Sign Up | Log In
REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS
ObamaCare explained , in one ( long ) sentence.
Monday, September 10, 2012 11:19 AM
AURAPTOR
America loves a winner!
Monday, September 10, 2012 11:29 AM
OLDENGLANDDRY
Monday, September 10, 2012 12:39 PM
HKCAVALIER
Monday, September 10, 2012 1:35 PM
KPO
Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.
Tuesday, September 11, 2012 5:16 AM
Quote:Originally posted by oldenglanddry: Auraptor explained in one short sentence: Eudepus complexed attention seeker.
Tuesday, September 11, 2012 5:25 AM
STORYMARK
Quote:Originally posted by kpo: Obamacare explained in one word: 'Romneycare' It's not personal. It's just war.
Quote:Originally posted by HKCavalier: The Ryan Budget explained in one word: kleptocracy HKCavalier
Tuesday, September 11, 2012 5:26 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Storymark: You are mistaking "ridiculeing for an asshat no one has any respect for" with "killing the messenger". Glad to have cleared that up far ya.
Tuesday, September 11, 2012 5:39 AM
1KIKI
Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.
Tuesday, September 11, 2012 5:42 AM
Tuesday, September 11, 2012 5:43 AM
Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor: Quote:Originally posted by Storymark: You are mistaking "ridiculeing for an asshat no one has any respect for" with "killing the messenger". Glad to have cleared that up far ya. I'm glad I have such idiots and fools for enemies as the likes of you, Storybook. It may not be much, but it's a start. You can't even TRY to debunk anything that was said in that video, because it's all true ! And that, more than anything, pisses the HELL out of you, that folks can call it as they see it, and not be thrown in jail, as you'd like to have happen. " I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "
NIKI2
Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...
Quote:Sunday morning on NBC, Mitt Romney said that while he wants to repeal Health Care Reform, he would leave the provisions in place that ban insurers from discriminating based on pre-existing conditions, and that require insurance companies to cover children up to the age of 26 on their parents' plans. Hooray! A moment of humanity from the ice princess! Not so fast. As soon as Mitt's conservative overlords got wind of it, Romney did a quick 180, and now is against helping people with pre-existing conditions, and with children aged 26 and under. Mitt Romney is now saying that if he's elected president he will take away health care from 6.6 million children that are now on their parents' health insurance plans, and he will once again let insurance companies turn away people with "pre-existing conditions". Romney aide stated that there had been no change in Romney’s position and that “in a competitive environment, the marketplace will make available plans that include coverage for what there is demand for. He was not proposing a federal mandate to require insurance plans to offer those particular features.” Then, suddenly, last night the Romney campaign amended their amended statement in an effort to suggest that they would in fact preserve the non-discrimination language concerning pre-existing conditions. "'Gov. Romney will ensure that discrimination against individuals with pre-existing conditions who maintain continuous coverage is prohibited,' the aide said." Hurray! But not so fast, a re-read of the new statement makes clear that in fact Romney won't be preserving the pre-existing conditions protections that are in Health Care Reform. http://www.americablog.com/2012/09/romney-flip-flops-4-times-on-health.html] I'm so thrilled he's in favor of the individual mandate, too.: Oh, no, wait, apparently he's NOT! He doesn't like it because...just as his RomneyCare...it's a TAX! But it was okay that it was a tax in RomneyCare... I dunno. I'm just too confused. Hey, Raptor is the authority on all things right wing. Does HE know where Romney stands on the issues? I'd like to hear his take on Romney's positions on issues. 'Cuz he sure confuses ME! Trying to diss ObamaCare means you pretty much have to do the same to RomneyCare and you know it, so this entire thread is just typical Raptor "neener, neener", and nothing more.
Tuesday, September 11, 2012 5:48 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Storymark: No one is trying to dispute her
Tuesday, September 11, 2012 6:37 AM
Tuesday, September 11, 2012 6:57 AM
Quote:So, let me get this straight. This is a long sentence. We’re going to be gifted with a healthcare plan that we’re forced to purchase and fined if we don’t...
Quote:which purportedly covers at least 10 million more people without adding a single doctor
Quote:The increased access to health care will create new jobs in the health care industry itself. Providing access to systematic primary care for 30 million newcomers is bound to create new demand, not just for doctors and nurses but (as Jonathan Gruber of MIT has written) for assistants and technicians and support staff – “precisely the sort of medium-skill jobs that our economy desperately needs.” http://keller.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/18/more-myths-of-obamacare/] but provides for 16,000 new IRS agents...
Quote:This figure originated with a report put out by Republicans on the House Ways and Means Committee on March 18. It said:Quote:GOP Analysis, March 18: IRS may need to hire as many as 16,500 additional auditors, agents and other employees. Notice the words "may" and "as many as." This is the highest figure the GOP analysts thought they could support. Notice also the phrase "other employees," which covers everyone down to file clerks and support staff. The analysts based their 16,500 figure on an assumption that the IRS budget "could" require an additional $10 billion over the next 10 years as a result of the law, a figure they attribute to the Congressional Budget Office. But what CBO Director Douglas W. Elmendorf actually said in a March 11 letter to congressional leaders is this:Quote:CBO Director Elmendorf, March 11: CBO has not completed an estimate of all of the discretionary costs that would be associated with H.R. 3590. … [S]uch costs would probably include an estimated $5 billion to $10 billion over 10 years for administrative costs of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Note the words "probably" and "could." And the figure — based on preliminary analysis — could as easily be $5 billion as the $10 billion number the GOP analysts used. This misrepresentation of the inflated "employee" figure has since been picked up and repeated by countless conservative blogs and news sites. But however often it is repeated, it is still false. http://www.factcheck.org/2010/03/irs-expansion/ by a President who smokes...
Quote:GOP Analysis, March 18: IRS may need to hire as many as 16,500 additional auditors, agents and other employees.
Quote:CBO Director Elmendorf, March 11: CBO has not completed an estimate of all of the discretionary costs that would be associated with H.R. 3590. … [S]uch costs would probably include an estimated $5 billion to $10 billion over 10 years for administrative costs of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).
Quote:'The President is tobacco-free': Obama's doctor confirms the 'Smoker-in-Chief' has quit. The results of Obama's second medical examination since taking office were released by the White House today, and the President was declared 'tobacco free'. Earlier this year Michelle Obama claimed that her husband had not smoked for almost 12 months." http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2055912/He-tobacco-free-Obamas-doctor-confirms-president-quit-smoking.html which we will be taxed for four years before any benefits take effect...
Quote:Lucia Harkenreader’s check landed in her mailbox last week: a rebate of $456.15 from her health insurance company, with a letter dryly explaining that the money came courtesy of the federal health care law. The law requires insurers to give out annual rebates by Aug. 1, starting this year, if less than 80 percent of the premium dollars they collect go toward medical care. For insurers covering large employers, the threshold is 85 percent. As a result, insurers will pay out $1.1 billion this year, according to the Department of Health and Human Services http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/31/health/policy/insurance-rebates-seen-as-early-benefit-of-health-care-law.html?pagewanted=all health care benefits kick in Wednesday requiring coverage of preventive services and screenings largely affecting women — another facet of the Obama administration’s controversial health care law. Beginning August 1, all new and non-grandfathered insurance plans will be required to cover a wide range of early detection services, including mammograms and cervical cancer screenings, without co-payments or other cost sharing requirements. http://fox13now.com/2012/07/31/some-women-get-new-benefits-under-obamacare/
Tuesday, September 11, 2012 7:00 AM
Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor: Quote:Originally posted by Storymark: No one is trying to dispute her
Tuesday, September 11, 2012 7:32 AM
KWICKO
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)
Quote:Originally posted by Niki2: Good ones, KPO. It's reassuring to know that Romney intended to keep some of the parts of Obamacare even if he rescinded it...oh, no, wait, he's not...no, he IS...no, apparently he's NOT. Oh, shit, it's just too confusing:Quote:Sunday morning on NBC, Mitt Romney said that while he wants to repeal Health Care Reform, he would leave the provisions in place that ban insurers from discriminating based on pre-existing conditions, and that require insurance companies to cover children up to the age of 26 on their parents' plans. Hooray! A moment of humanity from the ice princess! Not so fast. As soon as Mitt's conservative overlords got wind of it, Romney did a quick 180, and now is against helping people with pre-existing conditions, and with children aged 26 and under. Mitt Romney is now saying that if he's elected president he will take away health care from 6.6 million children that are now on their parents' health insurance plans, and he will once again let insurance companies turn away people with "pre-existing conditions". Romney aide stated that there had been no change in Romney’s position and that “in a competitive environment, the marketplace will make available plans that include coverage for what there is demand for. He was not proposing a federal mandate to require insurance plans to offer those particular features.” Then, suddenly, last night the Romney campaign amended their amended statement in an effort to suggest that they would in fact preserve the non-discrimination language concerning pre-existing conditions. "'Gov. Romney will ensure that discrimination against individuals with pre-existing conditions who maintain continuous coverage is prohibited,' the aide said." Hurray! But not so fast, a re-read of the new statement makes clear that in fact Romney won't be preserving the pre-existing conditions protections that are in Health Care Reform. http://www.americablog.com/2012/09/romney-flip-flops-4-times-on-health.html I'm so thrilled he's in favor of the individual mandate, too.: Oh, no, wait, apparently he's NOT! He doesn't like it because...just as his RomneyCare...it's a TAX! But it was okay that it was a tax in RomneyCare... I dunno. I'm just too confused. Hey, Raptor is the authority on all things right wing. Does HE know where Romney stands on the issues? I'd like to hear his take on Romney's positions on issues. 'Cuz he sure confuses ME! Trying to diss ObamaCare means you pretty much have to do the same to RomneyCare and you know it, so this entire thread is just typical Raptor "neener, neener", and nothing more.
Quote:Sunday morning on NBC, Mitt Romney said that while he wants to repeal Health Care Reform, he would leave the provisions in place that ban insurers from discriminating based on pre-existing conditions, and that require insurance companies to cover children up to the age of 26 on their parents' plans. Hooray! A moment of humanity from the ice princess! Not so fast. As soon as Mitt's conservative overlords got wind of it, Romney did a quick 180, and now is against helping people with pre-existing conditions, and with children aged 26 and under. Mitt Romney is now saying that if he's elected president he will take away health care from 6.6 million children that are now on their parents' health insurance plans, and he will once again let insurance companies turn away people with "pre-existing conditions". Romney aide stated that there had been no change in Romney’s position and that “in a competitive environment, the marketplace will make available plans that include coverage for what there is demand for. He was not proposing a federal mandate to require insurance plans to offer those particular features.” Then, suddenly, last night the Romney campaign amended their amended statement in an effort to suggest that they would in fact preserve the non-discrimination language concerning pre-existing conditions. "'Gov. Romney will ensure that discrimination against individuals with pre-existing conditions who maintain continuous coverage is prohibited,' the aide said." Hurray! But not so fast, a re-read of the new statement makes clear that in fact Romney won't be preserving the pre-existing conditions protections that are in Health Care Reform. http://www.americablog.com/2012/09/romney-flip-flops-4-times-on-health.html
Tuesday, September 11, 2012 7:49 AM
Tuesday, September 11, 2012 12:20 PM
Quote:Originally posted by Storymark: Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor: Quote:Originally posted by Storymark: No one is trying to dispute her And that is my point.
Tuesday, September 11, 2012 12:31 PM
Tuesday, September 11, 2012 1:22 PM
Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor: ...it annoys you that anyone brings up facts which obliterate the false image of your dear and fluffy leader.
Tuesday, September 11, 2012 5:04 PM
CHRISISALL
Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor: I AM right, not because I say so, but because them's the facts!
Wednesday, September 12, 2012 5:09 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Kwicko: Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor: ...it annoys you that anyone brings up facts which obliterate the false image of your dear and fluffy leader. Is THAT why you get so mad and throw your little tantrums when I point out the many, many, MANY lies of Romney and Lyin' Ryan? "I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!" Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."
Wednesday, September 12, 2012 5:26 AM
NEWOLDBROWNCOAT
Quote:Originally posted by Kwicko:
Wednesday, September 12, 2012 7:20 AM
YOUR OPTIONS
NEW POSTS TODAY
OTHER TOPICS
FFF.NET SOCIAL