Moderator: Community Team
Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.
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?
PLAYER57832 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?
Do you ever think beyond the distorted sources you apparently consider as the only "truth"?
PLAYER57832 wrote:The information HAS been out there, but if , lik eyou, they only pay attention to the right wing rhetoric then, no, you won't find anything... THOSE folks, aka the folks you seem to listen to , don't want anyone to know what is in the healthcare reform act, because if people really paid attention, they might not be so opposed.
PLAYER57832 wrote:Other stuff you got wrong:
The claim that "Obama said everyone can keep their insurance" -- what he actually said was that there is nothing in the law preventing anyone who has insurance that meets basic criteria from keeping it.
The claim that "it won't cost more" -- he actually said that the overwhelming majority of people making less than 25O thousand will see no change. A few people, those getting what are now being called "cadillac policies" (those with NO copayments, few or no penalties for thingsl ike no show appointments, covering a lot of things most people might consider optional like elective plastic surgery-- NOT reconstructive surgery to correct abnormalities or injury, but things like "nose jobs", etc.). There was also a small group of tohers that were always identified as likely to wind up paying more, but getting into those details is apparently "too complicated" -- and too truthful.
I could go on, but you tend to ignore real criticisms of what you put forward as it is.
PLAYER57832 wrote:Oh, yeah... and along with all your criticisms, how about telling us how you would actually do things better? Because so far, nothing you have put forward really will work.
Night Strike wrote:PLAYER57832 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?
Do you ever think beyond the distorted sources you apparently consider as the only "truth"?
What did I distort in that post?
Night Strike wrote:I would make it harder to sue for medical malpractice so that dozens of unnecessary tests aren't performed.
Woodruff wrote:Night Strike wrote:PLAYER57832 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?
Do you ever think beyond the distorted sources you apparently consider as the only "truth"?
What did I distort in that post?
Just for starters? The claim that Obama intimated that a particular group of people was irrelevant.
Woodruff wrote:Night Strike wrote:I would make it harder to sue for medical malpractice so that dozens of unnecessary tests aren't performed.
That is an excellent idea. That way, doctor's won't have to worry about being competent or fucking up people's lives.
Does lawsuit reform need to happen? Certainly, though largely that problem lies in the area of judgements, NOT in the area of "can I sue".
Neoteny wrote:Who are the mooks that are just now seeing what's in it? It's been online for, like, three years.
AndyDufresne wrote:Phattscotty, I liked what your post said before you edited it:
"Right, like as if being online helps."
I think this topic is excellent example of such a notion!
--Andy
Phatscotty wrote:AndyDufresne wrote:Phattscotty, I liked what your post said before you edited it:
"Right, like as if being online helps."
I think this topic is excellent example of such a notion!
--Andy
...Then start reading Obamacare on page 1, let us know what you find out. It's online...so.....piece of cake!
Night Strike wrote:Woodruff wrote:Night Strike wrote:PLAYER57832 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?
Do you ever think beyond the distorted sources you apparently consider as the only "truth"?
What did I distort in that post?
Just for starters? The claim that Obama intimated that a particular group of people was irrelevant.
Well he implied that the problems were small and inconsequential to the overall law.
Night Strike wrote:Woodruff wrote:Night Strike wrote:I would make it harder to sue for medical malpractice so that dozens of unnecessary tests aren't performed.
That is an excellent idea. That way, doctor's won't have to worry about being competent or fucking up people's lives.
Does lawsuit reform need to happen? Certainly, though largely that problem lies in the area of judgements, NOT in the area of "can I sue".
Harder =/= impossible. Please learn the difference.
Night Strike wrote:Doctors that perform incorrect procedures or on the wrong side of the body should definitely be sued. Doctors who perform the 3 most useful tests instead of all 12 tests available should not be sued.
Phatscotty wrote:AndyDufresne wrote:Phattscotty, I liked what your post said before you edited it:
"Right, like as if being online helps."
I think this topic is excellent example of such a notion!
--Andy
...Then start reading Obamacare on page 1, let us know what you find out. It's online...so.....piece of cake!
Woodruff wrote:Phatscotty wrote:AndyDufresne wrote:Phattscotty, I liked what your post said before you edited it:
"Right, like as if being online helps."
I think this topic is excellent example of such a notion!
--Andy
...Then start reading Obamacare on page 1, let us know what you find out. It's online...so.....piece of cake!
I already have...actually, quite some time ago. You ignored it then too.
Phatscotty wrote:Woodruff wrote:Phatscotty wrote:AndyDufresne wrote:Phattscotty, I liked what your post said before you edited it:
"Right, like as if being online helps."
I think this topic is excellent example of such a notion!
--Andy
...Then start reading Obamacare on page 1, let us know what you find out. It's online...so.....piece of cake!
I already have...actually, quite some time ago. You ignored it then too.
What does it say?
Metsfanmax wrote:Phatscotty wrote:Woodruff wrote:Phatscotty wrote:AndyDufresne wrote:Phattscotty, I liked what your post said before you edited it:
"Right, like as if being online helps."
I think this topic is excellent example of such a notion!
--Andy
...Then start reading Obamacare on page 1, let us know what you find out. It's online...so.....piece of cake!
I already have...actually, quite some time ago. You ignored it then too.
What does it say?
Did you expect that a massive health insurance overhaul, affecting basically all three hundred million people in this country, would be short enough for you to read while on the toilet?
Phatscotty wrote:Woodruff wrote:Phatscotty wrote:AndyDufresne wrote:Phattscotty, I liked what your post said before you edited it:
"Right, like as if being online helps."
I think this topic is excellent example of such a notion!
--Andy
...Then start reading Obamacare on page 1, let us know what you find out. It's online...so.....piece of cake!
I already have...actually, quite some time ago. You ignored it then too.
What does it say? Do you have a good grasp of the new rules?
Woodruff wrote:Phatscotty wrote:Woodruff wrote:Phatscotty wrote:AndyDufresne wrote:Phattscotty, I liked what your post said before you edited it:
"Right, like as if being online helps."
I think this topic is excellent example of such a notion!
--Andy
...Then start reading Obamacare on page 1, let us know what you find out. It's online...so.....piece of cake!
I already have...actually, quite some time ago. You ignored it then too.
What does it say? Do you have a good grasp of the new rules?
You ignored it then, so I can't imagine you're actually seriously interested in my answer now. Perhaps when you start showing a little interest in discussion and conversation rather than simply getting your way, you'll find that people will stop treating you like a pariah.
Phatscotty wrote:Woodruff wrote:Phatscotty wrote:Woodruff wrote:Phatscotty wrote:AndyDufresne wrote:Phattscotty, I liked what your post said before you edited it:
"Right, like as if being online helps."
I think this topic is excellent example of such a notion!
--Andy
...Then start reading Obamacare on page 1, let us know what you find out. It's online...so.....piece of cake!
I already have...actually, quite some time ago. You ignored it then too.
What does it say? Do you have a good grasp of the new rules?
You ignored it then, so I can't imagine you're actually seriously interested in my answer now. Perhaps when you start showing a little interest in discussion and conversation rather than simply getting your way, you'll find that people will stop treating you like a pariah.
Thank you for your answer, and for entering this discussion, and now exiting.
Phatscotty wrote:How long did it take you to read the Obamacare bill, Woodruff?
Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.
Metsfanmax wrote:Phatscotty wrote:Woodruff wrote:Phatscotty wrote:AndyDufresne wrote:Phattscotty, I liked what your post said before you edited it:
"Right, like as if being online helps."
I think this topic is excellent example of such a notion!
--Andy
...Then start reading Obamacare on page 1, let us know what you find out. It's online...so.....piece of cake!
I already have...actually, quite some time ago. You ignored it then too.
What does it say?
Did you expect that a massive health insurance overhaul, affecting basically all three hundred million people in this country, would be short enough for you to read while on the toilet?
Metsfanmax wrote:Phatscotty wrote:Woodruff wrote:Phatscotty wrote:AndyDufresne wrote:Phattscotty, I liked what your post said before you edited it:
"Right, like as if being online helps."
I think this topic is excellent example of such a notion!
--Andy
...Then start reading Obamacare on page 1, let us know what you find out. It's online...so.....piece of cake!
I already have...actually, quite some time ago. You ignored it then too.
What does it say?
Did you expect that a massive health insurance overhaul, affecting basically all three hundred million people in this country, would be short enough for you to read while on the toilet?
Bruceswar » Tue Aug 28, 2012 8:59 pm wrote:We all had tons of men..
Jan Crawford touted how ObamaCare going into full effect in early 2014 is "causing all kinds of concern and anxiety, especially with...small business owners" on Friday's CBS This Morning. Crawford also pointed out Senator Max Baucus' April 17, 2013 "train wreck" label of the upcoming implementation of the health care law. This was the first time that a Big Three morning or evening newscast mentioned Baucus' blunt remark.
The correspondent zeroed in on a California bakery whose owner asserted that he "can't make any decisions, because the federal government is giving no guidance" with regard to ObamaCare.
Jan Crawford, CBS News Correspondent; Screen Cap From 3 May 2013 Edition of CBS This Morning, Norah O'Donnell previewed the journalist's report by underling how "President Obama's landmark health care law goes into full effect next year, but some small business owners are getting pretty nervous. Even some who backed the law are starting to ask questions." Crawford led the segment by spotlighting how "this new health care law, really, is just barreling down the tracks", and continued with her "concern and anxiety" line.
The CBS correspondent featured Hans Rockenwagner, whose bakery is "known throughout Los Angeles for its artisan breads". She outlined that the "looming provisions in the President's health care reform law have the small business owner worried about his company's future....Rockenwagner and other small business owners worry the cost to provide coverage could consume their profits. Rockenwagner says his annual cost would total around $300,000."
Later, Crawford noted how "President Obama downplayed the concerns this week" at his Tuesday news conference, and played a clip of the liberal politician acknowledging the "people who are nervous and anxious" about the health care law. But she quickly followed this with the Baucus "train wreck" sound bite, and continued with a third clip from a Democrat – Senator Harry Reid – who actually seconded Baucus.
It should be pointed out that NBC had an opportunity to report on the Montana senator's remark, due to correspondent Chuck Todd asking President Obama about it at the Tuesday news conference. But as the MRC's Kyle Drennen documented, the network chose instead to hit the chief executive from the left on the issue of the Guantanamo Bay detainee camp.
Towards the end of her report, the CBS journalist highlighted a recent poll from the left-leaning Kaiser Family Foundation that found that "42 percent of Americans don't even realize the President's health care law is on the books, and nearly six in ten of the uninsured don't understand how it will impact them."
Return to Out, out, brief candle!
Users browsing this forum: No registered users