Keukasmallies Posted October 26, 2013 Author Posted October 26, 2013 Where are Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton in support of this woman? Just as soon as she changes her name to Tawana, the Rev. Al Dullton will come to her rescue! Let me have an Amen!
Koko78 Posted October 26, 2013 Posted October 26, 2013 (edited) Where are Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton in support of this woman? She, like RGIII, is not "down with the cause" and is therefore not black. Edit: Nevermind, Rev. Sharpton has other fish to fry that are more important. Sharpton threatens store boycott over profile suit http://news.yahoo.com/sharpton-threatens-store-boycott-over-171249957.html Edited October 26, 2013 by Koko78
B-Man Posted October 27, 2013 Posted October 27, 2013 (edited) "Let me make one thing perfectly clear,if you like your"................................ Oh, nevermind. 500,000 Californians Lose Health Policies Give us Your Young, Uninsured (and Dying to be Rooked) FTA: I could find a report noting that most of those who had enrolled were merely signing up for the federal Medicaid program. In Oregon 52 thousand people enrolled through the website, 100 percent of them for the Medicaid program, none for personal insurance. The increased enrollment thus will only add to our federal tax burden and will not diminish it. This at a time when welfare recipients already outnumber full-time year-round workers. How much longer China will fund the Ponzi scheme known as the federal government is anyone's guess. As a friend remarked rather acerbically: Five years ago 85% of Americans had health insurance, and close to 90% of them were happy with what they had. Of the 15% who weren't insured, roughly half were quite happy with their circumstance: they could purchase insurance, but preferred to spend their money elsewhere. So exactly whom does this Rube Goldbergian distortion-and-destruction machine benefit, and at what cost to whom? And why? Read more: http://www.americant...l#ixzz2iw0vp1Ag . Edited October 27, 2013 by B-Man
B-Man Posted October 27, 2013 Posted October 27, 2013 White House tries to rally congressional Democrats in support of Obamacare http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/white-house-tries-to-rally-congressional-democrats-in-support-of-obamacare/2013/10/26/3eb5ba6e-3d93-11e3-b6a9-da62c264f40e_story.html All The Wrong People Are Getting ObamaCare. “In almost half the states with exchanges, the overwhelming majority of enrollments are coming from Medicaid, not the new insurance markets — 87 percent in Washington, 82 percent in Kentucky and, last time I looked, 100 percent in Oregon (which delayed opening its insurance exchange in order to work out technical bugs). The Medicaid expansion side of the bill seems to be working fine in the states that opted for the expansion. But the private insurance side doesn’t seem to be getting a lot of pickup.” ObamaCare Is Taking On Water: It’s not just a buggy website, it’s a disaster of Titanic proportions. .
IDBillzFan Posted October 27, 2013 Posted October 27, 2013 And here is your quintessential liberal response when everything they touch turns to crap. The Democrat's Version of Health Insurance Would Have Been Cheaper, Simpler, and More Popular (So Why Did We Enact the Republican Version and Why Are They So Upset? Don't you see...even though the left had majorities in both houses and could do what they wanted, they apparently didn't do what they wanted but rather what the GOP wanted, and if they had just not done what the GOP wanted, then we'd have single payer and all would be well. And hey...you Republicans...we gave you what you wanted, so why so unhappy? Delusional.
/dev/null Posted October 27, 2013 Posted October 27, 2013 Lies that Democrats tell themselves http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/10/27/lies_the_dems_tell_themselves_120464.html
DC Tom Posted October 27, 2013 Posted October 27, 2013 And here is your quintessential liberal response when everything they touch turns to crap. The Democrat's Version of Health Insurance Would Have Been Cheaper, Simpler, and More Popular (So Why Did We Enact the Republican Version and Why Are They So Upset? Don't you see...even though the left had majorities in both houses and could do what they wanted, they apparently didn't do what they wanted but rather what the GOP wanted, and if they had just not done what the GOP wanted, then we'd have single payer and all would be well. And hey...you Republicans...we gave you what you wanted, so why so unhappy? Delusional. Allow me to respond with part of the text of Obama's own speech to Congress, September 9, 2009 (emphasis mine): It's worth noting that a strong majority of Americans still favor a public insurance option of the sort I've proposed tonight. But its impact shouldn't be exaggerated – by the left, the right, or the media. It is only one part of my plan, and should not be used as a handy excuse for the usual Washington ideological battles. To my progressive friends, I would remind you that for decades, the driving idea behind reform has been to end insurance company abuses and make coverage affordable for those without it. The public option is only a means to that end – and we should remain open to other ideas that accomplish our ultimate goal. And to my Republican friends, I say that rather than making wild claims about a government takeover of health care, we should work together to address any legitimate concerns you may have. It's really a great speech. Full of laughs, four year later.
IDBillzFan Posted October 27, 2013 Posted October 27, 2013 It's really a great speech. Full of laughs, four year later. You'd think a guy who worked so hard to pass that abortion would at least have taken the time to ensure everything was being done properly. But you know ol' Barack. He's not a get-your-hands-dirty guy. He's an ideas guy. Ideas just come to him. Feed mayonnaise TO the fish. That's our president.
B-Man Posted October 27, 2013 Posted October 27, 2013 The Truth of Obamacare FTA: This was my main takeaway from Megyn Kelly’s interview with Obamacare architect Ezekiel Emanuel (that, and the fact that Emanuel is an unpleasant guy, at least in this context). Emmanuel expressed no regret that folks are losing their health insurance; to the contrary, he seemed pleased. He defended this attitude on the grounds that the insurance available in the exchanges is much better than the plans that folks are losing, which don’t offer enough coverage to suit Emanuel. But this defense is untenable. If the Obama administration really believed in the overall superiority of the plans on the exchanges, it would allow people to choose between their current insurance plan and the plans being offered on the exchanges. Emanuel is pleased that folks are losing their insurance not because their insurance isn’t good enough. He is pleased because folks will be driven to pay more for insurance which, in turn, will help subsidize the insurance of others. Emanuel also argued that millions of people were already losing their insurance under the Bush administration because employers were terminating plans due to rising health care costs. But this, of course, is no reason to design health care reform legislation that exacerbates the trend. Those who lost their employer-based health insurance during the Bush years had the option of buying health insurance that fit their needs or of buying no insurance, which they could do without being fined. Those who lose their insurance due to Obamacare must (to avoid being fined) buy more expensive plans that meet the needs of the “system,” not themselves. To be sure, some of those who buy insurance on an exchange will receive subsidy payments. In some cases, they will come out ahead on the deal. There will be winners and losers, as with any redistributionist program. And make no mistake, that is what Obamacare is, at root — a massive disruption of our health care system in the name of wealth redistribution. As this reality dawns on Americans, it will likely redound to the disadvantage of Democrats (not that there’s much consolation in this). The winners under Obamacare will be a cohort that already votes overwhelmingly for Democrats. The losers will consist mainly of middle class Americans, whose party allegiance is split. http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/10/the-truth-of-obamacare.php .
DC Tom Posted October 27, 2013 Posted October 27, 2013 http://www.powerline...f-obamacare.php . "It seems, to me, pretty unethical to sell a policy that says 'We're not covering maternity care.'" Why, Zeke? My wife and I can't have kids. Why the !@#$ do we need to pay for maternity care? How is FORCING us to purchase maternity care coverage ethical?
B-Man Posted October 27, 2013 Posted October 27, 2013 "It seems, to me, pretty unethical to sell a policy that says 'We're not covering maternity care.'" Why, Zeke? My wife and I can't have kids. Why the !@#$ do we need to pay for maternity care? How is FORCING us to purchase maternity care coverage ethical? From a Power Line reader in Iowa: My insurance agent told me a week ago that I will be receiving notice that my insurance policy is not ACA compliant and will be discontinued. He told me my option is to start shopping for an Obamacare (ACA compliant) policy. The policy is just on me. I am a 61 year old male with no health issues. I asked my agent, “Why is this policy not compliant with the ACA?” Answer: “Your policy doesn’t include maternity care”. Since I was able to go through strict underwriting standards to buy my current policy, I figured that on the exchange I will not be able to get a policy without paying significantly more since I will get no credit for being in good health. Furthermore I, a 61 year old male, will be paying for maternity coverage. I hear those on the left saying that my policy is inferior and that I was “swindled” by buying such a product. Not having maternity care for a 61 year old male hardly makes my policy inferior. “If you like your policy, you can keep your policy.” (Obama) Yeah, right. I then asked my agent to get a quote for me for an ACA compliant policy. The ACA compliant policy will cost $106 more per month or $1272 more per year. And this ACA compliant policy will more than double the annual out-of-pocket expense from my $5,000 per year currently to $10,600 per year if I use out-of-network medical care. To be fair, the ACA compliant policy does include maternity care for me. “The average family will see an annual reduction in their premium of $2500 per year” (Obama) Yeah, right. [Name withheld] Urbandale, IA 61 year old males must pay for maternity coverage so someone else can get it for free........Put that in the redistribution pipe and smoke it.
Doc Posted October 28, 2013 Posted October 28, 2013 And here is your quintessential liberal response when everything they touch turns to crap. The Democrat's Version of Health Insurance Would Have Been Cheaper, Simpler, and More Popular (So Why Did We Enact the Republican Version and Why Are They So Upset? Don't you see...even though the left had majorities in both houses and could do what they wanted, they apparently didn't do what they wanted but rather what the GOP wanted, and if they had just not done what the GOP wanted, then we'd have single payer and all would be well. And hey...you Republicans...we gave you what you wanted, so why so unhappy? Delusional. Yep, those Dems were all on-board with single payer. That's why one guy, Joe Liberman, was able to kill the public option.
B-Man Posted October 28, 2013 Posted October 28, 2013 Another example...................... #Obamacare watch: How the Democrats threw a pregnant woman off her insurance. All in the name of “helping” her, of course. Fullerton resident Jennifer Harris thought she had a great deal, paying $98 a month for an individual plan through Health Net Inc. She got a rude surprise this month when the company said it would cancel her policy at the end of this year. Her current plan does not conform with the new federal rules, which require more generous levels of coverage. Now Harris, a self-employed lawyer, must shop for replacement insurance. The cheapest plan she has found will cost her $238 a month. She and her husband don’t qualify for federal premium subsidies because they earn too much money, about $80,000 a year combined. “It doesn’t seem right to make the middle class pay so much more in order to give health insurance to everybody else,” said Harris, who is three months pregnant. “This increase is simply not affordable.” Gee, no kidding. The LA Times reports that California is home to more than two million individually insured residents, and that hundreds of thousands of them are receiving cancellation notices on their current plans and getting booted into the exchange where they’ll need to pay an average of 30 percent more for their new premiums. How anybody ever managed to convince themselves that none of this would have a net negative economic impact and indeed act as a new tax on the middle class, I’m sure I’ll never know. .
B-Man Posted October 28, 2013 Posted October 28, 2013 As Mr. Ramirez reminds us, the computer problems are but the "tip" of whats wrong with this "affordable" bill
Nanker Posted October 28, 2013 Posted October 28, 2013 And just exactly why did the Republicans want to delay implementing this CF for a year? If healthcare is now a "right" then all adult males should choose an OB-Gyn and make appointments to see their new doctor.
IDBillzFan Posted October 28, 2013 Posted October 28, 2013 Friends shouldn't let friends drive the website for your signature policy. Michelle Obama's college friend...VP at CGI...Christmas with the Obamas.... Wait. Let me guess. Teabagggerscruzcheneyrummy!!
B-Man Posted October 28, 2013 Posted October 28, 2013 QUOTE OF THE WEEK: “I was all for Obamacare until I found out I was paying for it.” “What I have right now is what I am happy with and I just want to know why I can’t keep what I have. Why do I have to be forced into something else?” Here’s how Obamacare makes life hell for college profs. “Under the president’s health care law, employees who work 30 hours each week are eligible for health benefits. Since many adjunct professors teach enough classes to meet that bar, college administrators must choose between paying extra healthcare costs or cutting back adjunct work hours. For many universities–both public and private–the decision is an easy one: punish the adjuncts.” CBS News: HHS Secretary Sebelius: Should she stay or should she go? WHAT DIFFERENCE, AT THIS POINT, DOES IT MAKE? .
IDBillzFan Posted October 28, 2013 Posted October 28, 2013 Check this out: a congressional staffer who lost her job because her boss lost re-election over his Obamacare vote, gets a monster rate hike and ridiculous deductible. “I spent two years defending Obamacare. I had constituents scream at me, spit at me and call me names that I can’t put in print. The congressman was not re-elected in 2010 mainly because of the anti-Obamacare anger. When the congressman was not re-elected, I also (along with the rest of our staff) lost my job. I was upset that because of the health care issue, I didn’t have a job anymore but still defended Obamacare because it would make health care available to everyone at, what I assumed, would be an affordable price. I have now learned that I was wrong. Very wrong.” For Klinkhamer, 60, President Obama’s oft-repeated words ring in her ears: “If you like your health plan, you will keep it.” Well, possibly not.
Alaska Darin Posted October 28, 2013 Posted October 28, 2013 Don't worry, the ends justify the means... - Birdbrain
Recommended Posts