• Welcome!
    Logout|My Dashboard

ObamaCare: What will it do for and to you? - The Galveston County Daily News: Columns

September 29, 2016

Three Musketeers ObamaCare: What will it do for and to you?

Rules of Conduct

  • 1 Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
  • 2 Don't Threaten or Abuse. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated. AND PLEASE TURN OFF CAPS LOCK.
  • 3 Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
  • 4 Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
  • 5 Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
  • 6 Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.

Welcome to the discussion.


    You must be a subscribed user to comment on this story.

  • bvresident posted at 7:56 am on Mon, Aug 19, 2013.

    bvresident Posts: 1763

    Obamacare is an abomination. It has become the perfect example of the perils of government and political intervention when they're abused to control a greater and greater part of our lives. Wearing the mantle of the Presidency doesn't somehow endow the wearer with intlelligent thinking and an economic understanding that wasn't there before assuming the office. Those on the left would have everyone believe they're working in the best interest of those without health insurance although not a one of them could in any way explain the reasons why the uninsured are uninsured. Obamacare can not and will not solve this problem but it will put more people out of work, it has already forced employers to reduce full-time positions in favor of part-time positions, and it will give everyone (except for Congress and their aides, the IRS, the unions, and all the rest of Obama's supporters) greatly increased health insurance premiums. Allowing the IRS to enforce this program is unbelievably wrong and allowing the "navigators" to avoid background checks while having almost complete access to our personal and financial lives is a massive fraud waiting to happen.

    Here's the current status of Obama's vaunted healthcare takeover.



  • kevjlang posted at 7:57 am on Mon, Aug 19, 2013.

    kevjlang Posts: 4036

    The Medicare paperwork requirements went up because of abuses by service providers They found that when doctors and hospitals weren't required to fully document the whys, whats, and hows, they just padded the bill. Of course, now they pad it with administrative costs, and still find ways to bill for things that weren't done or weren't needed, or had lower cost alternatives, but with a little more paper trail that all too frequently isn't really traced very well--how can all that paperwrok be tracked, after all. It would be so much easier to manage costs if we could trust that everyone involved would at least be honest.

    I'm not a huge fan of limiting awards in malpractice suits. Seems to me to be like advocating for reduced sentences for axe murderers. Perhaps some better guidelines in such caases to handle the more modest malpractice claims, but if a doctor really hacks things up, I don't know how you can pu a monetary cap on that. A family, and perhaps a community can be significantly altered by a bad doctor's activities. It's hard to put a price on that, and even harder to put a cap on it.

    Controlling frivilous suits sounds good. Problem is coming up with an objective standard. Some may be blatanly obvious, but crafty lawyers can be quite good and convincing people that white is black, and I don't want to see people denied an opportunity to remedy a bad situation for fear that if they lose they'll be declared "frivilous", and I'm not sure that our courts need to get tied up in numerous appeals of frivilous lawsuit charges. Perhaps if there's nothing else in the trial other than a checkbox for the jury that they feel the case is frivilous--no arguments from the attorneys--that might get as objective as we may get.

  • gecroix posted at 10:16 am on Mon, Aug 19, 2013.

    gecroix Posts: 6192

    The Governments own number crunchers now say that there are going to be 48 million uninsured with this ACA debacle, and it started out at 30 million. Since we were lied to about 'absolutely' keeping our own insurance if we want to, and were lied to about costs going down, and we have the added 'benefit' of possibly getting paychecks cut by 25% as so many are dropped to part time, and businesses are avoiding hiring in record numbers (over 60% of small business owners in one poll said they won't hire in the next year due to the onerous burden of Obamacare), it would appear that the negative consequence of the ACA, other than it's ironic misnomer, is the bill we got for it.
    The bill of goods.

  • TrebleClef posted at 11:34 am on Mon, Aug 19, 2013.

    TrebleClef Posts: 485

    All of this is simply misinformed scare tactics. The Health Care Afforabilty Act will not be and should be appealed. Convince the State of Massachusetts to repeal their similar plan and then talk about appealing "Obamacare". Looking forward to seeing what articles the three of you write when NONE of the misleading, dire and hysterical circumstances you predict do not occur. Starting to sound a lot like Chicken Little?

  • kevjlang posted at 12:03 pm on Mon, Aug 19, 2013.

    kevjlang Posts: 4036

    I wonder how much of this is number twisting. I'm sure that the prospect of providing benefits where you once had none could be daunting to a small company. However, I'm not clear as to how much Obamacare says that the company share must be. To my knowledge, the company is free to pass along as much of the premium costs to the employees as it chooses. Whenever I see stuff like that, part of me has to wonder how much of these cuts are being blamed on Obamacare but are actually due to something that might harm employee morale (such as the company's performance is off, and as such, the payroll must go down as well) versus are really the fault of Obamacare. Not being one of those business owners, the best I can do is take their statements at face value.

    With regards to the halting of employment expansion, I look at that, too, with a wary eye. I think that a lot of it is due to a couple of factors. One being that the Republicans have been saying for 4 years that they'll repeal it, so businesses have that uncertainty to deal with, and then there's the reluctance to be the guinea pig. Few businesses are submerged into the program enough to have actually experienced how difficult it is to navigate, but most have heard that it's painful. Most of the negative talk, however, is from lobbyists and politicians that have vested interest in stalling, scaling back, or even avoiding implementation entirely.

    Absent first hand information to support or contradict the claims, the FUD prevails, grows legs, and gets deemed to be fact. We may never know what the reality would be, because the whole country is doing everything it can to resist.

    I'm sure that, if fully implemented, the delivery of Obamacare will fail to meet the expectations of the promises. That's normal for version 1.0 of all government programs. Where this one is somewhat atypical is that there's absolutely no desire in Congress to fix anything. We're on an all-or-nothing collision course, coinciding with a bunch of blame-pointing.

    Nothing will get fixed because nothing will be done.

  • shellypearl posted at 1:04 pm on Mon, Aug 19, 2013.

    shellypearl Posts: 144

    I have to say trebel clef you sound like chicken little, Obama care IMHO stinks

  • raifm posted at 1:40 pm on Mon, Aug 19, 2013.

    raifm Posts: 87

    Obamacare is the plan the Heritage Foundation put out 1993.. Now they say the plan is no good
    All the conservatives can say is NO. But it was still their plan in 1993.

    Those who refuse to buy any insurance should have to pay cash before they can enter the hospital

  • gecroix posted at 1:41 pm on Mon, Aug 19, 2013.

    gecroix Posts: 6192

    Obamacare was justified, deemd to be passed, and operating by numbers twisting.
    If you're the person without your already earned and favored insurance, without a job prospect, or with a 25% cut in pay, do you CARE who's crunching different numbers on the same subject? Then again, or on the other hand, maybe the business people are just lying to head fake the Administration. That must be it.

    Also, Chicken Little would like to know how the thousands of new Navigators, with about 3 months to get ready, are going to navigate anything other than the same form of mass confusion you get when you call the IRS, asking 3 different agents the same question, and get three different answers. Will all take the Evelyn Wood course in speed reading and comprehension? 70,000 pages of regulations makes the Chicken's left eye twitch.
    Mr. Little is also just a tad concerned about thousands of people who will NOT be background checked being given access to our medical and financial information.
    Mr. Little doesn't like ID theft.
    Mr. Little figures the 4th Amendment also applies to non-vetted strangers with little training opening his personal records.

  • IHOG posted at 3:05 pm on Mon, Aug 19, 2013.

    IHOG Posts: 2486

    Conservatives have offered ways to make health care more available and affordable for years. Liberals oppose all of them because the government would not control them.
    Intrastate sales, portability and looser pays could reduce health care costs by a large amount but Lobbyists of state insurance companies and lawyers oppose them because the savings would be deducted from their profits. Coverage for existing conditions would cause higher premiums for people need it. They should pay for it if they want it.
    Bureaucrats oppose them because their bureaucracies would shrink.

  • IHOG posted at 3:11 pm on Mon, Aug 19, 2013.

    IHOG Posts: 2486

    The 1993 heritage plan didn't have 2,700 pages of confusion or the 15,000 pages of regulations the ACA produced. None of the real savings of the 1993 proposal were included.
    Calling it the same is like calling private insurance he same as government health care. The same name with nothing esle simular.

  • IHOG posted at 3:25 pm on Mon, Aug 19, 2013.

    IHOG Posts: 2486

    Frivilous law suits are filed by contingency fee lawyers knowing most insurance companies will settle out of court to avoid litigation costs. It's cheaper to pay than fight. It adds to pemium prices without anyone but lawyers profiting. Looser pays puts clients and doctors back on an level playing field. Real cases will not be denighed and the patient will recover what they deserve. Instead of lawyers racking up fees on case after case that should not have been filed.
    Some lawyers file only frivilous cases because they can make more money than actually winning a real case.

  • Margurite posted at 4:20 pm on Mon, Aug 19, 2013.

    Margurite Posts: 682

    Conservatives so far have done nothing but try to repeal the law. No replacement no ideas - no brains and these three puppets who couldn't make it to the big show prove that. I'm so tired of has beens that still feel they are important - why why why did GDN do this??? They certainly are not healthcare experts - nor are they smart. If you want to have clout - have someone who really knows the system write an article but for christs sake quit pounding thier stupidity on us on a regular basis. They are not getting smarter with the exposure.

  • kevjlang posted at 6:09 pm on Mon, Aug 19, 2013.

    kevjlang Posts: 4036

    What is the explanation for why they didn't implement their plan during the periods where they controlled both houses and the presidency? Did they figure us common folk weren't worthy of their wisdom, or did they bank on the problem fixing itself, or did the lobbies pay them enough to do nothing despite them knowing their plan was best? Inquiring minds want to know why we had to wait for the liberals to try to nationalize Romneycare combined with liberal enhancements?

  • mytoby3113 posted at 6:10 pm on Mon, Aug 19, 2013.

    mytoby3113 Posts: 429

    Obama care now Obama care forever. Thank God for this INSURENCE[smile]

  • kevjlang posted at 6:14 pm on Mon, Aug 19, 2013.

    kevjlang Posts: 4036

    Number twisting is a renowned practice of players on all sides of this argument. It doesn't justify anyone's practice of that form of dishonesty, however. More than likely, the main reason there's any fuel in this debate is because of all the deceptive language and number twisting. If either side had to spend any time digging for facts, we'd be sitting in eery silence. No one wants boring old facts, anyway.

  • gecroix posted at 6:45 pm on Mon, Aug 19, 2013.

    gecroix Posts: 6192

    "What is the explanation for why they didn't implement their plan during the periods where they controlled both houses and the presidency?"

    Hmmm. That would be Jan 2001 - Jan 2007, if memory serves.
    Had both houses of Congress starting in Jan 1995, after not having a majority in the House since Jan 1953, but also had Bill Clinton until Jan 2001.
    Jan 2007 they lost both houses of Congress.
    That's six years with nothing much going on to distract them except 9/11 and the economic tumble after that and also a couple of shooting wars and other such trivial odds and ends.
    My guess would be they had better sense than to screw around with the world's best health care, warts and all, and didn't think it was all that good of an idea to roll the dice on 1/6 of the nation's economy just to make a point.
    Too late to leave it alone now. The fit's already hit the shan. The ACA is as popular as a punch bowl floater with the folks who are not going to get a thing out of it, just lose a lot.
    I can't see where it's such a good idea to keep trying to 'progressively' make a few richer while 'progressively' making a lot poorer.
    EXCEPT, of course, the people pushing and implementing the debacle. They give themselves waivers and exemptions.

  • kevjlang posted at 7:50 pm on Mon, Aug 19, 2013.

    kevjlang Posts: 4036

    They were able to get other legislation passed during the Clinton years. Clinton, like Bush and Reagan before him, new things weren't sustainable. Clinton did have a reputation for at least being willing to entertain compromise with the right.

    I think that more than anything they didn't want to wear the version 1.0 egg on their faces. Let the other guy go first, and let him take the criticism.

  • kevjlang posted at 6:11 am on Tue, Aug 20, 2013.

    kevjlang Posts: 4036

    I want to be clear here that I do not agree with having a single party just ramming something through. We have waited decades for someone to take the lead, though, and I'm glad someone finally did. I would prefer to see the Republicans show someleadership in making sure that things are implemented correctly and helping to fix the things that are difficult to do or may be unworkable. I don't think the stick-in-the-mud, wait until we take everything over and kill it approach is the best thing for our country. If it is as bad as they claim, 2016 may be too late to prevent a deeper debt crisis and a return of deep recession.

    What I don't get, though, is the use of labor union opposition as a negative. The unions want to protect their Cadillac plans that drive up costs for their employers. Those Cadillac plans probably add more to the price of union cars than the difference in labor rates between union and non-union.

  • gecroix posted at 9:58 am on Tue, Aug 20, 2013.

    gecroix Posts: 6192

    MAY be?
    Another optimist.

  • TrebleClef posted at 10:28 am on Tue, Aug 20, 2013.

    TrebleClef Posts: 485

    Shellypearl I doubt you know much about The Act, which I suspect is why you missed the point all together. Let us talk specifics or let us not waste our time.

  • kevjlang posted at 11:31 am on Tue, Aug 20, 2013.

    kevjlang Posts: 4036

    Whether you're an optimist, pessimist, or realist, it's probably better for the country to act based on the cards we have now, rather than continuing to dump antes into the pot for 3 years hoping that the new dealer will finally get around to giving us all aces. That's our money and our lives they're gambling with. Perhaps they should try using their wit, charm, and strategy to minimize the losses until someone decided to fix or replace or just get rid of the broken parts. They have guaranteed medical, salary, and pension benefits that will ensure their comfort well beyond 2016. They have little to gain or lose. However, it would be nice if they could show they care about the common people, even if just a little.

  • kevjlang posted at 11:43 am on Tue, Aug 20, 2013.

    kevjlang Posts: 4036

    I don't like a pure loser pays because that assumes that the loser's case had no merit. For frivilous cases, I have no problem with the loser getting stuck with costs, as that person is responsible for wasting a lot of people's time for no benefit. However, if the case has merit, I think both sides bear responsibility for their own costs.

  • bvresident posted at 2:39 pm on Tue, Aug 20, 2013.

    bvresident Posts: 1763

    Kevin, your view on obamacare reminds of the infamous foot-in-mouth remark by former Republican candidate for Texas Governor Clayton Williams when bad weather was going to ruin an event at his cattle ranch. He compared the weather to rape and paraphrasing it, "that if it's inevitable you might as well enjoy it".

    Saying that we should continue with obamacare in spite of the horrendous damage it's already done to our economy, to business, to employment, and to present and future health insurance premiums is utterly insane-much like William's statement. Almost all of Obama's original supporters of his takeover of the nation's healthcare have now distanced themselves from the "train wreck coming down the tracks" as Democrat Max Baucus (and contributor to the bill) said recently.

    What needs to happen is for your president to admit that his landmark legislation passed without bipartisan support because Democrats controlled the Senate and the House and it's a monstrous mistake. When Nancy Pelosi said they have to pass the bill to find out what's in it, then the handwriting was on the wall. Pushing this debacle forward when he's already missed more than 50% of the deadlines for implementation is arrogant, narcissistic, and shows a complete disregard for the well-being of everyone in this country. It should be defunded no matter what.

  • gecroix posted at 3:38 pm on Tue, Aug 20, 2013.

    gecroix Posts: 6192

    I get it.
    Faced with a firing squad, and all the guns misfire, best to not run away quickly, just stand there and let them try to shoot you again.
    Very 'progressive'.

  • kevjlang posted at 4:25 pm on Tue, Aug 20, 2013.

    kevjlang Posts: 4036

    It's here, it's happening, and it isn't going away. Even if Democrats were to come to the table with amendments, the Republicans would shoot them down. I would bet that if a bill came out to repeal just one item of Obamacare, the Republicans would shoot it down because the only repeal bill they'd entertain is essentially and all of it bill. They might entertain one that kept the pre-existing conditions provisions, and the dependant coverage, but not much else.

    So, here we are with Republicans saying that implementing it as the liberals are implementing it is a killer, and knowing that killing the killer can't happen until early 2017, they're going to refuse to do anything to at least reduce the amount of ammunition the killer can use? Considering that once a program gets implemented, it quickly becomes really expensive to dismantle. Even bad programs can cost bundles to kill and can create tons of ripples. Once businesses get in gear with it, they're going to be resistant to having to change again. They're making significant investments to implement what they want to implement. They aren't going to take too kindly if 2017 comes and they have to rip out their whole investment. Then, they'll be faced with a new set of regulations and procedures when the Republicans come up with THEIR plan for fixing healthcare.

    What the Republicans are doing is, presumably, leaving the American people in the middle of the firing squad hoping the guns keep misfiring for 3-1/2 years. That's a long time to make people sit and squirm, and, seeing as how well the promise worked out in 2012, would it be unreasonable for people to want to hedge their bets on 2016 being different? Campaigning hasn't begun yet, so we don't even know who the gunslingers are going to be, and they certainly haven't had chances to demonstrate their foot shooting skills.

    Personally, I think the most responsible thing to do, considering that repeal is not going to happen before 2016 at the earliest, is make sure that what gets implemented has as good of a chance to succeed as possible, yet doesn't get too entangled in the fabric of the economy so that it can be easily rolled back if when it does fail. Make it so that maybe it smells bad, but at least it won't kill us before we can get rid of it or get used to it.

  • bvresident posted at 5:03 pm on Tue, Aug 20, 2013.

    bvresident Posts: 1763

    Kevin, you're absolutely masterful at avoiding the facts and spinning it as if the Republicans had anything to do with this attempted takeover of the healthcare industry. What's wrong with your president offering amendments that the Republicans would consider? He hasn't done it and your response it that the right wouldn't accept any amendment. Maybe if this president would stop trying to shove his agenda down everyone's throat he might eventually get some positive response. That's not his style. It's pure Chicago-style politics in the grand tradition.

    Your president's reputation is that of someone who wants everyone to believe he's being characterized by the color of skin when it's actually because of the thinness of his skin. He has proven time and again that he isn't going to extend any semblance of an olive branch to the other side and so they can't be blamed for not accepting the plan as is. It's an abomination and should be thrown out with the garbage. This is truly an instance where doing nothing is better than doing obamacare.

  • kevjlang posted at 6:12 pm on Tue, Aug 20, 2013.

    kevjlang Posts: 4036

    Assuming you're a US Citizen, I guess he's your president, too, for up to 3 years and 5 months longer.

    I haven't seen the Republicans try to show any leadership either. I'm not trying to justify what Obama and the Democrats are doing. Merely pointing out that the Republicans aren't doing anything, other than crying wolf.

    If we get what the Republicans are projecting, in January 2017, Obamacare will be the least of our worries. Is that really what they want to put the country through? Your position is that the Democrats couldn't solve a wet paper bag, so they're presumably going to continue to be useless and/or destructive until the Republicans supposedly ride back in during the 2016 elections. However, 2016 hasn't happened yet, and the voters have yet to confirm those projections. So, what do we do for 3-1/2 years? Drive the train off the cliff? Doesn't sound like a great plan to me. Sounds like a plan to get the bar set so low that a pharoah ant can clear it easily and Republicans have no problem looking like heroes.

  • gecroix posted at 10:20 pm on Tue, Aug 20, 2013.

    gecroix Posts: 6192

    NOW I get it.
    Somebody took away our plain dry toast, and replaced it with a poop sandwich.
    Maybe put some jam or mayo or ketchup or something on to hide the flavor, but DO NOT consider tossing ti in the trash. No.
    Just eat up.
    While the cooks are in the kitchen refusing to have the same meal they served you.
    That sounds very 'progressive'.

  • bvresident posted at 8:24 am on Wed, Aug 21, 2013.

    bvresident Posts: 1763

    Here's the bold-faced reality of obamacare. I know Kevin and Margurite will blame it on Bush or Reagan or the Republicans who didn't get a voice in creating this monstrosity but the truth is hard to fake. As usual, the Obama administration declares UPS to be a liar and continues it's lemming-like march into the sea of government control all the while stating that obamacare "will make health insurance more affordable and strengthen small businesses.....". Their noses are growing.



  • kevjlang posted at 9:39 am on Wed, Aug 21, 2013.

    kevjlang Posts: 4036

    This isn't about Bush, Reagan, or even Obama now. This isn't even about me, despite you're tremendous desire to make it so. The bills were passed. Some have been enacted, others are in the process of being enacted. The American people will be impacted by Obamacare no matter what well before January 2017. What kind of statesmanship will the Republicans attempt between now and then to ensure that the country isn't in something far worse than the Greco-recession? Do you think people will really care that, while Obamacare was leading the economic lamb to slaughter that the Democrats held the leash while the Republicans were just making sure the collars were snug?

    If the sewer main in Bayou Vista breaks, more than likely they'll dispatch 2 crews--one to fix the pipe and one to keep the stuff from piling up where it's not supposed to be. The Republican strategy is that they'll replace the pipe in 3-1/2 years, but in the meantime you get to live with a pile of sewage at the end of your driveway. You'll have to excuse me for not finding that behavior responsible. Pardon me if I'm not bothered by you feeling that's a "liberal" attitude. If "liberal" means that if I see a problem that I can't fix right now, I'll at least try to see if I can reduce the impact until I do have the resources to fix it, then I may have to seek out some more liberals. I would rather clean up after a rowdy frat party than Armageddon. I really don't think that most people would have to see Armageddon to believe the Republican's case. The rowdy frat party would be enough of an impact.

    Consider this, too: If Obamacare does send the economy into Armageddon, the Republicans will be forced to walk the talk they gave throughout Obama's first term--quick economic turnaround and no bailouts. Otherwise, 2018 won't come fast enough. Just like the old saying, "Be careful what you wish for. You just might get it." I really don't think the Republicans want an economic meltdown. I hope I'm not giving the party leadership too much credit.

    No, this isn't aboiut Reagan, Bush, Obama, Giminez, Lang, or any single person on this forum. It's about what's best for America given the current conditions. Sure, if you think that the best course is to repeal Obamacare, certainly, keep trying in case you get enough receptive ears to win the requisite votes to get it done. However, devise and implement a plan B. If the train is steaming towards a cliff, you can certainly hope that someone can fix the breaks in time to stop in time. However, I'd also be looking to see if we can pile up a bunch of mattresses, or cut the engine, or perhaps re-route the track, or some other option that, while the load isn't going to make it to Timbuktu, at least it's not going to blow up on the town at the bottom of the cliff.

  • gecroix posted at 12:20 pm on Wed, Aug 21, 2013.

    gecroix Posts: 6192

    Obamacare is no different than other 'progressive' enterprises. Most people get screwed so that a few can benefit. Every sure-fire guaranteed vote counts.
    I should be happy that I spent 36 years at a dangerous job to earn good benefits so that a 400 pound lard but_ who smokes too much can get covered by me for his personal failures to care for himself, while my coverage cost increases.
    Responsibility, in 'progressive speak', is something that Somebody Else is supposed to have. And pay for.

  • bvresident posted at 1:41 pm on Wed, Aug 21, 2013.

    bvresident Posts: 1763


  • bvresident posted at 3:44 pm on Wed, Aug 21, 2013.

    bvresident Posts: 1763

    You're spinning again Kevin. It absolutely is about Obama despite your efforts to isolate this piece of legislation from him. Just who introduced it? Whose party passed it on a party line vote? Who is responsible for singlehandedly-completely circumventing a Congressional vote-deciding to selectively postpone more than 50% of the requirements that he and his party alone decided HAD to be implemented but now won't be until sometime in the future.

    obamacare is about a president who has systemically lied to the public about virtually everything. The Benghazi scandal was about a video and then of course it wasn't. The IRS scandal was about four roque employees in Ohio and then it went right up to the WH. The IRS wasn't mistreating conservative Tea Party groups and then it was. The NSA wasn't collecting private emails and then it was. Fast and Furious was completely unknown by your president's own Attorney General who lied under oath and then he admitted he signed off on it but didn't realize he had. And then you have the gall to say it isn't about Obama?

    The Right has every reason-and in fact the responsibility-to fight the implementation of obamacare tooth and nail. Once it gets started there will be no turning back so compromise is out of the question. Your president should have tried to compromise when he was crafting his takeover of healthcare rather than acting like a third-world dictator.

  • kevjlang posted at 5:37 pm on Wed, Aug 21, 2013.

    kevjlang Posts: 4036

    The voting is over. At this point, it's either implement or repeal. Repeal ain't happening until 2017 at the earliest. So, implementation is the only realistic choice, unless you're into stabbing windmills with lances. So, do you implement it the best you can, or do you do a half-bleeped job of it hoping that it destroys the economy so you can ride in on horseback in 3-1/2 years and save the day. That's not spin, that's reality. Your vote, obviously, is to stand by and see how badly 80% or so of the county can be devastated. I think we can be assured that at least 10-15% of the people are going to be unscathed either way because their positions at the economic extremes will insulate them from it. You don't represent one of those extremes do you? Or, do you have all of your assets in another country?

    Go ahead and put it all on Obama if that's what floats your boat. Blame the tooth fairy, too. Santa Claus even. I don't care. I know that you're position is that if the Democrats implement this as they plan, it will destroy the country. If you maintain that the only option is to wait until Republicans gain power so they be the "dictator" and tear it apart, fine. However, I'd like to know if the Easter Bunny is going to protect me, my family, my health, and my finances over the next 3-1/2 years, or can I hope for something from the Republican Party. As you've stated clearly, the Democrats aren't going to protect me. They want to lead me to ruin.

    Who's worse, the rapist, or the people that just stand around watching it?

  • Margurite posted at 6:19 pm on Wed, Aug 21, 2013.

    Margurite Posts: 682

    Hey BV - I voted for Bush - You act it's a them or us situation. I am also in healthcare so truth is IF the Republicans had implemented some of the bright ideas they had many a few decades ago - this wouldn't even be a talking point. Truth is the Republican party is blowing up from within - they hate everyone - even the voter they could have if they had any common sense.

    Healthcare is good for everyone - preventative care is even better. Personally I'm for single payor. This will work for now but yes healthcare is a basic human need and should be a basic human right. No one should die cause they have to choose food, rent, or gasoline over healthcare. Universal Baby -

  • bvresident posted at 7:15 pm on Wed, Aug 21, 2013.

    bvresident Posts: 1763

    Well Margurite, make up your mind. You said previously that you gave up on the Republicans and changed parties a long time ago and now it was just recently. You've got the same tired left-wing talking points that Kevin has-the Republicans hate everyone because they refuse to let your president take us into socialism, they refuse to overlook the blowup in entitlement spending that has occurred under your president's watch and they refuse to burden future generations with the massive federal deficit that has also ballooned under your president.

    Healthcare-and of course you're spinning here because this is about health insurance for everyone-is already available to everyone. 90% of this country had health insurance before obamacare and now its effectively removed tens of millions more from health insurance coverage because of its crude, rushed construction under a totally democrat-controlled Congress. Now even the primary writer of the bill-Democrat Max Baucus says it's a massive train wreck coming down the tracks. Democrat labor union leader Jimmy Hoffa Jr. (who BTW was a strong supporter of obamacare early on) wrote a letter to Nancy Reid and Harry Pelosi in which he said obamacare would "destroy the foundation of the 40 hour work week that is the backbone of the American middle class.”

    He went on to say, "On behalf of the millions of working men and women we represent and the families they support, we can no longer stand silent in the face of elements of the Affordable Care Act that will destroy the very health and wellbeing of our members along with millions of other hardworking Americans.”

    Wow! And so now your president is depending on the low information voter ( I won't mention any names here) to continue believing he's going to give them free health insurance. Ain't gonna happen and those who are working full-time and barely making it will probably see their jobs reduced to part-time as a result.

    Net result-fewer working hours and still no health insurance. Good job democrats, way to save the economy. And it's all on them since they locked the Republicans out of the healthcare bill process and rammed it through on a strictly party-line, partisan vote. There's something universal here Margurite-but it ain't an understanding of the damage this is doing to our country.

  • gecroix posted at 7:41 pm on Wed, Aug 21, 2013.

    gecroix Posts: 6192

    No one should have to die because they have to choose basic necessities over health care?
    Then why should anyone have to die only because because someone else deems them to not be necessary?
    That seems a bit have the cake and eat it too...

  • sverige1 posted at 9:16 pm on Wed, Aug 21, 2013.

    sverige1 Posts: 4054

    Texas has the most uninsured people in the nation. Something had to be done. The electorate would not have re-elected our President if it was such a god-awful thing.

    Heck, we have so many immigrants from Canada (actors, politicians). Even this new Cruz clown is Canadian. THEY have a plan. Our turn.

    BTW, Cruz can't run for President. Thank the gods.

  • Island Runner posted at 7:58 am on Thu, Aug 22, 2013.

    Island Runner Posts: 401

    Obamacare has been great for me. After a heart attack in 2010, just 4 days after the portion of Obamacare that prevents insurers from canceling you for preexisting conditions became law. My insurer told me if I had my heart attack 4 days earlier, they would have paid the bill then canceled me and I would not have been able to obtain insurance anywhere. So as far as I am concerned it is the best thing since pockets on shirts. It is time for the GOP to leave it alone or they will have more losses next election.Get over it, move on and work on the problems we need you to fix. Obamacare is not one of those.

  • bvresident posted at 8:12 am on Thu, Aug 22, 2013.

    bvresident Posts: 1763

    sverege, you have a unique way of creating your own "facts". Senator Cruz is an American citizen with dual citizenship and there's nothing that prevents him from running for the office of President. The electorate re-elected your president because he promised everything to everyone for free. He's the Freebie president. Don't have to work and you'll make more than you could at an entry level job. How cool is that. Not good for the country but great for democrats who want to be re-elected no matter what they're doing to this country.


  • bvresident posted at 8:17 am on Thu, Aug 22, 2013.

    bvresident Posts: 1763

    Sounds like someone doesn't know what they're talking about. This came from about.com and states what the pre-existing clause in obamascare does and when. Doesn't seem to apply in your instance back when you say it did-unless you're a child.

    "Starting six months after March 23, 2010 -- the date the health care reform law took effect -- health insurance companies will be prohibited from denying coverage to children who have a pre-existing condition. In 2014, this will also apply to adults who have pre-existing conditions."

  • kevjlang posted at 8:51 am on Thu, Aug 22, 2013.

    kevjlang Posts: 4036

    Let me know when you're ready to debate what I write and believe rather than a straw man of what you want to argue against. When we get to a thread on socialism, I'll be happy to debate whether we're heading to socialism. In the meantime, I'm only going to debate whether it's responsible to stand and cheer for the rape of America, which is exactly what the Republican Party openly admits to doing with regards to Obamacare.

    At this point, unless a miracle happens and the law gets repealed, it's a law schedule to be implemented. As long as all you want to do is live in a dream that can't even begin to materialize for more more that 3 years, and can't even be realized for 3-1/2 years, then I don't think we have much left to discuss.

  • bvresident posted at 9:36 am on Thu, Aug 22, 2013.

    bvresident Posts: 1763

    Well Kevin, you don't have to get upset with me because you keeping getting schooled on obamascare. It's your flawed opinion that simply because the Republicans won't roll over on obamascare then they're "standing and cheering for the rape of America". How dramatic and how phony. As for implementation, there are many laws on the books that have been made into law but never had the funding to implement them. That's what needs to be done with obamascare. What I don't understand, and maybe you can put aside your hysterics for a moment and explain, just why you want more and more of those who can find jobs to have part-time jobs rather than full-time jobs just because of the impact of obamascare on businesses. I don't get it.

  • gecroix posted at 9:56 am on Thu, Aug 22, 2013.

    gecroix Posts: 6192

    About 70% or so of the folks disagree that it's not a problem in need of a fix.
    That would include quite a few percent more than the entire combined ranks of the GOP and Independents put together. Over 50% want it scrapped entirely.
    For every one who benefits, there are thousands being harmed by this debacle, already, even before full implementation, which itself is being delayed by it's top cheerleaders, except for individuals, who will be immediately subject to the niceties of penalties and/or increased costs. And having thousands of partially trained people, none background checked, given near complete access to everyone's personal medical and financial information.
    Get over yourself. Is any one person really more important than many thousands or millions, except to themselves?

  • kevjlang posted at 10:52 am on Thu, Aug 22, 2013.

    kevjlang Posts: 4036

    Did I say that's what I want? Of course not. However, that doesn't stop you from trying to put words between my lines.

    Standing and cheering for the rape of America is exactly what's happening, if the Republicans really believe what they're saying. They're doing absolutely nothing productive to stop it, or even reduce the impact. Ceremonial votes where you know the ultimate outcome does not count as doing something. Sure, there's "talk" of not providing funding, but where do you see that going? Do you really see a congress, where neither house can seem to agree on a budget plan, let alone come up with one that the president would sign, would actually be able to come to an agreement on which provisions to fund and not fund? And, as we saw during the Reagan years, mandates without funds are still mandates. Yeah, de-funding the laws has been talked about. However, that's as far as it has gone, and it appears that Republican Leadership isn't too keen on the idea. Besides, the de-funding isn't going to have much of an effect on the aspects of Obamacare that you find most destructive. There's no federal funds being spent to make these companies skip out by cutting work hours or staff levels. Individuals would still have to comply with the individual mandate, even if there's no funds for the IRS to enforce it. The idea, while it may sound good, is not likely to have the material effect Cruz would like.

    Yes, we would all like to make the bogeyman go away. However, when he's settled into our bedroom, it's probably wise to have a plan B for actually dealing with his presence.

  • sverige1 posted at 3:30 pm on Thu, Aug 22, 2013.

    sverige1 Posts: 4054

    Island Runner is correct. The remaining fact is that many of the republican/tea partiers' desires include the wishing away and extinction of the poor. One way would be for the poor and uninsured to increasingly have no access to health care. Thus, a Darwinistic hope that the poor phase out in existence.

    Ipso facto, republicans/tea partiers' desire is to keep health care availablity/service stagnant (at best) for the underpriviledged, or eventually make it non-existent for those who simply cannot afford.

  • sverige1 posted at 3:33 pm on Thu, Aug 22, 2013.

    sverige1 Posts: 4054

    Response to bvresident posted at 8:12 am on Thu, Aug 22, 2013:

    Cruz' U.S. citizenship is in question. He is less American than Obama.

    Yet, the irony is that he hardly knows any Spanish, yet he has a Spanish surname. He even talks different than most Texans. Ipso facto: He is unelectable for mainstream U.S. voters.

  • raifm posted at 5:03 pm on Thu, Aug 22, 2013.

    raifm Posts: 87

    What has Obamacare done for me? It has reduced my drug prices, shrunk my donut hole.,reduced my non drug medical costs.

    The only thing I see wrong with the ACA is it did not go single payer

    Insurance overhead 20% Medicare overhead 7%. Which is better for the average consumer?

  • bvresident posted at 5:45 pm on Thu, Aug 22, 2013.

    bvresident Posts: 1763

    Cruz's citizenship is in question? By whom? Typical left-wing BS. At least Cruz offered up his birth certificate without any resistance. I'll bet he'll even provide his college transcripts and diploma if asked. Something your president refuses to do. I have a Spanish surname and can't speak a word of Spanish. Y que'?

  • bvresident posted at 5:51 pm on Thu, Aug 22, 2013.

    bvresident Posts: 1763

    Actually, what the conservative right wants is for every legal citizen of this country to have the opportunity to be self-sufficient, independent, and to personally achieve whatever goal they have for themselves and their family. Exactly the opposite of the leftwing "keep 'em dependent, keep 'em ignorant, keep 'em helpless" mentality.

    Food stamp roles under your president have increased from 30 million to 47 million.

    Black unemployment is double that of whites and is 6% higher than it was under Bush.

    75% of new jobs created in the last year have been part-time under your president.

    And this is what you're calling success for the poor and middle class? Wow!

  • gecroix posted at 8:54 pm on Thu, Aug 22, 2013.

    gecroix Posts: 6192

    Hang on. The ACA is going to enlarge via a tearing process a lot of other holes. Many millions of them. One per person. [sad]
    Let's see those choices.
    Private, open market Insurance that you can buy with money you make at a job that you work at and earn a living for yourself and pay your own bills.
    Government administered, social insurance Medicare that covers about half or so of what you owe but is also subsidized by taxpayer dollars via F.I.C.A. taxes, which also cover Social security, so up front costs for enrollees are lower.
    For the elderly 65+ folks and for the younger disabled, medicare is financially the best route. For them. For now. It may not be for long, as an April 2012 report by the Medicare Trustees as reported on CNN says it now, right now, has an unfunded liability of 38.6 TRILLION dollars. Capital T-RILLION. Which means each U.S. household, according to them, not me, would have to pony up 328,000 bucks to meet the obligations. Now, in fairness, that WAS after Obamacare robbed over 700 billion from Medicare to help fund the ACA. It does not, though, figure on any such future creative shuffling. So, had that not been done by team Obama, the unfunded liability would have dropped all the way to 37.9 TRILLION. Much better.
    Now, I have been lucky enough to have a good job and be able to pay my own bills, so am not complaining about buying my own health insurance (which, although it's price is ACA courtesy going up, and although I may not get to keep it, is, right now, serving it's purpose). I'm blessed to have not needed the assistance, and do not look down on anyone who does need it. We should help those who truly need help. But I'm pretty sure that 328,000 would dent my own savings pretty deep, and that it would more than bankrupt most of the nation's citizens.
    The dirty little secret of entitlements, is SOMEBODY has to pay for them.
    Until they no longer can.
    No money.
    No benefits.
    With a 38 TRILLION dollar bill owed, it's not a matter of if. It's when.

  • kevjlang posted at 10:34 pm on Thu, Aug 22, 2013.

    kevjlang Posts: 4036

    There's a lot dollars at play. Fortunately, those bills won't come due at once. Unfortunately, the baby boomers are hitting 65 too fast for the current generation of workers to pump enough money in as the retirees may pull out each year.

    Based on the current tax rate, and the rate at which baby boomers are retiring, the numbers sure seem to indicate that the rate of bleeding, if it isn't there already, will exceed the replenishment rate, and without changes in funding strategy or the expense rate, Medicare could bleed out before the baby boomers all die off.

    Considering the political dysfunction we're dealing with, I wouldn't hold your breath that either the expense or funding sides of the equation will be addressed anytime soon.

  • gecroix posted at 11:47 pm on Thu, Aug 22, 2013.

    gecroix Posts: 6192

    The current generation of workers, some 8 MILLION less than there were 4 1/2 years ago, despite an ever increasing population, are faced with the fact that some 7 out of 8 of the 'jobs' created under this Administration's watch and policies are PART TIME.
    And, existing 40 hr per week ones are increasingly being dropped to 29.5 hour to escape the punitive commandments of the ACA as it 'helps' working people pay higher premuiums, lose their own insurance, or lose 25% of their pay.
    There's no way to fund 38 TRILLION bucks of underfunding for just one program, just Medicare, if everyone in the nation had a 100 grand a year job, and paid the top FICA rate until they were 174 years old.
    Sooner or even sooner, the Piper will play, as we can no longer pay.
    And, consider this was all figured BEFORE the ancillary and vastly higher incremental costs and effects of the ACA started escaping the re-election BS cover, and coming into view, as the veil of dishonesty about that was no longer needed.
    Or, don't bother consideringing.
    It works for a lort of folks.
    Some right here.

  • sverige1 posted at 8:04 am on Fri, Aug 23, 2013.

    sverige1 Posts: 4054

    Response to bvresident posted at 5:45 pm on Thu, Aug 22, 2013:

    Curious as to why you never desired to learn some Spanish? Don't you feel at a disadvantage that by not speaking Spanish, you cannot communicate to quite a large bloc of individuals? If I had a Spanish surname and living in Texas, I would make an effort to preserve and perpetuate the beauty of the language.

    Folks who are Spanish-surnamed, yet have to utilize a translator to speak with Spanish-speaking people are demonstrating the "dependency" and "helplessness" that you just penned.

  • sverige1 posted at 8:12 am on Fri, Aug 23, 2013.

    sverige1 Posts: 4054

    Response to bvresident posted at 5:45 pm on Thu, Aug 22, 2013:

    Cruz is an alien from Canada. He needs to present his proof of US citizenship. "Your papers, please".

    He cannot run for President. If he tied, he wouldn't be electable. Thank the gods.

    BTW - I saw Senor " Monsieur" Cruz from Canada at Hobby airport back in June and was on my plane. This "privileged" individual was given a front seat (although there was no first class on this plane). He must have been burning up, b/c he had on a fancy suit in 104 degree weather It was hilarious that at the waiting area, it looked like only one commoner went up to shake his hand. The rest of us were quite underwhelmed.

    Too bad I didn't get to sit next to him so I could ask him why he's so disabled that he couldn't learn some Spanish while he was up in Canada. Could've asked him if he managed to learn any French.

  • bvresident posted at 8:24 am on Fri, Aug 23, 2013.

    bvresident Posts: 1763

    Well, let me start off by saying you're a liar. He holds dual citizenship or he wouldn't be able to hold a seat in the Senate. Comprende?


    You sure seem to be full of hate. Must be that empathetic, all-caring, concern-for-others sanctimonious, fallacious impression democrats have of themselves.

    Ted Cruz and Rand Paul scare the dickens out of those elected officials and voters who either are dependent on or want to be dependent on the federal government for every decision in their lives.

  • bvresident posted at 8:28 am on Fri, Aug 23, 2013.

    bvresident Posts: 1763

    I was born and raised in an English-language country. Why would I feel it necessary to learn a foreign language simply because of my name? That sounds terribly biased and racist.

    BTW, I noticed that you didn't bother to reply to the facts I posted about the failures of your president regarding the massive increase in food stamp recipients, the massive increase in the number of black americans who are unemployed and dependent on the federal government, and the massive increase in part-time jobs in relation to full-time jobs.

    What's the matter? Can't dispute those facts?

  • bvresident posted at 12:14 pm on Fri, Aug 23, 2013.

    bvresident Posts: 1763

    The true impact of obamascare on health insurance premiums. It's ugly.


  • sverige1 posted at 12:29 pm on Fri, Aug 23, 2013.

    sverige1 Posts: 4054

    Response to bvresident posted at 8:24 am on Fri, Aug 23, 2013:

    You seem to be confusing "hate" with the practice of "calling 'em as I see 'em". Cruz has a Spanish surname, yet doesn't speak a lick of Spanish. Yet, he touts tightening of borders, of which, we were indeed part of Mexico. So, there technically is NO border.

    He criticizes Obama for working toward equal footing for the folks trying to emerge onto the middle class. Yet, folks like Cruz don't realize that there's many Anglos (and many Latinos) who would easily call him a turncoat, for turning his back on his own people.

    It's not unlike a homosexual "log cabiner" who thinks that clinging to the republican party will do him favors (under the guise of free enterprise, self-reliance..and all that jargon the repubs desperately hold on to). Truth is: the republican party hates homosexuals. They also hate folks with Spanish surnames.

    Someone like Cruz could get the roadhouse vote in places like League City, Sugarland, or West Lake Hills. But, he will go nowhere with the general electorate if he goes national. I do find it interesting that with his Spanish name he still trashes the immigrant sector. Little does he know that he should be on THEIR side.

  • bvresident posted at 3:15 pm on Fri, Aug 23, 2013.

    bvresident Posts: 1763

    I suppose all that probably makes sense in your mind. It's some pretty bizarre correlations if you ask me. Mostly lies and typical democrat hate speech to pump up their own followers and convince the have-nots that it's not up to them to create a great life but to be dependent on everyone else. That's how your president got elected. [beam]

  • raifm posted at 4:53 pm on Fri, Aug 23, 2013.

    raifm Posts: 87

    My sur name is Smith. I speak only a little ,Spanish due to lack of practice. My children are bi-lingual, All my grand children speak Spanish, some better then others/ We were all born in the USA. Being able to speak only one language is self limiting

  • bvresident posted at 6:10 pm on Fri, Aug 23, 2013.

    bvresident Posts: 1763

    That would be your personal opinion. I haven't had any problems whatsoever in not speaking Spanish. You'll notice that servige isn't saying he speaks Spanish, he's just deriding an elected official who he doesn't like and a commenter on this board who keeps handing his lunch to him on the facts about obamascare. Not any credibility coming from his pie hole.

  • bvresident posted at 6:17 pm on Fri, Aug 23, 2013.

    bvresident Posts: 1763

    In your instance, they're one and the same. It's okay though. I know it's difficult to respond with anything other than your hateful garbage when I keep taking you to school every time you open your mouth.

  • sverige1 posted at 6:52 pm on Fri, Aug 23, 2013.

    sverige1 Posts: 4054

    Response to raifm posted at 4:53 pm on Fri, Aug 23, 2013 and
    Response to bvresident posted at 6:10 pm on Fri, Aug 23, 2013:

    Hey raifm, you make perfect sense. Goes to show our gringo-fied friend might be in the camp of the folks suffering from "cognitive dissonance". To have a surname yet not speak the language is debilitating.

    En realidad, tengo la capacidad para comunicar con la gente latina. Es una distreza que se me encuentra muy útil. Pero, en realidad, soy lo mas gringo de los gringos.

    So, another incident where I am right again. The teapartiers are dead wrong!

  • kevjlang posted at 7:37 pm on Fri, Aug 23, 2013.

    kevjlang Posts: 4036

    So, is the case closed? Is Obama ah American now?

  • gecroix posted at 8:22 pm on Fri, Aug 23, 2013.

    gecroix Posts: 6192

    Of course. The President has to be American. What else could he be...
    And, he does speak American English.
    Interestingly, though, I looked up the surname 'Obama' and found this:

    "Obama is an African surname. The name comes from Swahili and refers to members of the Luo tribe who converted to Islam."
    "Obama is also a Japanese surname literally meaning "little beach".
    OK. When do we get to hear a speach in Swahili? Or to really muddy the background waters, in Japanese?

  • sverige1 posted at 12:55 pm on Sat, Aug 24, 2013.

    sverige1 Posts: 4054

    Response to bvresident posted at 8:24 am on Fri, Aug 23, 2013:

    You do know that a naturalized citizen can be a US senator. However, he/she cannot be President. That's clearly stated in Article II of the Constitution.

    Cruz can renounce his citizenship to Canada all he wants, and claim that having a mom as U.S. citizen will make him eligible. But, it will remain an issue. (As this article link describes). Oh, how the tables turn -


  • mytoby3113 posted at 1:26 pm on Sat, Aug 24, 2013.

    mytoby3113 Posts: 429

    Hey bvresident, I think you ment all presidents got elected even yours.[beam]

  • mytoby3113 posted at 1:33 pm on Sat, Aug 24, 2013.

    mytoby3113 Posts: 429

    You must be one of the other mean hateful people in the USA. Just how you can say the other presidents (Rep) did everything right is a lie. Bush got on that big ship and said MISSION ACCLOMPLIUSHE. He llied again. My grandson went to a war that Bush lied about. Oh you forgot about that.[beam]

  • bvresident posted at 1:36 pm on Sat, Aug 24, 2013.

    bvresident Posts: 1763

    You've kind of drifted from the obamascare debacle haven't you? It's ugly, it's a train wreck coming down the tracks, and it's going to continue to destroy any hope of the lower and middle class in this country of getting ahead. I understand you liberals want to attack others and the truth about your president and his obamascare but those on the right and in the right will continue to expose his destruction of the will by the majority of legal citizens in the U.S. to improve themselves through hard work and personal achievement.

    Here's your president's scorecard.

    17 million more on food stamps in the last 5 yrs.
    Unemployment rate of blacks twice as high as whites.
    Unemployment of blacks 6% greater today than it was under Bush.
    75% of all jobs created in the last year were part-time.
    Your president lied to the country about the abuses at the IRS against conservative groups in the IRS scandal.
    Your president lied to the country about the reason for the deaths of an four Americans including the diplomat in the Benghazi scandal.
    Your president lied to the country about holding those responsible for the Benghazi deaths accountable.
    Your president lied to the country about the NSA spying scandal.
    Your president and his attorney general lied to the country about the Fast and Furious gun-running scandal that resulted in the deaths of several U.S. law enforcement officials and hundreds of Mexican citizens.
    Your president has personally authorized hundreds of drone strikes in the Middle East that have killed hundreds of innocent men, women, and children.
    Your president has made us more hated and despised around the world than when President Bush was leading this country.
    Your president has worsened the racial divide and the class warfare in this country through his actions and speech.

    And you're worried about Senator Cruz and whether he can run for the office of President? Hell, you sound just as distracted and confused as your president.

  • mytoby3113 posted at 1:39 pm on Sat, Aug 24, 2013.

    mytoby3113 Posts: 429

    bvresint what plans do the REP party have for health care. [wink]

  • sverige1 posted at 2:15 pm on Sat, Aug 24, 2013.

    sverige1 Posts: 4054

    Response to mytoby3113 posted at 1:26 pm on Sat, Aug 24, 2013:

    LMAO. Very true. If folks like bvresident knew that in Europe, the people there who dislike the US are that way because of the Europhobic, homophobic, etc. ways that Americans conduct themselves. Even when Americans are overseas, we are looked upon in disdain b/c so many of our visiting citizens demand that ENGLISH be spoken.

    Our reputation as an exclusionary, conceited country has been exacerbated, esp. since Bush #2 came into being.

  • bvresident posted at 3:21 pm on Sat, Aug 24, 2013.

    bvresident Posts: 1763

    It's pretty telling that none of you Obama supporters will dispute all the ugly facts that have been posted here. Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, George H.W. Bush-none of them have anything to do with the state of this country now. It belongs to Hussein and the democrats. You boys keep talking about everything but reality but it won't make the reality go away. I know you fellas are worried that you might actually have to go to work for a living but don't worry. BHO hasn't run out of our money just yet but he's going as fast as he can.

  • raifm posted at 9:20 pm on Sat, Aug 24, 2013.

    raifm Posts: 87

    The ACA doesn't ban you from going to a local insurance agent and buying the type of health product you want..

    Usually benefit liablities are figured using a formula. What formula was used for the medicare figures you quote? Whose study was it?

    Or is it another scare, doom and gloom stunt[sad]

  • gecroix posted at 10:29 pm on Sat, Aug 24, 2013.

    gecroix Posts: 6192

    I didn't use any formula. I repeated what CNS reported that the Medicare Trustees report issued April 2012 reported.
    Perhaps you might direct your question to the Medicare Trustees. Since we're trusting them to be the trustees of Medicare, no doubt they will be happy to entertain your skepticism with their methodolgy and provide their formula.
    Of course I can go buy whatever insurance I want. Which is what I plan to do after I get dropped by my worked-36-years-for-it company insurance plan, if they decide that it's better to drop their own plan and dump us into the government exchanges.
    In the meantime, I'm enjoying an increase of some 1890 bucks a year in premiums over last year's costs for my 'cadillac plan', just this year, thanks to 'adjustments' being made to accomodate the 'requirements and dictates' of the ACA, if not word for word, then close enough for government work.
    As for your last sentence, well, nothing like an internet moniker to make a tough guy out of almost anybody.
    I'm appropriately impressed.

  • bvresident posted at 10:37 am on Sun, Aug 25, 2013.

    bvresident Posts: 1763

    Typical liberal blather about the efficiency of government entitlement programs.

    Here's the more accurate measurement of Medicare overhead calculations.


  • bvresident posted at 10:38 am on Sun, Aug 25, 2013.

    bvresident Posts: 1763

    If you can't trust what you're being told about one government agency by this president can you trust what he says about obamascare? I think not.


  • bvresident posted at 8:51 am on Wed, Aug 28, 2013.

    bvresident Posts: 1763

    Another classic explanation of the obamascare debacle.


  • kevjlang posted at 9:55 am on Wed, Aug 28, 2013.

    kevjlang Posts: 4036

    It truly would be sad if those men didn't leave a lasting legacy from their terms in office.

  • bvresident posted at 10:39 am on Wed, Aug 28, 2013.

    bvresident Posts: 1763

    Sometimes legacies are enhanced when another comes behind you that is so bad it makes the others look really, really good. I'm thinking that's where we are now.

  • gecroix posted at 10:41 am on Wed, Aug 28, 2013.

    gecroix Posts: 6192

    Herbert Hoover's lasting legacy, rightly or wrongly, is the Great Depression.
    Currently, we're just setting up the economy for GD2.

  • saraishelafs posted at 7:47 am on Thu, Aug 29, 2013.

    saraishelafs Posts: 59

    I'm wondering Mr bv if you can explain your positions without ad hominum arguments. It does not help your position to rely on negative characterizations of groups of people, saying "liar, liar" or insulting others that respond to these articles. We're trying to have an adult conversation here.

  • sverige1 posted at 7:50 am on Thu, Aug 29, 2013.

    sverige1 Posts: 4054

    Elaborating on what mytoby mentioned earlier:

    Why did Bush/Shrub #2 approve of having his underlings drape the MISSION ACCOMPLISHED banner after those first several months of Iraqi invasions?

    I googled "legislative accomplishments of George W. Bush". The list was quite short. One of the things was the "do not call" implementation act. Yet he vetoed stem cell research enhancement. Even Nancy Reagan has the sense to say that should have been OKayed.

  • saraishelafs posted at 11:20 am on Fri, Aug 30, 2013.

    saraishelafs Posts: 59

    This is probably not the place to do this because it will have to be a long comment but I'd like to reply to bvresident's comments at 3:21 on 8/24/13. Costs related to the SNAP program have increased dramatically I will agree. I don't agree that it is this president's fault alone. There was a financial crisis involving risky investments by banks, fraudulent housing loans and failure of the auto industry among other things. These events took years to evolve. If jobs are lost, people will rely on government programs to get by. There are not enough wealthy good Samaritans willing to assist people in temporary crises. That's why these programs were developed. The unemployment of PoC (people of color) is not a new problem again exacerbated by a global financial crisis. FactCheck - a nonpartisan group has said "There is no significant difference between presidents in job growth, unemployment or income inequality." This was their conclusion after studying BLS statistics.
    I don't know what evidence was used to substantiate the President's "lies" (cont)

  • saraishelafs posted at 11:44 am on Fri, Aug 30, 2013.

    saraishelafs Posts: 59

    (cont) but I do know what was done in response to the situations listed. IRS: investigation encouraged during which it was found that "liberal" groups were also targeted. Benghazi: security in our embassies has been improved (note the closures because of threats) Two people who "pulled the trigger" have been arrested and charges filed under seal. Mistakes were made here. Bush, Jr also had a spate of embassy problems which he also addressed as well as possible after the fact. NSA: "Given the history of abuse by governments, it is right to ask questions about surveillance particularly as technology is reshaping every aspect of our lives."-BHO Then he has suggested reform of the Patriot Act (Bush, Jr) Fast and furious: ATF chief encouraged to step down and did, tighter restrictions proposed on mass orders of weapons. Drones: civilian casualties are tracked. I think the dilemma has been how to address a new kind of war. The war in Iraq caused 115,000-151,000 Iraqi civilian deaths. So far, drones have killed 2,626 civilians since 2008 and are not a daily occurrence. How can we tell which strategies are right? War is hell. Perceptions about Obama in foreign countries are becoming more negative, true. On 3/13/13, according to Gallup polls, US standing is generally higher than in Bush's final years. Finally - race and class division. Fox news has done more to stimulate division than any other person, group or party except for maybe Rush Limbaugh. Does this answer your questions?

  • abknape4 posted at 12:48 pm on Fri, Aug 30, 2013.

    abknape4 Posts: 48

    Worst President Ever!

  • bvresident posted at 7:05 am on Sat, Aug 31, 2013.

    bvresident Posts: 1763

    Excuses aren't facts. You're making excuses. You say you don't agree that increases in SNAP that happened under your president and because of his liberalization of enrollment polices are his fault. That's your opinion, it's not factual.

    The unemployment of blacks is not a new problem. Well of course not but the spike in unemployment among blacks can be laid squarely at obama's feet. What you liberals want to do is keep blaming Bush for all the problems. Grow up. He's been gone for five years. At what point-if any-does your president have to put his big boy pants on and start accepting responsibility for his own actions and the resulting impact on our economy and citizens.

    You say liberal groups were also targeted by the IRS. Where are they? That's what the chief IRS liar said and yet he couldn't produce any names and none have come forward.

    You say Benghazi security has been improved. What a joke. Your president and his staff lied to the public about the cause of the terrorist attack and then left those people there to die. And your reply to that is that they've improved security?

    Here's the problem with your president and his supporters. You refuse to acknowledge his utter lack of qualifications to be president of this country and the damage that he's done to our economy. You didn't respond to the fact that 75% of the jobs created this year have been part time jobs but then again you'd just say it was something he inherited.

    Calling Fact Check a non-partisan group is akin to sticking your head in Galveston beach sand. It's completely ludicrous.

    Fox News has done more to stimulate division than any other person, group, or party...? Really? Could you provide any particular statement or fact supporting that? I think what you're referring to is that Fox News is reliably the only media outlet to report the facts about your president and the facts are disturbing.

    Liberals are so easy to dispute because they spout bizarre opinions that can never be substantiated with any factual information. Clearly you're proof of that.

  • bvresident posted at 7:09 am on Sat, Aug 31, 2013.

    bvresident Posts: 1763

    Wow. You are way out there. Bush didn't hang the sign and he never stated that. It was hung by members of the crew on that ship and without Bush's knowledge. It's obvious by your substantive reference that you really can't find anything to really go after Bush about. Here's the list I provided previously about your president. Perhaps you'll address some these.

    Here's your president's scorecard.

    17 million more on food stamps in the last 5 yrs.
    Unemployment rate of blacks twice as high as whites.
    Unemployment of blacks 6% greater today than it was under Bush.
    75% of all jobs created in the last year were part-time.
    Your president lied to the country about the abuses at the IRS against conservative groups in the IRS scandal.
    Your president lied to the country about the reason for the deaths of an four Americans including the diplomat in the Benghazi scandal.
    Your president lied to the country about holding those responsible for the Benghazi deaths accountable.
    Your president lied to the country about the NSA spying scandal.
    Your president and his attorney general lied to the country about the Fast and Furious gun-running scandal that resulted in the deaths of several U.S. law enforcement officials and hundreds of Mexican citizens.
    Your president has personally authorized hundreds of drone strikes in the Middle East that have killed hundreds of innocent men, women, and children.
    Your president has made us more hated and despised around the world than when President Bush was leading this country.
    Your president has worsened the racial divide and the class warfare in this country through his actions and speech.

  • saraishelafs posted at 10:56 am on Sat, Aug 31, 2013.

    saraishelafs Posts: 59

    The difference between facts and opinions is that facts can be verified. I would invite you to list the verifiable facts that you use to support your opinions, too.

  • bvresident posted at 6:49 am on Sun, Sep 1, 2013.

    bvresident Posts: 1763

    I took my facts from well-known sources in the public media. The data I provided about part-time jobs, the unemployment percentage of blacks now and under Bush, the enormous increase in the number of people on food stamps under your president, and the rest of what I posted are easily verified. I'm not going to post every link I used because it wouldn't change your entitlement mentality and your belief that your president is responsible for nothing that happens while he's in office.

  • sverige1 posted at 7:54 am on Tue, Sep 3, 2013.

    sverige1 Posts: 4054

    Response to bvresident posted at 7:09 am on Sat, Aug 31, 2013:

    In regard to your itemized list that includes "class warfare"...That has been an ever-running theme with populist type Presidents. A shake-up is necessary to try to even the playing field in regard to giving folks a chance to rise to the middle class.

    Obama need not apologize for "worsening class divide" and "racial warfare". The legislative successes under LBJ were done with painful process (bus desegregation, et cetera). I think you and the conservatives are scared that our country is going in the direction of equality. And, it's about time.

    BTW - more white folks are on foodstamps than "minorities". So, there's some more class warfare for ya. I'm sure a lot of those whites are angry that we have a part-black President. Shouldn't they get off their duffs and find one of those part-time jobs you referred to?

  • bvresident posted at 8:47 am on Tue, Sep 3, 2013.

    bvresident Posts: 1763

    servitude1, I almost feel guilty about schooling you because it's always ridiculously easy.

    BTW - more white folks are on foodstamps than "minorities".

    That would stand to reason due to the difference in population numbers of blacks and whites. The real number to look at in determining what Obama has done is to look at the PERCENTAGE of blacks on food stamps vs. whites. It proves that despite all the bluster about bringing everyone into the middle class your president has only made the situation worse.

    11.35% of whites on food stamps.
    35% of blacks on food stamps.


  • sverige1 posted at 7:48 am on Wed, Sep 4, 2013.

    sverige1 Posts: 4054

    Response to bvresident posted at 8:47 am on Tue, Sep 3, 2013:

    Shall we stick to the discussion w/o using an abacus to proclaim who's being "schooled"? Hate to say this, but the healthcare plan has passed, and whether we like it or not, shall be executed by next year.

    About foodstamp families: Whether we're talking "proportionally" or not, the amount of white people on foodstamps is numerically high. Now, a million $ question would be, do any of these folks (regardless of race) WANT to be on foodstamps?

    No. It's easy to condemn the "have nots" for not having the gumption to attain and sustain a job so that they can get off the governmental dole. But, the fact remains (and there was an editorial on this)...many folks in this country are working 2 part-time jobs. Neither is supplying benefits, and that includes lack of healthcare plan(s).

    Bottom line is that this country is changing. There is no more easy road to attain the middle class status. Earlier threads criticize our President for pointing out that more jobs have been available...even though many are only "part-time". Yet part-time is better than "no time". We just need folks to be able to attain health care more easily. I would bet the farm that a part-timer in a company that is at least having healthcare attainable for him/her and his/her family is better than none. Not a bad investment. After all, if you don't have health, you surely can't work.