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

[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

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.

Ah, so 6 years later we're still blaming Geo Bush? LOL Or is it racism today? Im sure you got your shots in on Bush but the poor guy has been out of office long enough that by now yaboy Obama should be owning the job he's doing. Another liberal ploy. Kind of like most bamrs who claim everybody cheats so, in their marble sized brains that makes everything OK. I will say that Geo's "mis-statements" , as you progressives love call them, never won him the "highly coveted" liar of the year award!

[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.

Thanks for the clip. I will assume this is the one that originated the fuss. (I particularly liked 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. Turn your speakers on

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. I doubt it.

But here's what bothers me. Why does the conservative echo chamber always leave out the so "you can know" part? as in so one can know

Could be that she said it as in one can know. In politician speak she could have included herself as a part of the you.

I think I know. They are (typically) trying to twist it to say something she really didn't say just so it can be spun in a more negative light. The "you didn't build that" is probably a more classical example, but the tactic is the same.

If you took that hook, what is your favorite bait

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.

You are the one who parses, obfuscates and distorts.

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

It can go two ways. She knew what was in it and shoved this POS down the throats of the American people or she didn't know and she should not have been Speaker. Either way, It did not need to be passed to know what was in it. Pelosi only needed to follow regular order so you could know what in before it passed. It was "deemed to have passed" to avoid review and Senator Brown,

[homersapien 11,461]

....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.

Ah, so 6 years later we're still blaming Geo Bush? LOL Or is it racism today? Im sure you got your shots in on Bush but the poor guy has been out of office long enough that by now yaboy Obama should be owning the job he's doing. Another liberal ploy. Kind of like most bamrs who claim everybody cheats so, in their marble sized brains that makes everything OK. I will say that Geo's "mis-statements" , as you progressives love call them, never won him the "highly coveted" liar of the year award!

Blaming Bush for what?

And what is with the racism remark?

And when have I ever used racism in an inappropriate way?

Who bestows the "Liar of the Year Award"? Have a link? (But it's hardly surprising Obama if won it if based on the "keep your insurance" comment.)

[Elephant Tipper 430]

....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.

"You can keep you healthcare plan".....that'll cost at least a bazillion dollars.

Here, this will cover at least one week's worth of Obamacare:

Whatcha got in your back pocket homer ? Is that a blackjack ? or are you just turned backwards ?

[homersapien 11,461]

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 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. 1) Turn your speakers on

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. 2) I doubt it.

But here's what bothers me. Why does the conservative echo chamber always leave out the so "you can know" part? as in so one can know

3) Could be that she said it as in one can know. In politician speak she could have included herself as a part of the you.

I think I know. They are (typically) trying to twist it to say something she really didn't say just so it can be spun in a more negative light. The "you didn't build that" is probably a more classical example, but the tactic is the same.

4) If you took that hook, what is your favorite bait

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.

5) You are the one who parses, obfuscates and distorts.

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

It can go two ways. She knew what was in it and shoved this POS down the throats of the American people or she didn't know and she should not have been Speaker. Either way, It did not need to be passed to know what was in it. Pelosi only needed to follow regular order so you could know what in before it passed. It was "deemed to have passed" to avoid review and Senator Brown,

First,

1) My speakers are on. This happens from time to time for reasons I haven't figured out.

2) Why do you automatically doubt I could change my mind? Are you admitting in advance there's no reason for me to?

3) That sentence is not really clear to me.

4) Don't really understand what you mean by that sentence either. (..."take the hook"... )

5) Well, except for the parsing part, I obviously disagree. I think you are maybe considering my penchant to insist on precision and accuracy. (Parsing is a natural result of that.) I suppose we'll have to let other readers decide for themselves. (Assuming there are any. :-\ ) But I encourage you to please point out any possible obfuscation or distortion I am guilty of when it happens. I can assure you I will admit if you have a case. I am certainly not perfect.

Re the rest of your response, if those are the only two options - which in my opinion is simplistic - then I would vote for the second. But I can't really comment on her reasons for saying what she did without "parsing" the whole interview or speech or whatever it was. Do you have a link that provides the whole thing?"

[homersapien 11,461]

....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.

"You can keep you healthcare plan".....that'll cost at least a bazillion dollars.....

..... Whatcha got in your back pocket homer ? Is that a blackjack ? or are you just turned backwards ?

So presumably, you understand the gambit. Should we really compare Obama's lie to the one that started an unprovoked war? We don't even have to guess about the cost of that lie in lives and fortune. (How did that war turn out anyway? Have we won yet?)

(I sometimes carry my clip knife in my back pocket. Why are you looking at my rear end anyway? )

[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.

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?

Normally, I would agree with you about the role of the government. However, in this case, they did need to step in. You cannot wait until healthcare bankrupts most Americans, or the government, or both. There are too many other countries with superior outcomes at much lower costs.

Did you honestly believe ACA would achieve all of those goals instantaneously? That all sounds like a partisan excuse to score political points. It will take time and many refinements. Of course, that is common sense which, reinforces the argument that the bitching is based in politics, not practicality.

As far as being passed on the biggest lie of your lifetime, you must not have much of a memory. I understand the principle but, that really doesn't have much to do with whether or not it becomes a success or failure.

Republicans have no one to blame but themselves. They, with the help of some paid off Democrats, passed Medicare Part D with a no bargaining clause for the drug makers. They all sent Medicare into a death spiral. No Republicans since Richard Nixon have wanted to address the healthcare.

[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

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.

Ah, so 6 years later we're still blaming Geo Bush? LOL Or is it racism today? Im sure you got your shots in on Bush but the poor guy has been out of office long enough that by now yaboy Obama should be owning the job he's doing. Another liberal ploy. Kind of like most bamrs who claim everybody cheats so, in their marble sized brains that makes everything OK. I will say that Geo's "mis-statements" , as you progressives love call them, never won him the "highly coveted" liar of the year award!

Blaming Bush for what?

And what is with the racism remark?

And when have I ever used racism in an inappropriate way?

Who bestows the "Liar of the Year Award"? Have a link? (But it's hardly surprising Obama if won it if based on the "keep your insurance" comment.)

Many talking heads routinely posit that if you disagree with Obama its because you're a racist. Most all liberals use the same predictable BS and , for the most part, you're no different. I never said and frankly, did not mean to imply you've used racism inappropriately. I was making a point about the way Obama is defended and has never had to take responsibility for anything in his presidency. He's got the plausible deniability tap dance down to a fine art. He's always the "last one to find out" by what he read in the newspapers. I read it in the Washington Post, believe it or not, awarded that line of his the lie of the year. They're the ones who dole out the Pinocchios I think.

http://www.washingto...-year-to-obama/

[homersapien 11,461]

I'd like to hear what entity there is other than government to create - if not operate - a universal, national healthcare system?

Not that I am necessarily pushing for the government to do it, I just don't know of any other alternative.

[Elephant Tipper 430]

(I sometimes carry my clip knife in my back pocket. Why are you looking at my rear end anyway? )

Caught me !

Honestly, I don't think the Bush administration lied, HOWEVER, they pushed a war for all the wrong reasons by possibly/probably letting some overzealous intelligence people push the nuclear deterrent concept onto them (maybe they genuinely convinced themselves...who knows ?). It's kinda like a person wondering if he's "right" and then asking someone if he is "right" and when that person says "yes, sir, you're right", only then do I believe I'm right......when I'm actually wrong. They got (and especially our troops) got zapped for this, but I have a different view about going to war.

When a nation goes to war it should go with the purpose of making that enemy (nation) submit to our will, and do so quickly, and done so with overwhelming force. We held back in many instances in Iraq when we were capable of slamming the door shut, and then we spent $ 500 billion on top of it to "rebuild" their nation. That is a travesty. We've drawn ourselves into the modern version of the 100 years war and it has to stop. When we go to war, we go for the purpose of stopping it.

We should have then recouped our costs from Iraq's natural resources, ie, oil. We went to war with Iraq in '91 because of oil and we were keeping the no-fly zone to enforce Hussein from reaching out and touching his oil neighbors again. The idea of going to war over the oil dilemma is plausible to me but we equivocate our reasoning when the idea of killing people enters the discussion. These days we want to kill you by a thousand cuts for a decade so that we don't appear to be mean-spirited and we shrink at the idea of killing with brutal, massive force which would end the war and restore peace, quickly. To me, this is perplexing.

[Elephant Tipper 430]

I'd like to hear what entity there is other than government to create - if not operate - a universal, national healthcare system?

Not that I am necessarily pushing for the government to do it, I just don't know of any other alternative.

The entity is the free market place which allows the individual to decide what is appropriate for their needs so that they may pick and choose and then allow the market place adjust accordingly to meet those needs. Our current laws encumber this market place in many ways which actually drives up the cost of care.

This idea of "affordable healthcare" is untrue. Healthcare is expensive. It always has been, it always will be. And when our laws further complicate the issue, the costs are pushed higher. This has happened to me.

We are watching a train wreck in slow motion by the government's involvement that will eventually harm the quality of care because it will become limited to those who can afford it. In 2010, the estimate submitted to the CBO was $950 billion. By 2013, that figure tripled. IN 3 YEARS mind you. Where will it be in 20 ? We've stacked on $7 trillion onto our national debt since 2009. This has to stop and the best way to do that is to reform our healthcare laws and expand our marketplace.

[TheBlueVue 177]

"We went to war with iraq because of oil and we were keeping the no-fly zone to enforce Hussein from reachin out and touching his oil neighbors again."

I would not necessarily agree with that: Read this..the link is below. I agree with the author in saying the war with Iraq was about removing Sadam Hussein. Let ius not forget he had gassed 5 thousand kurds in the northern provinces of iraq...5 thousand!

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1779.htm

So why does the war for oil meme remain so popular with the Left? The Bush Derangement Syndrome, which also includes an almost pathological hatred for former Vice President Dick Cheney, remains alive and well. So does the Left’s irrational antipathy for “Big Oil,” a term that represents the archetypical symbol of corporate greed and evil. Throw in the fact that both Bush and Cheney were oilmen, and the trifecta hate-inducing symbolism is almost too much to resist.

http://www.frontpage...r-for-oil-myth/

[Elephant Tipper 430]

"We went to war with iraq because of oil and we were keeping the no-fly zone to enforce Hussein from reachin out and touching his oil neighbors again."

I would not necessarily agree with that: Read this..the link is below. I agree with the author in saying the war with Iraq was about removing Sadam Hussein. Let ius not forget he had gassed 5 thousand kurds in the northern provinces of iraq...5 thousand!

http://www.informati...article1779.htm

So why does the war for oil meme remain so popular with the Left? The Bush Derangement Syndrome, which also includes an almost pathological hatred for former Vice President Dick Cheney, remains alive and well. So does the Left’s irrational antipathy for “Big Oil,” a term that represents the archetypical symbol of corporate greed and evil. Throw in the fact that both Bush and Cheney were oilmen, and the trifecta hate-inducing symbolism is almost too much to resist.

http://www.frontpage...r-for-oil-myth/

Thanks for pointing that out BlueVue. Allow me to rephrase what I stated. I am okay with us going to war over oil, wherever, whenever......so long as America's needs are at stake. Iraq in '91 certainly fits that prerequisite for me.

[homersapien 11,461]

....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.

Ah, so 6 years later we're still blaming Geo Bush? LOL Or is it racism today? Im sure you got your shots in on Bush but the poor guy has been out of office long enough that by now yaboy Obama should be owning the job he's doing. Another liberal ploy. Kind of like most bamrs who claim everybody cheats so, in their marble sized brains that makes everything OK. I will say that Geo's "mis-statements" , as you progressives love call them, never won him the "highly coveted" liar of the year award!

Blaming Bush for what?

And what is with the racism remark?

And when have I ever used racism in an inappropriate way?

Who bestows the "Liar of the Year Award"? Have a link? (But it's hardly surprising Obama if won it if based on the "keep your insurance" comment.)

Many talking heads routinely posit that if you disagree with Obama its because you're a racist. Most all liberals use the same predictable BS and , for the most part, you're no different. I never said and frankly, did not mean to imply you've used racism inappropriately. I was making a point about the way Obama is defended and has never had to take responsibility for anything in his presidency. He's got the plausible deniability tap dance down to a fine art. He's always the "last one to find out" by what he read in the newspapers. I read it in the Washington Post, believe it or not, awarded that line of his the lie of the year. They're the ones who dole out the Pinocchios I think.

http://www.washingto...-year-to-obama/

Sorry. I misunderstood. I thought you were referring to me, not making a generalization. I think people have used racism - even if latent racism - as an excuse, but on the other hand I can see why they might think so. (There's a reason the Tea Party sprang up in 2008 and it ain't all due to policy.)

The part in red still bothers me though. You can't have it both ways by making a generalization then dodging the personal aspect of it by saying I am no different. So when you think I am guilty of this, PLEASE point it out when it occurs.

And believe it of not, I am not a big fan of Obama.

Most of the time I just play devil's advocate, responding to the outlandish comments of the Obamaphobes on this forum. There is a lot of foaming-at-the-mouth hatred expressed here. It sounds a lot like talk radio.

But unlike talk radio, we all the privilege of being able to respond in detail without some right wing jackass talk-show host pulling the switch on us.

After all, this site "belongs" to us liberals just as much as the right wingers. Heck if the liberals on this forum were as numerous and outlandishly outspoken as the right wingers, I'd probably be making conservative arguments.

[homersapien 11,461]

"We went to war with iraq because of oil and we were keeping the no-fly zone to enforce Hussein from reachin out and touching his oil neighbors again."

I would not necessarily agree with that: Read this..the link is below. I agree with the author in saying the war with Iraq was about removing Sadam Hussein. Let ius not forget he had gassed 5 thousand kurds in the northern provinces of iraq...5 thousand!

http://www.informati...article1779.htm

So why does the war for oil meme remain so popular with the Left? The Bush Derangement Syndrome, which also includes an almost pathological hatred for former Vice President Dick Cheney, remains alive and well. So does the Left’s irrational antipathy for “Big Oil,” a term that represents the archetypical symbol of corporate greed and evil. Throw in the fact that both Bush and Cheney were oilmen, and the trifecta hate-inducing symbolism is almost too much to resist.

http://www.frontpage...r-for-oil-myth/

Thanks for pointing that out BlueVue. Allow me to rephrase what I stated. I am okay with us going to war over oil, wherever, whenever......so long as America's needs are at stake. Iraq in '91 certainly fits that prerequisite for me.

Yeah, keep the world safe for SUVs. Even if it costs your nephew.

[homersapien 11,461]

I'd like to hear what entity there is other than government to create - if not operate - a universal, national healthcare system?

Not that I am necessarily pushing for the government to do it, I just don't know of any other alternative.

The entity is the free market place which allows the individual to decide what is appropriate for their needs so that they may pick and choose and then allow the market place adjust accordingly to meet those needs. Our current laws encumber this market place in many ways which actually drives up the cost of care.

This idea of "affordable healthcare" is untrue. Healthcare is expensive. It always has been, it always will be. And when our laws further complicate the issue, the costs are pushed higher. This has happened to me.

We are watching a train wreck in slow motion by the government's involvement that will eventually harm the quality of care because it will become limited to those who can afford it. In 2010, the estimate submitted to the CBO was $950 billion. By 2013, that figure tripled. IN 3 YEARS mind you. Where will it be in 20 ? We've stacked on $7 trillion onto our national debt since 2009. This has to stop and the best way to do that is to reform our healthcare laws and expand our marketplace.

Maybe I should have clarified my comment by additional stressing that I am referring to a universal healthcare insurance system - ie: one that ensures an appropriate minimum level of coverage for everyone.

I fail to see how - or more accurately, why - the free market would provide that.

[Elephant Tipper 430]

Maybe I should have clarified my comment by additional stressing that I am referring to a universal healthcare insurance system - ie: one that ensures an appropriate minimum level of coverage for everyone.

I fail to see how - or more accurately, why - the free market would provide that.

The free market system won't provide anything unless you pay for it. Many people had what they could afford but now are thrown into a new dilemma since by law they must have health care with requirements that exceed their needs.

This weekend I was speaking with a former employee of mine who is 48, single, has significant health problems that require insurance, her job is only 35 hours each week (she's skilled labor) and she cannot afford to purchase insurance. She doesn't qualify for a subsidy. Her employer let go two other employees and so she is the remaining one. She may lose her job because of the economy having slowed her line of work.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

War for oil?

The Kurds?

Remove Saddam?

Are you people on dope?

We went to war because they had weapons of mass destruction and ties to Al Queda. Both of which turned out to be lies. Thank you Dick Cheney.

[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?

Normally, I would agree with you about the role of the government. However, in this case, they did need to step in. You cannot wait until healthcare bankrupts most Americans, or the government, or both. There are too many other countries with superior outcomes at much lower costs.

Did you honestly believe ACA would achieve all of those goals instantaneously? That all sounds like a partisan excuse to score political points. It will take time and many refinements. Of course, that is common sense which, reinforces the argument that the bitching is based in politics, not practicality.

As far as being passed on the biggest lie of your lifetime, you must not have much of a memory. I understand the principle but, that really doesn't have much to do with whether or not it becomes a success or failure.

Republicans have no one to blame but themselves. They, with the help of some paid off Democrats, passed Medicare Part D with a no bargaining clause for the drug makers. They all sent Medicare into a death spiral. No Republicans since Richard Nixon have wanted to address the healthcare.

So from your response it sounds like you agree that the ACA is steaming pile of s***. You don't disagree with any point I made.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

I believe it is far too premature to call it a success or failure. Still a long way to go. To declare success or failure is just partisan rhetoric at this point.

[AFTiger 282]

no it is not too early

[homersapien 11,461]

(I sometimes carry my clip knife in my back pocket. Why are you looking at my rear end anyway? )

Caught me !

Honestly, I don't think the Bush administration lied, HOWEVER, they pushed a war for all the wrong reasons by possibly/probably letting some overzealous intelligence people push the nuclear deterrent concept onto them (maybe they genuinely convinced themselves...who knows ?). It's kinda like a person wondering if he's "right" and then asking someone if he is "right" and when that person says "yes, sir, you're right", only then do I believe I'm right......when I'm actually wrong. They got (and especially our troops) got zapped for this, but I have a different view about going to war.

When a nation goes to war it should go with the purpose of making that enemy (nation) submit to our will, and do so quickly, and done so with overwhelming force. We held back in many instances in Iraq when we were capable of slamming the door shut, and then we spent $ 500 billion on top of it to "rebuild" their nation. That is a travesty. We've drawn ourselves into the modern version of the 100 years war and it has to stop. When we go to war, we go for the purpose of stopping it.

We should have then recouped our costs from Iraq's natural resources, ie, oil. We went to war with Iraq in '91 because of oil and we were keeping the no-fly zone to enforce Hussein from reaching out and touching his oil neighbors again. The idea of going to war over the oil dilemma is plausible to me but we equivocate our reasoning when the idea of killing people enters the discussion. These days we want to kill you by a thousand cuts for a decade so that we don't appear to be mean-spirited and we shrink at the idea of killing with brutal, massive force which would end the war and restore peace, quickly. To me, this is perplexing.

I don't want to divert the thread to the Iraqi war. After all, this will undoubtedly be used against me, claiming I "changed the subject" to Bush and am therefore, blind to Obama's "sins"

But I will digress for one little rant with a "macro" take on the subject:

Start Rant:

I'll be honest, I was not initially all that opposed to it. I had misgivings, but in the final analysis, I sort of "fell in line" with a lot of others and just assumed there was something there. And - just like the Bush adm. - I looked past the war. I had no fear of any sort of military/political stalemate like Viet Nam. I thought I understood Middle East tribalism, but as it turned out I didn't really have a clue.

So after the initial euphoria ("Mission Accomplished!") things started going to hell because of the simple fact all our planning was for the war itself instead of what we do after we've won (which at least in hindsight was a forgone conclusion). The series of bonehead decisions made clearly indicated we had no idea of what to do and how to do it. This has all been well documented.

Plus, it cost $3 trillion, which we borrowed instead of financing with taxes. In fact, maybe that's the problem. We have become an empire with a (literally) professional army and then we use debt to keep everyone else from paying taxes. The blood burden is carried by a relatively small number of professionals. Otherwise, the cost to those who haven't sacrificed blood, is deferred to the future.

And this from a Republican administration folks.

Maybe it's time to re-institute the draft (I know, easy for me to say). And law stipulating tax increases upon any military action in some proportion to the debt being occurred to wage said war.

So I am not real receptive to the argument that "Obama is destroying the country with the ACA". It's certainly flawed but at least it put the issue in play, which had to be done. Compared to the Iraq War, it is rather trivial. At least we control our options regarding ACA, which is a hellava lot more than you can say about Iraq.

End Rant, and back to our regular programming....

[CircleDrill 178]

I believe it is far too premature to call it a success or failure. Still a long way to go. To declare success or failure is just partisan rhetoric at this point.

It's a disaster. Wait longer and it's going to be a worse disaster.

The reason waiting will only make it worse is because the ones forcing it on the people don't really even care if it works or not. They only care about getting re-elected. As long as they can keep talking about what they are "going to do," they don't have to do ANYTHING and people will keep voting for them. Pass a law then illegally change it 30+ times in order to postpone all the really bad stuff until after the next election. How can any adult with any sense whatsoever NOT see this??

[homersapien 11,461]

I believe it is far too premature to call it a success or failure. Still a long way to go. To declare success or failure is just partisan rhetoric at this point.

It's a disaster. Wait longer and it's going to be a worse disaster.

The reason waiting will only make it worse is because the ones forcing it on the people don't really even care if it works or not. They only care about getting re-elected. As long as they can keep talking about what they are "going to do," they don't have to do ANYTHING and people will keep voting for them. Pass a law then illegally change it 30+ times in order to postpone all the really bad stuff until after the next election. How can any adult with any sense whatsoever NOT see this??

How long did Social Security take to "roll out"?

[homersapien 11,461]

Maybe I should have clarified my comment by additional stressing that I am referring to a universal healthcare insurance system - ie: one that ensures an appropriate minimum level of coverage for everyone.

I fail to see how - or more accurately, why - the free market would provide that.

The free market system won't provide anything unless you pay for it. Many people had what they could afford but now are thrown into a new dilemma since by law they must have health care with requirements that exceed their needs.

That's exactly my point. The free market is not going to provide for everyone. Everyone includes those who can't afford insurance because they can't pay enough for an insurer to insure them. They don't want to undercut their own market. There is no market incentive for a for profit business to provide services to those who can't afford them.

Your second comment is a generalization. It may be true but it really just raises more questions regarding the actual facts. Exactly how many is "many"? Assuming these people lost their insurance for non-compliance with the ACA minimum standards, what was the typical policy terms? (I was once offered a hospitalization policy with a cap that might pay for two days in the hospital. And it wasn't cheap.) What are the other reasons they lost their insurance?

Personally, I'd really like to know these details. Generalized statements standing alone aren't worth much in terms of problem solving. Anecdotes are better, but they typically don't provide the quality or amount of information one needs truly understand the situation.