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

[PMZ]

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

Baltimore Ravens Paid to Sell ObamaCare - Fox Nation

There is absolutely nothing unusual in the American government using private citizens to promote programs that are designed to help the public but which the public is hesitant about. It happened with seat belt laws. It happened with driving and using your cell phone laws. It happened with car-pooling and using the carpool lane. It has happened with recycling, with littering, etc.

It has happened many, many times in the past going back to the settling of the West. Pioneers were wanted and corporations and private citizens were involved in supporting government programs such as homesteading. For example, in the late 1800’s, to encourage pioneers to move west, the government gave land grants to the railroads so they would build rail lines westward. There is nothing new whatsoever in the current administration encouraging people to accept the health program by enlisting the support of private citizens or corporations.

Progress always overcomes resistance. Resistance always comes from the fear of the unknown.

Someday Obamacare will be a widely regarded improvement to our past inept, expensive health care insurance non-system.

And Republican resistance to progress found puzzling, at best.

 

[emilynghiem]

I love democracy. That's why I continue to live here. There's no better way to govern than of, by, and for the people. All Americans used to know that. Now a few million hate their country all using exactly the same words.

How do you explain that except as the effects of propaganda?

I just did. You were not listening. Cognitive dissonance. Look it up. Seriously. Read about it .. think about it. Then through introspection determine if you are subject to it. Most humans are.. thus the you are with us or against us view that leads to grouping / teaming into one of the two dominant parties. Me.. I don't want to be with either of these parties..

Cognitive dissonance is holding two conflicting thoughts at once. What two conflicting thoughts would you argue that I hold?

Hi PMZ maybe you can help me sort out THIS issue I am having with fellow prochoice Democrats and liberals that is causing ME to suffer "Cognitive Dissonance" trying to figure it out:

1. Luddly also stated very clearly the prochoice stance to keep govt out of private choices

2. Here is a statement from an article where an official said this about blocking Texas bills proposing regulations on clinics:

"Today's ruling marks an important victory for Texas women and sends a clear message to lawmakers," Lambrecht said in a statement. "it is unconstitutional for politicians to pass laws that take personal, private decisions away from women and their doctors."

My conflicting issue with prochoice advocates is how can we consistently argue for prochoice and against imposition by govt of regulations on medical/health choices that we don't agree with; but then defend ACA when govt imposes regulations on health care choices that "other people disagree with."

Can you please explain this?

The most I could understand is if both sides AGREE to play political football, and whichever team gets the ball and scores get to push THEIR WAY over the other, then they go back and forth this way.

But it seems CLEAR to me they DON'T agree to play football.
The prochoice people do NOT want to have to block the prolife team everytime they try to score. But they are too happy to celebrate and push for their touchdown when it's prochoice.

The prolife people do NOT agree to leave protection of unborn life to majority rule football.
They put up with it but religiously disagree.

So
1. how can this ACA mandate be consistent with prochoice beliefs

If you believe in prochoice, how can you justify pushing ACA mandates
that restrict and PENALIZE the free choice of health care?

2. how can "tolerating" majority rule football be consistent with beliefs AGAINST bullying

If you believe Bullying is wrong, how can you play these political games of
bullying by coersion and exclusion.

I ADMIT I am experiencing SEVERE cognitive dissonance because I cannot
align and include and defend ALL my friends' "conflicting" views EQUALLY
who can't agree on supporting VOLUNTARY solutions that would resolve their differences
so I can support all people EQUALLY by including their respective views without imposing on others.

If I can't resolve this, then I am stuck with laws that keep imposing on one sides' beliefs or the other,
where I cannot help defend, protect and include all beliefs as I believe in doing as a Constitutionalist.

Please help if you can explain or advise how to resolve this "cognitive dissonance"

 

[emilynghiem]

Hi PMZ and Esmeralda: If you are in support of expanding Obamacare to cover all people,
are you okay with mandating that everyone be required to undergo spiritual healing to cure all disease and cut costs in order to serve more people? If you are ok with insurance mandates to cover more people, are you okay with requiring other mandates?

Like spiritual healing as a requirement to cut costs?

Or how about mandates that people show proof they have no VD and have "ability to pay" before they have sex and possibly create a child to raise?

Would you be okay with other mandates that would cut costs and ensure more people are covered?

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

Baltimore Ravens Paid to Sell ObamaCare - Fox Nation

There is absolutely nothing unusual in the American government using private citizens to promote programs that are designed to help the public but which the public is hesitant about. It happened with seat belt laws. It happened with driving and using your cell phone laws. It happened with car-pooling and using the carpool lane. It has happened with recycling, with littering, etc.

It has happened many, many times in the past going back to the settling of the West. Pioneers were wanted and corporations and private citizens were involved in supporting government programs such as homesteading. For example, in the late 1800’s, to encourage pioneers to move west, the government gave land grants to the railroads so they would build rail lines westward. There is nothing new whatsoever in the current administration encouraging people to accept the health program by enlisting the support of private citizens or corporations.

Progress always overcomes resistance. Resistance always comes from the fear of the unknown.

Someday Obamacare will be a widely regarded improvement to our past inept, expensive health care insurance non-system.

And Republican resistance to progress found puzzling, at best.

P.S. The puzzle that challenges me to solve
is finding an "analogy" that liberal prochoice Democrats understand
which is the equivalent to them of imposing insurance mandates against their free choice.

I'm thinking to host a 500-1000 dollar contest to anyone who
can come up with a working analogy that even President Obama
recognizes, and explains the resistance from Republicans and conservatives
in terms that even Democrats understand who want Singlepayer or
universal coverage but can see why ACA mandates are against free choice.

Can you help me? any ideas?
I keep striking out, though I listed examples above of possible analogies
that could be made. What do you think? are any of these even close to explaining?

 

[Antares]

You leave your thinking up to others and I don't. That's not a handicap for me but freedom.

Liar. No one thinks for me. I challenge everything.

All I hear is Republican propaganda.

Smart people don't challenge everything. They listen first, and ask questions. They separate reality from wannabes.

You come across as a self centered blowhard.

Classic projection, you just can't make this shit up.

 

[PMZ]

Hi PMZ and Esmeralda: If you are in support of expanding Obamacare to cover all people,
are you okay with mandating that everyone be required to undergo spiritual healing to cure all disease and cut costs in order to serve more people? If you are ok with insurance mandates to cover more people, are you okay with requiring other mandates?

Like spiritual healing as a requirement to cut costs?

Or how about mandates that people show proof they have no VD and have "ability to pay" before they have sex and possibly create a child to raise?

Would you be okay with other mandates that would cut costs and ensure more people are covered?

There is absolutely nothing unusual in the American government using private citizens to promote programs that are designed to help the public but which the public is hesitant about. It happened with seat belt laws. It happened with driving and using your cell phone laws. It happened with car-pooling and using the carpool lane. It has happened with recycling, with littering, etc.

It has happened many, many times in the past going back to the settling of the West. Pioneers were wanted and corporations and private citizens were involved in supporting government programs such as homesteading. For example, in the late 1800’s, to encourage pioneers to move west, the government gave land grants to the railroads so they would build rail lines westward. There is nothing new whatsoever in the current administration encouraging people to accept the health program by enlisting the support of private citizens or corporations.

Progress always overcomes resistance. Resistance always comes from the fear of the unknown.

Someday Obamacare will be a widely regarded improvement to our past inept, expensive health care insurance non-system.

And Republican resistance to progress found puzzling, at best.

P.S. The puzzle that challenges me to solve
is finding an "analogy" that liberal prochoice Democrats understand
which is the equivalent to them of imposing insurance mandates against their free choice.

I'm thinking to host a 500-1000 dollar contest to anyone who
can come up with a working analogy that even President Obama
recognizes, and explains the resistance from Republicans and conservatives
in terms that even Democrats understand who want Singlepayer or
universal coverage but can see why ACA mandates are against free choice.

Can you help me? any ideas?
I keep striking out, though I listed examples above of possible analogies
that could be made. What do you think? are any of these even close to explaining?

I'm not sure that I understand your dilemma. All laws set responsibilities that establish consequences (accountability) for those who do not abide. The purpose of those laws are to create freedom for the majority.

If you choose a behavior that interferes with my freedom by stealing my stuff, killing me on purpose or by accident, just as extreme examples, society imposes on you unpleasant consequences. Just like responsible parents teach children.

There are millions of those laws because people are very creative in thinking of ways to prey on their fellow humans.

One way that people in the past preyed on others is to avoid responsibility for the cost of their own health care. They discovered that we as a society are adverse to them dying in the street so would pay for their health care when they needed.

A way that insurance companies preyed on people is to not do their job, spreading risk, by avoiding insuring anyone with a risk. A pre existing condition.

Another predatory action is to employ someone full time without paying them a wage sufficient to live on.

In service to democracy, the ACA strives to eliminate these and other behaviors that deprive the majority of their right to the pursuit of happiness.

And it enhances competition in the health care insurance marketplace.
As I said, I had trouble understanding clearly enough your question.

Does this help?

 

[PMZ]

" I'm thinking to host a 500-1000 dollar contest to anyone who can come up with a working analogy that even President Obama recognizes, and explains the resistance from Republicans and conservatives"

Easy money. In the early years of the Obama administration, Republicans realized that the performance of their Bush administration was indefensible. So they launched a political strategy in the only way they could. 24/7/365 propaganda aimed at making the Obama administration seem even worse.

Obama realized that our health care delivery and insurance non-system was the biggest obstacle to global competitiveness. He vowed to accomplish what no other President before him had. Improve our health care cost and effectiveness.

Republican strategists bet it all on this horse. They threw up every conceivable obstacle to his success and therefore America's success. A huge gamble with no way out if they failed.

They did fail. They have been searching since for an exit that doesn't exist. Just like Bush's holy wars.

 

[P@triot]

Ok [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] - even MSNBC is now admitting Obama has been lying to your face for years!!! Looks like you swallowed so much of the propaganda, you are permanently poisoned from it. When even these radical S.O.B's can no longer deny Obama's lies, you know the left is in serious trouble...

Obama knew millions could not keep their health insurance - Investigations

[MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] is officially and permanently my personal USMB bitch...

 

[P@triot]

Obama realized that our health care delivery and insurance non-system was the biggest obstacle to global competitiveness. He vowed to accomplish what no other President before him had. Improve our health care cost and effectiveness.

Obama's lapdog [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] - who I have now dubbed "the propaganda puppy" is at it again. The data is in and the facts show that Obamacare has caused millions to lose their jobs, lose their health insurance, have their hours cut, and all while causing the cost of healthcare & health insurance to skyrocket (in some cases, as much as 200%).

 

[P@triot]

Oh [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] - how humiliating... The propaganda puppy has been rendered impotent by facts:

NBC News: Obama Admin. Knew Millions Would Not Be Able to Keep Their Health Insurance for at Least 3 Years, Promised It Anyway | TheBlaze.com

 

[RKMBrown]

All I hear is Republican propaganda.

Smart people don't challenge everything. They listen first, and ask questions. They separate reality from wannabes.

You come across as a self centered blowhard.

Make up your mind retard. Either I'm "self centered" or "I leave my thinking up to others." Which lie are you sticking with?

Both. The thinking that got your lips and Fox's ass so intimate was their philosophy of self centeredness. Be the best predator that you can be. We'll help.

Your ego couldn't resist.

I don't watch Fox you lying retard.

 

[RKMBrown]

Hi PMZ and Esmeralda: If you are in support of expanding Obamacare to cover all people,
are you okay with mandating that everyone be required to undergo spiritual healing to cure all disease and cut costs in order to serve more people? If you are ok with insurance mandates to cover more people, are you okay with requiring other mandates?

Like spiritual healing as a requirement to cut costs?

Or how about mandates that people show proof they have no VD and have "ability to pay" before they have sex and possibly create a child to raise?

Would you be okay with other mandates that would cut costs and ensure more people are covered?

There is absolutely nothing unusual in the American government using private citizens to promote programs that are designed to help the public but which the public is hesitant about. It happened with seat belt laws. It happened with driving and using your cell phone laws. It happened with car-pooling and using the carpool lane. It has happened with recycling, with littering, etc.

It has happened many, many times in the past going back to the settling of the West. Pioneers were wanted and corporations and private citizens were involved in supporting government programs such as homesteading. For example, in the late 1800’s, to encourage pioneers to move west, the government gave land grants to the railroads so they would build rail lines westward. There is nothing new whatsoever in the current administration encouraging people to accept the health program by enlisting the support of private citizens or corporations.

Progress always overcomes resistance. Resistance always comes from the fear of the unknown.

Someday Obamacare will be a widely regarded improvement to our past inept, expensive health care insurance non-system.

And Republican resistance to progress found puzzling, at best.

P.S. The puzzle that challenges me to solve
is finding an "analogy" that liberal prochoice Democrats understand
which is the equivalent to them of imposing insurance mandates against their free choice.

I'm thinking to host a 500-1000 dollar contest to anyone who
can come up with a working analogy that even President Obama
recognizes, and explains the resistance from Republicans and conservatives
in terms that even Democrats understand who want Singlepayer or
universal coverage but can see why ACA mandates are against free choice.

Can you help me? any ideas?
I keep striking out, though I listed examples above of possible analogies
that could be made. What do you think? are any of these even close to explaining?

As PMZ has just provided more evidence for, the root of the problem is that some people (authoritarians of both parties) believe that liberty includes the right of an authority to take liberty away simply because the majority demands it. IOW they don't believe in liberty at all, but rather only believe in liberty for their group. When their group is in the majority they rule as tyrants, and when not they scream tyranny. Bring this up and they claim you are arguing for lawlessness. Explain that liberty does not include the liberty to harm others, and they run away screaming and calling you names (exhibiting cognitive dissonance).

As your example provides above these folks are somewhat incapable of making the leap of understanding that in order that they should be free, they need to let others be free. They can't get there, IMO, because of cognitive dissonance, and/or a fear of loosing their power (authority) over others. Fear of the unknown. Fear is the mind killer. (Frank Herbert.)

 

[PMZ]

Make up your mind retard. Either I'm "self centered" or "I leave my thinking up to others." Which lie are you sticking with?

Both. The thinking that got your lips and Fox's ass so intimate was their philosophy of self centeredness. Be the best predator that you can be. We'll help.

Your ego couldn't resist.

I don't watch Fox you lying retard.

You breath it numbnuts.

 

[PMZ]

Here's a quote from the reference above.

"None of this should come as a shock to the Obama administration. The law states that policies in effect as of March 23, 2010 will be “grandfathered,” meaning consumers can keep those policies even though they don’t meet requirements of the new health care law. But the Department of Health and Human Services then wrote regulations that narrowed that provision, by saying that if any part of a policy was significantly changed since that date — the deductible, co-pay, or benefits, for example — the policy would not be grandfathered."

So the game that insurance companies played is that they tried to avoid responsibility by making major changes to their policy, voiding their original policy, but claiming the grandfathering of the original policy. Pretty slick.

 

[dblack]

Here's a quote from the reference above.

"None of this should come as a shock to the Obama administration. The law states that policies in effect as of March 23, 2010 will be “grandfathered,” meaning consumers can keep those policies even though they don’t meet requirements of the new health care law. But the Department of Health and Human Services then wrote regulations that narrowed that provision, by saying that if any part of a policy was significantly changed since that date — the deductible, co-pay, or benefits, for example — the policy would not be grandfathered."

So the game that insurance companies played is that they tried to avoid responsibility by making major changes to their policy, voiding their original policy, but claiming the grandfathering of the original policy. Pretty slick.

Or, they simply realized they could make more money by moving everyone over to the new policies - seems a lot more likely don't it? The bottom line is the bottom line for corporations.

 

[PMZ]

Hi PMZ and Esmeralda: If you are in support of expanding Obamacare to cover all people,
are you okay with mandating that everyone be required to undergo spiritual healing to cure all disease and cut costs in order to serve more people? If you are ok with insurance mandates to cover more people, are you okay with requiring other mandates?

Like spiritual healing as a requirement to cut costs?

Or how about mandates that people show proof they have no VD and have "ability to pay" before they have sex and possibly create a child to raise?

Would you be okay with other mandates that would cut costs and ensure more people are covered?

Progress always overcomes resistance. Resistance always comes from the fear of the unknown.

Someday Obamacare will be a widely regarded improvement to our past inept, expensive health care insurance non-system.

And Republican resistance to progress found puzzling, at best.

P.S. The puzzle that challenges me to solve
is finding an "analogy" that liberal prochoice Democrats understand
which is the equivalent to them of imposing insurance mandates against their free choice.

I'm thinking to host a 500-1000 dollar contest to anyone who
can come up with a working analogy that even President Obama
recognizes, and explains the resistance from Republicans and conservatives
in terms that even Democrats understand who want Singlepayer or
universal coverage but can see why ACA mandates are against free choice.

Can you help me? any ideas?
I keep striking out, though I listed examples above of possible analogies
that could be made. What do you think? are any of these even close to explaining?

As PMZ has just provided more evidence for, the root of the problem is that some people (authoritarians of both parties) believe that liberty includes the right of an authority to take liberty away simply because the majority demands it. IOW they don't believe in liberty at all, but rather only believe in liberty for their group. When their group is in the majority they rule as tyrants, and when not they scream tyranny. Bring this up and they claim you are arguing for lawlessness. Explain that liberty does not include the liberty to harm others, and they run away screaming and calling you names (exhibiting cognitive dissonance).

As your example provides above these folks are somewhat incapable of making the leap of understanding that in order that they should be free, they need to let others be free. They can't get there, IMO, because of cognitive dissonance, and/or a fear of loosing their power (authority) over others. Fear of the unknown. Fear is the mind killer. (Frank Herbert.)

Conservatives love to use the word "liberty" as a stand in for irresponsibility. It sounds so noble.

But animals live with an abundance of liberty and zero responsibility other than survival. Can't we just live like animals?

Of course we can and have but left it behind when we found things that work much better.

Now conservatives want to return to those thrilling days of yesteryear and go back to the caves. Or at least they want others to.

For themselves though they can't get along any more without their fashionable and comfortable stuff. Lavish stuff. Abundant stuff.

So they'll keep their mcmansions and the 99% can have the caves.

 

[RKMBrown]

Both. The thinking that got your lips and Fox's ass so intimate was their philosophy of self centeredness. Be the best predator that you can be. We'll help.

Your ego couldn't resist.

I don't watch Fox you lying retard.

You breath it numbnuts.

You say that like exhibiting predatory behavior is a bad thing. Can you explain to the class what happens in the animal kingdom when there are no predators?

 

[P@triot]

As PMZ has just provided more evidence for, the root of the problem is that some people (authoritarians of both parties) believe that liberty includes the right of an authority to take liberty away simply because the majority demands it. IOW they don't believe in liberty at all, but rather only believe in liberty for their group. When their group is in the majority they rule as tyrants, and when not they scream tyranny. Bring this up and they claim you are arguing for lawlessness. Explain that liberty does not include the liberty to harm others, and they run away screaming and calling you names (exhibiting cognitive dissonance).

As your example provides above these folks are somewhat incapable of making the leap of understanding that in order that they should be free, they need to let others be free. They can't get there, IMO, because of cognitive dissonance, and/or a fear of loosing their power (authority) over others. Fear of the unknown. Fear is the mind killer. (Frank Herbert.)

 

[P@triot]

I don't watch Fox you lying retard.

You breath it numbnuts.

You say that like exhibiting predatory behavior is a bad thing. Can you explain to the class what happens in the animal kingdom when there are no predators?

Oh don't worry about that RKMB - people like PMZ know all about population control. One of their idols - Joseph Stalin - taught them all about eliminating 20 million of their fellow citizens.

 

[RKMBrown]

Hi PMZ and Esmeralda: If you are in support of expanding Obamacare to cover all people,
are you okay with mandating that everyone be required to undergo spiritual healing to cure all disease and cut costs in order to serve more people? If you are ok with insurance mandates to cover more people, are you okay with requiring other mandates?

Like spiritual healing as a requirement to cut costs?

Or how about mandates that people show proof they have no VD and have "ability to pay" before they have sex and possibly create a child to raise?

Would you be okay with other mandates that would cut costs and ensure more people are covered?



P.S. The puzzle that challenges me to solve
is finding an "analogy" that liberal prochoice Democrats understand
which is the equivalent to them of imposing insurance mandates against their free choice.

I'm thinking to host a 500-1000 dollar contest to anyone who
can come up with a working analogy that even President Obama
recognizes, and explains the resistance from Republicans and conservatives
in terms that even Democrats understand who want Singlepayer or
universal coverage but can see why ACA mandates are against free choice.

Can you help me? any ideas?
I keep striking out, though I listed examples above of possible analogies
that could be made. What do you think? are any of these even close to explaining?

As PMZ has just provided more evidence for, the root of the problem is that some people (authoritarians of both parties) believe that liberty includes the right of an authority to take liberty away simply because the majority demands it. IOW they don't believe in liberty at all, but rather only believe in liberty for their group. When their group is in the majority they rule as tyrants, and when not they scream tyranny. Bring this up and they claim you are arguing for lawlessness. Explain that liberty does not include the liberty to harm others, and they run away screaming and calling you names (exhibiting cognitive dissonance).

As your example provides above these folks are somewhat incapable of making the leap of understanding that in order that they should be free, they need to let others be free. They can't get there, IMO, because of cognitive dissonance, and/or a fear of loosing their power (authority) over others. Fear of the unknown. Fear is the mind killer. (Frank Herbert.)

Conservatives love to use the word "liberty" as a stand in for irresponsibility. It sounds so noble.

But animals live with an abundance of liberty and zero responsibility other than survival. Can't we just live like animals?

Of course we can and have but left it behind when we found things that work much better.

Now conservatives want to return to those thrilling days of yesteryear and go back to the caves. Or at least they want others to.

For themselves though they can't get along any more without their fashionable and comfortable stuff. Lavish stuff. Abundant stuff.

So they'll keep their mcmansions and the 99% can have the caves.

See [MENTION=22295]emilynghiem[/MENTION], as I said, bring up liberty and they claim you are arguing for lawlessness.

 

[PMZ]

I don't watch Fox you lying retard.

You breath it numbnuts.

You say that like exhibiting predatory behavior is a bad thing. Can you explain to the class what happens in the animal kingdom when there are no predators?

This is the argument that says poverty is good for people who aren't me. I do them a favor by taking their money and keeping them poor, barefoot and pregnant. It's the least I can do.