Night Strike wrote: Woodruff wrote: Night Strike wrote: Woodruff wrote:
Night Strike wrote:This morning during his press conference, Obama claimed the number of Americans that are having problems with the implementation of Obamacare is very small.....approximately 10-15% of the country. Yet, the entire Obamacare law was passed specifically because of 10-15% of the country not having health insurance. So if the first group is irrelevant due to their size, why isn't the latter group?
Did Obama actually say they were irrelevant? I find that unlikely, but would be interested if it were true.
I added the "irrelevant" term since that's the implication when he says that the problems aren't very widespread. Even though by his own numbers they're nearly as much of the population as those who didn't have health insurance.
Saying that a thing is small in number is not at all the same as saying that a thing is irrelevant. You seem to be having a lot of definatory issues today, Night Strike.
Obamacare was passed based on a small number of people, based on Obama's own definition of small. Why did we have to pass a trillion dollar tax and spend package for that small number of people yet ignore the same amount of people who are having trouble with the law?
Because our government is run by a bunch of dirtbags who are only interested in lining their own pockets. Is this a revelation to you, Night Strike? There really are very few members of Congress that deserve much respect at all, though there are a few.
However, I don't in the least believe that Obamacare was passed "based on a small number of people".
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.