PDA

View Full Version : Romneycare making health insurance rates drop!



DiabloViejo
04-16-2012, 11:38 AM
There’s a funny thing about the “Romneycare” that Mitt Romney hates so much: It’s making health insurance rates drop.
by Eclectablog on APRIL 16, 2012
Electablog.com (http://eclectablog.com/2012/04/you-know-that-romneycare-mitt-romney-hates-so-much-its-making-health-insurance-rates-drop.html)

I hate when that happens

Mitt Romney is traveling around the country telling Americans how evil Obamacare is, the health insurance reform modeled after his own Romneycare back in Massachusetts. He calls it (http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/story/2012-03-22/mitt-romney-health-reform-repeal-obamacare/53711598/1) “an unfolding disaster for the American economy, a budget-busting entitlement, and a dramatic new federal intrusion into our lives.”

Meanwhile, back Massachusetts, health insurance rates in the program are actually dropping (http://www.upi.com/Health_News/2012/04/14/Mass-healthcare-premiums-down-5/UPI-83201334422081/) .

<span style="color: #3333FF">"Massachusetts residents who participate in the state’s healthcare program are seeing their insurance premiums going down by 5 percent, officials say.

While healthcare insurance premiums have gone up in other states, those participating in the state’s Health Connector Commonwealth Care program are enjoying a second year of reduced premium payments courtesy of the healthcare reform act signed into law by then Gov. Mitt Romney, Forbes.com reported."</span>

It really takes courage to condemn your signature gubernatorial achievement just to appease a party that you actually disagree with on so much. It must create an intense internal karmic crater in your soul to sell yourself out like that. I predict we’ll see Mitt Romney slowly begin to go insane, just like John McCain did in 2008.

I mean after all, how long can he keep spitting on his own health insurance reforms when you read stuff like this about it?

<span style="color: #3333FF">"Currently, Massachusetts has the highest level of healthcare coverage in the country with more than 98 percent of its residents having healthcare insurance, but ranking as the 48th lowest state in the nation in healthcare expenditures.
The combined saving of last year and this year will save the state approximately $91 million with no benefit reductions or member co-pay increases, the report said."</span>

That’s the kind of thing a candidate should be running on; the kind of success that you paint on a gigantic banner and parade around the country. And Mitt Romney has to hide from it.

That has got to take its toll.

LWW
04-17-2012, 08:22 AM
It's a shame that Obama's abomination caused things to go the other way.

It's also a shame that so many people accept the idea they are the same.

Gayle in MD
04-17-2012, 08:25 AM
LOL, it's going to be a riot watching the president take him apart.

Fact is, health care and health insurance costs were pridicted to go up a lot more than they have since the AHCA was passed.

We knew all along that the costs were unsustainable, and had contributed greatly to the number of foreclosures, which is precisely why President Obama, and Republican and Democratic presidents before him, have tried to address this problem in our country for decades.

Romney has built a campaign on lies, even telling them about his own few successes, but it's necessary, when you have a man who decides how he feels about everything, according to who is in the room at the moment! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

No core principles, at all.

G.

DiabloViejo
04-18-2012, 12:54 AM
Please contrast the "differences" against the similarities.

LWW
04-18-2012, 04:43 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DiabloViejo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Please contrast the "differences" against the similarities. </div></div>

1 -Romneycare il constitutional, Obamacare most likely is not.

2 - The people of Massachusetts wanted Romneycare, the people of the US do not.

3 - Obamacare is 2,070 pages long, Romneycare is 70 pages.

4 - One Trillion dollars is needed to fund ObamaCare — 500 Billion in higher taxes & 500 Billion borrowed from Medicare. In contrast, taxes were not increased to fund RomneyCare, nor were funds borrowed from Medicare.

5 - RomneyCare was enacted only after Mitt Romney balanced the state budget; whereas, ObamaCare was enacted during a time when Barack Obama and a Democrat-dominant Congress didn't even try to balance a budget and didn't even propose a budget, but engaged in massive federal spending, unprecedented in the history of the United States.

6 - If a Massachusetts citizen doesn't like Romneycare they can move across state lines. If a US citizen doesn't like Obamacare they must flee the nation.

7 - Romneycare was passed with bi[artisan support, Obamacare is a single party bill stuffed up the arse of the US citizenry.

8 - The idea that Romneycare actually reduced costs is risibly false.
9 - Massachusetts has raised taxes to fund the nightmare

JUMPING BUTTERBALLS! (http://www.calldrmatt.com/Differences_Between_RomneyCare_and_ObamaCare.htm)

NEVER TRUST THE SPOON! (http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/v30n1/cpr30n1-1.html)

eg8r
04-18-2012, 09:02 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">6 - If a Massachusetts citizen doesn't like Romneycare they can move across state lines. If a US citizen doesn't like Obamacare they must flee the nation.
</div></div>This is untrue. If you don't like Obamacare you can stay right where you are and refuse to pay for it. Then when the Obama steps in and starts garnishing your wages you can just quit you job and live off the Government like thousands have already chosen to do. At that point we are where we were in the beginning, poor people not getting the health coverage they need due to finances. Obamacare is a tax that affects the poor to a massively greater degree than the rich.

eg8r

Qtec
04-19-2012, 07:04 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Obamacare is a tax that affects the poor to a massively greater degree than the rich.

eg8r </div></div>

Yes it does, it has a huge impact. It gives them access to basic HC coverage [at a price they can afford ] that the rich take for granted.

When an uninsured gets emergency treatment that costs $50,000, who pays?

The tax payer?

Q

eg8r
04-19-2012, 07:44 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Yes it does, it has a huge impact. It gives them access to basic HC coverage [at a price they can afford ] that the rich take for granted.
</div></div>Sorry moron but it is not at a price they could afford. If it dropped to a price they could afford then they would buy it but it isn't and they won't which is why Obama is making it a requirement. It is a tax on the poor and it will further push them to lean on the government to cover other necessities since their hard earned cash will now be going to cigs, booze and HC insurance. Bonuses we all know go for that brand new flat screen tv they have always wanted. Food, well that comes from their neighbors taxes.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">When an uninsured gets emergency treatment that costs $50,000, who pays?

The tax payer?
</div></div>Up till now it has been your position the poor get no HC coverage, yet when you want to make a point you admit that they get all the coverage they need. LOL, we barely even have to give you any rope and you are rushing to tie it around your neck.

eg8r

LWW
04-19-2012, 08:23 AM
So when do we start getting the $2,500.00 per year premium reductions that Obama promised us?

DiabloViejo
04-19-2012, 02:26 PM
RomneyCare & ObamaCare: Can you tell the difference?
By Angie Drobnic Holan
Published on Tuesday, March 20th, 2012 at 4:58 p.m.

PolitiFact (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2012/mar/20/romneycare-and-obamacare-can-you-tell-difference/)

"Barack Obama's health care bill is nothing new. Mitt Romney signed one just like it four years before."
Howard Dean on Friday, November 12th, 2010 in a KLRU interview

PolitiFact (http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2010/dec/05/howard-dean/dean-howard-says-health-care-bill-prseident-barack/)

The Senate-passed health care bill "is identical to the Massachusetts health care plan -- the same thing."
Paul Krugman on Sunday, January 31st, 2010 in an interview on ABC's 'This Week'

PolitiFact (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/feb/04/paul-krugman/krugman-calls-senate-health-care-bill-similar-law-/)

DiabloViejo
04-19-2012, 02:38 PM
http://commonhealth.wbur.org/files/2012/01/Screen-shot-2012-01-26-at-1.30.07-PM.png

The complete list can be found at:

familiesusa2.org Side by Side Analysis (http://familiesusa2.org/assets/pdfs/Elections-2012/RomneyCare-ObamaCare.pdf)

LWW
04-19-2012, 02:58 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DiabloViejo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"Barack Obama's health care bill is nothing new. Mitt Romney signed one just like it four years before."
Howard Dean on Friday, November 12th, 2010 in a KLRU interview</div></div>

It's a shame you don't read your own links.

If you had, you wouldn't have missed this:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Upshot: the federal law is similar to the Massachusetts law, but not an exact copy. </div></div>

You fit in quite well with the cabal here.

LWW
04-19-2012, 03:01 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DiabloViejo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">PolitiFact (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/feb/04/paul-krugman/krugman-calls-senate-health-care-bill-similar-law-/) </div></div>

Again, as I have counseled all of the cabalists, read your own links before you post.

If you had, you would know the following:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So it seems that there's broad agreement that, despite some operational differences, the broad structure of the Massachusetts health care plan is quite similar to that in the U.S. Senate bill -- certainly more similar than either one is to, say, a single-payer health care plan or even to the current system. Krugman's comparison of the two plans is Mostly True. </div></div>

in stead of believing spoonfed leftist mythology.

BTW ... are you also aware that Krugman has endorsed death panels?

DiabloViejo
04-19-2012, 03:17 PM
I could not care any less what you think or how hard you try to skew things to fit your agenda. I'll let the readers decide on just how similar or not the two plans are.

Oh, and please cut the crap with the "death panels" nonsense, it's bullshit and you know it. No amount of repeating a lie turns it into the truth for people with a functioning mind.

Now please run along and go pound salt, or do something useful, instead of sitting in your Jockey briefs in front of your PC all day spouting nonsense.

Soflasnapper
04-19-2012, 05:36 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So when do we start getting the $2,500.00 per year premium reductions that Obama promised us? </div></div>

You use words so creatively! Obama PROMISED that? And not only promised it, but promised it BEFORE THE LAW TAKES EFFECT? Really? That's fascinating, although untrue.

Here's a montage of what he said. (http://www.ihatethemedia.com/obama-promises-2500-healthcare-savings)

What is the constant language? 'For a TYPICAL FAMILY,' and 'UP TO $2,500 a year,' based on 'working with your employer.' Listen for yourself.

LWW
04-19-2012, 06:38 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So when do we start getting the $2,500.00 per year premium reductions that Obama promised us? </div></div>

You use words so creatively! Obama PROMISED that? And not only promised it, but promised it BEFORE THE LAW TAKES EFFECT? Really? That's fascinating, although untrue.

Here's a montage of what he said. (http://www.ihatethemedia.com/obama-promises-2500-healthcare-savings)

What is the constant language? 'For a TYPICAL FAMILY,' and 'UP TO $2,500 a year,' based on 'working with your employer.' Listen for yourself. </div></div>

Actually ...

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> If you have health insurance, then you don’t have to do anything. If you’ve got health insurance through your employer, you can keep your health insurance, keep your choice of doctor, keep your plan. … And we estimate we can cut the average family’s premium by about $2,500 per year.
</div></div>

And it's a shame you didn't watch what you linked to ... it would have saved you from wearing the dunce cap.

This is where you enter into DEFEND/DEFLECT/DENY mode.

I truly had no idea what tools the two of you are.

DiabloViejo
04-19-2012, 09:04 PM
Uh huh, yeah we're tools, yeah that's it!

Running around calling people “Obamabots”, "moonbats", dunces, or any of the other crap you love to sling, doesn’t help you any arguments. It just makes you look petulant. And hey, if that’s what you are going for, fine. But don’t even think of yourself as some kind of political pundit/ activist. You are a just a troll, a right wing astroturfing troll… just looking for trouble.

I really have to ask you, have you gotten any psychiatric help for that multiple personality disorder? How many user names are you up to now?

BTW, how much are you getting paid per post? Fifty cents, or a dollar per? Maybe you should try getting a real job and getting out of the house every day instead of showing us your posterior with your hackneyed non-stop drivel.

https://brotherpeacemaker.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/troll-b-gone.jpg

LWW
04-20-2012, 04:51 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DiabloViejo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Uh huh, yeah we're tools, yeah that's it!

Running around calling people “Obamabots”, "moonbats", dunces, or any of the other crap you love to sling, doesn’t help you any arguments. </div></div>

I'll make you a deal ... stop acting like a spoon fed bot and I'll stop pointing it out.

eg8r
04-20-2012, 09:49 AM
The left is absolutely diving head first into the sand on this one. What has happened is that they believed in "hope and change" so much that they were willing to accept anything. Even Pelosi has no idea what is in this bill but sofla acts the genius part. It is a shame he will be unwilling to drop all his coverage down to what the poor cannot afford but will be required to pay.

eg8r

sack316
04-20-2012, 10:29 AM
Another side of it...

I can go see my doctor right now for a cough I have. I'll be in his waiting room for probably 30 mins to an hour or so. Then I'll see him, we'll chat and I'll be on my way.

Meanwhile:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">A new poll of 838 Massachusetts doctors finds patients are still waiting weeks -- in some cases as long as a month and a half -- for non-urgent appointments with primary care physicians and certain specialists. </div></div>

http://www.boston.com/news/health/blog/2011/05/wait_for_doctor.html

I sure do wish my insurance was cheaper... but I would hate waiting a month and a half to go see my doc.

Average wait for a pediatrician--- 24 days. With my first child on the way, I wouldn't be down for that.

Sack

Soflasnapper
04-20-2012, 12:17 PM
And we estimate we can cut the average family’s premium by about $2,500 per year.

For some odd reason, you don't see this proves my point? You are a far gone case, evidently.

If there's a PROMISE there, it must be a promise that he does estimate that, has stated his estimate properly.

No estimate is a promise-- by definition it's a ballpark figure. It's enough of a wild card that they had to pass a law telling car repair guys they couldn't exceed the estimate by over $200 without asking the customer first. Because otherwise, and routinely, they blew right past the estimated figure with a binding new higher charge, totally legally.

Another way to say 'estimate' is to state 'up to' a number. He did that as well.

I do appreciate your humorous claim that when I post a link to something, I don't read it or view it. That, like hypocrisy, is the tribute vice pays to virtue, and apparently projection from your side.

eg8r
04-20-2012, 12:53 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And we estimate we can cut the average family’s premium by about $2,500 per year.

For some odd reason, you don't see this proves my point? You are a far gone case, evidently.

If there's a PROMISE there, it must be a promise that he does estimate that, has stated his estimate properly.
</div></div>LOL, so you don't want to read into what he is saying yet in another thread you want to read into what you think Romney is saying (refer to the one where Romney never said he supported people shopping for their HC to drive down costs).

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">No estimate is a promise-- by definition it's a ballpark figure.</div></div>This ballpark figure is showing a decrease in costs. Prices continue and will always continue to go up.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It's enough of a wild card that they had to pass a law telling car repair guys they couldn't exceed the estimate by over $200 without asking the customer first. Because otherwise, and routinely, they blew right past the estimated figure with a binding new higher charge, totally legally.
</div></div>LOL, so then if Obama cannot hit his estimate (and never has) will he be notifying all his "customers" that his plan failed to meet the estimate?

In the end he has declared cost savings, yet how is that possible for those he promised to "save", the poor, by forcing them to pay out extra money for this HC that they already do not have? Sure doesn't sound like they have a chance at saving any money.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
04-20-2012, 01:10 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The left is absolutely diving head first into the sand on this one. What has happened is that they believed in "hope and change" so much that they were willing to accept anything. Even Pelosi has no idea what is in this bill but sofla acts the genius part. It is a shame he will be unwilling to drop all his coverage down to what the poor cannot afford but will be required to pay.

eg8r </div></div>

Completely false and extremely sloppy mischaracterization of Pelosi's remarks.

I take you to be smarter than to fall for the more obvious lies of the right, but perhaps I've been mistaken.

Soflasnapper
04-20-2012, 01:20 PM
Quote:
No estimate is a promise-- by definition it's a ballpark figure.
This ballpark figure is showing a decrease in costs. Prices continue and will always continue to go up.


Except as in the case of Massachusetts, under a similar program's effects, you mean?

The question is when this estimated savings will occur, and compared to what?

An ignoratii's (or knowledgeable but partisan misinformer's) answer would be, he MUST mean IMMEDIATELY, before the exchanges are created and take effect, and before any money is paid into the new system by anyone. He meant as soon as he snaps his fingers, because he was claiming magical powers. And also, the $2500 would be an immediate fall in premiums (for the typical/average family), from current levels of premiums. (Sure, because what ELSE could he possibly have meant???? /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif)

My answers are, respectively, after the full implementation and maybe a couple of years into that, for its effects to take place, and compared to a larger increase than will occur by baseline projections without this reform. This means although it has not come true as of now, neither has it yet failed to do what he said it would.

Gayle in MD
04-21-2012, 09:26 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Quote:
No estimate is a promise-- by definition it's a ballpark figure.
This ballpark figure is showing a decrease in costs. Prices continue and will always continue to go up.


Except as in the case of Massachusetts, under a similar program's effects, you mean?

The question is when this estimated savings will occur, and compared to what?

An ignoratii's (or knowledgeable but partisan misinformer's) answer would be, he MUST mean IMMEDIATELY, before the exchanges are created and take effect, and before any money is paid into the new system by anyone. He meant as soon as he snaps his fingers, because he was claiming magical powers. And also, the $2500 would be an immediate fall in premiums (for the typical/average family), from current levels of premiums. (Sure, because what ELSE could he possibly have meant???? /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif)

My answers are, respectively, after the full implementation and maybe a couple of years into that, for its effects to take place, and compared to a larger increase than will occur by baseline projections without this reform. This means although it has not come true as of now, neither has it yet failed to do what he said it would.





</div></div>
Same tactic the right has used about the unemployment rates.

First they skew was was actually stated, and then they twist it into some sort of failure.

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

LWW
04-21-2012, 10:00 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And we estimate we can cut the average family’s premium by about $2,500 per year.

For some odd reason, you don't see this proves my point? You are a far gone case, evidently.

If there's a PROMISE there, it must be a promise that he does estimate that, has stated his estimate properly.

No estimate is a promise-- by definition it's a ballpark figure. It's enough of a wild card that they had to pass a law telling car repair guys they couldn't exceed the estimate by over $200 without asking the customer first. Because otherwise, and routinely, they blew right past the estimated figure with a binding new higher charge, totally legally.

Another way to say 'estimate' is to state 'up to' a number. He did that as well.

I do appreciate your humorous claim that when I post a link to something, I don't read it or view it. That, like hypocrisy, is the tribute vice pays to virtue, and apparently projection from your side. </div></div>

Actually you prove my point totally.

The thinking class never believed the spoon fed lie in the first place.

OTOH the doublethink class embraced the lie as inviolable truth when they were told to do so, and now deny the lie was ever even told ... Because they are now told to embrace that lie.

As icing on the cake ... you present the lie itself as "PROOF" that the lie was never told,and like the free will to see the conflict in beliefs that you hold.

Soflasnapper
04-21-2012, 12:58 PM
Not at all.

It's been widely cited that the freeloaders of our medical care system cost an average person $1,000 more on their annual premium. Eliminating the free rider situation then, for 2 parents and 1-1/2 children (whatever the typical family consists of), ballparks at $2,500 savings for the typical family.

That's a simple non-scientific method of showing why the ESTIMATE (not a promise) is not at all incredible, and instead fits with a back of the envelope calculation.

For you to be right requires either that no reasonable estimate was made using due diligence and public health care data (i.e., they estimated nothing in any credible fashion, and just claimed they did that work), or that the estimate they arrived at was substantially different from what was stated, and they simply lied about their results. Neither are in evidence, and you instead rely on 'it hasn't happened yet!!!,'-- duh, as it is not yet in effect.

The 'thinking class' would not offer an opinion unless they had looked at the data and the analysis or done their own expert analysis of the data, or that from an actually independent and expert review of the same thing (hint: not from Heritage, Cato, or the Republican Research Committee).

LWW
04-22-2012, 06:08 AM
You just did it again ... used doublethink to believe something to be both true and false, as the agenda requires ... and induced doublethink again to convince yourself that you never said what you just said.

Orwell was a prophet.

Soflasnapper
04-22-2012, 01:37 PM
Simple questions: do the free riders of our system, whose care has to be picked up and paid for by someone, end up costing those with coverage more, or not, as those costs are shifted to those paying?

If so, isn't it true that the estimate for that amounts to about $1,000 extra premium per person who has coverage per year?

(That's the widely stated estimate I've seen; what have you seen to contradict it, and what is a better estimate?)

If the cost shifting is ended as free riders are ended, what do you claim will be the result as to 'the typical family premium'? Zero?

Don't accuse me of doublethinking, just because you cannot follow a clear line of analysis.

LWW
04-23-2012, 03:34 AM
Cost shifting will not be ended, it will be increased.

But, as you insist upon demonstrating, you will embrace whatever myth the regime puts out.

Soflasnapper
04-23-2012, 10:15 AM
The cost-shifting will be back to the current shirkers, who will be in the system and pay for their own care, unlike the situation obtaining now.

AND, providing that care in regular order instead of at the most expensive provider, the ER, will be cheaper.

eg8r
04-23-2012, 06:05 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Completely false and extremely sloppy mischaracterization of Pelosi's remarks.</div></div>LOL, yeah right.

eg8r

LWW
04-24-2012, 04:17 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The cost-shifting will be back to the current shirkers, who will be in the system and pay for their own care, unlike the situation obtaining now.

AND, providing that care in regular order instead of at the most expensive provider, the ER, will be cheaper. </div></div>

No it won't.

The majority of shirkers are illegals and welfare recipients.

DiabloViejo
04-24-2012, 10:38 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The cost-shifting will be back to the current shirkers, who will be in the system and pay for their own care, unlike the situation obtaining now.

AND, providing that care in regular order instead of at the most expensive provider, the ER, will be cheaper. </div></div>

No it won't.

The majority of shirkers are illegals and welfare recipients. </div></div>

Provide the data to prove your claims. In other words, put up or shut up. (BTW-welfare recipients get Medicaid so you're wrong on that one.) But then again when has spreading falsehoods ever bothered you?

LWW
04-24-2012, 10:54 AM
Doesn't your Internet use the google? (http://http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/23/opinion/23sun1.html?pagewanted=1)

DiabloViejo
04-24-2012, 11:17 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Doesn't your Internet use the google? (http://http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/23/opinion/23sun1.html?pagewanted=1) </div></div>

Doesn't your brain use the "read" function? Go back and read your own link and tell us where exactly it says that the majority of health care non-insured are welfare recipients and illegals.

Welfare recipients are eligible for Medicaid. If for some reason, a welfare recipient has not enrolled for Medicaid and he winds up in the hospital, he will be enrolled at that time.

Your statement about welfare recipients and illegals is wrong. The article does not support your claim that welfare recipients and illegals constitute the majority of the uninsured.

Ok now it's your turn to whip out your tired "you're a moonbat, commie, fascist, doublethinking, statist, O-cultist" trope.

BTW, I keep asking you, but I get no answer,...how's that multiple personality disorder and schizophrenia thing going? I'm concerned for your health and I just want to make sure you're getting proper treatment.

LWW
04-25-2012, 02:57 AM
That would be in the article.

Qtec
04-25-2012, 05:11 AM
link (http://www.santafenewmexican.com/Opinion/myview/Looking-In--Mandy-Pino-Health-care-act-saves-money-and-expands-)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 23pt'>Health care act saves money and expands coverage for seniors</span>
MANDY PINO | MyView
Posted: Tuesday, April 24, 2012 - 4/24/12
0 Comments and 0 Reactions
Email
Print | Font Size: [Text too small? Click here to enlarge] [Want a smaller font? Click here] [Reset font size to default]

advertisement
AdChoices
There are few things as frustrating as falling ill. Not only does it dampen your spirits and keep you from doing the things you love, it can become a logistical and financial nightmare if you're dealing with insufficient coverage. For seniors especially, the process of getting medical treatment and filling prescriptions is often confusing and expensive. Thanks to Medicare, we have a safety net for our nation's seniors, ensuring that they are not left out in the cold when sickness or injury strikes.

<span style="color: #3333FF">In fact, new data released just this week shows that thanks to health care reform, seniors have saved billions. In 2011 alone, 3.6 million seniors with Medicare saved $2.1 billion. By 2021, the average savings to individual seniors such as myself on Medicare will be about $4,200.

Thanks to the new Affordable Care Act, seniors have actually enjoyed an expansion in their medical benefits and options for care. Since the new law was passed in 2010, some 4 million seniors have received assistance paying for expensive prescription drugs. The Medicare part D "doughnut hole" is a gap in drug coverage that can leave seniors paying out-of-pocket, but thanks to the new law, they've already saved an average of $604 on the cost of our prescription drugs. Those same individuals are receiving a 50 percent discount on those medications until 2020, when the ACA will ensure that the doughnut hole is fully closed.</span> </div></div>

Get your head out of the sand.

Q

DiabloViejo
04-25-2012, 10:44 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That would be in the article. </div></div>

No, it is not!

Please feel free to post the portion, or portions, of the article that support your contention that the majority of the uninsured are welfare recipients and illegals. I am feeling very helpful today, so here is the link to the article.. NY Times Opinions (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/23/opinion/23sun1.html)

Oh, what's that, you cant? Yep I thought so!

LWW
04-25-2012, 02:19 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DiabloViejo</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That would be in the article. </div></div>

No, it is not!

Please feel free to post the portion, or portions, of the article that support your contention that the majority of the uninsured are welfare recipients and illegals. I am feeling very helpful today, so here is the link to the article.. NY Times Opinions (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/23/opinion/23sun1.html)

Oh, what's that, you cant? Yep I thought so! </div></div>

Please feel free to use a calculator and a local 7 year old as this does require math competency at a 2nd grade level.

Using the 45,000,000,000 figure ... a dubious assumption in itself ... we need to come up with 22,500,001 or more.

Subtract 9,700,000 illegals ... as I said you may use a calculator ... and that leaves 12,800,001 more that we need to back up my claim.

Next we subtract the 11,000,000 wards of the state who are eligible for gubmint care, but lack the motivation to actually apply ... and wondering why the welfare department didn't apply on their behalf.

That leaves 1,800,001 needed.

Next we have the 13,000,000 youths that they claim half are living in poverty ... Awhich would be 6,500,000. That leaves with a surplus of 4,699,999.

But wait ... there's more.

We still have the 30,000,000 working poor ... Most of which are also welfare recipients. Let's give your argument a break ... Jesus, Mary and Joseph know tt you need it ... and say it's only half.

Anything else I can help you to comprehend?

DiabloViejo
04-26-2012, 12:33 AM
Yes, there is something else, show us exactly where in the article that YOU linked to, it says what you claim it says.

Hey man, that's not a hell of a lot to ask for. It's your link!

LWW
04-26-2012, 05:00 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DiabloViejo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Yes, there is something else, show us exactly where in the article that YOU linked to, it says what you claim it says.

Hey man, that's not a hell of a lot to ask for. It's your link! </div></div>

Might I suggest a remedial English class for ?

Surely there is an adult education center near you.

That or remove your self imposed blinders.

Qtec
04-26-2012, 07:15 AM
Anyone who 'chooses' not to have HC coverage does so because they can't afford it, not because they think they will not get sick.

Q

eg8r
04-26-2012, 09:51 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Anyone who 'chooses' not to have HC coverage does so because they can't afford it, not because they think they will not get sick.

</div></div>Prove it. You are generalizing something you know nothing about. People make the choice to not purchase insurance of all sorts because they simply choose to not pay for it. Obama will take care of them though, in his effort to "help" the people you speak about he will actually be pushing them further into poverty.

eg8r

LWW
04-26-2012, 12:20 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Anyone who 'chooses' not to have HC coverage does so because they can't afford it, not because they think they will not get sick.

Q </div></div>

When fats is done with the second grader maybe they will tutor you next.

DiabloViejo
04-26-2012, 12:42 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DiabloViejo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Yes, there is something else, show us exactly where in the article that YOU linked to, it says what you claim it says.

Hey man, that's not a hell of a lot to ask for. It's your link! </div></div>

Might I suggest a remedial English class for ?

Surely there is an adult education center near you.

That or remove your self imposed blinders. </div></div>

<span style='font-size: 14pt'><span style="color: #000099">Ahh, the old ad-hominem logical fallacy. Yeah, when all else fails go for the personal attack. *Yawn.*</span></span>

http://irrev-black.com/wp-content/uploads/black//03-Ad-hominem.jpg

LWW
04-27-2012, 04:10 AM
And now we finally have the last tactic in the Alinskyism play book.

After denial of reality fails, after defense of falsehood fails, after deflection of inconvenient truth fails, after arguing against positions never taken fails, after all else fails, after name calling fails, after all the spoon fed lies fail ... claim that you were victimized.

Soflasnapper
04-27-2012, 11:54 AM
I'm not the expert on Alinskyism you say you are, but that isn't part of the playbook, so far as I've heard.

It's certainly not part of the Rules (for Radicals), seen here. (http://alinskydefeater.wordpress.com/2009/10/11/the-13-main-alinsky-tactics/)

Are you just making this stuff up as you go along?

LWW
04-27-2012, 01:03 PM
I honestly thought you to be quasi literate.

DiabloViejo
04-28-2012, 06:09 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I honestly thought you to be quasi literate. </div></div>


http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/006/512/DoubleFacePalm.jpg

Soflasnapper
04-28-2012, 06:33 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I honestly thought you to be quasi literate. </div></div>

And I thought you were quasi-making it up! Makes us even, then?

Sorry, but although Alinsky had a book or two in the syllabus, it was our choice which books to read, and a book concerning rules for radicals didn't appeal to me. I have literally never read the man's work.

And I don't think literacy or being literate or quasi-literate means someone will have read Alinsky.

I also never read Mao's Little Red Book of sayings, nor Hitler's Mein Kampf. Heard of them, of course.

LWW
04-30-2012, 03:59 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"I will sign a universal health care bill into law by the end of my first term as president that will cover every American and cut the cost of a typical family's premium by up to $2,500 a year."
-Barack Hussein Obama-</div></div>

This is where you claim that just because he said it doesn't mean that he said it.

TRUTH! (http://http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/subjects/politifacts-top-promises/?page=2) An Obmatron's worst nightmare.

Qtec
04-30-2012, 05:38 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Our conscience cannot rest so long as nearly 45 million Americans don't have health insurance and the millions more who do are going bankrupt trying to pay for it. I have made a solemn pledge that I will sign <span style='font-size: 20pt'>a universal health care bill</span> into law by the end of my first term as president that will cover every American and cut the cost of a typical family's premiums by up to $2500 a year </div></div>

Did he sign a universal health care bill into law?



Q

LWW
04-30-2012, 08:31 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Our conscience cannot rest so long as nearly 45 million Americans don't have health insurance and the millions more who do are going bankrupt trying to pay for it. I have made a solemn pledge that I will sign <span style='font-size: 20pt'>a universal health care bill</span> into law by the end of my first term as president that will cover every American and cut the cost of a typical family's premiums by up to $2500 a year </div></div>

Did he sign a universal health care bill into law?



Q </div></div>

Yes, and it didn't lead to any savings ... which makes it a lie.

Anything else I can help you with?

eg8r
04-30-2012, 08:33 AM
Defintely no where near the up to $2500 he promised which is the part of the subject qtip missed by a mile.

eg8r

LWW
04-30-2012, 08:34 AM
Snoopy is merely defending his Master.