JERSEY CITY LIST - Re: Jersey City mayor meets with Obama, other leaders [Politics & Government]

Re: Jersey City mayor meets with Obama, other leaders

#44

Home away from home

Joined:
2013/3/29 21:43
Last Login :
2023/9/5 18:27

From Bergen Hill

Group:
Registered Users

Posts: 1980

Quote:

nyrgravey9 wrote:
Quote:

In summary: You have no idea why the costs have gone up, but you are going to blame ACA regardless.

Only one thing has changed: implementation of ACA. It's a pretty safe assumption that, had ACA not become law, my costs increases would be marginal as they have been in the past.

So why haven?t my costs gone up? I?m fairly certain that I?m not exempt from federal laws.

Quote:

nyrgravey9 wrote:
Quote:

Purely qualitative assessment based on fear about change.

Wrong again. This is based on discussions with his union contacts, current doctors and health plan administrators.

You wrote this:
Quote:

nyrgravey9 wrote:
To make the story more real-life and less hypothetical, my father's situation is a prime example. He is a retired union worker, who is currently dealing with significant heart troubles. His current, agreed upon plan and level of coverage is helping him get the care he needs to manage his situation. However, he rushing to get as much done as he can within the next year, because the changes that are being communicated to him once the 1 year mandate delay is over for unions, he will not be able to afford the current level of care he is receiving as a direct result of direct changes from ACA provisions. Now, I can't verbalize those changes, because I haven 't read them all.

Either you know the changes or you don?t.

Personally, I hope it isn?t an issue. I hope that much of your concern is based on fear of change and not any actual change. We shall all see.

Quote:

nyrgravey9 wrote:
Quote:

Where did I state what was good or bad. Find me the quote where I stated ACA is good. However, you keep arguing the strawman. It?s the only discussion your winning.

You're pretty much the only on here arguing points in favor of ACA. It's not a strawman argument as you so famously love to say to discredit a valid opposing viewpoint.

I?m not arguing in favor of ACA. I?m arguing against the fear mongering and finger wagging. I think the law has positive intentions. I think some of it is extremely necessary. I think some of it is poorly planned or laid out in a mistaken effort to try and get the opposition to buy into it (something they?d never do).

Quote:

nyrgravey9 wrote:
Quote:

Why would that be your father?s fault? What the hell are you even arguing at this point?

This is me making snarky assumptions about your next counterpoints on shifting blame away from ACA to some other extraneous factor (so far you've blamed insurance companies, republicans, companies themselves for not covering the costs 100% anymore), ANYone and anything except the one variable at the heart of it all: ACA.

Uh, no. that isn?t remotely accurate:
Quote:

Pebble wrote:
Obama certainly could have been more forthright in his description of the plan. However, and this is more my belief, people are very stupid. People need sound bites and quick catch phrases. Giving nuance results in people drowning out the sound and moving onto the next shiny object. So, instead of stating the full story (and in the process being a little dishonest) Obama said a sound bite.

Continuing this, the insurance companies were well aware, years ago, that these were the rules. The insurance companies knew that if they changed the plans by X amount that these plans would be null and void once the ACA laws were kicking into full effect. The end result is that the insurance companies intentionally changed them by enough that they could not be maintained. Thus when people ask if they can maintain their existing coverage the company responds with a no and an excuse about the federal government?s laws.

The talking point throughout the media is that Obama lied. Once again, we have an easy sound bite for the plebeians. Does this excuse Obama? No. But, and this is your argument, is it entirely his fault? Not in the slightest.

I find fault to go everywhere. However, I fully recognize that the insurance companies are being incredibly dishonest if they are going to claim that it?s purely ACA?s fault that they can?t provide the same coverage.

If you want to see a similar scam, you should look into why your cell phone bill is never the same over consecutive months. It?s usually in the same range, but the actual bill itself has to change.

Quote:

nyrgravey9 wrote:
Quote:

It?s not BS. You?ve not stated in one accurate manner how ACA has affected you. You state that costs have gone up and you?re paying more for insurance. I just renewed my company insurance a couple months ago and the costs were essentially the same, minus a small increase, which is the case each year.

Well, that looks pretty accurate in my estimation. It's my situation, and it's directly attributed to changes brought on by ACA. Just because YOU haven't been affected, doesn't mean others are/will be. Not sure how much more accurate I can get...

You have not proven that the ACA is in any way shape or form affecting you. There is hearsay from union contacts and doctors that is the equivalent of the game operator. Your own personal insurance costs have gone up. It could just be a case where your company is cutting back under the excuse of ACA.

Maybe your CEO is like the guy from Papa John?s that said he is going to fire people if Obama is re-elected. The guy?s bottom line didn?t change, but he made up some BS excuses.

I don?t work a liberal utopian corporation. As such, I?m pretty sure that if they could get away with paying less they would.

Quote:

nyrgravey9 wrote:
So I ask the same question to you Pebs. Do you feel it is your right to have affordable healthcare?

I don?t think my opinion matters. Everyone gets healthcare. The question is how does the costs get spread out. Do we have everyone pay into disaster coverage? Do we have companies footing bigger bills? Do we have higher taxes for one group or everyone?

I think it would be great if we could all have affordable healthcare. I am not certain how to make that work. I just know that no matter what, there are too many people that say ?I?ve got mine, now let?s change the rules so that others won?t have the same opportunity to get there?s.?

The perfect example of this was Steve Lonegan. The man took Social Security in order to help pay his way through life. But, now he wants it gone so nobody else has that same assistance should they find themselves in the exact same position.

Quote:

nyrgravey9 wrote:
Pebs, I don't need to argue this here with you. Over the next 3-5 years, when the real effects of this disastrous legislation start to take hold, the facts will bear out all by themselves.

We can't all be as lucky and unscathed as you. I truly congratulate you for having such luck and success in your life, I really mean it.

There is no such thing as luck beyond the amount of tools which we?re given at birth.

Posted on: 2013/12/16 19:31

Dos A Cero

Re: Jersey City mayor meets with Obama, other leaders

#43

Home away from home

Joined:
2013/7/1 16:39
Last Login :
2014/12/15 23:01

Group:
Banned

Posts: 1072

Pebs, I don't need to argue this here with you. Over the next 3-5 years, when the real effects of this disastrous legislation start to take hold, the facts will bear out all by themselves.

We can't all be as lucky and unscathed as you. I truly congratulate you for having such luck and success in your life, I really mean it.

Posted on: 2013/12/16 17:49

Re: Jersey City mayor meets with Obama, other leaders

#42

Home away from home

Joined:
2013/7/1 16:39
Last Login :
2014/12/15 23:01

Group:
Banned

Posts: 1072

Quote:

In summary: You have no idea why the costs have gone up, but you are going to blame ACA regardless.

Only one thing has changed: implementation of ACA. It's a pretty safe assumption that, had ACA not become law, my costs increases would be marginal as they have been in the past.

Quote:

Purely qualitative assessment based on fear about change.

Wrong again. This is based on discussions with his union contacts, current doctors and health plan administrators.

Quote:

Where did I state what was good or bad. Find me the quote where I stated ACA is good. However, you keep arguing the strawman. It?s the only discussion your winning.

You're pretty much the only on here arguing points in favor of ACA. It's not a strawman argument as you so famously love to say to discredit a valid opposing viewpoint.

Quote:

Why would that be your father?s fault? What the hell are you even arguing at this point?

This is me making snarky assumptions about your next counterpoints on shifting blame away from ACA to some other extraneous factor (so far you've blamed insurance companies, republicans, companies themselves for not covering the costs 100% anymore), ANYone and anything except the one variable at the heart of it all: ACA.

Quote:

It?s not BS. You?ve not stated in one accurate manner how ACA has affected you. You state that costs have gone up and you?re paying more for insurance. I just renewed my company insurance a couple months ago and the costs were essentially the same, minus a small increase, which is the case each year.

Well, that looks pretty accurate in my estimation. It's my situation, and it's directly attributed to changes brought on by ACA. Just because YOU haven't been affected, doesn't mean others are/will be. Not sure how much more accurate I can get...

So I ask the same question to you Pebs. Do you feel it is your right to have affordable healthcare?

Posted on: 2013/12/16 17:46

Re: Jersey City mayor meets with Obama, other leaders

#41

Home away from home

Joined:
2013/3/29 21:43
Last Login :
2023/9/5 18:27

From Bergen Hill

Group:
Registered Users

Posts: 1980

Quote:

nyrgravey9 wrote:
My current plan, oh dear Pebbles, just saw a significant rise in deductibles, premiums AND copays. Something to the tune of 33 to 45%. Now, to be fair, those things typically go up year over year, but this is the single largest increase I've EVER faced by an employer sponsored plan. We can argue ad nauseum as to whether or not that's the employer passing on increased costs, but it's a moot point because at its core, the costs overall have increased significantly.

In summary: You have no idea why the costs have gone up, but you are going to blame ACA regardless.

Quote:

nyrgravey9 wrote:
To make the story more real-life and less hypothetical, my father's situation is a prime example. He is a retired union worker, who is currently dealing with significant heart troubles. His current, agreed upon plan and level of coverage is helping him get the care he needs to manage his situation. However, he rushing to get as much done as he can within the next year, because the changes that are being communicated to him once the 1 year mandate delay is over for unions, he will not be able to afford the current level of care he is receiving as a direct result of direct changes from ACA provisions. Now, I can't verbalize those changes, because I haven 't read them all.

Again, you haven?t really done much research on this but ?from what you?re hearing? ACA will cause a problem for your father in getting coverage.

Quote:

nyrgravey9 wrote:
But, with his fixed income, and the level of care he requires to, I don't know, STAY ALIVE, his outlook isn't looking as rosy as it was pre-ACA.

Purely qualitative assessment based on fear about change.

Quote:

nyrgravey9 wrote:
So, you can understand how someone like me, oh dear Pebbles, might be getting a little pissed when people like you prognosticate what is good or bad for other people.

Where did I state what was good or bad. Find me the quote where I stated ACA is good. However, you keep arguing the strawman. It?s the only discussion your winning.

Quote:

nyrgravey9 wrote:
But, I know, it's my dad's fault for being in a union, or it's the union's fault for not getting a better deal, blah blah blah.

Why would that be your father?s fault? What the hell are you even arguing at this point?

Quote:

nyrgravey9 wrote:
Well, I can tell you first-hand, ACA is affecting me and my family, and not in a good way.

All your fact checking and smug, superior bullsh*t isn't going to change the fact that this legislation is garbage.

It?s not BS. You?ve not stated in one accurate manner how ACA has affected you. You state that costs have gone up and you?re paying more for insurance. I just renewed my company insurance a couple months ago and the costs were essentially the same, minus a small increase, which is the case each year.

Your entire argument is hindered on

Quote:

nyrgravey9 wrote:
Quote:

Please provide your ?millions and millions? of individuals losing healthcare. The only articles I could find are from Breitbart, Newsmax, Heritage Foundation, Rush Limbaugh, Fox News? In short, nothing credible. To top it off all of those articles say millions ?could? lose insurance.

I am not right-winger by any means, and I don't read/watch many of the News sources you quoted above, but they are credible. They're just as credible as CNN, MSNBC, or whatever rags you subscribe to, but that's for another discussion.

If you think Bretibart, Newsmax, Heritage and Rush Limbaugh are legitimate news sources, I?ve a bridge in Jersey City to sell you.

Quote:

nyrgravey9 wrote:
Quote:
As for your friend that owns a business? that is empirical data. It also doesn?t reflect what sort of business she owns, nor the coverage she had before.

Does it? Why? The bottom line is: Pre-ACA: she could run her own business and afford her own healthcare. Post-ACA: Struggling to break even.

[/quote]
Because it?s empirical. It?s a case study of 1 not an actual researched point of verifiable data.

You also provide no mention of business model, business size, number of employees, type of business? There are many factors that fall into how and why something occurs.

Maybe she grew her business and hired on 5 new people. Now costs go up because of the new employees. Since you state nothing of the business, I can?t discount this as a cause to the effect.

Quote:

nyrgravey9 wrote:
Here's a better question Vindi. Do you think it's every citizens right to have healthcare?

Quote:

vindication15 wrote:
I thought you were going to answer my question? - Do you support mandating health insurance or repealing emtala?

Like I said before, individuals should NOT have an opt out option or the fine needs to be the same amount as they would have paid for a bronze level plan and it should be recurring. Obama caved to idiots who think a system of healthcare works if young people "get to choose not to have health insurance."

With that being said, the ACA may not meet it's target of young individuals but it did sign up more young individuals so healthcare costs due to ER visists will be reduced in the long run.

Monroe - see how I addressed your points but you are still dodging me? Should all individuals be mandated to have health insurance and if not, should we repeal emtala?

Does it matter? We all get it anyway. Pay, don?t pay? same result: it?s there and has been there.

Would you rather people pay in and possibly not use or have people not pay and then have your costs go up because someone that doesn?t have it uses it?

Posted on: 2013/12/16 17:11

Dos A Cero

Re: Jersey City mayor meets with Obama, other leaders

#40

Home away from home

Joined:
2013/5/15 14:11
Last Login :
2020/10/5 21:44

Group:
Registered Users

Posts: 4652

Unpaid ER visits aren't the driver behind spiraling healthcare costs, although we should find a way to back bill the costs of illegals to their home countries.

Mandated healthcare may work if the choices were broad enough, but Obamacare has painted with far too wide a brush.

Frankly, screwing up the 85% of the population who were happy with their healthcare to benefit 15% who didn't have or want healthcare is just so stupid as to be insane.

Posted on: 2013/12/16 16:56

Re: Jersey City mayor meets with Obama, other leaders

#39

Home away from home

Joined:
2013/7/1 16:39
Last Login :
2014/12/15 23:01

Group:
Banned

Posts: 1072

Here's a better question Vindi. Do you think it's every citizens right to have healthcare?

Quote:

vindication15 wrote:
I thought you were going to answer my question? - Do you support mandating health insurance or repealing emtala?

Like I said before, individuals should NOT have an opt out option or the fine needs to be the same amount as they would have paid for a bronze level plan and it should be recurring. Obama caved to idiots who think a system of healthcare works if young people "get to choose not to have health insurance."

With that being said, the ACA may not meet it's target of young individuals but it did sign up more young individuals so healthcare costs due to ER visists will be reduced in the long run.

Monroe - see how I addressed your points but you are still dodging me? Should all individuals be mandated to have health insurance and if not, should we repeal emtala?

Posted on: 2013/12/16 16:52

Re: Jersey City mayor meets with Obama, other leaders

#38

Home away from home

Joined:
2012/1/19 4:04
Last Login :
2017/4/20 19:08

Group:
Registered Users

Posts: 1080

I thought you were going to answer my question? - Do you support mandating health insurance or repealing emtala?

Like I said before, individuals should NOT have an opt out option or the fine needs to be the same amount as they would have paid for a bronze level plan and it should be recurring. Obama caved to idiots who think a system of healthcare works if young people "get to choose not to have health insurance."

With that being said, the ACA may not meet it's target of young individuals but it did sign up more young individuals so healthcare costs due to ER visists will be reduced in the long run.

Monroe - see how I addressed your points but you are still dodging me? Should all individuals be mandated to have health insurance and if not, should we repeal emtala?

Posted on: 2013/12/16 16:48

Re: Jersey City mayor meets with Obama, other leaders

#37

Home away from home

Joined:
2013/5/15 14:11
Last Login :
2020/10/5 21:44

Group:
Registered Users

Posts: 4652

Gee, from what I'm seeing about 40% of the young, healthy cash cows Obama needs to pay for the older folks are going to opt out and hope to run under the radar or pay the fine.

So when they end up in the ER who pays for them? Yup, the rest of us.

Someone didn't think this all the way through . . .

Posted on: 2013/12/16 16:41

Re: Jersey City mayor meets with Obama, other leaders

#36

Home away from home

Joined:
2012/1/19 4:04
Last Login :
2017/4/20 19:08

Group:
Registered Users

Posts: 1080

Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Quote:

vindication15 wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Huh? 85% of USA citizens were happy with their healthcare. Do I feel the indigent should be taken care of? Of course. The indigent USA citizens should be taken care of. The rest, put them on a plane and send them back to their home countries and let their homeys pay for their healthcare.

I'm compassionate for my fellow US citizens. Let the others, who made a choice to enter the US illegally, or overstay their visas, have their health care paid for by their own countrymen/government.

That's the fairest way to proceed.

When you have advocates for illegal immigrants demanding in-state tuition AND state out of pocket tuition grants (cash outlays, paid by NJ taxpayers) the insanity is apparent. We should directly subsidize illegal aliens which will result in higher tuition for our own kids who've we've been paying taxes for? Thankfully, the populace is starting to wake up, we can thank the insanity of Obamacare for shining the light on things like this-one good result of that craziness.

More dodge. Do you get dizzy from all the dodging you do?

SIMPLE QUESTION. Do you support emtala or support mandating health insurance? If you support emtala and do not support mandating health insurance then who pays for the uninsured - for example the 27 yr poor person who gets shot by a gang member and gets brought into the ER but has no health insurance because he CHOSE to not buy health insurance because he is healthy and young.

Doctors should tell him to pay up or take a hike right? That is the free market right?

Please Monroe, don't answer my question and spew more stuff I AM NOT ASKING ABOUT. Tell me something about Benghazi or Bill Ayres or ACORN. I haven't heard about ACORN in a long time, watch that episode of sean hannity and get back to me. Thanks

I'll play, but only if someone can tell what 'emtala' is first? And, by the way, we're already paying for all those ER visits by legals and illegals . . . in case you didn't know.

Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act (EMTALA)
In 1986, Congress enacted the Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act (EMTALA) to ensure public access to emergency services regardless of ability to pay. Section 1867 of the Social Security Act imposes specific obligations on Medicare-participating hospitals that offer emergency services to provide a medical screening examination (MSE) when a request is made for examination or treatment for an emergency medical condition (EMC), including active labor, regardless of an individual's ability to pay. Hospitals are then required to provide stabilizing treatment for patients with EMCs. If a hospital is unable to stabilize a patient within its capability, or if the patient requests, an appropriate transfer should be implemented.

http://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Gu ... dex.html?redirect=/emtala

If someone is uninsured and are brought into an ER with life threatening wounds, they get treated regardless of ability to pay. In China, you pay then get treated. They have ATMS right in the ERs...

Pre-ACA, TAXPAYERS paid for those who were unsinured and did not have insurance, and not just the illegals, also those who were young and did not have any foresight to see the advantages of having health insurance...

Quote:

dojan wrote:
Life-threatening/disasterous health insurance? Yes, everybody should buy it, because it's highly likely to end up being paid with other people's money (a lot of money). Regular ones? No.

Do you require one to buy flood insurance if he lives in a flood zone? Yes. Do you require everybody to buy home insurance or renter's insurance? Hell no.

EDIT: I was talking about individual policies on (the inside) of condos/apartments. Not sure about SFH, townhouses, etc.

Umm this is the ACA. So we are in agreement. All people, especially young people should be mandated to have insurance. Or you support repealing EMTALA and adopting China's pay before care policy. Pick one so I can judge you :)

Posted on: 2013/12/16 16:37

dojan

Re: Jersey City mayor meets with Obama, other leaders

#35

Just can't stay away

Joined:
2005/10/6 16:42
Last Login :
2020/3/11 21:52

From Paulus Hook

Group:
Registered Users

Posts: 118

Quote:

vindication15 wrote:
To those who don't think everyone should be required to buy health insurance, are you okay with not treating someone in the emergency room with no insurance? Because right now there is a law called emtala.....which I'm pretty sure no one, republican or democrat, progressive or conservative (maybe only the extreme tea party folks) are against..

And if you think emtala should remain the law of the land, who pays for those patients?

I disagree with obama in even giving individuals an opt out. Either you pay before care (like in china) or everyone needs health insurance. It's really that simple.

Life-threatening/disasterous health insurance? Yes, everybody should buy it, because it's highly likely to end up being paid with other people's money (a lot of money). Regular ones? No.

Do you require one to buy flood insurance if he lives in a flood zone? Yes. Do you require everybody to buy home insurance or renter's insurance? Hell no.

EDIT: I was talking about individual policies on (the inside) of condos/apartments. Not sure about SFH, townhouses, etc.

Posted on: 2013/12/16 15:34

Re: Jersey City mayor meets with Obama, other leaders

#34

Home away from home

Joined:
2013/7/1 16:39
Last Login :
2014/12/15 23:01

Group:
Banned

Posts: 1072

My current plan, oh dear Pebbles, just saw a significant rise in deductibles, premiums AND copays. Something to the tune of 33 to 45%. Now, to be fair, those things typically go up year over year, but this is the single largest increase I've EVER faced by an employer sponsored plan. We can argue ad nauseum as to whether or not that's the employer passing on increased costs, but it's a moot point because at its core, the costs overall have increased significantly.

To make the story more real-life and less hypothetical, my father's situation is a prime example. He is a retired union worker, who is currently dealing with significant heart troubles. His current, agreed upon plan and level of coverage is helping him get the care he needs to manage his situation. However, he rushing to get as much done as he can within the next year, because the changes that are being communicated to him once the 1 year mandate delay is over for unions, he will not be able to afford the current level of care he is receiving as a direct result of direct changes from ACA provisions. Now, I can't verbalize those changes, because I haven 't read them all.

But, with his fixed income, and the level of care he requires to, I don't know, STAY ALIVE, his outlook isn't looking as rosy as it was pre-ACA.

So, you can understand how someone like me, oh dear Pebbles, might be getting a little pissed when people like you prognosticate what is good or bad for other people. But, I know, it's my dad's fault for being in a union, or it's the union's fault for not getting a better deal, blah blah blah.

Well, I can tell you first-hand, ACA is affecting me and my family, and not in a good way.

All your fact checking and smug, superior bullsh*t isn't going to change the fact that this legislation is garbage.

Quote:

Please provide your ?millions and millions? of individuals losing healthcare. The only articles I could find are from Breitbart, Newsmax, Heritage Foundation, Rush Limbaugh, Fox News? In short, nothing credible. To top it off all of those articles say millions ?could? lose insurance.

I am not right-winger by any means, and I don't read/watch many of the News sources you quoted above, but they are credible. They're just as credible as CNN, MSNBC, or whatever rags you subscribe to, but that's for another discussion.

Quote:

As for your friend that owns a business? that is empirical data. It also doesn?t reflect what sort of business she owns, nor the coverage she had before.

Does it? Why? The bottom line is: Pre-ACA: she could run her own business and afford her own healthcare. Post-ACA: Struggling to break even.

Posted on: 2013/12/16 14:28

Re: Jersey City mayor meets with Obama, other leaders

#33

Home away from home

Joined:
2013/5/15 14:11
Last Login :
2020/10/5 21:44

Group:
Registered Users

Posts: 4652

Quote:

vindication15 wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Huh? 85% of USA citizens were happy with their healthcare. Do I feel the indigent should be taken care of? Of course. The indigent USA citizens should be taken care of. The rest, put them on a plane and send them back to their home countries and let their homeys pay for their healthcare.

I'm compassionate for my fellow US citizens. Let the others, who made a choice to enter the US illegally, or overstay their visas, have their health care paid for by their own countrymen/government.

That's the fairest way to proceed.

When you have advocates for illegal immigrants demanding in-state tuition AND state out of pocket tuition grants (cash outlays, paid by NJ taxpayers) the insanity is apparent. We should directly subsidize illegal aliens which will result in higher tuition for our own kids who've we've been paying taxes for? Thankfully, the populace is starting to wake up, we can thank the insanity of Obamacare for shining the light on things like this-one good result of that craziness.

More dodge. Do you get dizzy from all the dodging you do?

SIMPLE QUESTION. Do you support emtala or support mandating health insurance? If you support emtala and do not support mandating health insurance then who pays for the uninsured - for example the 27 yr poor person who gets shot by a gang member and gets brought into the ER but has no health insurance because he CHOSE to not buy health insurance because he is healthy and young.

Doctors should tell him to pay up or take a hike right? That is the free market right?

Please Monroe, don't answer my question and spew more stuff I AM NOT ASKING ABOUT. Tell me something about Benghazi or Bill Ayres or ACORN. I haven't heard about ACORN in a long time, watch that episode of sean hannity and get back to me. Thanks

I'll play, but only if someone can tell what 'emtala' is first? And, by the way, we're already paying for all those ER visits by legals and illegals . . . in case you didn't know.

Posted on: 2013/12/16 14:13

Re: Jersey City mayor meets with Obama, other leaders

#32

Home away from home

Joined:
2013/3/29 21:43
Last Login :
2023/9/5 18:27

From Bergen Hill

Group:
Registered Users

Posts: 1980

Quote:

nyrgravey9 wrote:
I'm lucky enough to have my coverage subsidized by my employer. But I've been unemployed before so this scares the hell out of me.

That said, my close friend owns her own business in NJ and had her costs TRIPLE to maintain the same coverage she had pre ACA.

And you just proved my overall point in your own response. You keep referencing the "one caveat", but that's the whole goddamn point! That caveat is the whole crux of this discussion.

What specifically about these existing plans keeps them from qualifying to continue?

As someone that has never found themselves unemployed (I?m currently averaging a job offer every two weeks and I am not even applying), I may not share that concern. However, there are plenty of people unemployed, the numbers show this. They had coverage before through the government and have coverage now. What are you so scared of?

As for your friend that owns a business? that is empirical data. It also doesn?t reflect what sort of business she owns, nor the coverage she had before.

My company subsidizes insurance as well. Did you know there was once a time when insurance was entirely paid for by the company? Well, when that changed the dichotomy changed. I?ll let you guess which political side pushed for the employee contribution.

Quote:

nyrgravey9 wrote:
You know how they say when you look at a star, you're looking at it years ago because it took the light that long to reach the earth? I look at SS and ACA the same way. ACA is going to end up exactly like SS; it will be a massive unfunded liability left for our grand kids. SS is a kind preview of the sh*tshow that ACA will be years down the road.

But fools with the sheep/zombie mentality like Pebble love getting bent over, and instead of saying stop, or at the very least "spot on it first", people like Pebble say "thank you sir, may I have another!"

Quote:

MDM wrote:
I will also point out that Social Security is not going bankrupt. There are politicians that have the motive to declare it bankrupt and to push it to that point. That doesn?t make it so.

SS went cash flow negative (6+ years earlier than predicted) in 2010. The difference is being made up by taking money from general revenue, around 40% of it being created out of thin air by the Federal Reserve. The deficit worsened in 2011 even though SS didn't do a cost of living adjustment. the 2014 adjustment is only 1.5%.

When the program started out, you had up to 40+ people paying into the plan for each person drawing funds. That ratio is now under 3. The retirement age used to be above what people normally survived (I think the average life span in the 30's thru 40's was 63 years old).

The unfunded mandates for Social Security alone is approaching $10 trillion, which heads over $30 trillion when you add in Medicare.

The program is broke. The house of cards hasn't come crashing down due to the Federal Reserve created new dollars and the fact that SS is reducing the Colas.

I appreciate the ad hominum, gravey boy, but it is a lot easier to claim that I ?am a fool that loves getting bent over? than to actually admit I know more than you about the topic.

Going cash flow negative with a program that hasn?t changed its income strategy in decades despite a rise in cost of living is part and parcel with the argument I made earlier about those that have a desire to see it fail.

SS has generated a huge surplus over twenty years through the ?80s and ?90s. Stating that it is ?sucking money from the Treasury? is dishonest. As everyone here knows, the program has been borrowed from and borrowed from some more so that presidents of various parties can claim balancing the budget, similarly to Whitman raiding the teacher?s fund.

SS is the only program out there that will guarantee the elderly the care they need. There is no better option. None has been put forward up to now and I don?t anticipate something better coming along. That doesn?t make the program perfect. So, until a better idea comes alone to keep the elderly from eating cat food?

Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Pebble has no idea what I'm talking about.

She hasn't watched tv, read a paper, or listened to the radio since October 1st I suppose.

The fact is that Obama's poll numbers have tanked since millions and millions of individual mandate clients have lost the doctors and insurance plans Obama PROMISED them they could keep.

And wait till the sneakily delayed corporate plans get dropped and tens of millions more citizens get their Obama wake up call.

When the unions want to opt out once they got around to reading it (yup, the residue of 'you've got to pass it to know it') you know it's bad policy.

What do poll numbers have to do with the price of tea in China?

I have asked on here Gravey Boy has been forced to have a change in plan. No answer from him, so I?m guessing his didn?t change. Monroe, since you are of the ilk that will get on your knees for anyone in a red elephant suit, you?d be the first to jump out and scream about losing your current coverage. No such dice there, either.

Please provide your ?millions and millions? of individuals losing healthcare. The only articles I could find are from Breitbart, Newsmax, Heritage Foundation, Rush Limbaugh, Fox News? In short, nothing credible. To top it off all of those articles say millions ?could? lose insurance.

The one article I found on a CBS website from California actually didn?t have to do with Obamacare. It had to do with the fact that an insurance provider failed to give notice of change and thus people could have lost insurance (article).

Remember how I stated what everyone knows is true: The insurance companies were aware of the law and changed their policies intentionally. Well, that article is a nice fine example of an insurance company giving last minute (illegally late) notice to the insured and then claiming that it?s all Obamacare?s fault that these people are losing coverage. Yawn.

As an aside, the funniest thing I find is the idea that I am the one with my head in the sand yet every single post that attacks me is attacking me as someone that is in favor of ACA. Find me the quote where I argue that we need it. I only weighed in to point out how utterly stupid the populace and the media are for making the story solely about the healthcare mandate and Obama?s broken promise.

The real story there is how every insurance company knew the rules of the game and willfully went in the direction where they knew that policies couldn?t be kept. Why is nobody looking into that piece of news? Why hasn?t anyone asked a CEO of one of the many Blue Cross branches why they didn?t keep policies the same or have their adjustments be within the standards of the ACA?

Posted on: 2013/12/16 13:16

Dos A Cero

Ais4Anarchy

Re: Jersey City mayor meets with Obama, other leaders

#31

Newbie

Joined:
2013/7/22 13:37
Last Login :
2014/7/2 14:06

From Marion

Group:
Registered Users

Posts: 15

Monroe sure likes to criticize the politicians for their BS lying but he seems to really embrace their debate tactics.

You are right he is the king of dodge ball.

Freakin libertarians too gutless to embrace Anarchy. They criticize the poor for being "entitled" but they are the most entitled lot on earth. Their luck/skill in some quasi capitalist system entitles them to the whole world. They hate the Govt. but really only hate half of it.

They play right into the hands of our corporate and political elites.

Repeal emtala for American citizens?

Posted on: 2013/12/16 12:59

Re: Jersey City mayor meets with Obama, other leaders

#30

Home away from home

Joined:
2012/1/19 4:04
Last Login :
2017/4/20 19:08

Group:
Registered Users

Posts: 1080

Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Huh? 85% of USA citizens were happy with their healthcare. Do I feel the indigent should be taken care of? Of course. The indigent USA citizens should be taken care of. The rest, put them on a plane and send them back to their home countries and let their homeys pay for their healthcare.

I'm compassionate for my fellow US citizens. Let the others, who made a choice to enter the US illegally, or overstay their visas, have their health care paid for by their own countrymen/government.

That's the fairest way to proceed.

When you have advocates for illegal immigrants demanding in-state tuition AND state out of pocket tuition grants (cash outlays, paid by NJ taxpayers) the insanity is apparent. We should directly subsidize illegal aliens which will result in higher tuition for our own kids who've we've been paying taxes for? Thankfully, the populace is starting to wake up, we can thank the insanity of Obamacare for shining the light on things like this-one good result of that craziness.

More dodge. Do you get dizzy from all the dodging you do?

SIMPLE QUESTION. Do you support emtala or support mandating health insurance? If you support emtala and do not support mandating health insurance then who pays for the uninsured - for example the 27 yr poor person who gets shot by a gang member and gets brought into the ER but has no health insurance because he CHOSE to not buy health insurance because he is healthy and young.

Doctors should tell him to pay up or take a hike right? That is the free market right?

Please Monroe, don't answer my question and spew more stuff I AM NOT ASKING ABOUT. Tell me something about Benghazi or Bill Ayres or ACORN. I haven't heard about ACORN in a long time, watch that episode of sean hannity and get back to me. Thanks

Posted on: 2013/12/16 5:28

Re: Jersey City mayor meets with Obama, other leaders

#29

Home away from home

Joined:
2013/5/15 14:11
Last Login :
2020/10/5 21:44

Group:
Registered Users

Posts: 4652

Huh? 85% of USA citizens were happy with their healthcare. Do I feel the indigent should be taken care of? Of course. The indigent USA citizens should be taken care of. The rest, put them on a plane and send them back to their home countries and let their homeys pay for their healthcare.

I'm compassionate for my fellow US citizens. Let the others, who made a choice to enter the US illegally, or overstay their visas, have their health care paid for by their own countrymen/government.

That's the fairest way to proceed.

When you have advocates for illegal immigrants demanding in-state tuition AND state out of pocket tuition grants (cash outlays, paid by NJ taxpayers) the insanity is apparent. We should directly subsidize illegal aliens which will result in higher tuition for our own kids who've we've been paying taxes for? Thankfully, the populace is starting to wake up, we can thank the insanity of Obamacare for shining the light on things like this-one good result of that craziness.

Posted on: 2013/12/16 1:06

Re: Jersey City mayor meets with Obama, other leaders

#28

Home away from home

Joined:
2012/1/19 4:04
Last Login :
2017/4/20 19:08

Group:
Registered Users

Posts: 1080

Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Quote:

vindication15 wrote:
To those who don't think everyone should be required to buy health insurance, are you okay with not treating someone in the emergency room with no insurance? Because right now there is a law called emtala.....which I'm pretty sure no one, republican or democrat, progressive or conservative (maybe only the extreme tea party folks) are against..

And if you think emtala should remain the law of the land, who pays for those patients?

I disagree with obama in even giving individuals an opt out. Either you pay before care (like in china) or everyone needs health insurance. It's really that simple.

Yes, this has led to the situations like the Chinese citizen, here illegally, who ran up a $5 million dollar hospital bill at Harvard Medical-and who we then paid to fly back to Peking. Or this illegal Mexican immigrant who did the same thing to a lesser extent. For those countries who we provide financial aid we should deduct these costs from the money we provide them. http://news.investors.com/ibd-editori ... us-health-care-system.htm

Yes, typical monroe answer, dogde doge dodge. You must have been a champ at dodgeball?

You accept my premise: either repeal emtala or mandate health insurance. Since you are not for mandating health insurance, you want to repeal emtala.

Just grow some balls and say it. If an individual with no insurance is shot and brought to the ER, you want him to either 1) pay up or 2) DIE.

Posted on: 2013/12/16 0:54

Re: Jersey City mayor meets with Obama, other leaders

#27

Home away from home

Joined:
2013/5/15 14:11
Last Login :
2020/10/5 21:44

Group:
Registered Users

Posts: 4652

Quote:

vindication15 wrote:
To those who don't think everyone should be required to buy health insurance, are you okay with not treating someone in the emergency room with no insurance? Because right now there is a law called emtala.....which I'm pretty sure no one, republican or democrat, progressive or conservative (maybe only the extreme tea party folks) are against..

And if you think emtala should remain the law of the land, who pays for those patients?

I disagree with obama in even giving individuals an opt out. Either you pay before care (like in china) or everyone needs health insurance. It's really that simple.

Yes, this has led to the situations like the Chinese citizen, here illegally, who ran up a $5 million dollar hospital bill at Harvard Medical-and who we then paid to fly back to Peking. Or this illegal Mexican immigrant who did the same thing to a lesser extent. For those countries who we provide financial aid we should deduct these costs from the money we provide them. http://news.investors.com/ibd-editori ... us-health-care-system.htm

Posted on: 2013/12/15 23:45

Re: Jersey City mayor meets with Obama, other leaders

#26

Home away from home

Joined:
2012/1/19 4:04
Last Login :
2017/4/20 19:08

Group:
Registered Users

Posts: 1080

To those who don't think everyone should be required to buy health insurance, are you okay with not treating someone in the emergency room with no insurance? Because right now there is a law called emtala.....which I'm pretty sure no one, republican or democrat, progressive or conservative (maybe only the extreme tea party folks) are against..

And if you think emtala should remain the law of the land, who pays for those patients?

I disagree with obama in even giving individuals an opt out. Either you pay before care (like in china) or everyone needs health insurance. It's really that simple.

Posted on: 2013/12/15 23:34

Re: Jersey City mayor meets with Obama, other leaders

#25

Home away from home

Joined:
2013/7/1 16:39
Last Login :
2014/12/15 23:01

Group:
Banned

Posts: 1072

You know how they say when you look at a star, you're looking at it years ago because it took the light that long to reach the earth? I look at SS and ACA the same way. ACA is going to end up exactly like SS; it will be a massive unfunded liability left for our grand kids. SS is a kind preview of the sh*tshow that ACA will be years down the road.

But fools with the sheep/zombie mentality like Pebble love getting bent over, and instead of saying stop, or at the very least "spot on it first", people like Pebble say "thank you sir, may I have another!"

Quote:

MDM wrote:
I will also point out that Social Security is not going bankrupt. There are politicians that have the motive to declare it bankrupt and to push it to that point. That doesn?t make it so.

SS went cash flow negative (6+ years earlier than predicted) in 2010. The difference is being made up by taking money from general revenue, around 40% of it being created out of thin air by the Federal Reserve. The deficit worsened in 2011 even though SS didn't do a cost of living adjustment. the 2014 adjustment is only 1.5%.

When the program started out, you had up to 40+ people paying into the plan for each person drawing funds. That ratio is now under 3. The retirement age used to be above what people normally survived (I think the average life span in the 30's thru 40's was 63 years old).

The unfunded mandates for Social Security alone is approaching $10 trillion, which heads over $30 trillion when you add in Medicare.

The program is broke. The house of cards hasn't come crashing down due to the Federal Reserve created new dollars and the fact that SS is reducing the Colas.

Posted on: 2013/12/15 21:15

Re: Jersey City mayor meets with Obama, other leaders

#24

Home away from home

Joined:
2013/5/15 14:11
Last Login :
2020/10/5 21:44

Group:
Registered Users

Posts: 4652

Pebble has no idea what I'm talking about.

She hasn't watched tv, read a paper, or listened to the radio since October 1st I suppose.

The fact is that Obama's poll numbers have tanked since millions and millions of individual mandate clients have lost the doctors and insurance plans Obama PROMISED them they could keep.

And wait till the sneakily delayed corporate plans get dropped and tens of millions more citizens get their Obama wake up call.

When the unions want to opt out once they got around to reading it (yup, the residue of 'you've got to pass it to know it') you know it's bad policy.

Posted on: 2013/12/15 21:04

MDM

Re: Jersey City mayor meets with Obama, other leaders

#23

Home away from home

Joined:
2010/7/9 11:16
Last Login :
10/30 16:49

Group:
Registered Users

Posts: 2743

I will also point out that Social Security is not going bankrupt. There are politicians that have the motive to declare it bankrupt and to push it to that point. That doesn?t make it so.

SS went cash flow negative (6+ years earlier than predicted) in 2010. The difference is being made up by taking money from general revenue, around 40% of it being created out of thin air by the Federal Reserve. The deficit worsened in 2011 even though SS didn't do a cost of living adjustment. the 2014 adjustment is only 1.5%.

When the program started out, you had up to 40+ people paying into the plan for each person drawing funds. That ratio is now under 3. The retirement age used to be above what people normally survived (I think the average life span in the 30's thru 40's was 63 years old).

The unfunded mandates for Social Security alone is approaching $10 trillion, which heads over $30 trillion when you add in Medicare.

The program is broke. The house of cards hasn't come crashing down due to the Federal Reserve created new dollars and the fact that SS is reducing the Colas.

Posted on: 2013/12/15 20:37

Re: Jersey City mayor meets with Obama, other leaders

#22

Home away from home

Joined:
2013/7/1 16:39
Last Login :
2014/12/15 23:01

Group:
Banned

Posts: 1072

I'm lucky enough to have my coverage subsidized by my employer. But I've been unemployed before so this scares the hell out of me.

That said, my close friend owns her own business in NJ and had her costs TRIPLE to maintain the same coverage she had pre ACA.

And you just proved my overall point in your own response. You keep referencing the "one caveat", but that's the whole goddamn point! That caveat is the whole crux of this discussion.

What specifically about these existing plans keeps them from qualifying to continue?

Posted on: 2013/12/15 20:35

Re: Jersey City mayor meets with Obama, other leaders

#21

Home away from home

Joined:
2013/3/29 21:43
Last Login :
2023/9/5 18:27

From Bergen Hill

Group:
Registered Users

Posts: 1980

Quote:

nyrgravey9 wrote:
Pebble the very fact that this plan depends on xxx amount of young, healthy folks signing up for mandatory insurance is proof enough it's a sh*t plan. It's as if we are setting up a new social security scheme. You know, the one that is essentially going bankrupt??

Sorry, SS is one of the greatest ideas to ever come out. The paucity of historical reference in regards to this is astounding. Before its existence, you had elderly eating cat food to stay alive.

Having healthy folks sign up is fine. They can do as I do and get disaster coverage. The cost is minimal and the benefits are high.

I will also point out that Social Security is not going bankrupt. There are politicians that have the motive to declare it bankrupt and to push it to that point. That doesn?t make it so.

The year Social Security was introduced, there were people fighting it and making these claims. The taxes started at $0.50 with everyone paying in. It was intended to be increased within 3 years, alas 5 years later it was still the same price because it was properly maintained and budgeted. It was an incredible success for the population.

Why people have such a hard time with having a safety net for those that may need it, I do not know. It really is as though people hate the poor so much that they openly root for them to eat out of garbage cans for their enjoyment.

Quote:

nyrgravey9 wrote:
And back to Monroe's statements, who cares if insurance companies made changes. Why the F is the government dictating what type of coverage I can CHOOSE?

What coverage would you like that you don?t have?

Quote:

nyrgravey9 wrote:
In all of your rhetoric and fact checking, you fail to keep things in the perspective that if plan XYZ works for ME, I should be able to keep it.

But because it doesn't satisfy ACAs requirements, I can't have it.

What plan do you have now that you want to keep?

Quote:

nyrgravey9 wrote:
If you're going to make it mandatory (which alone is ABSURD, but you'll argue that point too), at the very least let ME decide what works for me.

I know that it is purely analytical for me to keep asking, but if you, personally, are denied the coverage you want, state what that is. I may even jump all the way on your side.

Quote:

nyrgravey9 wrote:
All of your points, while accurate from a political standpoint, still ignore the basic fundamentals of choice.

Your argument would say "I have choice" and in small print would follow "within the confines of the rules of ACA.

It's such a farse and you know it.

A few months back, I had the choice for health insurance. There were four different insurance plans available for me to choose from. Over 15 years ago when I had my first full time job, I had one option for insurance. What I?m paying now is less than what I was paying then.

I had insurance then because, unlike most people my age, I didn?t actually think I was invincible. I play sports and that sometimes ends up with me going to the doctor for an injury.

I know this is purely empirical. However, I see it as positive steps that addresses the need to keep costs down while also being able to provide coverage to individuals that should have it.

Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Is Pebble really thinking it's the insurance companies fault for not countering the POTUS when he's lying at every single campaign event? It's their fault for not correcting the leader of the free world when he's lying about his 'signature' accomplishment in order to get re-elected??

They should have been communicating to the populace with the truth that Obama was hiding? Have you gone from drinking to mainlining the Kool Aid?

I have no idea what you are talking about here and it?s quite evident that the only person drinking any ?Kool Aid? is you.

My argument has been quite simple and is completely accurate: Obama?s plan absolutely allows you to retain your coverage. The one caveat is that your coverage must be the same for several years.

Obama certainly could have been more forthright in his description of the plan. However, and this is more my belief, people are very stupid. People need sound bites and quick catch phrases. Giving nuance results in people drowning out the sound and moving onto the next shiny object. So, instead of stating the full story (and in the process being a little dishonest) Obama said a sound bite.

Continuing this, the insurance companies were well aware, years ago, that these were the rules. The insurance companies knew that if they changed the plans by X amount that these plans would be null and void once the ACA laws were kicking into full effect. The end result is that the insurance companies intentionally changed them by enough that they could not be maintained. Thus when people ask if they can maintain their existing coverage the company responds with a no and an excuse about the federal government?s laws.

The talking point throughout the media is that Obama lied. Once again, we have an easy sound bite for the plebeians. Does this excuse Obama? No. But, and this is your argument, is it entirely his fault? Not in the slightest.

Posted on: 2013/12/15 20:17

Dos A Cero

Re: Jersey City mayor meets with Obama, other leaders

#20

Home away from home

Joined:
2013/5/15 14:11
Last Login :
2020/10/5 21:44

Group:
Registered Users

Posts: 4652

Is Pebble really thinking it's the insurance companies fault for not countering the POTUS when he's lying at every single campaign event? It's their fault for not correcting the leader of the free world when he's lying about his 'signature' accomplishment in order to get re-elected??

They should have been communicating to the populace with the truth that Obama was hiding? Have you gone from drinking to mainlining the Kool Aid?

Posted on: 2013/12/15 18:40

Re: Jersey City mayor meets with Obama, other leaders

#19

Home away from home

Joined:
2013/7/1 16:39
Last Login :
2014/12/15 23:01

Group:
Banned

Posts: 1072

Pebble the very fact that this plan depends on xxx amount of young, healthy folks signing up for mandatory insurance is proof enough it's a sh*t plan. It's as if we are setting up a new social security scheme. You know, the one that is essentially going bankrupt??

And back to Monroe's statements, who cares if insurance companies made changes. Why the F is the government dictating what type of coverage I can CHOOSE?

In all of your rhetoric and fact checking, you fail to keep things in the perspective that if plan XYZ works for ME, I should be able to keep it.

But because it doesn't satisfy ACAs requirements, I can't have it.

If you're going to make it mandatory (which alone is ABSURD, but you'll argue that point too), at the very least let ME decide what works for me.

All of your points, while accurate from a political standpoint, still ignore the basic fundamentals of choice.

Your argument would say "I have choice" and in small print would follow "within the confines of the rules of ACA.

It's such a farse and you know it.

Posted on: 2013/12/15 17:32

Re: Jersey City mayor meets with Obama, other leaders

#18

Home away from home

Joined:
2013/3/29 21:43
Last Login :
2023/9/5 18:27

From Bergen Hill

Group:
Registered Users

Posts: 1980

Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Nonsense to the thought that Obama didn't lie. Of course he did. After all, he ended up apologizing for lying.

He made statements, over and over, dozens of times, quoted by his delegates Reid and Pelosi and others-if you like your doctor and health insurance, you can keep it. Period, he added. Not a single mention of 'if your doctor and plan don't expand their coverage to satisfy my new standards you won't keep them'. Not one.

No crossing of the fingers, no extra qualifying comments-they were complete and total statements without wiggle room.

Anyone who doesn't believe that chooses to ignore the facts for partisan reasons.

Like the people in NJ who are trying to pin the 800,000 who've lost insurance here on Christie for not setting up a NJ insurance warehouse-after all, he chose one of Obama's options!

Again, I?ll point out that it is in the law. The insurance companies were well aware of what was in the law. They made their changes intentionally knowing full well that the law would prevent those policies from remaining intact.

If I tell you that your car is warrantied unless you make changes, what do you think will happen if you make changes?

If you are an insurance company and you see this bill pass, what is your responsibility? Good business practice would state that they should learn as much about the law as possible. They were aware of the stipulations for years. I?ve been watching their changes and requirements.

Obama should have been aware of what the insurance companies would do and how they would intentionally hinder the ?you can keep your plan? argument.

Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Anyone who doesn't believe that chooses to ignore the facts for partisan reasons.

The very definition of irony summed up here.

You have argued that if Christie really did shut down the GWB in retribution for a mayor not supporting him, it is ok because Obama may have messed up in Benghazi.

You have argued that it was ok for Christie to blow millions of dollars to prevent Booker from being on the same ticket.

How you can even argue that anyone is a partisan when you the biggest one on this board is laughable.

Posted on: 2013/12/15 17:15

Dos A Cero

Re: Jersey City mayor meets with Obama, other leaders

#17

Home away from home

Joined:
2013/5/15 14:11
Last Login :
2020/10/5 21:44

Group:
Registered Users

Posts: 4652

Nonsense to the thought that Obama didn't lie. Of course he did. After all, he ended up apologizing for lying.

He made statements, over and over, dozens of times, quoted by his delegates Reid and Pelosi and others-if you like your doctor and health insurance, you can keep it. Period, he added. Not a single mention of 'if your doctor and plan don't expand their coverage to satisfy my new standards you won't keep them'. Not one.

No crossing of the fingers, no extra qualifying comments-they were complete and total statements without wiggle room.

Anyone who doesn't believe that chooses to ignore the facts for partisan reasons.

Like the people in NJ who are trying to pin the 800,000 who've lost insurance here on Christie for not setting up a NJ insurance warehouse-after all, he chose one of Obama's options!

Posted on: 2013/12/15 15:42

Re: Jersey City mayor meets with Obama, other leaders

#16

Home away from home

Joined:
2013/3/29 21:43
Last Login :
2023/9/5 18:27

From Bergen Hill

Group:
Registered Users

Posts: 1980

Quote:

dojan wrote:
Quote:

mscottc wrote:
To those naysayers of the Affordable Care Act, just remember that Dewey Beat Truman. Don't count out the ACA quite yet. Actually the best outcome will be that it leads to a single payer system.

Let me quote a comment from one of the "NYT Picks" of your favorite newspaper:

"And the sense of betrayal that people feel because Obama said they could keep their existing insurance policies if they liked them won't fade quickly. Americans can take incompetence, but bald-faced lying is another thing entirely."

As a simple point of note, Obama didn?t lie. He was correct in stating that the coverage would carry over if it remained the same. Insurance companies knew that as well. Instead of keeping their policies the same, they insisted on changing them. This triggered the ?you can?t keep the same policy? and the fault, due to all of that ?liberal media,? falls on Obama.

I?m sorry, but it?s only the truly stupid or those with a political motive that push this idea that Obama pulled a bait and switch.

Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Quote:

dojan wrote:
Quote:

nyrgravey9 wrote:
De Blasio proves just how stupid people can be.

"And de Blasio wins by a fro!"

Many who voted for him ain't stupid anyway. They just want to maximize the handouts they are getting. Perfectly rational.

Exactly. Complaining about income inequality, when almost half of the USA pays zero federal income tax, is absurd on every level.

Thank you, Mitt Romney. I hope you are aware that you are including military members in those totals. I also hope you are aware that paying zero federal income taxes is not the same as paying zero taxes.

Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Quote:

dojan wrote:
Quote:

nyrgravey9 wrote:
De Blasio proves just how stupid people can be.

"And de Blasio wins by a fro!"

Many who voted for him ain't stupid anyway. They just want to maximize the handouts they are getting. Perfectly rational.

Exactly. Complaining about income inequality, when almost half of the USA pays zero federal income tax, is absurd on every level.

I can't stand Obama. However, the reason there's record numbers of Americans on foodstamps and not paying income tax is because there's record levels of poverty. And the cause is not that half of the country has decided they are too lazy to work or care.

This is definitely a problem.

I have no idea what you are even trying to argue here. Do you consider people lazy? Do you not consider them lazy?

Quote:

nyrgravey9 wrote:
I correct/amend my earlier statement. The elections of de Blasio AND booker show just how stupid our voting populace really is.

But to be fair, voters haven't had much of an alternative from which to choose.

Why the failure to include Christie?

Yes, that is a rhetorical question.

Posted on: 2013/12/15 15:23

Dos A Cero