So, how's that repeal effort working out for you, Republicans?

[homersapien 11,382]

OK, I'll explain the relevance: You were laughing at the proposition that universal healthcare is not socialism (see previous quote above). You clearly used the Lenin reference to prove your point.

Is reading comprehension a problem for you? Evidently, you read into my posts what you wanted to believe. Read slowly homer to avoid making leaps of logic that simply are not there.

I posted a quote that I correctly attributed to Vladimir Lenin. Where did I argue what you claim...that universal healthcare in NOT socialism?

(Again) that would be in post #111: It isn't a socialist idea? HAHAHA....

By all accounts that I am aware of, universal healthcare personifies socialism. THAT is what I was saying and its been tried and it has failed, historically, across the board. Most all of the European countries that were leaning in that direction have pivoted or begun to pivot away from it because it is a model that simply has not and cannot work because it has shown that it is economically feasible

Dang. Now you've done it again.

So is Germany (for example) a socialist country?

The post before me, that I was responding to, said it wasn't a socialist idea. Pardon me for not including the quotation marks. I thought you were actually following the thread. Clearly you were not. I was laughing that anyone could actually believe that. I figured the question mark would be sufficient.

You just can't keep from weaseling can you? It's as if you know enough not to get caught in a outright lie (well, at least most of the time) but you simply can't stand to directly confront a misstatement, mistake or simple exaggeration.

Let's try a different simple question since you obviously don't like the Germany reference: Is any country with a universal healthcare system necessarily "socialist" by definition?

You're a blowhard bro. You haven't caught a damn thing. You simply based an argument on a false accusation and now you wont accept the truth. The end!

To your question I would respond that Germany is a Social Capitalist State

False accusation? Do you now contend that universal healthcare doesn't necessarily indicate socialism?

And what's a "Socialist Capitalist State". It must be for real since you capitalized it. Is that sort of like saying "I claimed universal healthcare is socialism until I didn't"?

(Expressing yourself in writing can be a bitch huh? Especially if you're a weasel who can't backtrack, by definition.)

[homersapien 11,382]

That is still 826,200 people who now have health insurance. It is a step.

So by your reasoning and this math; we kicked 6.3m off their plans and forced them to by more expensive; higher deductable plans...and all this is justified because we gave 800k insurance? And, we've just delayed doing that for the rest of the 90m families that are insured due to the various extra-legislative delays...so the same will happen to a large part of those 90m...and all this is justified because we gave 800k insurance? Really? That's your idea of a step? In any other endeavor in the history of humankind, this would be called a catastrophe. I would love to sell to you if this is the same logic and cost/benefit analysis you apply to your families purchase decisions.

We were on an unsustainable path. Doing nothing was not an option. I do not understand how you consider a step in the right direction a catastrophe.

Doing nothing is always an option...in fact, it is a fundamental concept in medicine; 1st do no harm. Screwing it up for 300m people to help 800k is fundamentally a catastrophe. This was avoidable.

"Do no harm" is not necessarily the same as doing nothing. A physician who does nothing while a patient bleeds to death is hardly practicing good medicine.

But in this case, you're analogy is irrelevant. The 300m weren't bleeding out.

The analogy is relevant. The point was doing nothing when something needs to be done is not good medicine. Just change it to "being sick" instead of "bleeding out", if that's what bothered you.

There were a lot of people uninsured which added to the per capita cost of our system. In other words, doing nothing was not the best course of action.

Of course, the problem has yet to be solved but it's a step, which is certainly not the same as doing nothing.

[japantiger 4,051]

That is still 826,200 people who now have health insurance. It is a step.

So by your reasoning and this math; we kicked 6.3m off their plans and forced them to by more expensive; higher deductable plans...and all this is justified because we gave 800k insurance? And, we've just delayed doing that for the rest of the 90m families that are insured due to the various extra-legislative delays...so the same will happen to a large part of those 90m...and all this is justified because we gave 800k insurance? Really? That's your idea of a step? In any other endeavor in the history of humankind, this would be called a catastrophe. I would love to sell to you if this is the same logic and cost/benefit analysis you apply to your families purchase decisions.

We were on an unsustainable path. Doing nothing was not an option. I do not understand how you consider a step in the right direction a catastrophe.

Doing nothing is always an option...in fact, it is a fundamental concept in medicine; 1st do no harm. Screwing it up for 300m people to help 800k is fundamentally a catastrophe. This was avoidable.

Pure rhetoric. There is no evidence that 300 million people are screwed.

Then you're not paying attention. The same issue that hit the 6m individuals is going to hit the other 90m households/300M people...that is why Obama moved the deadline out past the Nov election....ticking bomb.

Again, all predictable...and all avoidable.

[homersapien 11,382]

That is still 826,200 people who now have health insurance. It is a step.

So by your reasoning and this math; we kicked 6.3m off their plans and forced them to by more expensive; higher deductable plans...and all this is justified because we gave 800k insurance? And, we've just delayed doing that for the rest of the 90m families that are insured due to the various extra-legislative delays...so the same will happen to a large part of those 90m...and all this is justified because we gave 800k insurance? Really? That's your idea of a step? In any other endeavor in the history of humankind, this would be called a catastrophe. I would love to sell to you if this is the same logic and cost/benefit analysis you apply to your families purchase decisions.

We were on an unsustainable path. Doing nothing was not an option. I do not understand how you consider a step in the right direction a catastrophe.

Doing nothing is always an option...in fact, it is a fundamental concept in medicine; 1st do no harm. Screwing it up for 300m people to help 800k is fundamentally a catastrophe. This was avoidable.

Pure rhetoric. There is no evidence that 300 million people are screwed.

Then you're not paying attention. The same issue that hit the 6m individuals is going to hit the other 90m households/300M people...that is why Obama moved the deadline out past the Nov election....ticking bomb.

Again, all predictable...and all avoidable.

In other words, ICHY is right. It was pure rhetoric, based on what you predict will happen, not evidence.

[AFTiger 282]

Predicting the future based on historical evidence is not rhetoric. Six million were kicked off their individual plans. Group plans have not been affected but will next year.

[japantiger 4,051]

That is still 826,200 people who now have health insurance. It is a step.

So by your reasoning and this math; we kicked 6.3m off their plans and forced them to by more expensive; higher deductable plans...and all this is justified because we gave 800k insurance? And, we've just delayed doing that for the rest of the 90m families that are insured due to the various extra-legislative delays...so the same will happen to a large part of those 90m...and all this is justified because we gave 800k insurance? Really? That's your idea of a step? In any other endeavor in the history of humankind, this would be called a catastrophe. I would love to sell to you if this is the same logic and cost/benefit analysis you apply to your families purchase decisions.

We were on an unsustainable path. Doing nothing was not an option. I do not understand how you consider a step in the right direction a catastrophe.

Doing nothing is always an option...in fact, it is a fundamental concept in medicine; 1st do no harm. Screwing it up for 300m people to help 800k is fundamentally a catastrophe. This was avoidable.

"Do no harm" is not necessarily the same as doing nothing. A physician who does nothing while a patient bleeds to death is hardly practicing good medicine.

But in this case, you're analogy is irrelevant. The 300m weren't bleeding out.

The analogy is relevant. Just change it to "being sick" instead of "bleeding out", if that's what bothers you about it.

There were a lot of people uninsured which added to the per capita cost of our system. In other words, doing nothing was not the best course of action.

Of course, the problem has yet to be solved but it's a step, which is certainly not the same as doing nothing.

You've once again missed the real point. The 300m weren't sick. If my daughter is sick, I don't give my sons antibiotics. Obamacare's solution is to make the healthy sick so we can treat them with, what else, Obamacare.

[homersapien 11,382]

That is still 826,200 people who now have health insurance. It is a step.

So by your reasoning and this math; we kicked 6.3m off their plans and forced them to by more expensive; higher deductable plans...and all this is justified because we gave 800k insurance? And, we've just delayed doing that for the rest of the 90m families that are insured due to the various extra-legislative delays...so the same will happen to a large part of those 90m...and all this is justified because we gave 800k insurance? Really? That's your idea of a step? In any other endeavor in the history of humankind, this would be called a catastrophe. I would love to sell to you if this is the same logic and cost/benefit analysis you apply to your families purchase decisions.

We were on an unsustainable path. Doing nothing was not an option. I do not understand how you consider a step in the right direction a catastrophe.

Doing nothing is always an option...in fact, it is a fundamental concept in medicine; 1st do no harm. Screwing it up for 300m people to help 800k is fundamentally a catastrophe. This was avoidable.

"Do no harm" is not necessarily the same as doing nothing. A physician who does nothing while a patient bleeds to death is hardly practicing good medicine.

But in this case, you're analogy is irrelevant. The 300m weren't bleeding out.

The analogy is relevant. Just change it to "being sick" instead of "bleeding out", if that's what bothers you about it.

There were a lot of people uninsured which added to the per capita cost of our system. In other words, doing nothing was not the best course of action.

Of course, the problem has yet to be solved but it's a step, which is certainly not the same as doing nothing.

You've once again missed the real point. The 300m weren't sick. If my daughter is sick, I don't give my sons antibiotics. Obamacare's solution is to make the healthy sick so we can treat them with, what else, Obamacare.

Well then, I suppose all those articles about how our healthcare system was dysfunctional were wrong.

And again, "sick" is an analogy to "uninsured". The point at issue was doing nothing. So a better comparison would be having your sons ensured by a healthcare policy while your daughter was uninsured.

If anyone is missing the real point, it's you.

[homersapien 11,382]

Predicting the future based on historical evidence is not rhetoric. Six million were kicked off their individual plans. Group plans have not been affected but will next year.

Predicting the future is a rhetorical argument no matter how you slice it. Nothing wrong with that, as long as it isn't presented as fact, which it cannot be, by definition.

Sometimes I think this forum is nothing more than an exercise in thinking skills and expressing those skills in writing. Subject matter is incidental.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

That is still 826,200 people who now have health insurance. It is a step.

So by your reasoning and this math; we kicked 6.3m off their plans and forced them to by more expensive; higher deductable plans...and all this is justified because we gave 800k insurance? And, we've just delayed doing that for the rest of the 90m families that are insured due to the various extra-legislative delays...so the same will happen to a large part of those 90m...and all this is justified because we gave 800k insurance? Really? That's your idea of a step? In any other endeavor in the history of humankind, this would be called a catastrophe. I would love to sell to you if this is the same logic and cost/benefit analysis you apply to your families purchase decisions.

We were on an unsustainable path. Doing nothing was not an option. I do not understand how you consider a step in the right direction a catastrophe.

Doing nothing is always an option...in fact, it is a fundamental concept in medicine; 1st do no harm. Screwing it up for 300m people to help 800k is fundamentally a catastrophe. This was avoidable.

"Do no harm" is not necessarily the same as doing nothing. A physician who does nothing while a patient bleeds to death is hardly practicing good medicine.

But in this case, you're analogy is irrelevant. The 300m weren't bleeding out.

The analogy is relevant. Just change it to "being sick" instead of "bleeding out", if that's what bothers you about it.

There were a lot of people uninsured which added to the per capita cost of our system. In other words, doing nothing was not the best course of action.

Of course, the problem has yet to be solved but it's a step, which is certainly not the same as doing nothing.

You've once again missed the real point. The 300m weren't sick. If my daughter is sick, I don't give my sons antibiotics. Obamacare's solution is to make the healthy sick so we can treat them with, what else, Obamacare.

Horrible and meaningless analogy.

[japantiger 4,051]

That is still 826,200 people who now have health insurance. It is a step.

So by your reasoning and this math; we kicked 6.3m off their plans and forced them to by more expensive; higher deductable plans...and all this is justified because we gave 800k insurance? And, we've just delayed doing that for the rest of the 90m families that are insured due to the various extra-legislative delays...so the same will happen to a large part of those 90m...and all this is justified because we gave 800k insurance? Really? That's your idea of a step? In any other endeavor in the history of humankind, this would be called a catastrophe. I would love to sell to you if this is the same logic and cost/benefit analysis you apply to your families purchase decisions.

We were on an unsustainable path. Doing nothing was not an option. I do not understand how you consider a step in the right direction a catastrophe.

Doing nothing is always an option...in fact, it is a fundamental concept in medicine; 1st do no harm. Screwing it up for 300m people to help 800k is fundamentally a catastrophe. This was avoidable.

Pure rhetoric. There is no evidence that 300 million people are screwed.

Then you're not paying attention. The same issue that hit the 6m individuals is going to hit the other 90m households/300M people...that is why Obama moved the deadline out past the Nov election....ticking bomb.

Again, all predictable...and all avoidable.

In other words, ICHY is right. It was pure rhetoric, based on what you predict will happen, not evidence.

You're pathetic. If this is the logic you apply to the rest of your life; I would love to handle your investments or sell to you.

Predicting the future based on historical evidence is not rhetoric. Six million were kicked off their individual plans. Group plans have not been affected but will next year.

Save it AF...he obviously doesn't want to see. He won't ever engage on the facts. He thinks he's being cute trying to construct some theoretical argument that can only work in the mind of a true believer.

[japantiger 4,051]

That is still 826,200 people who now have health insurance. It is a step.

So by your reasoning and this math; we kicked 6.3m off their plans and forced them to by more expensive; higher deductable plans...and all this is justified because we gave 800k insurance? And, we've just delayed doing that for the rest of the 90m families that are insured due to the various extra-legislative delays...so the same will happen to a large part of those 90m...and all this is justified because we gave 800k insurance? Really? That's your idea of a step? In any other endeavor in the history of humankind, this would be called a catastrophe. I would love to sell to you if this is the same logic and cost/benefit analysis you apply to your families purchase decisions.

We were on an unsustainable path. Doing nothing was not an option. I do not understand how you consider a step in the right direction a catastrophe.

Doing nothing is always an option...in fact, it is a fundamental concept in medicine; 1st do no harm. Screwing it up for 300m people to help 800k is fundamentally a catastrophe. This was avoidable.

"Do no harm" is not necessarily the same as doing nothing. A physician who does nothing while a patient bleeds to death is hardly practicing good medicine.

But in this case, you're analogy is irrelevant. The 300m weren't bleeding out.

The analogy is relevant. Just change it to "being sick" instead of "bleeding out", if that's what bothers you about it.

There were a lot of people uninsured which added to the per capita cost of our system. In other words, doing nothing was not the best course of action.

Of course, the problem has yet to be solved but it's a step, which is certainly not the same as doing nothing.

You've once again missed the real point. The 300m weren't sick. If my daughter is sick, I don't give my sons antibiotics. Obamacare's solution is to make the healthy sick so we can treat them with, what else, Obamacare.

Horrible and meaningless analogy.

Please point out the fallacy? We had 6m people with no insurance problem. Obamacare created a problem for them that then required them to apply for, you guessed it, Obamacare....all in the name of providing coverage for people who apparently didn't want it because they didn't sign up for it....or precisely speaking, that 800k did want; but that the other 32m allegedly uninsured didn't want. Where is this factually incorrect.

Fast forwarding to what is going to happen next; the same thing is ahead for the rest of us. This is why his worship moved out the deadline for the employer mandate. At the point that happens, the 300m fall in the same category as the 6m. Had this not been inevitable, he would never have moved the date...I mean come on, this program is great right! Shouldn't we want all 300m on it as soon as possible? But yeah, I can see how you could miss this pattern Homey.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

That is still 826,200 people who now have health insurance. It is a step.

So by your reasoning and this math; we kicked 6.3m off their plans and forced them to by more expensive; higher deductable plans...and all this is justified because we gave 800k insurance? And, we've just delayed doing that for the rest of the 90m families that are insured due to the various extra-legislative delays...so the same will happen to a large part of those 90m...and all this is justified because we gave 800k insurance? Really? That's your idea of a step? In any other endeavor in the history of humankind, this would be called a catastrophe. I would love to sell to you if this is the same logic and cost/benefit analysis you apply to your families purchase decisions.

We were on an unsustainable path. Doing nothing was not an option. I do not understand how you consider a step in the right direction a catastrophe.

Doing nothing is always an option...in fact, it is a fundamental concept in medicine; 1st do no harm. Screwing it up for 300m people to help 800k is fundamentally a catastrophe. This was avoidable.

"Do no harm" is not necessarily the same as doing nothing. A physician who does nothing while a patient bleeds to death is hardly practicing good medicine.

But in this case, you're analogy is irrelevant. The 300m weren't bleeding out.

The analogy is relevant. Just change it to "being sick" instead of "bleeding out", if that's what bothers you about it.

There were a lot of people uninsured which added to the per capita cost of our system. In other words, doing nothing was not the best course of action.

Of course, the problem has yet to be solved but it's a step, which is certainly not the same as doing nothing.

You've once again missed the real point. The 300m weren't sick. If my daughter is sick, I don't give my sons antibiotics. Obamacare's solution is to make the healthy sick so we can treat them with, what else, Obamacare.

Horrible and meaningless analogy.

Please point out the fallacy? We had 6m people with no insurance problem. Obamacare created a problem for them that then required them to apply for, you guessed it, Obamacare....all in the name of providing coverage for people who apparently didn't want it because they didn't sign up for it....or precisely speaking, that 800k did want; but that the other 32m allegedly uninsured didn't want. Where is this factually incorrect.

Fast forwarding to what is going to happen next; the same thing is ahead for the rest of us. This is why his worship moved out the deadline for the employer mandate. At the point that happens, the 300m fall in the same category as the 6m. Had this not been inevitable, he would never have moved the date...I mean come on, this program is great right! Shouldn't we want all 300m on it as soon as possible? But yeah, I can see how you could miss this pattern Homey.

The problem already existed prior to ACA. The uninsured drive up costs for the insured. There is already a socialistic aspect built into healthcare. We have to make an effort to control costs, open access, and better utilize resources.

ACA is not the catastrophe you have painted it to be. The potential catastrophe would be the result of doing nothing. Are you really proposing the idea that a steadily increasing number of Americans without health insurance is preferable to a steadily declining number of people without healthcare coverage?

Can you honestly assert that everyone will be affected by ACA next year? Will every employer dump their employees into the exchanges? All of them? The only person in this forum that I have seen accurately predict the future is ET. Your claim seems less prophetic. Your prediction seems more likely motivated by partisan rhetoric and histrionics.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

RIR.....I can't provide a poll but ALL the doctors and hospital people I talk to don't like Obamacare. They agree it has some good features but needs to either be repealed or significantly modified. Obama has made 38 changes so far himself, many originally approved by the House but refused by Harry Reid. I think we all agree it isn't going to be repealed. So how would you suggest it be done in a bipartisan way as long as an a-hole like Reid leads the Senate?

[AUisAll 2]

This thread just further convinces me that America is in deep doo doo. And it also confirms that Ron White was right when he said 'you can't fix stupid'. Lies were used to pass the ACA and lies are being used to prop it up. The only chance America has to 'recover' is getting the economy going and we have clowns in the White House and controlling the Senate that have never created a job in their lives. The ACA is killing job creation but anyone who has never started or run a business is oblivious to this FACT. And the simpletons believe the fake numbers, just ignore the lies and believe someone will sprinkle fairy dust on top of things and it's all FREE. Geez. I pray for my country.

[AUDub 11,152]

RIR.....I can't provide a poll but ALL the doctors and hospital people I talk to don't like Obamacare. They agree it has some good features but needs to either be repealed or significantly modified. Obama has made 38 changes so far himself, many originally approved by the House but refused by Harry Reid. I think we all agree it isn't going to be repealed. So how would you suggest it be done in a bipartisan way as long as an a-hole like Reid leads the Senate?

I work at a hospital. Does that make me a "hospital person?"

[AFTiger 282]

Beginning of the end.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/gibbs-employer-mandate-will-be-one-first-things-go_786455.html

Killing the employer mandate would be one way to improve the law — and there are a handful of other “common sense” improvements needed as well, he said.

Others include better outreach ahead of next year's enrollment — educating people about the law’s deadlines, penalties and subsidies; improved technology; and greater incentives, besides not having to pay a low penalty, to young people so they will enroll in health coverage.

And, most importantly, Gibbs said “health care has to add an additional layer of coverage cheaper than the plans already offered.”

In his hour-long speech — which included questions and answers — Gibbs admitted to questioning whether the individual mandate as part of the law was the way to go; being embarrassed and critical over the “truly horrible” exchange rollout last fall; and cringing when former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi infamously quipped “we have to pass the bill to find out what's in it.”

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Sure Ben but I haven't talked to you. What does your hospital think?

[homersapien 11,382]

Beginning of the end.

http://www.weeklysta...-go_786455.html

Killing the employer mandate would be one way to improve the law — and there are a handful of other “common sense” improvements needed as well, he said.

Others include better outreach ahead of next year's enrollment — educating people about the law’s deadlines, penalties and subsidies; improved technology; and greater incentives, besides not having to pay a low penalty, to young people so they will enroll in health coverage.

And, most importantly, Gibbs said “health care has to add an additional layer of coverage cheaper than the plans already offered.”

In his hour-long speech — which included questions and answers — Gibbs admitted to questioning whether the individual mandate as part of the law was the way to go; being embarrassed and critical over the “truly horrible” exchange rollout last fall; and cringing when former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi infamously quipped “we have to pass the bill to find out what's in it.”

What do you mean by "beginning of the end". I don't think anyone questions there will be changes. In fact, I like the idea of de-coupling healthcare insurance for employers of all types, large or small. So my initial reaction to that is positive.

Not to change the subject, but regarding the Pelosi quote: Wasn't her statement slightly different? Did she not really say "we have to pass the bill for you to find out what's in it? The right wing reverb machine has thrived on this since it became available. I am curious as to how much out of context it was taken.

Is this another deliberate distortion of meaning like "you didn't build that" ?

[japantiger 4,051]

That is still 826,200 people who now have health insurance. It is a step.

So by your reasoning and this math; we kicked 6.3m off their plans and forced them to by more expensive; higher deductable plans...and all this is justified because we gave 800k insurance? And, we've just delayed doing that for the rest of the 90m families that are insured due to the various extra-legislative delays...so the same will happen to a large part of those 90m...and all this is justified because we gave 800k insurance? Really? That's your idea of a step? In any other endeavor in the history of humankind, this would be called a catastrophe. I would love to sell to you if this is the same logic and cost/benefit analysis you apply to your families purchase decisions.

We were on an unsustainable path. Doing nothing was not an option. I do not understand how you consider a step in the right direction a catastrophe.

Doing nothing is always an option...in fact, it is a fundamental concept in medicine; 1st do no harm. Screwing it up for 300m people to help 800k is fundamentally a catastrophe. This was avoidable.

"Do no harm" is not necessarily the same as doing nothing. A physician who does nothing while a patient bleeds to death is hardly practicing good medicine.

But in this case, you're analogy is irrelevant. The 300m weren't bleeding out.

The analogy is relevant. Just change it to "being sick" instead of "bleeding out", if that's what bothers you about it.

There were a lot of people uninsured which added to the per capita cost of our system. In other words, doing nothing was not the best course of action.

Of course, the problem has yet to be solved but it's a step, which is certainly not the same as doing nothing.

You've once again missed the real point. The 300m weren't sick. If my daughter is sick, I don't give my sons antibiotics. Obamacare's solution is to make the healthy sick so we can treat them with, what else, Obamacare.

Horrible and meaningless analogy.

Please point out the fallacy? We had 6m people with no insurance problem. Obamacare created a problem for them that then required them to apply for, you guessed it, Obamacare....all in the name of providing coverage for people who apparently didn't want it because they didn't sign up for it....or precisely speaking, that 800k did want; but that the other 32m allegedly uninsured didn't want. Where is this factually incorrect.

Fast forwarding to what is going to happen next; the same thing is ahead for the rest of us. This is why his worship moved out the deadline for the employer mandate. At the point that happens, the 300m fall in the same category as the 6m. Had this not been inevitable, he would never have moved the date...I mean come on, this program is great right! Shouldn't we want all 300m on it as soon as possible? But yeah, I can see how you could miss this pattern Homey.

The problem already existed prior to ACA. The uninsured drive up costs for the insured. There is already a socialistic aspect built into healthcare. We have to make an effort to control costs, open access, and better utilize resources.

ACA is not the catastrophe you have painted it to be. The potential catastrophe would be the result of doing nothing. Are you really proposing the idea that a steadily increasing number of Americans without health insurance is preferable to a steadily declining number of people without healthcare coverage?

Can you honestly assert that everyone will be affected by ACA next year? Will every employer dump their employees into the exchanges? All of them? The only person in this forum that I have seen accurately predict the future is ET. Your claim seems less prophetic. Your prediction seems more likely motivated by partisan rhetoric and histrionics.

Your first point; government doesn't have to take this on. Government is rarely the answer. Look at the Trillions$$ we've spent on poverty; not really effective.

ACA was supposed to lower costs, improve coverage, ensure the uninsured and "you can keep your doctor and your coverage". To date, it has done none of the above.

• Per capita costs continue to climb...per the president's own council of economic advisors, the CBO and thanks to fact-check.org...and per the CBO, the total costs for the ACA were going to come in double the orignal 10 year estimate...my, my...
  
• Not a single study or example that cites improved coverage; in fact, the weight of the data shows the opposite; higher premiums and higher deductibles
  
• 800k of the 40m now ensured...Wow...it's hard to imagine a bigger failure
  
• And lastly, the biggest Orwellian lie told in my lifetime; it even tops "I am not a crook". If you like your Dr., and your plan, you can keep it...unless of course, you can't...which happened to the majority of the new ACA customers...that's the only reason there are allegedly 7m signed up.
  

Now, if this was any other endeavor in the history of human kind; an objective view of the facts would call it a massive failure. The claims of the program sort of read like a Gene Chizik 2012 press conference...and then there's the reality of game day...ouch. If a CEO made Obama's claims and then delivered a financial performance like this; what do you think the shareholders would say? Of course, the guy would be gone tomorrow. No way to spin this any other way than it really is....a big steaming pile of s***...that is about to get even bigger and steamier when the employer mandate finally gets undelayed.

Now, will every business drop? No, of course not...but how many million will be dealt the same hand of the 6m? How many does it take for you to even call it a disaster? 1m? 10m? 20m? Come on, how many required to suffer the same fate as the 6m before you drop your fawning over the incompetent ass clown you elected?

[AFTiger 282]

True, but she clearly didn't know what was in it. Obama also promised to post the bill for five days for people to read it and know what was in it. It was rushed through and signed that day to avoid the 41st vote of newly elected Senator Scott Brown.

[TheBlueVue 177]

That is still 826,200 people who now have health insurance. It is a step.

So by your reasoning and this math; we kicked 6.3m off their plans and forced them to by more expensive; higher deductable plans...and all this is justified because we gave 800k insurance? And, we've just delayed doing that for the rest of the 90m families that are insured due to the various extra-legislative delays...so the same will happen to a large part of those 90m...and all this is justified because we gave 800k insurance? Really? That's your idea of a step? In any other endeavor in the history of humankind, this would be called a catastrophe. I would love to sell to you if this is the same logic and cost/benefit analysis you apply to your families purchase decisions.

We were on an unsustainable path. Doing nothing was not an option. I do not understand how you consider a step in the right direction a catastrophe.

Doing nothing is always an option...in fact, it is a fundamental concept in medicine; 1st do no harm. Screwing it up for 300m people to help 800k is fundamentally a catastrophe. This was avoidable.

"Do no harm" is not necessarily the same as doing nothing. A physician who does nothing while a patient bleeds to death is hardly practicing good medicine.

But in this case, you're analogy is irrelevant. The 300m weren't bleeding out.

The analogy is relevant. Just change it to "being sick" instead of "bleeding out", if that's what bothers you about it.

There were a lot of people uninsured which added to the per capita cost of our system. In other words, doing nothing was not the best course of action.

Of course, the problem has yet to be solved but it's a step, which is certainly not the same as doing nothing.

You've once again missed the real point. The 300m weren't sick. If my daughter is sick, I don't give my sons antibiotics. Obamacare's solution is to make the healthy sick so we can treat them with, what else, Obamacare.

Horrible and meaningless analogy.

Please point out the fallacy? We had 6m people with no insurance problem. Obamacare created a problem for them that then required them to apply for, you guessed it, Obamacare....all in the name of providing coverage for people who apparently didn't want it because they didn't sign up for it....or precisely speaking, that 800k did want; but that the other 32m allegedly uninsured didn't want. Where is this factually incorrect.

Fast forwarding to what is going to happen next; the same thing is ahead for the rest of us. This is why his worship moved out the deadline for the employer mandate. At the point that happens, the 300m fall in the same category as the 6m. Had this not been inevitable, he would never have moved the date...I mean come on, this program is great right! Shouldn't we want all 300m on it as soon as possible? But yeah, I can see how you could miss this pattern Homey.

The problem already existed prior to ACA. The uninsured drive up costs for the insured. There is already a socialistic aspect built into healthcare. We have to make an effort to control costs, open access, and better utilize resources.

ACA is not the catastrophe you have painted it to be. The potential catastrophe would be the result of doing nothing. Are you really proposing the idea that a steadily increasing number of Americans without health insurance is preferable to a steadily declining number of people without healthcare coverage?

Can you honestly assert that everyone will be affected by ACA next year? Will every employer dump their employees into the exchanges? All of them? The only person in this forum that I have seen accurately predict the future is ET. Your claim seems less prophetic. Your prediction seems more likely motivated by partisan rhetoric and histrionics.

Your first point; government doesn't have to take this on. Government is rarely the answer. Look at the Trillions$$ we've spent on poverty; not really effective.

ACA was supposed to lower costs, improve coverage, ensure the uninsured and "you can keep your doctor and your coverage". To date, it has done none of the above.

• Per capita costs continue to climb...per the president's own council of economic advisors, the CBO and thanks to fact-check.org...and per the CBO, the total costs for the ACA were going to come in double the orignal 10 year estimate...my, my...
  
• Not a single study or example that cites improved coverage; in fact, the weight of the data shows the opposite; higher premiums and higher deductibles
  
• 800k of the 40m now ensured...Wow...it's hard to imagine a bigger failure
  
• And lastly, the biggest Orwellian lie told in my lifetime; it even tops "I am not a crook". If you like your Dr., and your plan, you can keep it...unless of course, you can't...which happened to the majority of the new ACA customers...that's the only reason there are allegedly 7m signed up.
  

Now, if this was any other endeavor in the history of human kind; an objective view of the facts would call it a massive failure. The claims of the program sort of read like a Gene Chizik 2012 press conference...and then there's the reality of game day...ouch. If a CEO made Obama's claims and then delivered a financial performance like this; what do you think the shareholders would say? Of course, the guy would be gone tomorrow. No way to spin this any other way than it really is....a big steaming pile of s***...that is about to get even bigger and steamier when the employer mandate finally gets undelayed.

Now, will every business drop? No, of course not...but how many million will be dealt the same hand of the 6m? How many does it take for you to even call it a disaster? 1m? 10m? 20m? Come on, how many required to suffer the same fate as the 6m before you drop your fawning over the incompetent ass clown you elected?

Boom! Great post and painfully true. I have a hard time believing anyone can see this fiasco as a success given the degree of disruption to so many people's lives who didn't deserve it. All on the back of the lies that Obama told willfully.

[homersapien 11,382]

True, but she clearly didn't know what was in it. Obama also promised to post the bill for five days for people to read it and know what was in it. It was rushed through and signed that day to avoid the 41st vote of newly elected Senator Scott Brown.

Thanks for the clip. I will assume this is the one that originated the fuss. (I particularly liked that it was short).

Unfortunately, I am not getting the audio portion. I will try again later after re-booting. I was going to challenge your assumption that "clearly she didn't know what's in it" but I will delay that until I hear it.

But my initial reaction stands. I can easily imagine her saying what she did in the context of ongoing negotiations, complexity or what have you. But I will see if hearing it changes my mind.

But here's that bothers me: Why does the conservative echo chamber invariably leave out the "so you can know" part? It's always presented as if she said we have to pass it so I can find out what's in it. Completely different meaning.

But I think I know why they leave it out. They typically twist comments - or take them out of context - to say something not really said in order to spin it more negatively. The "you didn't build that" is a more classical example, but the tactic is the same.

I understand seeing the world through your own political lens, we all do that. It's part of being human. But when you start changing the quote - even if ever so slightly - or using it completely out of context while adding your own (false) interpretation, you are being deliberately deceptive.

Or to put it in the terms the right seems to prefer, LIAR LIAR PANTS ON FIRE!

[homersapien 11,382]

....a big steaming pile of s***...that is about to get even bigger and steamier when the employer mandate finally gets undelayed.

......before you drop your fawning over the incompetent ass clown you elected?

Boom! Great post and painfully true. I have a hard time believing anyone can see this fiasco as a success given the degree of disruption to so many people's lives who didn't deserve it. All on the back of the lies that Obama told willfully.

Well of course you liked it. I bet you were swayed by his eloquence, huh?

[TheBlueVue 177]

....a big steaming pile of s***...that is about to get even bigger and steamier when the employer mandate finally gets undelayed.

......before you drop your fawning over the incompetent ass clown you elected?

Boom! Great post and painfully true. I have a hard time believing anyone can see this fiasco as a success given the degree of disruption to so many people's lives who didn't deserve it. All on the back of the lies that Obama told willfully.

Well of course you liked it. I bet you were swayed by his eloquence, huh?

Nope but I was struck by his brutal honesty about which your Pres knows NOTHING. For some odd reason it just seems Obama prefers to lie. He's been awarded more Pinocchios than any politician I can remember. I would say his greatest achievement was winning the "highly coveted" lie of the year award and Im serious. What a guy! LOL

[homersapien 11,382]

....a big steaming pile of s***...that is about to get even bigger and steamier when the employer mandate finally gets undelayed.

......before you drop your fawning over the incompetent ass clown you elected?

Boom! Great post and painfully true. I have a hard time believing anyone can see this fiasco as a success given the degree of disruption to so many people's lives who didn't deserve it. All on the back of the lies that Obama told willfully.

Well of course you liked it. I bet you were swayed by his eloquence, huh?

Nope but I was struck by his brutal honesty about which your Pres knows NOTHING. For some odd reason it just seems Obama prefers to lie. He's been awarded more Pinocchios than any politician I can remember. I would say his greatest achievement was winning the "highly coveted" lie of the year award and Im serious. What a guy! LOL

All Presidents lie, so let's try for some context: What do you think is Obama's biggest and most significant lie? Let's compare it to the last POTUS's biggest fib to see how they stack up.