mikem12 Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 you will not be allowed to keep your health insurance http://blog.heritage.org/2012/07/05/side-effects-obama-administration-admits-you-cant-keep-your-health-plan/ 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
napfirst Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 (edited) And yesterday while visiting this commonwealth he admitted that the "penalty" is in fact a tax....... .At Roanoke rally, Obama calls mandate a 'tax'.... .................................... .“By the way, if you’ve got health insurance, you’re not getting hit by a tax,” the president said during his Friday rally in Roanoke, his third Virginia campaign event of the day. “The only thing that’s happening to you is that you now have more security because insurance companies can’t drop you when you get sick.”... http://hamptonroads....lls-mandate-tax Edited July 14, 2012 by napfirst 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edstock Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 "obamao": seems to be gopperspew for Obama? Mikem12, you're not an elitist if you spell properly, honest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 (edited) "obamao": seems to be gopperspew for Obama? Mikem12, you're not an elitist if you spell properly, honest. And you need to throw around insults because of a typo? :rolleyes: Or was it an intentional play on names? Obam-Mao? Either way, the name calling is chlidish on your part. It would be like people referring to you as libtard. See? Not nice, is it? Edited July 16, 2012 by NickF1011 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Langston Hughes Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 This is clearly semantical doublespeak as you won't be forced from your plan but your plan will be required to make changes in order to meet Federal standards. This is nothing new and the Heritage foundation is binge duplicitous. Under both parties there are changes in the regulations of healthcare annually, most not even noticed by the average person. So the reality that plans may have to add some coverage or change their rules is not some earth shattering lie nor is it some vast conspiracy theory. There is an issue that is apparent to me concerning this topic. It's lacking in intellectual honesty to continually compare and attack Obama as a communist, Mao in particular, considering that pro-business conservatives have heavy dealings with communist nations such as China and Viet Nam and then funnel plenty of the money from such dealings into the RNC and it's candidates. One can not have a communism is bad for me and the US, but it is okay that we offer favored nation status and buy/sell all the cheap goods that those nations make despite the lack of freedoms attitude. It indicates a heavy dose of selective morals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 This is clearly semantical doublespeak as you won't be forced from your plan but your plan will be required to make changes in order to meet Federal standards. Well, the argument comes from whether or not your plan will still be at all affordable after making those changes. If it's not, chances are it'll cease to exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikem12 Posted July 16, 2012 Author Share Posted July 16, 2012 "obamao": seems to be gopperspew for Obama? Mikem12, you're not an elitist if you spell properly, honest. Ok I can cease to refer to him as that. "If" it goes both ways. So the Goppers, republicants etc have to go too. I am not a Republican, I am by definition a conservative Libertarian. Just so you know up front. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imawhosure Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 so now we aren't allowed to keep our health insurance either. Wasn't that one of his promises? Geeze, guess he can't talk with anything but a forked tongue. I am 1 of the 75% of the people who think Obama is a good person. I am also 1 of the large percentage of people who also thought that the good ole boy, Jimmy Carter was a nice guy too. Eventhough he was a nice guy, like most of the people, I didn't vote for ole Jimmy. Same thing is gonna happen this time around too, watch and see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cal50 Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 so now we aren't allowed to keep our health insurance either. Wasn't that one of his promises? Geeze, guess he can't talk with anything but a forked tongue. I am 1 of the 75% of the people who think Obama is a good person. I am also 1 of the large percentage of people who also thought that the good ole boy, Jimmy Carter was a nice guy too. Eventhough he was a nice guy, like most of the people, I didn't vote for ole Jimmy. Same thing is gonna happen this time around too, watch and see. I think Pelosi said "you have to pass the bill to see whats in it". That's similar to saying you have to step in dog crap to know its crap. You realize that there are still many people that would praise old Jimmy and Obama for a job well done. These are the same ones that constantly step in crap and never figure it out. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imawhosure Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 I think Pelosi said "you have to pass the bill to see whats in it". That's similar to saying you have to step in dog crap to know its crap. You realize that there are still many people that would praise old Jimmy and Obama for a job well done. These are the same ones that constantly step in crap and never figure it out. Yeah Cal, they may step in crap and never figure it out, but I bet you are just like me and can smell them coming from a mile away, lolololol! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Langston Hughes Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 (edited) Well, the argument comes from whether or not your plan will still be at all affordable after making those changes. If it's not, chances are it'll cease to exist. The context of keeping your plan was not whether it may or may not exist, but simply that you would not be told that you had to change plans. There will be things that come and go because of regulation, but that's not what Obama was discussing. Edited July 18, 2012 by Langston Hughes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 The context of keeping your plan was not whether it may or may not exist, but simply that you would not be told that you had to change plans. There will be things that come and go because of regulation, but that's not what Obama was discussing. It doesn't matter what he was discussing. The end result is what matters. And the end result is private plans may very well end up a thing of the past. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cal50 Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 It doesn't matter what he was discussing. The end result is what matters. And the end result is private plans may very well end up a thing of the past. I do not think Obama's direct intent was to eliminate private coverage but it will likely be a consequence. Spin the words but the end result is Obama is the one responsible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NLPRacing Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 By this time next year, President Romney should have Obamacare repealed and the GOP Health Care plan fully implemented, right? Anybody have a link to that GOP Health Care Plan? All I kind find is: A) Repeal Obamacare B) TBD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edstock Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 And you need to throw around insults because of a typo? :rolleyes: Insults? Let's see now . . . I said ""obamao": seems to be gopperspew for Obama? Mikem12, you're not an elitist if you spell properly, honest." I used "gopperspew". Is that an insult? Well, IMHO, no. "Gopperspew" is a nice easy-to-type description of the incoherent, slobbering anti-Obama rhetoric we are bombarded with. I went to Dictionary.com, and sorry, I don't think that fits the definition of "insult". Next, we have "elitist". Sorry, I don't think that's an insult, either. But it has been demonstrated that the people who delight in mis-spelling Obama, and engaging in aggressive gopperspew DO have an anti-intellectual attitude that displays itself in charges of "elitism". So, I guess you must be upset over "gopper". Well, it's just a contraction of "GOP Person" GOPPer, or gopper. It's way easier to type than "Republican" — try it on your own keyboard. So a legitimate contraction has you upset? It's a neutral word. The negative you see is the negative you add. And Lord knows, the goppers are so very good at supplying embarrassing negative reality. Really, what would William F. Buckley have to say about the current crop of goppers? The point is: It's OK to be a competent conservative; it's not OK to be an incompetent conservative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Versa-Tech Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 And you need to throw around insults because of a typo? :rolleyes: Or was it an intentional play on names? Obam-Mao? Either way, the name calling is chlidish on your part. It would be like people referring to you as libtard. See? Not nice, is it? I would actually prefer that he continues with the childish name calling and stereotypism. It shatters any doubt concerning the legitimacy of his opinions... Well, assuming that you don't look to third graders for political advice. :D 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron W. Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 (edited) . Well, assuming that you don't look to third graders for political advice. :D You could be wrong there, the third graders I've known realise you don't spend more than you have. :reading: Edited July 18, 2012 by Ron W. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Versa-Tech Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 (edited) By this time next year, President Romney should have Obamacare repealed and the GOP Health Care plan fully implemented, right? Anybody have a link to that GOP Health Care Plan? All I kind find is: A) Repeal Obamacare B) TBD You get the award for "Ignorant Post of the Week. Your prize? Irrefutable humiliation! :P http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/04/us/politics/republicans-examine-alternatives-to-obama-health-plan.html?pagewanted=all Excerpt: "Republicans are dusting off proposals that date back more than a decade: allowing individuals to buy health insurance across state lines, helping small businesses band together to buy insurance, offering generous tax deductions for the purchase of individual policies, expanding tax-favored health savings accounts and reining in medical malpractice suits." Edited July 18, 2012 by Versa-Tech Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NLPRacing Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 You get the award for "Ignorant Post of the Week. Your prize? Irrefutable humiliation! :P http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/04/us/politics/republicans-examine-alternatives-to-obama-health-plan.html?pagewanted=all Excerpt: "Republicans are dusting off proposals that date back more than a decade: allowing individuals to buy health insurance across state lines, helping small businesses band together to buy insurance, offering generous tax deductions for the purchase of individual policies, expanding tax-favored health savings accounts and reining in medical malpractice suits." Thanks, I never win anything! I wouldn't call "dusting off proposals that date back more than a decade" as a plan. Deregulation of interstate commerce, tax cuts, tax deferred savings accounts & tort reform is nothing new, it's the usual Republican talking points. If these proposals were so good, why didn't they pass into law as Health Care reform when the Republicans had full control of House, Senate & White House at times in the past 10 years? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Versa-Tech Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 (edited) Thanks, I never win anything! I wouldn't call "dusting off proposals that date back more than a decade" as a plan. Deregulation of interstate commerce, tax cuts, tax deferred savings accounts & tort reform is nothing new, it's the usual Republican talking points. If these proposals were so good, why didn't they pass into law as Health Care reform when the Republicans had full control of House, Senate & White House at times in the past 10 years? Let's just say that they are dusty old talking points for arguments sake. If these measures would lower costs, why didn't the democrats implement them into their plan? Answer: the [dirty] lobbyists who payed the [dirty] republican establishment off to keep tjese measures off the floor are the exact same [dirty] lobbyists who payed off the democrats to keep them out of the affordable care act; Lawyers, Big Pharma, and Big Hospitals. Why else would hospital and pharma stocks skyrocket when the supreme court announced their ruling? What is the number one profession of politicians? We should always remember the establishment scum that pull the strings in our government. Despite our political differences, I would trust just about any constituent on the other side of the isle over the establishment bureacrats on mine. Edited July 19, 2012 by Versa-Tech Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NLPRacing Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 Let's just say that they are dusty old talking points for arguments sake. If these measures would lower costs, why didn't the democrats implement them into their plan? Answer: th th? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Versa-Tech Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 (edited) th? sorry, the reply button sits right above the keyboard on my mobile app. I fixed it though. Edited July 19, 2012 by Versa-Tech Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Langston Hughes Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 It doesn't matter what he was discussing. The end result is what matters. And the end result is private plans may very well end up a thing of the past. Potential unintended consequences does not change context of what was said and why it was said? You could claim that he could have offered up the possibility but he was addressing a single particular concern not connected to rising costs and grandfathering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Langston Hughes Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 I would actually prefer that he continues with the childish name calling and stereotypism. It shatters any doubt concerning the legitimacy of his opinions... Well, assuming that you don't look to third graders for political advice. :D You are applying that standard equally in regards to Happy Gilmore correct? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 Insults? Let's see now . . . I said ""obamao": seems to be gopperspew for Obama? Mikem12, you're not an elitist if you spell properly, honest." I used "gopperspew". Is that an insult? Well, IMHO, no. "Gopperspew" is a nice easy-to-type description of the incoherent, slobbering anti-Obama rhetoric we are bombarded with. I went to Dictionary.com, and sorry, I don't think that fits the definition of "insult". Next, we have "elitist". Sorry, I don't think that's an insult, either. But it has been demonstrated that the people who delight in mis-spelling Obama, and engaging in aggressive gopperspew DO have an anti-intellectual attitude that displays itself in charges of "elitism". So, I guess you must be upset over "gopper". Well, it's just a contraction of "GOP Person" GOPPer, or gopper. It's way easier to type than "Republican" — try it on your own keyboard. So a legitimate contraction has you upset? It's a neutral word. The negative you see is the negative you add. And Lord knows, the goppers are so very good at supplying embarrassing negative reality. Really, what would William F. Buckley have to say about the current crop of goppers? The point is: It's OK to be a competent conservative; it's not OK to be an incompetent conservative. I see negativity from everybody on all of these repetitive stupid political threads. Enough "gopper" bullshit already. Thread closed. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts