24
   

Congratulations, House Republicans!

 
 
JTT
 
  2  
Reply Sun 23 Mar, 2014 12:09 pm
@coldjoint,
You are a prime example of the delusion that is fundamental to the USA, cj. Repuglicans love brain dead sheeple like you.
0 Replies
 
bobsal u1553115
 
  2  
Reply Sun 23 Mar, 2014 10:15 pm
Romney Could Have Stopped Russia's Invasion With His Power To 'See The Future'

http://videos.rawstory.com/decor/live/transparent.gif

By David March 23, 2014 11:55 am - Comments
Former Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney on Sunday suggested that he had a power to "see the future," and could have stopped Russia from invading Crimea if he had been elected in 2012.

Former Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney on Sunday suggested that he had a power to "see the future," and could have stopped Russia from invading Crimea if he had been elected in 2012.

"The president's naïveté with regards to Russia, and his faulty judgement about Russia's intentions and objectives has led to a number of foreign policy challenges that we face," Romney opined to CBS host Bob Schieffer on Sunday's edition of Face the Nation. "And unfortunately not having anticipated Russia's intentions, the president wasn't able to shape the kinds of events that may have been able to prevent the kinds of circumstances that you're seeing in the Ukraine, as well as the things that you're seeing in Syria."

"I think effective leaders typically are able to see the future to a certain degree, and are able to take actions to shape it in some way," he added. "And that's, of course, what this president has failed to do. And as secretary of state, Hillary Clinton as well."

"There's always the potential that we could have kept them from invading a country and annexing it into their own."
0 Replies
 
bobsal u1553115
 
  2  
Reply Sun 23 Mar, 2014 10:21 pm
@coldjoint,
How about a link for that graphic so it can be fact checked?
coldjoint
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 23 Mar, 2014 10:26 pm
@bobsal u1553115,
Quote:
How about a link for that graphic so it can be fact checked?


You don't have your own numbers?

0 Replies
 
bobsal u1553115
 
  2  
Reply Sun 23 Mar, 2014 10:28 pm
"Where are the positive stories about Obamacare?"
Here is a great story documenting some of the corporate censorship that is going on as the news media bends over backwards to help their corporate sponsors elect right wing Republicans.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hiltzik-20140323,0,1622096.column#axzz2wp4zeidk

If there were fairness in this world, Rita Rizzo would be a media star.

Rizzo, 60, owns a management consulting firm for nonprofit groups and government offices in Akron, Ohio, with her husband, Lou Vincent, 64. Vincent, who suffers from Type 2 diabetes and high blood pressure, has gone without health insurance for 10 years. "We got 30 denial letters," Rizzo told me last week.

Three years ago, Rizzo got a hip replacement. Her own insurance premiums were going to rise by $500 a month, to about $800, so she chose instead to triple her deductible to $6,000 to keep the increase to a mere $150 a month.

The couple used a $5,000 tax-deductible health savings account to cover her out-of-pocket expenses; Vincent's medication, which ran to $178 a month; and his blood work-ups, at $2,400 a year.

In December, Rizzo signed up for Obamacare. She now has a policy that covers her and Vincent together, including all his meds and lab work, for $379 a month, with a $2,000 family deductible.

* * *

But you haven't heard Rizzo's story unless you tuned in to NBC Nightly News on New Year's Day or scanned a piece by Politico about a week later. In the meantime, the airwaves and news columns have been filled to overflowing with horrific tales from consumers blaming Obamacare for huge premium increases, lost access to doctors and technical frustrations — many of these concerns false or the product of misunderstanding or unfamiliarity with the law.
coldjoint
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 23 Mar, 2014 10:36 pm
@bobsal u1553115,
Quote:
In December, Rizzo signed up for Obamacare. She now has a policy that covers her and Vincent together, including all his meds and labhttp://able2know.org/post/edit/p-5615430# work, for $379 a month, with a $2,000 family deductible.


Bullshit, no deductibles are that low.

Quote:
have chosen a silver plan, meaning deductibles of $2,000 for singles and $4,000 for families,

From the same paper. Which article is a lie?
http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-obamacare-derangement-20140311,0,5221146.story
parados
 
  3  
Reply Mon 24 Mar, 2014 11:02 am
@coldjoint,
The Pink Prevaricator wrote:



Bullshit, no deductibles are that low.


Bullshit yourself there, TPP...

Quote:
according to the Kaiser Family Foundation, the average deductible in employer-sponsored health plans is $1,135.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/09/us/on-health-exchanges-premiums-may-be-low-but-other-costs-can-be-high.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

The Pink Prevaricator wrote:

I guess you don't realize that different states charge different rates and have different deductibles. States still control their own insurance market.
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Mar, 2014 11:06 am
@parados,
Quote:
I guess you don't realize that different states charge different rates and have different deductibles. States still control their own insurance market.


How can you say that when we have a Federal law that dictates every aspect of the insurance market? States no longer have control, they do what the ACA tells them they can do. We still have restrictions across state lines. I can only purchase insurance in my state. Why can't I purchase insurance in a state that is cheaper? There is no free market in the insurance world and there never has been. We went from govt control, to more govt control.
coldjoint
 
  0  
Reply Mon 24 Mar, 2014 11:07 am
@parados,
Quote:
I guess you don't realize that different states charge different rates and have different deductibles. States still control their own insurance market.

And I can't understand why you don't realize if insurance could be sold across state lines(competition) we would not need Obamacare.
parados
 
  2  
Reply Mon 24 Mar, 2014 12:09 pm
@Baldimo,
Baldimo wrote:



How can you say that when we have a Federal law that dictates every aspect of the insurance market? States no longer have control, they do what the ACA tells them they can do.
That is complete poppycock.

Federal law sets minimum standards for insurance. States can and do set lots of aspects that the Feds don't dictate at all. For instance, some states only allow non profit HMOs to sell insurance. Other states allow for profit ones.

Every state has their own regulations for approval required for rate increases.
http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/health-insurance-rate-approval-disapproval.aspx#State%20Rate%20Filing%20Statutes%20and%20Information

Quote:
Why can't I purchase insurance in a state that is cheaper? There is no free market in the insurance world and there never has been.
THere is also no free market in paint sales either. I can't buy lead based paint which is cheaper. There is no free market in car sales. I can't buy a new car without seat belts even though I have never needed them. There is no free market anywhere Baldimo because without regulation it is not a free market but rather a free for all with the buyer having no clue what they are getting.
parados
 
  2  
Reply Mon 24 Mar, 2014 12:13 pm
@coldjoint,
Any insurer can sell insurance in any state as long as they meet the state requirements. Your argument seems to be with private enterprise not willing to meet the consumer protections required by some states.
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Mar, 2014 12:17 pm
@parados,
There is a difference for setting safety standards, and full govt control of an industry. If you want to equate paint and car sales, lets really look at it. Sure no lead in paint, but does the govt state you have to by paint? Will there be a fine if I don't buy paint? Same thing goes for cars. The govt sets safety standards and the companies comply. The ACA dictates to everyone about a single item. You can't say the same thing about cars or paint.

This is a false analogy. Either accept a lot of govt control, or there should be nothing?
coldjoint
 
  0  
Reply Mon 24 Mar, 2014 02:44 pm
Quote:
The “If You Like. . .” Legacy of the Obama Administration


President Obama likes to make promises. He wants to assure people that they will be able to keep whatever they already have, yet at the same time expand the power of the state, contrary to the Constitution and at the expense of the individual.

Consider the centerpiece promise of his Presidency, which has been exposed as an all-out lie:

Obamacare: “If you like your health care plan, you can keep it.” Result—millions lose their health insurance, pay higher premiums, lose doctors, etc. Obamacare has been anything but affordable, and no one, not even the growing number of Democrats fearful about keeping their seats in Congress, are campaigning on the perceived strengths of the disastrous legislation.

Now, let’s apply this metric about promises, keeping, and the rest:

2009 Stimulus: “If you like your tax dollars, you can keep them.” Ha! The nearly one trillions wasted on non-existent Congressional districts or diverted to raising bureaucrats’ salaries may have stimulated the arrogance of the Washington Beltway elite, yet did very little in terms of reviving economic growth in the United States.

Dodd-Frank: “If you like your bank, you can keep your bank.” Result - Big banks get bigger, with bigger fees, and the smaller banks facing bigger regulations, reducing their power and efficacy.

Common Core: “If you like your education, you can keep it.” The result: a convoluted take-over of public education, with data-mining and rushed curricular standards which teachers are having a hard time keeping up with. Add to this convoluted rollout the data-mining controversy, the over-difficult mathematical maneuvers, and we have “ObamaCore”.

Internet Dominion: “If you like your Internet Security, you can keep it.” The Fairness Doctrine has risen up as an important line of argument in free speech, when in truth such an idea is based on the sad notion that liberal-leftist radio should have equal resources to compete with right-thinking, conservative, and individual liberty based radio. The free market of radio and Internet choice could not be clearer: people do not like liberal radio. They do not want to hear leftist talk on the squawk box.

Second Amendment: “If you like your guns, you can keep them.” President Obama has issued several executive orders, bypassing Congress, to implement more regulations and strictures on the right to keep and bear arms. These outrageous forced measures have raised the alarm and ire of New England gun owners, particularly in Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts, who are refusing to register their guns with the state government, where local law enforcement are sending the message that they have no intention of confiscating guns, although that seemed to be the original intent of Connecticut’s law.

First Amendment: “If you like your Freedom of Speech and the Press, you can keep them.” Press freedom has declined in the United States, often a result of leftist interest group intimidation. The President has his own enemies list, and allegations against the DOJ have revealed that officials seized the phone records of AP reports. Now First Lady Michelle Obama has banned the press from accompanying her to China, where the locals are getting fed up with her demanding ways. President Obama’s administration has frequently Freedom of Information Act requests, and so has Attorney General Eric Holder.

Foreign Policy: “If you like your country’s standing in the world, you can keep it.” President Obama’s apology tour to the Arab world, his silence following the Green Revolution in Iran, his reticence following the broadening Syrian Civil War (including the red line which Syrian President Bashar al-Hassad crossed, danced, and erased). Now, Vladimir Putin has taken advantage of the perennially passive foreign policy of this Presidency, annexing Crimea following by a military venture and a forced plebiscite in the region, taking advantage of the political upheaval in Kiev, Ukraine between pro-West and pro-Russia factions in the former Soviet Satellite.

Israel: “If you like the Jewish State, the Jews can keep the Jewish State.” From the arrogant argument for land-swaps to his passive in-assistance to Egyptian strongman Hosni Mubarak, to Secretary of State John’s Kerry’s about the viability of a central Israeli identity, Obama has sent a not-so-subtle message about his disregard for the integrity of Israel in the Middle East. Former New York City Mayor Ed Koch was so disgusted with President Obama’s sorry treatment of Benjamin Netanyahu and the American-Israeli friendship, that Koch endorsed a Republican to replace the disgraced Anthony Weiner in a 2011 special election race for a three-to-one Democratic seat in the NYC burroughs (the Republican won by ten points).

Whatever President Obama has promised, the results have been anything but worth keeping. This President has been anything but professional, whether respecting the United States Constitution or faithfully executing the laws of the land, including his own.

I have a new phrase, one which will likely resonate with voters in 2014:

“If you like your President, you can keep your president.” Result? Impeachment on January 3, 2015.


http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/mobile/mobile-article/61937
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Mar, 2014 03:12 pm
@Baldimo,
B: There is no free market in the insurance world and there never has been. We went from govt control, to more govt control.

That's because you're one of the sheeple, B.
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Mar, 2014 03:14 pm
@JTT,
Do you even add anything to the discussion?
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Mar, 2014 03:32 pm
@Baldimo,
Lots of stuff but it always scares the **** out of the sheeple. They just herd up and flee.

You're the only one from the land of the brave that will tackle the tough issues, B. That's your most admirable quality!
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  2  
Reply Mon 24 Mar, 2014 04:04 pm
@Baldimo,
Quote:
Sure no lead in paint, but does the govt state you have to by paint? Will there be a fine if I don't buy paint?
My local codes do require that I buy paint for my house and fence if it needs it. I am fined if I don't.

Quote:
Same thing goes for cars.
My state requires I wear my seat belt or I am fined.

You are the one using the all or nothing analogy since you claimed the ACA requires ALL when it clearly doesn't.
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Mar, 2014 04:12 pm
@coldjoint,
Cj: President Obama likes to make promises.
----------

All us prezes like to make promises, cj.

"I promise, if elected, to uphold the grand tradition of all former presidents. I will endeavour to be the best war criminal I can be. I'll go for the gusto as the grandest terrorist. I will not fail you, I promise!"

American voters: "YAAAAAAAAAAY!"
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  0  
Reply Mon 24 Mar, 2014 05:27 pm
@parados,
Once again we are looking at Federal vs local.

The federal govt only says you can't use lead paint, and that is more than likely done via the EPA. The IRS doesn't come after you because you haven't painted your house.

Seat belt laws only apply to those in car type vehicles. Public transit and school buses do not require the use of seat belts. Neither do motorcycles so those laws are narrow and localized. Once again the IRS isn't coming after you for fines and taking your tax returns if you are not wearing your seat belt.

parados
 
  2  
Reply Mon 24 Mar, 2014 05:31 pm
@Baldimo,
Oh.. the all or nothing argument again?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.08 seconds on 12/23/2024 at 11:46:30