Jump to content

Stupid Republicans


Recommended Posts

The 2 party system is a joke. It's only in place to make you think you have a choice and to give sheep someone to blame. 

 

As far as the ACA goes, it's just another tool to dump assets into the privately owned banking cartel known as the Federal Reserve. I'm a single male with no children so coverage under the ACA would cost me roughly a quarter of my GROSS income. Considering that comes with a $6900 deductible, I think I'll pass and just hope I continue to have no health issues. 

 

When you choose to be a party apologist you're just perpetuating the problem. Americans, as a whole, have lost the ability to differentiate between propoganda and reality. People will ignore any fact that contradicts their opinion and look for a "source" that tells them what they want to hear.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 117
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

9 minutes ago, WalkingTheDawg said:

The 2 party system is a joke. It's only in place to make you think you have a choice and to give sheep someone to blame. 

 

As far as the ACA goes, it's just another tool to dump assets into the privately owned banking cartel known as the Federal Reserve. I'm a single male with no children so coverage under the ACA would cost me roughly a quarter of my GROSS income. Considering that comes with a $6900 deductible, I think I'll pass and just hope I continue to have no health issues. 

 

When you choose to be a party apologist you're just perpetuating the problem. Americans, as a whole, have lost the ability to differentiate between propoganda and reality. People will ignore any fact that contradicts their opinion and look for a "source" that tells them what they want to hear.

You should have preceded this post with "truth bombs incoming"

Link to post
Share on other sites
On May 14, 2016 at 11:56 AM, WhenFalconsWin said:

You are exactly right.  No one is going to challenge what you said here.  The problems with the ACA is they went about the entire healthcare system problem in the wrong way.  Instead of trying to fix what was wrong with 15% of the uninsured, the law went after the 85% who were happy with their plans when surveyed before the new law went into effect.  Just like the government to try and fix what isn't broken before they try and fix what was broken.  

You called it. It's as if I never posted it at all. Cheerleaders don't want to discuss or understand what's happening, they just want to keep cheering for their team.

United we stand. Divided we fall. Politicians have done an outstanding job dividing the public with the party system.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, pzummo said:

You called it. It's as if I never posted it at all. Cheerleaders don't want to discuss or understand what's happening, they just want to keep cheering for their team.

United we stand. Divided we fall. Politicians have done an outstanding job dividing the public with the party system.

Actually, I'm preparing for an extended trip overseas and am busy preparing for that, so I don't have time to write a lengthy rebuttal.  I will briefly say that I agree with much of the first half, but note that you exaggerated by saying "every citizen" when referring to Obamacare.  The vast majority of people didn't see changes in their health insurance.  The second part of your post isn't based in fact whatsoever.  

I'll respond at some point, but it's not likely to be soon.  While I'm there, I'm going to focus on snorkeling and beaches on the islands and noshing on street food in Kuala Lumpur, not responding to political posts on a message board.

No offense.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Leon Troutsky said:

Actually, I'm preparing for an extended trip overseas and am busy preparing for that, so I don't have time to write a lengthy rebuttal.  I will briefly say that I agree with much of the first half, but note that you exaggerated by saying "every citizen" when referring to Obamacare.  The vast majority of people didn't see changes in their health insurance.  The second part of your post isn't based in fact whatsoever.  

I'll respond at some point, but it's not likely to be soon.  While I'm there, I'm going to focus on snorkeling and beaches on the islands and noshing on street food in Kuala Lumpur, not responding to political posts on a message board.

No offense.

May you come back with new ideas and a clearer thought process.  

Good or bad, the "vast" majority did see changes to their health insurance.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, WhenFalconsWin said:

May you come back with new ideas and a clearer thought process.  

Good or bad, the "vast" majority did see changes to their health insurance.

The vast majority of us have been crippled by this new legislation. I guess the perks coming from the teachers lounge are better then advertised.

Link to post
Share on other sites

From Obama's second inaugural address:

Quote

That’s the rhetoric. Here’s the reality: For decades, the federal government actually has made just such a choice, spending far more, on average, on each senior citizen than on each child — about 6½ times more in recent years. And as baby boomers reach 65 in massive numbers, those trends aren’t likely to abate. That’s neither right nor wrong — it’s a policy choice, after all — but as Americans debate the nation’s path and priorities, it’s best to do so armed with facts about the current state of affairs: what we’re spending on the young, the old, the debt service and defense, among others. Ultimately, what is the role of government? And at what price?

You invest in young people in order to build a better future, so it's no wonder that America is trending downward across the board.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Billy Ocean said:

From Obama's second inaugural address:

You invest in young people in order to build a better future, so it's no wonder that America is trending downward across the board.

It's not what we just spend, but what the government wastes.  They've been crying about this forever and with the two parties having different ideologies on what to spend our tax dollars on, I see no real solutions anytime soon.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Leon Troutsky said:

Actually, I'm preparing for an extended trip overseas and am busy preparing for that, so I don't have time to write a lengthy rebuttal.  I will briefly say that I agree with much of the first half, but note that you exaggerated by saying "every citizen" when referring to Obamacare.  The vast majority of people didn't see changes in their health insurance.  The second part of your post isn't based in fact whatsoever.  

I'll respond at some point, but it's not likely to be soon.  While I'm there, I'm going to focus on snorkeling and beaches on the islands and noshing on street food in Kuala Lumpur, not responding to political posts on a message board.

No offense.

I read my post and I see what you are saying, "every citizen" is an exaggeration.  Every citizen has to pay for coverage of services the vast majority of them cannot leverage.  Men cannot leverage maternity coverage, yet we are now paying for it in our coverage plans, and that's half the population.  The vast majority of senior citizen females also cannot get pregnant, which puts it into the majority.  Substance abuse and mental health mandatory coverages are also paid for by every citizen, while the vast majority of the country does not have substance abuse issues.  It is a gross understatement to say the vast majority of people didn't see changes in their health insurance, and that is not based in fact whatsoever.

No offense taken.  Enjoy your trip.  I wouldn't spend time responding to political posts either.  

For the record, I do not see which part you are referring to in the 2nd part of my post not being based in fact.  Is it the part where I said there were no concessions for the working class?  The only concession I can think of would be the pre-existing condition one (one of the only portions of this bill I was actually in favor of), but that was not a working class concession.  That was a concession for the uninsured, which was around 16% of the population before this took effect.  The vast majority of the working class already had health coverage through their employers, and I don't recall ever hearing of one instance where someone was denied coverage by their employer for a preexisting condition.

Was it around the keeping our doctors statement?  Many people were able to keep their doctors, but there was nothing in the ACA that protected it, which is why many people can't see the same doctor they had previously.  A concession is something granted.  They didn't even protect what we had, nevermind actually grant us anything new around it.  

Please educate me.  What concessions were made specifically for the working class that is funding the majority of the changes they put into effect?  

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, dirtyhairy said:

It's called Google, try it. half pint? Go back to nap time, you've barely been missed.

The next time DH asks what the democrats' solution to a particular issue is, some respond simply "It's called google, try it." 

I bet he cries fouls and tells that person the democrats must have no answer if his only response to to "google it."

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, mdrake34 said:

The next time DH asks what the democrats' solution to a particular issue is, some respond simply "It's called google, try it." 

I bet he cries fouls and tells that person the democrats must have no answer if his only response to to "google it."

No mdrake, I responded to that pathetic poster in a fashion that suited his style. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

In surprising turnabout, Oklahoma eyes Medicaid expansion

Despite bitter resistance in Oklahoma for years to President Barack Obama's health care overhaul, Republican leaders in this conservative state are now confronting something that alarms them even more: a huge $1.3 billion hole in the budget that threatens to do widespread damage to the state's health care system.

So, in what would be the grandest about-face among rightward leaning states, Oklahoma is now moving toward a plan to expand its Medicaid program to bring in billions of federal dollars from Obama's new health care system.

 

I wonder why they would do that.

QHmQl8b.png

 

Hey Mary Fallin.

giphy.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, GEORGIAfan said:

In surprising turnabout, Oklahoma eyes Medicaid expansion

Despite bitter resistance in Oklahoma for years to President Barack Obama's health care overhaul, Republican leaders in this conservative state are now confronting something that alarms them even more: a huge $1.3 billion hole in the budget that threatens to do widespread damage to the state's health care system.

So, in what would be the grandest about-face among rightward leaning states, Oklahoma is now moving toward a plan to expand its Medicaid program to bring in billions of federal dollars from Obama's new health care system.

 

I wonder why they would do that.

QHmQl8b.png

 

Hey Mary Fallin.

giphy.gif

We should have expanded medicaid in the first place for the 15% that needed healthcare instead of blowing up the industry with the ACA monstrosity.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Billy Ocean said:

Are congressional Democrats planning to run on how successful Obamacare has been?

well you have some posters in here who claim that it is due to the percentage of uninsured going down 

of course they ignore several things

1) the lies told before implementation

2) having insurance don't mean crap if you can't afford the massive deductibles and copay ($5000+ deductible with only 60% coverage after?)

3) The enrollment numbers are far below the projections we were given in order to keep costs down

4) the projections for premium increases in 2017 are pretty dire 

other than all that it's peachy keen!

Link to post
Share on other sites

By design, the chief beneficiary of Obamacare was supposed to be the insurance industry. And the "Big Five" health insurers -- UnitedHealth, Aetna, Cigna, Humana, and Anthem -- all beat the S&P 500 over the five year period after Obamaccare was signed into law in March 2010. UnitedHealth (America's largest health-benefits provider) outperformed the broader stock market by a wide margin during that period. 

Now UnitedHealth can't seem to make money under Obamacare. UnitedHealth said it could lose nearly $1 billion from its Obamacare plans for 2015 & 2016. UnitedHealth said they could leave Obamacare's marketplace exchanges by next year. Humana -- which is also losing money on individual marketplace plans -- said they may do the same.

Even worse, Fitch Ratings (one of three SEC-designated rating agencies, along with Moody's and S&P) earlier this year examined the expected earnings for Blue Cross/Blue Shield. Of the 35 BCBS companies Fitch examined, 23 reported a collective $1.9 billion decline in earnings through the first nine months of 2015, and 16 BCBS companies reported net losses.

Obviously, if insurers can't turn a profit under Obamacare and begin to pull out of the exchanges, it'll be even more bad news for consumers, who will see their premiums go way up. And that's after this year's healthcare premiums rose at their quickest rate in about a decade. So in summary, Obamacare's future doesn't look as bright as the enrollment numbers suggest.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...