedly "uninsured" that are legal, are already eligible for Medicaid and DON"T want insurance !!!

Obamacares is law. Except it

Millions of People Have Health Insurance Thanks to Obamacare

Dred Scott was law, and no we didn't have to accept it just because the democrats said so.

True, you don't have to accept the ACA, but you're stuck with it regardless. The GOP is helpless to reverse it and by the time they have enough power to do so, like Social Security, it will be a staple in our society.

Republican's love their ACA, THEY SIMPLY LOVE IT!!!

 

[Faun]

Do you have anything more recent, like in this century, or at least since the late 1960's when the GOP embraced the well documented "Southern Strategy" in which the Gop effectively embraced the racist ideals of the much earlier Democratic party? Actually the swap started back in 1948 when the Dems added an equal rights plank to their platform. Why does the GOP have such great memories from a century ago, but you have trouble remembering the vile things your party has done recently?

The BIG LIE of the Southern Strategy has really infected you liberals. Educate yourself.

Southern Strategy

If the parties had in some meaningful way flipped on civil rights, one would expect that to show up in the electoral results in the years following the Democrats’ 1964 about-face on the issue. Nothing of the sort happened: Of the 21 Democratic senators who opposed the 1964 act, only one would ever change parties. Nor did the segregationist constituencies that elected these Democrats throw them out in favor of Republicans: The remaining 20 continued to be elected as Democrats or were replaced by Democrats. It was, on average, nearly a quarter of a century before those seats went Republican. If southern rednecks ditched the Democrats because of a civil-rights law passed in 1964, it is strange that they waited until the late 1980s and early 1990s to do so.​

Here's how propagandists construct the Big Lie. They take some facts, overlook others, and the actually outright lie about the conclusions. What is the Big Lie about the Southern Strategy? Nixon did it. He flipped the South by appealing to their racism. Most of the South went for Wallace in 1968. The traditionally liberal parts of the country went for Humphrey and the rest of the nation went for Nixon. When the rest of the nation supports Nixon there are no nefarious motives assigned, but when a few Southern states follow the lead of the rest of the nation then they're doing it for the wrong reasons. What was their alternative, vote for Wallace or Humphrey and neither of those was palatable. Nixon didn't do anything.

Come 1972, the Big Lie has us believe that Nixon clamped a lock-down on the South. Well, he did the same everywhere except in Massachusetts. Now what happened in 1976, did that lock-down hold? Nope, look at all of those Democratic electoral votes in the South - a solid Democratic victory through every state which should be impossible if the Republicans had a lock on the Southern vote.

Jump forward to the Clinton years and let's see how much of a lock the Republicans have on the South. After the Reagan years, it should have been impossible for Clinton to win many of those states, remember the Southern Democrats were all Republicans now, except for the fact that evidence shows this not to be the case.

So what did happen in the South? This:

The Republican ascendancy in Dixie is associated with the rise of the southern middle class, the increasingly trenchant conservative critique of Communism and the welfare state, the Vietnam controversy and the rise of the counterculture, law-and-order concerns rooted in the urban chaos that ran rampant from the late 1960s to the late 1980s, and the incorporation of the radical Left into the Democratic party. Individual events, especially the freak show that was the 1968 Democratic convention, helped solidify conservatives’ affiliation with the Republican party. Democrats might argue that some of these concerns — especially welfare and crime — are “dog whistles” or “code” for race and racism, but this criticism is shallow in light of the evidence and the real saliency of those issues among U.S. voters of all backgrounds and both parties for decades. Indeed, Democrats who argue that the best policies for black Americans are those that are soft on crime and generous with welfare are engaged in much the same sort of cynical racial calculation President Johnson was practicing when he informed skeptical southern governors that his plan for the Great Society was “to have them ******* voting Democratic for the next two hundred years.” Johnson’s crude racism is, happily, largely a relic of the past, but his strategy endures.​

Here's a piece from RealClearPolitics which highlights how deeply ingrained the Big Lie has become:

But in the course of this argument, Bouie makes the following statement: “White Southerners jumped ship from Democratic presidential candidates in the 1960s, and this was followed by a similar shift on the congressional level, and eventually, the state legislative level. That the [last] two took time doesn’t discount the first.”

If you polled pundits, you’d probably get 90 percent agreement with this statement. And if you polled political scientists, you’d likely get a majority to sign off on it. That’s maddening, because it’s incorrect.

I’ve written at length on this, both in my book and here, but it is worth revisiting. In truth, the white South began breaking away from the Democrats in the 1920s, as population centers began to develop in what was being called the “New South” (remember, at the beginning of the 20th century, New Orleans was the only thing approximating what we currently think of as a city in the South).

In the 1930s and 1940s, FDR performed worse in the South in every election following his 1932 election. By the mid-1940s, the GOP was winning about a quarter of the Southern vote in presidential elections. . . .

Perhaps the biggest piece of evidence that something significant was afoot is Richard Nixon’s showing in 1960. He won 46.1 percent of the vote to John F. Kennedy’s 50.5 percent. One can write this off to JFK’s Catholicism, but writing off three elections in a row becomes problematic, especially given the other developments bubbling up at the local level. It’s even more problematic when you consider that JFK had the nation’s most prominent Southerner on the ticket with him.

But the biggest problem with the thesis comes when you consider what had been going on in the interim: Two civil rights bills pushed by the Eisenhower administration had cleared Congress, and the administration was pushing forward with the Brown decision, most famously by sending the 101st Airborne Division to Arkansas to assist with the integration of Little Rock Central High School.

It’s impossible to separate race and economics completely anywhere in the country, perhaps least of all in the South. But the inescapable truth is that the GOP was making its greatest gains in the South while it was also pushing a pro-civil rights agenda nationally. What was really driving the GOP at this time was economic development. As Southern cities continued to develop and sprout suburbs, Southern exceptionalism was eroded; Southern whites simply became wealthy enough to start voting Republican.​

Sure, uh-huh. Notice the switch from Democrat in 1960 to Republican in 1964 in LA, MS, AL, GA, SC...

What do you think caused that, if not the civil rights movement?

 

[Carla_Danger]

National Review. LOL!

 

[Faun]

Amazing!

Not ONE Obamacare pro/con evidently contradicted or agreed with the below FACTS.

Is the simple gross 1,000% exaggerated number too hard to swallow?

Folks especially those against Obamacare, do you realize if MORE Americans totally comprehended the enormity of this exaggeration i.e. Obama said before ACA passed: “I don’t have to explain to you that nearly 46 million Americans don’t have health insurance coverage today. In the wealthiest nation on Earth, 46 million of our fellow citizens have no coverage.”

He said it dozens more times, including in June 2013: “We are not a nation that accepts nearly 46 million uninsured men,women and children.”

This totally fabricated, grossly overstated number 46 million is what EVERYONE including critics use BUT IT IS SO WRONG!!!!

1) 10 million were NOT legal citizens.... - The Census admits 10 million of the "46 million uninsured" ARE NOT CITIZENS!
Proof:10 million are not citizens Income Poverty and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States 2009 - Income Wealth - Newsroom - U.S. Census Bureau
Please I ask you go check this out ... The 46 million used by the Census includes 10 million people NOT eligible for insurance i.e. not citizens!

2) 14 million per the CENSUS were eligible for Medicaid but didn't know it! Again the Census tells us they UNDERCOUNTED those that should have been enrolled in Medicaid. But where was Obama's administration on getting them enrolled?
Proof:14 million due to Medicaid ineptness eligible before ACA: http://coverageforall.org/pdf/BC-BS_Uninsured-America.pdf

3) 18 million Americans that are under 34 didn't need health insurance but could afford (they make over $50,000) but don't want employers health plan were counted as "uninsured"! They don't want it and more importantly need it!
Proof:18 million never wanted or need health insurance: CRISIS OF THE UNINSURED 2009

Add these numbers up and it is 42 million people of the supposedly 46 million that are either illegal, don't know, or don't want!

Do you think ACA would have passed if the "YES" voters knew there with just 4 million people really needing health insurance?

Where were the Congressional investigations on the 14 million that were eligible BEFORE ACA for Medicaid but Obama didn't get them registered?

Where were the news stories explaining these 3 simple facts .. 10 million not citizens..14 million Medicaid eligible..18 million don't want!

WHY don't more people recognize this PHONY number exaggerated the uninsured by over a 1,000%!

10 million are not legal citizens!
14 million simply don't know they are covered by Medicaid!
18 million don't want, don't need, can afford employers' health plans!
42 million supposedly "uninsured" that are legal, are already eligible for Medicaid and DON"T want insurance !!!

Obamacares is law. Except it

Millions of People Have Health Insurance Thanks to Obamacare

Dred Scott was law, and no we didn't have to accept it just because the democrats said so.

True, you don't have to accept the ACA, but you're stuck with it regardless. The GOP is helpless to reverse it and by the time they have enough power to do so, like Social Security, it will be a staple in our society.

Republican's love their ACA, THEY SIMPLY LOVE IT!!!

It's funny how they loved it when the Heritage Foundation pitched it in the 80's. They loved it when Republicans adopted it in the 90's. They loved it when Romney passed it in the 00's. Democrats pass it and suddenly, they hate it. Go figure.

 

[healthmyths]

Amazing!

Not ONE Obamacare pro/con evidently contradicted or agreed with the below FACTS.

Is the simple gross 1,000% exaggerated number too hard to swallow?

Folks especially those against Obamacare, do you realize if MORE Americans totally comprehended the enormity of this exaggeration i.e. Obama said before ACA passed: “I don’t have to explain to you that nearly 46 million Americans don’t have health insurance coverage today. In the wealthiest nation on Earth, 46 million of our fellow citizens have no coverage.”

He said it dozens more times, including in June 2013: “We are not a nation that accepts nearly 46 million uninsured men,women and children.”

This totally fabricated, grossly overstated number 46 million is what EVERYONE including critics use BUT IT IS SO WRONG!!!!

1) 10 million were NOT legal citizens.... - The Census admits 10 million of the "46 million uninsured" ARE NOT CITIZENS!
Proof:10 million are not citizens Income Poverty and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States 2009 - Income Wealth - Newsroom - U.S. Census Bureau
Please I ask you go check this out ... The 46 million used by the Census includes 10 million people NOT eligible for insurance i.e. not citizens!

2) 14 million per the CENSUS were eligible for Medicaid but didn't know it! Again the Census tells us they UNDERCOUNTED those that should have been enrolled in Medicaid. But where was Obama's administration on getting them enrolled?
Proof:14 million due to Medicaid ineptness eligible before ACA: http://coverageforall.org/pdf/BC-BS_Uninsured-America.pdf

3) 18 million Americans that are under 34 didn't need health insurance but could afford (they make over $50,000) but don't want employers health plan were counted as "uninsured"! They don't want it and more importantly need it!
Proof:18 million never wanted or need health insurance: CRISIS OF THE UNINSURED 2009

Add these numbers up and it is 42 million people of the supposedly 46 million that are either illegal, don't know, or don't want!

Do you think ACA would have passed if the "YES" voters knew there with just 4 million people really needing health insurance?

Where were the Congressional investigations on the 14 million that were eligible BEFORE ACA for Medicaid but Obama didn't get them registered?

Where were the news stories explaining these 3 simple facts .. 10 million not citizens..14 million Medicaid eligible..18 million don't want!

WHY don't more people recognize this PHONY number exaggerated the uninsured by over a 1,000%!

10 million are not legal citizens!
14 million simply don't know they are covered by Medicaid!
18 million don't want, don't need, can afford employers' health plans!
42 million supposedly "uninsured" that are legal, are already eligible for Medicaid and DON"T want insurance !!!

Obamacares is law. Except it

Millions of People Have Health Insurance Thanks to Obamacare

You stupidity is SHOWING!!! It is "accept it"... not "EXCEPT it"."
"Millions of people"
FACTS you stupid idiot-poor-grammar-user!
of those "millions of people" 14 million are people that were already eligible for Medicaid! It didn't take another monstrosity of a 2,000 page bill to get them enrolled! JUST do the job CMS that manages Medicaid didn't do! Enroll the 14 million that thought they didn't have insurance when asked by the Census BUT were qualified under poverty levels for MEDICAID!


Of course that means that other people are paying more. “My old plan was canceled under Obamacare,” an exasperated Californian told me last week. “The new Obamacare plan costs twice as much, and the deductibles are higher. And yet Obama is counting me as one of his 8 million people!” But hey—at least he has maternity coverage.
New McKinsey Survey 74 Of Obamacare Sign-Ups Were Previously Insured - Forbes

Oh goodie, the grammar police is out, lol

You meant Corps cancelled plans or the 'coverage' people had was NOT really Good, Quality health insurance

Thanks for playing dummy

And you are showing your little kid insolence.... all that shows is you obviously don't know SQUAT about insurance either!
Dummies like you have NO idea how health insurance works.
Idiots like you don't seem to realize that 80¢ of ever $1 of premium is paid out in CLAIMS you dummy!
So health insurance companies are most likely paying the duplicate tests etc., that 90% of doctors surveyed say they do simply out of fear of lawsuits of which 94% are settled out of court,...i.e. insurance companies pay... premiums go up!
Dummies like you are so ignorant of the REALITIES of health that $850 BILLION that's BILLION is spent each year because of fear of lawsuits!
But dumb f...ks like you don't know that and so you don't know what the f...k you are talking about!
Just in case you might have a scintilla of curiosity here are the links to the ABOVE facts... NOT guesses which is what idiots like you do but FACTS!

1)What percent of premiums do insurance companies pay out in health claims?
According to an April 2010 report prepared by the Democratic staff of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, the nation's largest health insurers in 2009 had medical loss ratios ranging
from 68 percent to 88 percent in the individual market;
78 percent to 84 percent in the small-group market; and
83 percent to 88 percent in the large-group market.
Health Policy Briefs

NOW dumb f..ks like you don't seem to understand what means but with the majority of companies ALSO having to register with states that require RESERVES for future claims... HOW the f...k are insurance companies suppose to make a profit when 80% of their revenue goes back out in claims? This leaves 20%. Of this 20% 10 to 15% goes to operations, rent, taxes, salaries, computers etc... leaving less then 4 to 5%
net profit BEFORE federal taxes!

So Idiots like you with such a shrift of knowledge complain about high premiums? Then dummies figure out like I did and 90% of the follow doctors did that $850 billion a year is paid out BY insurance companies out of FEAR of LAWSUITS!

90% of physicians say they order $850 billion a year in wasted duplicate tests, referrals all out of FEAR of being SUED!
Physicians estimate the cost of defensive medicine in US at $650 to $850 billion per year
Health News Observer rsaquo Physicians Estimate The Cost Of Defensive Medicine In Us At 650 To 850 Bill Articles

Does your pea brain understand this???
Insurance companies pay this wasted money because it is cheaper then going to court which less then 6% of health care lawsuits end up!

What can stop this because you and I are paying the premiums directly or indirectly!

Of course the above discussion went over your head, most of the Obamacare lovers' heads and even some conservatives who don't understand
the implication of the puny tort reform that was symbolically placed in ACA!
$850 billion a year! Wasted per the doctors and paid out in claims by insurance companies that collect more premiums to cover!

 

[Rikurzhen]

What do you think caused that, if not the civil rights movement?

Did we rescind the Civil Rights Act in 1976?

 

[Faun]

What do you think caused that, if not the civil rights movement?

Did we rescind the Civil Rights Act in 1976?

No, we ran a southerner who didn't sign the 1964 civil rights act. What's your next stupid question? Why did blacks vote for a black president?

 

[Rikurzhen]

National Review. LOL!

You have data to refute this:

Of the 21 Democratic senators who opposed the 1964 act, only one would ever change parties. Nor did the segregationist constituencies that elected these Democrats throw them out in favor of Republicans: The remaining 20 continued to be elected as Democrats or were replaced by Democrats. It was, on average, nearly a quarter of a century before those seats went Republican. If southern rednecks ditched the Democrats because of a civil-rights law passed in 1964, it is strange that they waited until the late 1980s and early 1990s to do so.​

 

[Rikurzhen]

What do you think caused that, if not the civil rights movement?

Did we rescind the Civil Rights Act in 1976?

No, we ran a southerner who didn't sign the 1964 civil rights act. What's your next stupid question? Why did blacks vote for a black president?

A Southerner ran in 1980 too.

 

[Faun]

National Review. LOL!

You have data to refute this:

Of the 21 Democratic senators who opposed the 1964 act, only one would ever change parties. Nor did the segregationist constituencies that elected these Democrats throw them out in favor of Republicans: The remaining 20 continued to be elected as Democrats or were replaced by Democrats. It was, on average, nearly a quarter of a century before those seats went Republican. If southern rednecks ditched the Democrats because of a civil-rights law passed in 1964, it is strange that they waited until the late 1980s and early 1990s to do so.​

Still waiting for your explanation why LA, MS, AL, GA, and SC all switched to Republican in 1964...? For the first time since the 1872 election, those 5 states voted GOP in 1964. What to you think caused that switch?

 

[Faun]

What do you think caused that, if not the civil rights movement?

Did we rescind the Civil Rights Act in 1976?

No, we ran a southerner who didn't sign the 1964 civil rights act. What's your next stupid question? Why did blacks vote for a black president?

A Southerner ran in 1980 too.

After a failed first term. Still waiting for you to explain why those 5 states switched to the GOP in 1964 after nearly a century of voting Democrat...?

 

[Rikurzhen]

National Review. LOL!

You have data to refute this:

Of the 21 Democratic senators who opposed the 1964 act, only one would ever change parties. Nor did the segregationist constituencies that elected these Democrats throw them out in favor of Republicans: The remaining 20 continued to be elected as Democrats or were replaced by Democrats. It was, on average, nearly a quarter of a century before those seats went Republican. If southern rednecks ditched the Democrats because of a civil-rights law passed in 1964, it is strange that they waited until the late 1980s and early 1990s to do so.​

Still waiting for your explanation why LA, MS, AL, GA, and SC all switched to Republican in 1964...? For the first time since the 1872 election, those 5 states voted GOP in 1964. What to you think caused that switch?

Because the voters there opposed the human rights violation at the heart of the Democratic platform.

You understand that what happened in 1964 predated "the Southern Strategy" don't you?

 

[BULLDOG]

National Review. LOL!

You have data to refute this:

Of the 21 Democratic senators who opposed the 1964 act, only one would ever change parties. Nor did the segregationist constituencies that elected these Democrats throw them out in favor of Republicans: The remaining 20 continued to be elected as Democrats or were replaced by Democrats. It was, on average, nearly a quarter of a century before those seats went Republican. If southern rednecks ditched the Democrats because of a civil-rights law passed in 1964, it is strange that they waited until the late 1980s and early 1990s to do so.​

Still waiting for your explanation why LA, MS, AL, GA, and SC all switched to Republican in 1964...? For the first time since the 1872 election, those 5 states voted GOP in 1964. What to you think caused that switch?

Because the voters there opposed the human rights violation at the heart of the Democratic platform.

You understand that what happened in 1964 predated "the Southern Strategy" don't you?

The strategy was successful in winning the five formerly Confederate states of the Deep South (Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina.[9][10]) for Barry Goldwater in the 1964 presidential election, but he won in only one other state, Arizona, his home state. The Southern Strategy also yielded five formerly Confederate states (Florida, South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, and Tennessee) in Richard Nixon's successful 1968 campaign for the presidency. It contributed to the electoral realignment of some Southern states to the Republican Party, but at the expense of losing more than 90 percent of black voters to the Democratic Party.............. That's a quote from the following link.
Southern strategy - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[Rikurzhen]

National Review. LOL!

You have data to refute this:

Of the 21 Democratic senators who opposed the 1964 act, only one would ever change parties. Nor did the segregationist constituencies that elected these Democrats throw them out in favor of Republicans: The remaining 20 continued to be elected as Democrats or were replaced by Democrats. It was, on average, nearly a quarter of a century before those seats went Republican. If southern rednecks ditched the Democrats because of a civil-rights law passed in 1964, it is strange that they waited until the late 1980s and early 1990s to do so.​

Still waiting for your explanation why LA, MS, AL, GA, and SC all switched to Republican in 1964...? For the first time since the 1872 election, those 5 states voted GOP in 1964. What to you think caused that switch?

Because the voters there opposed the human rights violation at the heart of the Democratic platform.

You understand that what happened in 1964 predated "the Southern Strategy" don't you?

The strategy was successful in winning the five formerly Confederate states of the Deep South (Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina.[9][10]) for Barry Goldwater in the 1964 presidential election, but he won in only one other state, Arizona, his home state. The Southern Strategy also yielded five formerly Confederate states (Florida, South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, and Tennessee) in Richard Nixon's successful 1968 campaign for the presidency. It contributed to the electoral realignment of some Southern states to the Republican Party, but at the expense of losing more than 90 percent of black voters to the Democratic Party.............. That's a quote from the following link.
Southern strategy - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Um, yeah? You repeating "A Big Lie" doesn't make it so. You need to account for this:

Of the 21 Democratic senators who opposed the 1964 act, only one would ever change parties. Nor did the segregationist constituencies that elected these Democrats throw them out in favor of Republicans: The remaining 20 continued to be elected as Democrats or were replaced by Democrats. It was, on average, nearly a quarter of a century before those seats went Republican. If southern rednecks ditched the Democrats because of a civil-rights law passed in 1964, it is strange that they waited until the late 1980s and early 1990s to do so.
​

You also need to account for Arkansas, Tennessee, Florida, North Carolina and Virginia voting differently than Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia and South Carolina. Were there no longer black people living those states or were they no longer part of the South?

What kind of sure fire strategy has only a 50% success rate?

 

[BULLDOG]

National Review. LOL!

You have data to refute this:

Of the 21 Democratic senators who opposed the 1964 act, only one would ever change parties. Nor did the segregationist constituencies that elected these Democrats throw them out in favor of Republicans: The remaining 20 continued to be elected as Democrats or were replaced by Democrats. It was, on average, nearly a quarter of a century before those seats went Republican. If southern rednecks ditched the Democrats because of a civil-rights law passed in 1964, it is strange that they waited until the late 1980s and early 1990s to do so.​

Still waiting for your explanation why LA, MS, AL, GA, and SC all switched to Republican in 1964...? For the first time since the 1872 election, those 5 states voted GOP in 1964. What to you think caused that switch?

Because the voters there opposed the human rights violation at the heart of the Democratic platform.

You understand that what happened in 1964 predated "the Southern Strategy" don't you?

The strategy was successful in winning the five formerly Confederate states of the Deep South (Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina.[9][10]) for Barry Goldwater in the 1964 presidential election, but he won in only one other state, Arizona, his home state. The Southern Strategy also yielded five formerly Confederate states (Florida, South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, and Tennessee) in Richard Nixon's successful 1968 campaign for the presidency. It contributed to the electoral realignment of some Southern states to the Republican Party, but at the expense of losing more than 90 percent of black voters to the Democratic Party.............. That's a quote from the following link.
Southern strategy - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Um, yeah? You repeating "A Big Lie" doesn't make it so. You need to account for this:

Of the 21 Democratic senators who opposed the 1964 act, only one would ever change parties. Nor did the segregationist constituencies that elected these Democrats throw them out in favor of Republicans: The remaining 20 continued to be elected as Democrats or were replaced by Democrats. It was, on average, nearly a quarter of a century before those seats went Republican. If southern rednecks ditched the Democrats because of a civil-rights law passed in 1964, it is strange that they waited until the late 1980s and early 1990s to do so.
​

You also need to account for Arkansas, Tennessee, Florida, North Carolina and Virginia voting differently than Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia and South Carolina. Were there no longer black people living those states or were they no longer part of the South?

What kind of sure fire strategy has only a 50% success rate?

Success rate has never been a concern for the right wingers before. They voted to kill healthcare more than 50 times and that didn't work out for them either now did it?