Wait.... what's wrong with "Obamacare"?

[Spendulus]

Say they open up the flood gates and allow for insurance providers to sell across state lines, but Obamacare is repealed or fundamentally changed as the GOP would like. Insurance providers would begin to migrate to states with very little regulation on coverage, pay-outs, and the like.
Now you as a healthy person would snatch up this now much cheaper plan because you have very little to worry about, but the sick person wouldn't have that option because these now un-regulated insurers would refuse to cover them or propose they pay in excess of $30,000 a year for coverage. This leaves sick people scrounging the bottom of the barrel for health insurance that would more than likely be lacking.

If I understand your comment correctly, you are concerned that in the absence of free competition across state lines, consumers fare better.

What happens now is that many states have only one or two companies operating within their borders, preventing virtually anything that might be called "competition."

Also I do not think that "operating across state lines" is equal to "no regulation".  That isn't the case say with auto insurance.

More Americans are putting off expensive medical care now with Obamacare, than previously...
http://dailycaller.com/2014/11/28/gallup-peak-number-of-americans-delaying-medical-care-over-costs/

When the State intervenes in a market, it changes the price (usually up) and the global result is almost always a loss especially if you take into account the higher taxes or debt that will be needed.

If you want to go back to a free market, it will change the way it is and there will be short term winners and losers.

But you need to go for the better long-term solution which is always having more competition.

Except that this is excluded from the possibilities because of the back door payments to the insurance companies if they "show a loss" under the ObamaScam. 

There are a large number of problems with this.

I don't think the matter is helped, rather it is hindered considerably, by the propagandic-rosy-hypnotic-"All is Great and Wonderful" meme which this thread seemed to ride on for a while.

Requires realistically looking at the problems.  Maybe the repubs can do that.  Maybe they can't.

I'd be interested in hearing a proposal from Rand Paul.

Most Repubs are for a Big Government too, Rand Paul is for following the Economical laws and allowing a healthy competition and the Free Market in Health Care.

Yes, Repubs are BigGovies, many of them.

But not usually at the expense of better, cheaper open market solutions.

For example, Repubs would be FOR health insurance operating across state lines, AGAINST forcing hospitals and doctors to publish their rates.

[1714039007]

1714039007

[1714039007]

1714039007

[1714039007]

1714039007

[picolo]

Say they open up the flood gates and allow for insurance providers to sell across state lines, but Obamacare is repealed or fundamentally changed as the GOP would like. Insurance providers would begin to migrate to states with very little regulation on coverage, pay-outs, and the like.
Now you as a healthy person would snatch up this now much cheaper plan because you have very little to worry about, but the sick person wouldn't have that option because these now un-regulated insurers would refuse to cover them or propose they pay in excess of $30,000 a year for coverage. This leaves sick people scrounging the bottom of the barrel for health insurance that would more than likely be lacking.

If I understand your comment correctly, you are concerned that in the absence of free competition across state lines, consumers fare better.

What happens now is that many states have only one or two companies operating within their borders, preventing virtually anything that might be called "competition."

Also I do not think that "operating across state lines" is equal to "no regulation".  That isn't the case say with auto insurance.

More Americans are putting off expensive medical care now with Obamacare, than previously...
http://dailycaller.com/2014/11/28/gallup-peak-number-of-americans-delaying-medical-care-over-costs/

When the State intervenes in a market, it changes the price (usually up) and the global result is almost always a loss especially if you take into account the higher taxes or debt that will be needed.

If you want to go back to a free market, it will change the way it is and there will be short term winners and losers.

But you need to go for the better long-term solution which is always having more competition.

Except that this is excluded from the possibilities because of the back door payments to the insurance companies if they "show a loss" under the ObamaScam. 

There are a large number of problems with this.

I don't think the matter is helped, rather it is hindered considerably, by the propagandic-rosy-hypnotic-"All is Great and Wonderful" meme which this thread seemed to ride on for a while.

Requires realistically looking at the problems.  Maybe the repubs can do that.  Maybe they can't.

I'd be interested in hearing a proposal from Rand Paul.

Most Repubs are for a Big Government too, Rand Paul is for following the Economical laws and allowing a healthy competition and the Free Market in Health Care.

Yes, Repubs are BigGovies, many of them.

But not usually at the expense of better, cheaper open market solutions.

For example, Repubs would be FOR health insurance operating across state lines, AGAINST forcing hospitals and doctors to publish their rates.

Yes, most of Repubs will push for smarter solutions than what democrats want to implement in Health Care but I wanted to point out that they would still be for a lot of Government intervention in Health Care, almost as much as Democrats.

Repubs are usually for Big military spending and Bush even throw the whole Free Market idea in the toilets when he accepted that Paulson (who was supposed to be against Government Intervention in the Economy) saved all the Banks with tax payer funds and insurance.

By the way, Democrats pretend that they are for less Big Military spending but they are not.

[Spendulus]

Say they open up the flood gates and allow for insurance providers to sell across state lines, but Obamacare is repealed or fundamentally changed as the GOP would like. Insurance providers would begin to migrate to states with very little regulation on coverage, pay-outs, and the like.
Now you as a healthy person would snatch up this now much cheaper plan because you have very little to worry about, but the sick person wouldn't have that option because these now un-regulated insurers would refuse to cover them or propose they pay in excess of $30,000 a year for coverage. This leaves sick people scrounging the bottom of the barrel for health insurance that would more than likely be lacking.

If I understand your comment correctly, you are concerned that in the absence of free competition across state lines, consumers fare better.

What happens now is that many states have only one or two companies operating within their borders, preventing virtually anything that might be called "competition."

Also I do not think that "operating across state lines" is equal to "no regulation".  That isn't the case say with auto insurance.

More Americans are putting off expensive medical care now with Obamacare, than previously...
http://dailycaller.com/2014/11/28/gallup-peak-number-of-americans-delaying-medical-care-over-costs/

When the State intervenes in a market, it changes the price (usually up) and the global result is almost always a loss especially if you take into account the higher taxes or debt that will be needed.

If you want to go back to a free market, it will change the way it is and there will be short term winners and losers.

But you need to go for the better long-term solution which is always having more competition.

Except that this is excluded from the possibilities because of the back door payments to the insurance companies if they "show a loss" under the ObamaScam. 

There are a large number of problems with this.

I don't think the matter is helped, rather it is hindered considerably, by the propagandic-rosy-hypnotic-"All is Great and Wonderful" meme which this thread seemed to ride on for a while.

Requires realistically looking at the problems.  Maybe the repubs can do that.  Maybe they can't.

I'd be interested in hearing a proposal from Rand Paul.

Most Repubs are for a Big Government too, Rand Paul is for following the Economical laws and allowing a healthy competition and the Free Market in Health Care.

Yes, Repubs are BigGovies, many of them.

But not usually at the expense of better, cheaper open market solutions.

For example, Repubs would be FOR health insurance operating across state lines, AGAINST forcing hospitals and doctors to publish their rates.

Yes, most of Repubs will push for smarter solutions than what democrats want to implement in Health Care but I wanted to point out that they would still be for a lot of Government intervention in Health Care, almost as much as Democrats......

True.  I'm really not of the opinion, though, that Obamacare is a Democratic invention.  I see it as an Obama invention that he's sort of half gotten support on from mainstream Democrats.

Obamacare is rather an ideological invention.  Anything based on practical business knowledge and examination of facts would be better.  There is no question that the normal committee in the House, committee in the Senate process, followed by votes of approval and sent to the POTUS for signoff, would have resulted in a superior result.

Obama chose not to do this due to an ideological Marxist and socialist prejudice, instead opted for a budget reconcilation process which allowed passage with 1/2+1 votes.  The existing legislation never went through any committee, in either House or Senate.

Thus we can say that "Obamacare isn't a product of the Democrats" at least in the normal legislative sense.

[Grg]

Im thinking about writing a long and over-developed post about how retarded America and its fcked up politics, de-railed moneysystem, healthcare, medicine, how-to-war... and so on. But I realize I'm at a Bitcoin-Forum and I assume that if you found your way here your mind should be quite enlightened already.

So I jump all that shit and go straight to my point:
Health-care should be free and for everybody. EVERYBODY. Obama-care is a small step in the right direction, but its far from civilized. (IMO!)

Yeah, now is the time to start whining about % of salary at insurances and shit..
Let me tell you; If everyone push a % of the salary at the government and the government DONT WASTE IT AT SHIT there wont be a problem to have a working healthcare, education, w/e you want....

And to everyone still whining something like; I dont want to pay any tax. Hell no MORE tax then I do at this moment!
Make a calculation..
How much do you earn? Whats your monthly % payment for insurances and similar to keep you safe in the social society you're living in?


I live in a country where ~30% is tax up to about $40k/year. Somewhere around there tax start to ramp up to 50-something% at $70k >70k =55%~
No, Im not sure about these numbers but consider em as a guideline for how my situation is.

I dont have to care about health-insurances. The fee for any illness is $15. If I break my hip, loose a toe, smash a teeth, blast a kidney.. Ill still get it fixed (if possible) for $15.
Meds wont ever cost more then ~$1500/year.
Im allowed to study wtf I want. If I'm serious about my application I should make sure to have grades to be accepted. But $ is NEVER an issue.
I have decent/good roads to drive on. Dang, I could go on, but I think I made my point.

Curious about how I think a society should work? google any Scandinavian health and/or education-system. They are all somewhat on track.

IMO;
USA is fooked up. Way beyond repair.
I'll sit on my chair, enjoying the chaos made my human stupidity.

Bring
Me
Some
Popcorn! 

-Grg

[picolo]

Say they open up the flood gates and allow for insurance providers to sell across state lines, but Obamacare is repealed or fundamentally changed as the GOP would like. Insurance providers would begin to migrate to states with very little regulation on coverage, pay-outs, and the like.
Now you as a healthy person would snatch up this now much cheaper plan because you have very little to worry about, but the sick person wouldn't have that option because these now un-regulated insurers would refuse to cover them or propose they pay in excess of $30,000 a year for coverage. This leaves sick people scrounging the bottom of the barrel for health insurance that would more than likely be lacking.

If I understand your comment correctly, you are concerned that in the absence of free competition across state lines, consumers fare better.

What happens now is that many states have only one or two companies operating within their borders, preventing virtually anything that might be called "competition."

Also I do not think that "operating across state lines" is equal to "no regulation".  That isn't the case say with auto insurance.

More Americans are putting off expensive medical care now with Obamacare, than previously...
http://dailycaller.com/2014/11/28/gallup-peak-number-of-americans-delaying-medical-care-over-costs/

When the State intervenes in a market, it changes the price (usually up) and the global result is almost always a loss especially if you take into account the higher taxes or debt that will be needed.

If you want to go back to a free market, it will change the way it is and there will be short term winners and losers.

But you need to go for the better long-term solution which is always having more competition.

Except that this is excluded from the possibilities because of the back door payments to the insurance companies if they "show a loss" under the ObamaScam. 

There are a large number of problems with this.

I don't think the matter is helped, rather it is hindered considerably, by the propagandic-rosy-hypnotic-"All is Great and Wonderful" meme which this thread seemed to ride on for a while.

Requires realistically looking at the problems.  Maybe the repubs can do that.  Maybe they can't.

I'd be interested in hearing a proposal from Rand Paul.

Most Repubs are for a Big Government too, Rand Paul is for following the Economical laws and allowing a healthy competition and the Free Market in Health Care.

Yes, Repubs are BigGovies, many of them.

But not usually at the expense of better, cheaper open market solutions.

For example, Repubs would be FOR health insurance operating across state lines, AGAINST forcing hospitals and doctors to publish their rates.

Yes, most of Repubs will push for smarter solutions than what democrats want to implement in Health Care but I wanted to point out that they would still be for a lot of Government intervention in Health Care, almost as much as Democrats......

True.  I'm really not of the opinion, though, that Obamacare is a Democratic invention.  I see it as an Obama invention that he's sort of half gotten support on from mainstream Democrats.

Obamacare is rather an ideological invention.  Anything based on practical business knowledge and examination of facts would be better.  There is no question that the normal committee in the House, committee in the Senate process, followed by votes of approval and sent to the POTUS for signoff, would have resulted in a superior result.

Obama chose not to do this due to an ideological Marxist and socialist prejudice, instead opted for a budget reconcilation process which allowed passage with 1/2+1 votes.  The existing legislation never went through any committee, in either House or Senate.

Thus we can say that "Obamacare isn't a product of the Democrats" at least in the normal legislative sense.

Oh yes; they didn't show the bill before the vote and they now say that writing that the states were responsible to create a market place was a typo.

[jaysabi]

Under the president’s new amnesty, businesses will have a $3,000-per-employee incentive to hire illegal immigrants over native-born workers because of a quirk of Obamacare.

President Obama’s temporary amnesty, which lasts three years, declares up to 5 million illegal immigrants to be lawfully in the country and eligible for work permits, but it still deems them ineligible for public benefits such as buying insurance on Obamacare’s health exchanges.

Under the Affordable Care Act, that means businesses who hire them won’t have to pay a penalty for not providing them health coverage — making them $3,000 more attractive than a similar native-born worker, whom the business by law would have to cover.

The loophole was confirmed by congressional aides and drew condemnation from those who said it put illegal immigrants ahead of Americans in the job market.

“If it is true that the president’s actions give employers a $3,000 incentive to hire those who came here illegally, he has added insult to injury,” said Rep. Lamar Smith, Texas Republican. “The president’s actions would have just moved those who came here illegally to the front of the line, ahead of unemployed and underemployed Americans.”

A Department of Homeland Security official confirmed that the newly legalized immigrants won’t have access to Obamacare, which opens up the loophole for employers looking to avoid the penalty.


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/nov/25/obama-amnesty-obamacare-clash-businesses-have-3000/

So when Republicans finally take control over both the House and Senate in January, we can expect a prompt repeal of Obamacare, right? Because they've spent so much time and energy talking about how terrible it is for America, citizens, the free-market, IRS power, etc., and have already voted so many times to repeal, that it should be a given that this is one of the first things they do, no?

Well, it's either they repeal it now that they have the ability or they are finally exposed as frauds and liars, as a party that's only voted for repeal so many times because they knew they had no chance of actually repealing it; that this has all just been a charade and political posturing to whip their supporters into a furor so they donate all that  money and go on internet forums and post stuff like this:

When Republicans fail to repeal Obamacare, will you become a partisan apologist, or will you hold them accountable for failing to act? Will you be as critical of them as you are of Obama, or are you just posting pictures like this because you hate Obama, not because of Obamacare?

I'm asking earnestly because if you're not going to hold Republicans accountable for not repealing what you consider to be a terrible law when they finally have the power to, then what is the utility of constantly railing against Obama because of Obamacare?

Let me ask you this then: Why democrats HATE 0bama personally? It must be the case. Why would anyone be against 0bamacare if not for a deep rooted personal hate against our first black president? Are you saying I am as bad as chuck schumer? Is chuck shumer a Tea Partier who's afraid of... 0bama? 

Tensions flare between Senate Democrats, White House

Do democrats hate 0bama?
What does chuck schumer, third in power in the senate after harry reid say about 0bamacare?

Schadenfreude overload: Senate Democrats and Obama staffers at war over Obamacare


[picture redacted]


Have a Happy Thanksgiving!!! 

Hey, you didn't answer my question.   

[Wilikon]

Under the president’s new amnesty, businesses will have a $3,000-per-employee incentive to hire illegal immigrants over native-born workers because of a quirk of Obamacare.

President Obama’s temporary amnesty, which lasts three years, declares up to 5 million illegal immigrants to be lawfully in the country and eligible for work permits, but it still deems them ineligible for public benefits such as buying insurance on Obamacare’s health exchanges.

Under the Affordable Care Act, that means businesses who hire them won’t have to pay a penalty for not providing them health coverage — making them $3,000 more attractive than a similar native-born worker, whom the business by law would have to cover.

The loophole was confirmed by congressional aides and drew condemnation from those who said it put illegal immigrants ahead of Americans in the job market.

“If it is true that the president’s actions give employers a $3,000 incentive to hire those who came here illegally, he has added insult to injury,” said Rep. Lamar Smith, Texas Republican. “The president’s actions would have just moved those who came here illegally to the front of the line, ahead of unemployed and underemployed Americans.”

A Department of Homeland Security official confirmed that the newly legalized immigrants won’t have access to Obamacare, which opens up the loophole for employers looking to avoid the penalty.


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/nov/25/obama-amnesty-obamacare-clash-businesses-have-3000/

So when Republicans finally take control over both the House and Senate in January, we can expect a prompt repeal of Obamacare, right? Because they've spent so much time and energy talking about how terrible it is for America, citizens, the free-market, IRS power, etc., and have already voted so many times to repeal, that it should be a given that this is one of the first things they do, no?

Well, it's either they repeal it now that they have the ability or they are finally exposed as frauds and liars, as a party that's only voted for repeal so many times because they knew they had no chance of actually repealing it; that this has all just been a charade and political posturing to whip their supporters into a furor so they donate all that  money and go on internet forums and post stuff like this:

When Republicans fail to repeal Obamacare, will you become a partisan apologist, or will you hold them accountable for failing to act? Will you be as critical of them as you are of Obama, or are you just posting pictures like this because you hate Obama, not because of Obamacare?

I'm asking earnestly because if you're not going to hold Republicans accountable for not repealing what you consider to be a terrible law when they finally have the power to, then what is the utility of constantly railing against Obama because of Obamacare?

Let me ask you this then: Why democrats HATE 0bama personally? It must be the case. Why would anyone be against 0bamacare if not for a deep rooted personal hate against our first black president? Are you saying I am as bad as chuck schumer? Is chuck shumer a Tea Partier who's afraid of... 0bama? 

Tensions flare between Senate Democrats, White House

Do democrats hate 0bama?
What does chuck schumer, third in power in the senate after harry reid say about 0bamacare?

Schadenfreude overload: Senate Democrats and Obama staffers at war over Obamacare


[picture redacted]


Have a Happy Thanksgiving!!! 

Hey, you didn't answer my question.   

Hey, you didn't wish me a Happy Thanksgiving!!! 

If the republicans can't shake the 0bama illegal shakedown on the US citizen I'll make sure to talk about that too... Just as much as liberals were up in arms when their president went to war in Libya WITHOUT approval from Congress, or let a US ambassador die, or when 0bama did not close gitmo for the past 6 years, or when he targeted the US free press with his shadowy foot soldiers, or when he used (still does) the IRS as a weapon against the US citizen...

I am sure you remember all those historical moments, and each time you where sadden by those events...

[jaysabi]

Under the president’s new amnesty, businesses will have a $3,000-per-employee incentive to hire illegal immigrants over native-born workers because of a quirk of Obamacare.

President Obama’s temporary amnesty, which lasts three years, declares up to 5 million illegal immigrants to be lawfully in the country and eligible for work permits, but it still deems them ineligible for public benefits such as buying insurance on Obamacare’s health exchanges.

Under the Affordable Care Act, that means businesses who hire them won’t have to pay a penalty for not providing them health coverage — making them $3,000 more attractive than a similar native-born worker, whom the business by law would have to cover.

The loophole was confirmed by congressional aides and drew condemnation from those who said it put illegal immigrants ahead of Americans in the job market.

“If it is true that the president’s actions give employers a $3,000 incentive to hire those who came here illegally, he has added insult to injury,” said Rep. Lamar Smith, Texas Republican. “The president’s actions would have just moved those who came here illegally to the front of the line, ahead of unemployed and underemployed Americans.”

A Department of Homeland Security official confirmed that the newly legalized immigrants won’t have access to Obamacare, which opens up the loophole for employers looking to avoid the penalty.


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/nov/25/obama-amnesty-obamacare-clash-businesses-have-3000/

So when Republicans finally take control over both the House and Senate in January, we can expect a prompt repeal of Obamacare, right? Because they've spent so much time and energy talking about how terrible it is for America, citizens, the free-market, IRS power, etc., and have already voted so many times to repeal, that it should be a given that this is one of the first things they do, no?

Well, it's either they repeal it now that they have the ability or they are finally exposed as frauds and liars, as a party that's only voted for repeal so many times because they knew they had no chance of actually repealing it; that this has all just been a charade and political posturing to whip their supporters into a furor so they donate all that  money and go on internet forums and post stuff like this:

When Republicans fail to repeal Obamacare, will you become a partisan apologist, or will you hold them accountable for failing to act? Will you be as critical of them as you are of Obama, or are you just posting pictures like this because you hate Obama, not because of Obamacare?

I'm asking earnestly because if you're not going to hold Republicans accountable for not repealing what you consider to be a terrible law when they finally have the power to, then what is the utility of constantly railing against Obama because of Obamacare?

Let me ask you this then: Why democrats HATE 0bama personally? It must be the case. Why would anyone be against 0bamacare if not for a deep rooted personal hate against our first black president? Are you saying I am as bad as chuck schumer? Is chuck shumer a Tea Partier who's afraid of... 0bama? 

Tensions flare between Senate Democrats, White House

Do democrats hate 0bama?
What does chuck schumer, third in power in the senate after harry reid say about 0bamacare?

Schadenfreude overload: Senate Democrats and Obama staffers at war over Obamacare


[picture redacted]


Have a Happy Thanksgiving!!! 

Hey, you didn't answer my question.   

Hey, you didn't wish me a Happy Thanksgiving!!! 

If the republicans can't shake the 0bama illegal shakedown on the US citizen I'll make sure to talk about that too... Just as much as liberals were up in arms when their president went to war in Libya WITHOUT approval from Congress, or let a US ambassador die, or when 0bama did not close gitmo for the past 6 years, or when he targeted the US free press with his shadowy foot soldiers, or when he used (still does) the IRS as a weapon against the US citizen...

I am sure you remember all those historical moments, and each time you where sadden by those events...

I don't know if you're accusing me of being an Obama supporter. I'm very critical of Obama and his policies. He's as terrible a president to me as GW was (picking a "winner" is just too close to call). But I do believe in representing information more fairly than either republicans or democrats do, who only act to serve their own political power interests, which is why I call you out on certain representations you make. It's not in defense of Obama, but in an attempt to dispel republican talking points which aren't reflective of reality, but the fictions they peddle to empower themselves at the expense of the democrats.

Unrelated, why do you spell Obama as "0Bama"?

[Wilikon]

Under the president’s new amnesty, businesses will have a $3,000-per-employee incentive to hire illegal immigrants over native-born workers because of a quirk of Obamacare.

President Obama’s temporary amnesty, which lasts three years, declares up to 5 million illegal immigrants to be lawfully in the country and eligible for work permits, but it still deems them ineligible for public benefits such as buying insurance on Obamacare’s health exchanges.

Under the Affordable Care Act, that means businesses who hire them won’t have to pay a penalty for not providing them health coverage — making them $3,000 more attractive than a similar native-born worker, whom the business by law would have to cover.

The loophole was confirmed by congressional aides and drew condemnation from those who said it put illegal immigrants ahead of Americans in the job market.

“If it is true that the president’s actions give employers a $3,000 incentive to hire those who came here illegally, he has added insult to injury,” said Rep. Lamar Smith, Texas Republican. “The president’s actions would have just moved those who came here illegally to the front of the line, ahead of unemployed and underemployed Americans.”

A Department of Homeland Security official confirmed that the newly legalized immigrants won’t have access to Obamacare, which opens up the loophole for employers looking to avoid the penalty.


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/nov/25/obama-amnesty-obamacare-clash-businesses-have-3000/

So when Republicans finally take control over both the House and Senate in January, we can expect a prompt repeal of Obamacare, right? Because they've spent so much time and energy talking about how terrible it is for America, citizens, the free-market, IRS power, etc., and have already voted so many times to repeal, that it should be a given that this is one of the first things they do, no?

Well, it's either they repeal it now that they have the ability or they are finally exposed as frauds and liars, as a party that's only voted for repeal so many times because they knew they had no chance of actually repealing it; that this has all just been a charade and political posturing to whip their supporters into a furor so they donate all that  money and go on internet forums and post stuff like this:

When Republicans fail to repeal Obamacare, will you become a partisan apologist, or will you hold them accountable for failing to act? Will you be as critical of them as you are of Obama, or are you just posting pictures like this because you hate Obama, not because of Obamacare?

I'm asking earnestly because if you're not going to hold Republicans accountable for not repealing what you consider to be a terrible law when they finally have the power to, then what is the utility of constantly railing against Obama because of Obamacare?

Let me ask you this then: Why democrats HATE 0bama personally? It must be the case. Why would anyone be against 0bamacare if not for a deep rooted personal hate against our first black president? Are you saying I am as bad as chuck schumer? Is chuck shumer a Tea Partier who's afraid of... 0bama? 

Tensions flare between Senate Democrats, White House

Do democrats hate 0bama?
What does chuck schumer, third in power in the senate after harry reid say about 0bamacare?

Schadenfreude overload: Senate Democrats and Obama staffers at war over Obamacare


[picture redacted]


Have a Happy Thanksgiving!!! 

Hey, you didn't answer my question.   

Hey, you didn't wish me a Happy Thanksgiving!!! 

If the republicans can't shake the 0bama illegal shakedown on the US citizen I'll make sure to talk about that too... Just as much as liberals were up in arms when their president went to war in Libya WITHOUT approval from Congress, or let a US ambassador die, or when 0bama did not close gitmo for the past 6 years, or when he targeted the US free press with his shadowy foot soldiers, or when he used (still does) the IRS as a weapon against the US citizen...

I am sure you remember all those historical moments, and each time you where sadden by those events...

I don't know if you're accusing me of being an Obama supporter. I'm very critical of Obama and his policies. He's as terrible a president to me as GW was (picking a "winner" is just too close to call). But I do believe in representing information more fairly than either republicans or democrats do, who only act to serve their own political power interests, which is why I call you out on certain representations you make. It's not in defense of Obama, but in an attempt to dispel republican talking points which aren't reflective of reality, but the fictions they peddle to empower themselves at the expense of the democrats.

Unrelated, why do you spell Obama as "0Bama"?

I never spelled Obama 0Bama... You did.

99.9% of people never see a zero, but a O. The same .1% who can see the zero are the same people who have a problem with the image of 0bama, a half black man, as a rodeo clown or a clown.

You are free to call me out all you want but my answer to you was very clear. I have never been to a US public school so maybe I would need to readjust the way I write for some people here.

[un-redacted image]

[jaysabi]

I never spelled Obama 0Bama... You did.

99.9% of people never see a zero, but a O. The same .1% who can see the zero are the same people who have a problem with the image of 0bama, a half black man, as a rodeo clown or a clown.

You are free to call me out all you want but my answer to you was very clear. I have never been to a US public school so maybe I would need to readjust the way I write for some people here.

Now I'm thoroughly lost as to what you're talking about. There are roughly 40 instances of "0bama" appearing in this thread. All of them were written by you, or appear when people quote you, up until the point I asked you why you spell his name with a 0. Then you got crazy with nonsense.

[RodeoX]

Hey I just signed up again for the year. I switched to another plan this year and found better coverage for about $15 more than what I had last year. The website still has some issues. A few links I clicked on were dead or linked back to the same page. But it basically worked.

[Wilikon]

I never spelled Obama 0Bama... You did.

99.9% of people never see a zero, but a O. The same .1% who can see the zero are the same people who have a problem with the image of 0bama, a half black man, as a rodeo clown or a clown.

You are free to call me out all you want but my answer to you was very clear. I have never been to a US public school so maybe I would need to readjust the way I write for some people here.

Now I'm thoroughly lost as to what you're talking about. There are roughly 40 instances of "0bama" appearing in this thread. All of them were written by you, or appear when people quote you, up until the point I asked you why you spell his name with a 0. Then you got crazy with nonsense.

Yes. 0bama. Not 0Bama.

Only 40 instances? I need to work harder... 

[Fatman3001]

I never spelled Obama 0Bama... You did.

99.9% of people never see a zero, but a O. The same .1% who can see the zero are the same people who have a problem with the image of 0bama, a half black man, as a rodeo clown or a clown.

You are free to call me out all you want but my answer to you was very clear. I have never been to a US public school so maybe I would need to readjust the way I write for some people here.

Now I'm thoroughly lost as to what you're talking about. There are roughly 40 instances of "0bama" appearing in this thread. All of them were written by you, or appear when people quote you, up until the point I asked you why you spell his name with a 0. Then you got crazy with nonsense.

If you read his posts with a Daffy Duck/Nerd lisp, it all makes sense. Sort of...

[Wilikon]

I never spelled Obama 0Bama... You did.

99.9% of people never see a zero, but a O. The same .1% who can see the zero are the same people who have a problem with the image of 0bama, a half black man, as a rodeo clown or a clown.

You are free to call me out all you want but my answer to you was very clear. I have never been to a US public school so maybe I would need to readjust the way I write for some people here.

Now I'm thoroughly lost as to what you're talking about. There are roughly 40 instances of "0bama" appearing in this thread. All of them were written by you, or appear when people quote you, up until the point I asked you why you spell his name with a 0. Then you got crazy with nonsense.

0bamacare is a disease for the majority of Americans. That is not nonsense. Even democrats agree with that statement. Obviously if are watching from abroad then 0bamacare will never have any impact on your life or loved ones.

[picolo]

I never spelled Obama 0Bama... You did.

99.9% of people never see a zero, but a O. The same .1% who can see the zero are the same people who have a problem with the image of 0bama, a half black man, as a rodeo clown or a clown.

You are free to call me out all you want but my answer to you was very clear. I have never been to a US public school so maybe I would need to readjust the way I write for some people here.

Now I'm thoroughly lost as to what you're talking about. There are roughly 40 instances of "0bama" appearing in this thread. All of them were written by you, or appear when people quote you, up until the point I asked you why you spell his name with a 0. Then you got crazy with nonsense.

0bamacare is a disease for the majority of Americans. That is not nonsense. Even democrats agree with that statement. Obviously if are watching from abroad then 0bamacare will never have any impact on your life or loved ones.

Health costs are already too much in the USA, more administration costs and more tax payer money poured into health care will push costs even higher.

[Spendulus]

Hey I just signed up again for the year. I switched to another plan this year and found better coverage for about $15 more than what I had last year. The website still has some issues. A few links I clicked on were dead or linked back to the same page. But it basically worked.

I believe you, but anecdotal evidence is not statistics.

By contrast with your experience, my insurance rates have doubled, to over $22,000 per year for the family.  Never a signficant health issue, by the way.

[deluxeCITY]

Hey I just signed up again for the year. I switched to another plan this year and found better coverage for about $15 more than what I had last year. The website still has some issues. A few links I clicked on were dead or linked back to the same page. But it basically worked.

I believe you, but anecdotal evidence is not statistics.

By contrast with your experience, my insurance rates have doubled, to over $22,000 per year for the family.  Never a signficant health issue, by the way.

I would say that your experience is more the norm then the exception. How the ACA aka obama care is structured will force insurers to raise insurance premiums for people who have a low amount of risk in order to subsidize others who have much higher amounts of risk

[Spendulus]

Hey I just signed up again for the year. I switched to another plan this year and found better coverage for about $15 more than what I had last year. The website still has some issues. A few links I clicked on were dead or linked back to the same page. But it basically worked.

I believe you, but anecdotal evidence is not statistics.

By contrast with your experience, my insurance rates have doubled, to over $22,000 per year for the family.  Never a signficant health issue, by the way.

I would say that your experience is more the norm then the exception. How the ACA aka obama care is structured will force insurers to raise insurance premiums for people who have a low amount of risk in order to subsidize others who have much higher amounts of risk

Yes, I believe you are correct.   That is why (financially) Obamacare will fail.  It may be supportable through simply printing dollars and paying medical care with those. However, it would definitely be a third rate health system.

[jaysabi]

I never spelled Obama 0Bama... You did.

99.9% of people never see a zero, but a O. The same .1% who can see the zero are the same people who have a problem with the image of 0bama, a half black man, as a rodeo clown or a clown.

You are free to call me out all you want but my answer to you was very clear. I have never been to a US public school so maybe I would need to readjust the way I write for some people here.

Now I'm thoroughly lost as to what you're talking about. There are roughly 40 instances of "0bama" appearing in this thread. All of them were written by you, or appear when people quote you, up until the point I asked you why you spell his name with a 0. Then you got crazy with nonsense.

Yes. 0bama. Not 0Bama.

Only 40 instances? I need to work harder... 

Ah I see! You got me on a technicality. That is a well-scored point, but my question remains. Is it supposed to be a slight?

[Spendulus]

Im thinking about writing a long and over-developed post about how retarded America and its fcked up politics, de-railed moneysystem, healthcare, medicine, how-to-war... and so on. But I realize I'm at a Bitcoin-Forum and I assume that if you found your way here your mind should be quite enlightened already.....


Let me tell you; If everyone push a % of the salary at the government and the government DONT WASTE IT AT SHIT there wont be a problem to have a working healthcare, education, w/e you want........

And see, that is the proof of why here in the USA, a scheme like Obamacare will never work.

See bolded above.

We know what happens in Washington DC (District of Criminals).