The word "period"

And what I find particularly disturbing is that it's becoming obvious that Barry, Harry and Nancy have known all along that the ACA won't work as constituted yet they pushed it through anyways. Why? Because when it doesn't work...they will blame the failure on the insurance industry and call for a government run single payer system...which is what they wanted in the first place.

This was all a political GAME to them...a game that disrupts the lives of millions of Americans. They were quite willing to make America suffer through this in order to arrive at their "end game".

It's not been proven it won't work.



Just like PERIOD, it all depends upon what one means by WORK.

If WORK means destroying the private insurance market by forcing a one size fits all EXPENSIVE policy on everyone in order to pave the way for Single Payer Government Monopoly Health Care Rationing, then ObamaCare is certainly WORKING.
 
And what I find particularly disturbing is that it's becoming obvious that Barry, Harry and Nancy have known all along that the ACA won't work as constituted yet they pushed it through anyways. Why? Because when it doesn't work...they will blame the failure on the insurance industry and call for a government run single payer system...which is what they wanted in the first place.

This was all a political GAME to them...a game that disrupts the lives of millions of Americans. They were quite willing to make America suffer through this in order to arrive at their "end game".

It's not been proven it won't work.



Just like PERIOD, it all depends upon what one means by WORK.

If WORK means destroying the private insurance market by forcing a one size fits all EXPENSIVE policy on everyone in order to pave the way for Single Payer Government Monopoly Health Care Rationing, then ObamaCare is certainly WORKING.

We are slowly moving towards a system where basic healthcare will be provided regardless of one's ability to pay,

but those who want something more or something different and can pay for it will have that available in the market.

Which is how it should be.
 
Some did. You do remember that the ACA bill was passed with no floor debate in either house don't you?

The bill was introduced in the house in September of 2009. No one was allowed to read it until last week?

lolol

The bill that was passed was not available for anyone to read until a few hours before the dems voted it into law and obozo signed it. NO ONE had read it before it became law. NO ONE had time to digest over 2000 pages and understand what it would do to the economy or individual insurance.

it is a terrible law, passed in the most corrupt way--------but its the way dictators operate and you silly fucks voted for a dictator---------you deserve it, but the rest of us don't.

That is simply false.
 
[
Congress, not you, not me, not the Supreme Court, is the final arbiter of what is, and is not, an impeachable offense. That is clearly spelled out in the Constitution, and I actually have Supreme Court citations to back my position up.

So far, all you have is lies and insults.

Well I do have this guy to back up my position:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/2342017-post7.html

This guy, calling himself Quantum Windbag goes on to say this:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/2342066-post21.html

I especially like how he says that anyone who does think it's an impeachable offense is jumping on a rabid bandwagon...


And then we have this:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/3286957-post50.html

which contains the following...

Quote: Originally Posted by Avatar4321
I wonder if contempt of court qualifies as high crimes and misdemeanors. I am not positive it does.

Quantum Windbag:
Me either. It is not even a criminal offense, and Obama is far from the first president to ignore a court order he did not like. I don't recall anyone else ever being impeached for it.


...hmmm...looks like this other Quantum Windbag might have read the Constitution.

...would you, Quantum Windbag, like to debate this other Quantum Windbag?
 
It's not been proven it won't work.



Just like PERIOD, it all depends upon what one means by WORK.

If WORK means destroying the private insurance market by forcing a one size fits all EXPENSIVE policy on everyone in order to pave the way for Single Payer Government Monopoly Health Care Rationing, then ObamaCare is certainly WORKING.

We are slowly moving towards a system where basic healthcare will be provided regardless of one's ability to pay,

but those who want something more or something different and can pay for it will have that available in the market.

Which is how it should be.

Three declarative sentences, three lies.

We are not moving towards a system where basic healthcare will be provided regardless of ability to pay. We are moving away from that, and towards a system where nobody can get basic healthcare at any price.

And there will be nothing else available.

Which is not how it should be.
 
Ame®icano;8111296 said:
Ame®icano;8109829 said:
Insurance companies were perfectly happy with plans they were offering.
Please explain, why would they "choose" to change plans at all?
Obviously because all plans sold beginning in 2014 must meet the requirements of the law. Grandfathered plans can not be changed but don't have meet all the requirements of the law.

If is a "must", where is a "choice".
No, you don't understand. I'm referring to the insurance companies choice of whether to:
  • leave the old plans untouched so they could be grandfathered in and thus there would be no need to cancel them or
  • Cancel the old plans and issue new plans that meet the new requirements.

This was a business decision made by the insurance companies. The old plans could not be sold beginning Jan 1, 2014 and could not be changed. So if they kept all the old plans they would be administering them plus the new plans. Since the old plans would have to be cancelled eventually anyway, they decided to cancel many of them and move the people to the new plans. This accounts for most of the cancellation letters.

Many insurance companies made another business decision not to upgrade existing plans, just cancel them and issue new plans. In some states the insurance commission ask the companies to do so to avoid confusion and possible legal problems.
 
Some did. You do remember that the ACA bill was passed with no floor debate in either house don't you?

The bill was introduced in the house in September of 2009. No one was allowed to read it until last week?

lolol

The bill that was passed was not available for anyone to read until a few hours before the dems voted it into law and obozo signed it. NO ONE had read it before it became law. NO ONE had time to digest over 2000 pages and understand what it would do to the economy or individual insurance.

it is a terrible law, passed in the most corrupt way--------but its the way dictators operate and you silly fucks voted for a dictator---------you deserve it, but the rest of us don't.
Your post is inaccurate. First off, The law, as enacted, is 906 pages long, shorter than the last Bush budget by nearly 500 pages.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ148/pdf/PLAW-111publ148.pdf

Second, every legislator must be given a copy of the bill prior to a vote. Both Senate and House versions of the law were posted on line and were widely available.
 
And what I find particularly disturbing is that it's becoming obvious that Barry, Harry and Nancy have known all along that the ACA won't work as constituted yet they pushed it through anyways. Why? Because when it doesn't work...they will blame the failure on the insurance industry and call for a government run single payer system...which is what they wanted in the first place.

This was all a political GAME to them...a game that disrupts the lives of millions of Americans. They were quite willing to make America suffer through this in order to arrive at their "end game".

It's not been proven it won't work.

C'mon, Carbineer...don't play the fool! The ACA the way it was written never had a chance of working and either Barry was fully aware of that (which is my belief...giving him the benefit of the doubt for having SOME intelligence!) or he's one of the more clueless individuals out there who bought into some really bad "advice" from the far left of his party.
 
What exactly does it mean when obama said " if you like your health plan, you can keep it, period" "if you like your doctor, you can keep him, period"

no "ifs", no conditions, no "if it isn't changed"

You can keep it, PERIOD!

Was that a lie? Yes, and he knew it was when he said it. He lied to the american people in order to pass a bill that a majority of americans did not want.

Grounds for impeachment????????

I'm keeping my health plan and doctor. Guess that means he told me the truth. If the majority of Americans didn't want affordable healthcare, why did they vote for Obama who campaigned on it?

Impeachment? Shit. Just having a (D) beside your name is enough for you wingnuts to start the witch hunts and impeachment hearings.
 
It's not been proven it won't work.



Just like PERIOD, it all depends upon what one means by WORK.

If WORK means destroying the private insurance market by forcing a one size fits all EXPENSIVE policy on everyone in order to pave the way for Single Payer Government Monopoly Health Care Rationing, then ObamaCare is certainly WORKING.

We are slowly moving towards a system where basic healthcare will be provided regardless of one's ability to pay,

but those who want something more or something different and can pay for it will have that available in the market.

Which is how it should be.
And that's the direction that most developed nations are moving. With the huge advances in healthcare over the last 50 years, people are coming to the conclusion that everyone should have the right to basic healthcare. Conservatives can delay but they can not reverse the trend. I think it's inevitable that healthcare will become an even larger percent of our GDP and the cost of healthcare will be based on ability to pay.

The ACA is a compromise that will prove to be expensive but will provide much more coverage. However, I think we will eventually get to a single payer system, probably similar to Medicare using insurance company managed care which will contract with providers to control cost.
 
Let me repeat the question. Were Bush's lies that got us into Iraq impeachable offenses?

A lie is defined thusly:

If you know what you're saying is untrue that is a lie.


Explain how what Bush said could be verified before we entered Iraq.

However, what Obama said was known to be a lie by everyone in the White House.

You proved the point. Bush and his administration said with certainty that Iraq had WMD's that were an imminent threat.

Since, as you admit, they cannot have known that to be true, to state it as fact constitutes a lie.

As soon as you admit that all of these people were lying I may agree that George Bush was also lying:

"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
 
The bill was introduced in the house in September of 2009. No one was allowed to read it until last week?

lolol

The bill that was passed was not available for anyone to read until a few hours before the dems voted it into law and obozo signed it. NO ONE had read it before it became law. NO ONE had time to digest over 2000 pages and understand what it would do to the economy or individual insurance.

it is a terrible law, passed in the most corrupt way--------but its the way dictators operate and you silly fucks voted for a dictator---------you deserve it, but the rest of us don't.
Your post is inaccurate. First off, The law, as enacted, is 906 pages long, shorter than the last Bush budget by nearly 500 pages.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ148/pdf/PLAW-111publ148.pdf

Second, every legislator must be given a copy of the bill prior to a vote. Both Senate and House versions of the law were posted on line and were widely available.

The original version may have been 906 pages. It has since been amended numerous times. In it's current form if piled into one stack it would stand 8 ft high, including newly released regs last December and published in the federal register.

No amendments were allowed by Republicans. They were only given a short period to read it before the vote. It was not posted online in the time Obama himself promised.
 
Last edited:
It's not been proven it won't work.



Just like PERIOD, it all depends upon what one means by WORK.

If WORK means destroying the private insurance market by forcing a one size fits all EXPENSIVE policy on everyone in order to pave the way for Single Payer Government Monopoly Health Care Rationing, then ObamaCare is certainly WORKING.

We are slowly moving towards a system where basic healthcare will be provided regardless of one's ability to pay,

but those who want something more or something different and can pay for it will have that available in the market.

Which is how it should be.



Nonsense. We are moving towards a system where people have a false sense of having health coverage, but the lack of health care providers will cause the Government Overlords to ration such limited supply in favor of their cronies and supporters, while the rest wait in line for a very long time (hopefully dying before they become a drain on the system).
 
Ame®icano;8111296 said:
Obviously because all plans sold beginning in 2014 must meet the requirements of the law. Grandfathered plans can not be changed but don't have meet all the requirements of the law.

If is a "must", where is a "choice".
No, you don't understand. I'm referring to the insurance companies choice of whether to:
  • leave the old plans untouched so they could be grandfathered in and thus there would be no need to cancel them or
  • Cancel the old plans and issue new plans that meet the new requirements.

This was a business decision made by the insurance companies. The old plans could not be sold beginning Jan 1, 2014 and could not be changed. So if they kept all the old plans they would be administering them plus the new plans. Since the old plans would have to be cancelled eventually anyway, they decided to cancel many of them and move the people to the new plans. This accounts for most of the cancellation letters.

Many insurance companies made another business decision not to upgrade existing plans, just cancel them and issue new plans. In some states the insurance commission ask the companies to do so to avoid confusion and possible legal problems.

I believe you got it partly right, but, you left out the reason for cancelling some policies. The insurance companies were required by the ACA LAW to add additional clauses to the policies they had issued. Once they complied with the law, they would have to increase the premium.

Increasing the premium meant losing grandfather status of the policy. Simple cause and effect applies here.

Cause: additional insurance coverage required by law.

Effect: Raise premium and lose grandfather status.

Result: Cancel policy and issue new policy with all the bells and whistles as well as the increase in premiums.
 
Ame®icano;8111296 said:
If is a "must", where is a "choice".
No, you don't understand. I'm referring to the insurance companies choice of whether to:
  • leave the old plans untouched so they could be grandfathered in and thus there would be no need to cancel them or
  • Cancel the old plans and issue new plans that meet the new requirements.

This was a business decision made by the insurance companies. The old plans could not be sold beginning Jan 1, 2014 and could not be changed. So if they kept all the old plans they would be administering them plus the new plans. Since the old plans would have to be cancelled eventually anyway, they decided to cancel many of them and move the people to the new plans. This accounts for most of the cancellation letters.

Many insurance companies made another business decision not to upgrade existing plans, just cancel them and issue new plans. In some states the insurance commission ask the companies to do so to avoid confusion and possible legal problems.

I believe you got it partly right, but, you left out the reason for cancelling some policies. The insurance companies were required by the ACA LAW to add additional clauses to the policies they had issued. Once they complied with the law, they would have to increase the premium.

Increasing the premium meant losing grandfather status of the policy. Simple cause and effect applies here.

Cause: additional insurance coverage required by law.

Effect: Raise premium and lose grandfather status.

Result: Cancel policy and issue new policy with all the bells and whistles as well as the increase in premiums.

Thus the lie........"If you like your insurance, you can keep your insurance, period."
 
And what I find particularly disturbing is that it's becoming obvious that Barry, Harry and Nancy have known all along that the ACA won't work as constituted yet they pushed it through anyways. Why? Because when it doesn't work...they will blame the failure on the insurance industry and call for a government run single payer system...which is what they wanted in the first place.

This was all a political GAME to them...a game that disrupts the lives of millions of Americans. They were quite willing to make America suffer through this in order to arrive at their "end game".

It's not been proven it won't work.

C'mon, Carbineer...don't play the fool! The ACA the way it was written never had a chance of working and either Barry was fully aware of that (which is my belief...giving him the benefit of the doubt for having SOME intelligence!) or he's one of the more clueless individuals out there who bought into some really bad "advice" from the far left of his party.

The single biggest impediment to it working well is the failure to put a public option in the exchanges.
 
Just like PERIOD, it all depends upon what one means by WORK.

If WORK means destroying the private insurance market by forcing a one size fits all EXPENSIVE policy on everyone in order to pave the way for Single Payer Government Monopoly Health Care Rationing, then ObamaCare is certainly WORKING.

We are slowly moving towards a system where basic healthcare will be provided regardless of one's ability to pay,

but those who want something more or something different and can pay for it will have that available in the market.

Which is how it should be.



Nonsense. We are moving towards a system where people have a false sense of having health coverage, but the lack of health care providers will cause the Government Overlords to ration such limited supply in favor of their cronies and supporters, while the rest wait in line for a very long time (hopefully dying before they become a drain on the system).

If you were poor, would you rather have some healthcare or none?

You're saying that we need to deprive the poor of access to affordable healthcare because if we don't then, god forbid, the poor will actually go to the doctor, or the hospital,

and that will overburden the system.

That is classic you, btw.
 

Forum List

Back
Top