You Lie! Should We Apologize To Joe Wilson?

[RDD_1210]

For the lazy, I'm looking at you Lieability.

Will You Qualify for an Obamacare Subsidy? | PBS NewsHour

And here is specific text that indicates who will qualify for the subsidy.

"(1) APPLICABLE TAXPAYER-

‘(A) IN GENERAL- The term ‘applicable taxpayer’ means, with respect to any taxable year, a taxpayer whose household income for the taxable year exceeds 100 percent but does not exceed 400 percent of an amount equal to the poverty line for a family of the size involved."

Happy yet? Of course not. Let's hear your next ridiculous complaint.

You haven't heard (or read) one ridiculous complaint yet. So there is no "next" one. Words have meaning. Do try to keep up.

First of all, your quote box quote is uncited. It turns out that YOU, not surprisingly, are quoting the fucking US TAX code.

It would be pretty amusing to quote a lengthy excerpt of that unintelligible overly complicated gibberish.

But in any event, your "answer" is quite uninformative.

It does not address, for example, what a STATE EXCHANGE would grant as a subsidy or under what terms and conditions.

Even going with the just the Federal alternative, what you selectively quoted addresses a person or family making 100% of the poverty line for a family of that size up to 400% of the poverty line figure for a family of that size. But what "subsidy" will they GET?

Will the "subsidy" be sufficient to permit them to then "get" the fucking ObumblerCare Insurance? What if they (under those standards) STILL say that they cannot afford to "product?" Will they be compelled to forego insurance?

Doe anything in the law answer that question? Well, how about in the rules and regulations promulgated by the Obumbler Administration? Does that say what happens in such circumstances to some poor family that cannot afford to buy that which the government decrees they must purchase?

I know you don't see it, but nobody buys what you are trying to peddle. Your smokescreen isn't working.

Muddle on though.

Lol.... so your next ridiculous complaint is that the federal law doesn't clearly outline what the STATE guidelines are. I knew you'd move the goalposts and you certainly did not disappoint.

By the way. I'm still waiting to hear what your actual point is. It's plainly obvious by now that you don't have one. You're a professional whiner.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

For the lazy, I'm looking at you Lieability.

Will You Qualify for an Obamacare Subsidy? | PBS NewsHour

And here is specific text that indicates who will qualify for the subsidy.



Happy yet? Of course not. Let's hear your next ridiculous complaint.

You haven't heard (or read) one ridiculous complaint yet. So there is no "next" one. Words have meaning. Do try to keep up.

First of all, your quote box quote is uncited. It turns out that YOU, not surprisingly, are quoting the fucking US TAX code.

It would be pretty amusing to quote a lengthy excerpt of that unintelligible overly complicated gibberish.

But in any event, your "answer" is quite uninformative.

It does not address, for example, what a STATE EXCHANGE would grant as a subsidy or under what terms and conditions.

Even going with the just the Federal alternative, what you selectively quoted addresses a person or family making 100% of the poverty line for a family of that size up to 400% of the poverty line figure for a family of that size. But what "subsidy" will they GET?

Will the "subsidy" be sufficient to permit them to then "get" the fucking ObumblerCare Insurance? What if they (under those standards) STILL say that they cannot afford to "product?" Will they be compelled to forego insurance?

Doe anything in the law answer that question? Well, how about in the rules and regulations promulgated by the Obumbler Administration? Does that say what happens in such circumstances to some poor family that cannot afford to buy that which the government decrees they must purchase?

I know you don't see it, but nobody buys what you are trying to peddle. Your smokescreen isn't working.

Muddle on though.

Lol.... so your next ridiculous complaint is that the federal law doesn't clearly outline what the STATE guidelines are. I knew you'd move the goalposts and you certainly did not disappoint.

By the way. I'm still waiting to hear what your actual point is. It's plainly obvious by now that you don't have one. You're a professional whiner.

So, you persist in claiming that my rejoinders to your fatuous bullshit are "ridiculous complaints" whereas, in reality, the totality of what you have been posting is the only thing that is demonstrably "ridiculous."

You are too dishonest in your "let us all go down on Obumbler" sycophantic attempts to propagandize on his behalf to even admit that nothing YOU have posted answers the questions asked. Not one.

Let's try to simplify things for you since anything more complex than "subject object verb" throws you:

(1) Is it your claim, now, that the historically and monumentally complex, indecipherable clusteruck of a bad joke known as the Infernal revenue Code constitutes the Administration's rule-making attempt to fill in all the unanswered gaps in the ObumblerCare Act?

(2) Is it your contention that anybody who even tries to comply with the requirements of that moronic clusterfuck "law" by obtaining such insurance product can POSSIBLY know, now, either how to go about doing so OR how much it will cost?

(3) If they get a LOT of help and find that they are unable to afford the MANDATED product, is it your claim that anything in the IRS Code will tell them what happens to them?

I don't mind very much that some things in life are complicated. Such is life. I can't do quantum physics, either.

But I do mind a whole hell of a lot that the government in this Constitutional Republic imagines that it can compel its people to buy ANY damn product at all, much less one not associated with a privilege or a license.

And compounding that irrational governmental hubris, they THEN imagine that by resorting to the STANDARD by which governmental gibberish and convoluted regulation-writing is measured (our insanely voluminous and indecipherable tax code), they can regulate the matter in a way that tells the people what they must have, how they may obtain it and what to do if they cannot afford it.

This mission was doomed before it got passed. It got passed without the legislators knowing what was in it. We were told we'd have to get it passed first in order to know what's in it. But then we discover (not to my surprise) that passing gibberish doesn't make it clear or comprehensible or rational. But the government still has the teeth to compel 'compliance.' Yeah. That's fair. That means "America" to you far left wing radical goobers.

What's needed is the repeal of ObumblerCare.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

PICTURE THIS:

Let's say that ObumblerCare and the fact that this President has now proved that he is simply a liar are facts that resonate with the voters.

Let's say that the outcome in 2014 is akin to what happened in the 2010 midterm elections:

Let's say that the people kind of rise up and start dumping all the liberal Democratics in the hallowed halls of the Senate and the House.

Let's be bold. Let's say the numbers are so damaging to the Democratics that the GOP not only retains the House, but get a significant majority in the House. And let's say that the Senate goes firmly to the GOP, too.

Let us imagine the world where ObumblerCare gets repealed by Congress. Fuck it. Maybe they even override the President's expected veto.

NOW let us ask the question. In that world, what is the Obumbler legacy?

8 years; one dead terrorist leader. AND ... ?

 

[mal]

My Avatar...



peace...

 

[RDD_1210]

You haven't heard (or read) one ridiculous complaint yet. So there is no "next" one. Words have meaning. Do try to keep up.

First of all, your quote box quote is uncited. It turns out that YOU, not surprisingly, are quoting the fucking US TAX code.

It would be pretty amusing to quote a lengthy excerpt of that unintelligible overly complicated gibberish.

But in any event, your "answer" is quite uninformative.

It does not address, for example, what a STATE EXCHANGE would grant as a subsidy or under what terms and conditions.

Even going with the just the Federal alternative, what you selectively quoted addresses a person or family making 100% of the poverty line for a family of that size up to 400% of the poverty line figure for a family of that size. But what "subsidy" will they GET?

Will the "subsidy" be sufficient to permit them to then "get" the fucking ObumblerCare Insurance? What if they (under those standards) STILL say that they cannot afford to "product?" Will they be compelled to forego insurance?

Doe anything in the law answer that question? Well, how about in the rules and regulations promulgated by the Obumbler Administration? Does that say what happens in such circumstances to some poor family that cannot afford to buy that which the government decrees they must purchase?

I know you don't see it, but nobody buys what you are trying to peddle. Your smokescreen isn't working.

Muddle on though.

Lol.... so your next ridiculous complaint is that the federal law doesn't clearly outline what the STATE guidelines are. I knew you'd move the goalposts and you certainly did not disappoint.

By the way. I'm still waiting to hear what your actual point is. It's plainly obvious by now that you don't have one. You're a professional whiner.

So, you persist in claiming that my rejoinders to your fatuous bullshit are "ridiculous complaints" whereas, in reality, the totality of what you have been posting is the only thing that is demonstrably "ridiculous."

You are too dishonest in your "let us all go down on Obumbler" sycophantic attempts to propagandize on his behalf to even admit that nothing YOU have posted answers the questions asked. Not one.

Let's try to simplify things for you since anything more complex than "subject object verb" throws you:

(1) Is it your claim, now, that the historically and monumentally complex, indecipherable clusteruck of a bad joke known as the Infernal revenue Code constitutes the Administration's rule-making attempt to fill in all the unanswered gaps in the ObumblerCare Act?

(2) Is it your contention that anybody who even tries to comply with the requirements of that moronic clusterfuck "law" by obtaining such insurance product can POSSIBLY know, now, either how to go about doing so OR how much it will cost?

(3) If they get a LOT of help and find that they are unable to afford the MANDATED product, is it your claim that anything in the IRS Code will tell them what happens to them?

I don't mind very much that some things in life are complicated. Such is life. I can't do quantum physics, either.

But I do mind a whole hell of a lot that the government in this Constitutional Republic imagines that it can compel its people to buy ANY damn product at all, much less one not associated with a privilege or a license.

And compounding that irrational governmental hubris, they THEN imagine that by resorting to the STANDARD by which governmental gibberish and convoluted regulation-writing is measured (our insanely voluminous and indecipherable tax code), they can regulate the matter in a way that tells the people what they must have, how they may obtain it and what to do if they cannot afford it.

This mission was doomed before it got passed. It got passed without the legislators knowing what was in it. We were told we'd have to get it passed first in order to know what's in it. But then we discover (not to my surprise) that passing gibberish doesn't make it clear or comprehensible or rational. But the government still has the teeth to compel 'compliance.' Yeah. That's fair. That means "America" to you far left wing radical goobers.

What's needed is the repeal of ObumblerCare.

Waaaaah it's too much reading! I don't understand it, so it must be terrible.