Most Americans Don't Want Obamacare Fully Repealed, Survey Finds

[Bethere]

Fascinating. Once again Americans show little interest in destroying obamacare.

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/obamacare-deadline/most-americans-don-t-want-obamacare-fully-repealed-survey-finds-n691126

Overall, 30 percent said the new president and Congress should expand what the law does, and 19 percent said it should be implemented as is. On the other side, 26 percent said the law should be entirely repealed and 17 percent called for it to be scaled back.

[Ethereal]

Most Americans have no clue what Obamacare actually is, as it contains thousands of pages of indecipherable legalese.

[stjames1_53]

Fascinating. Once again Americans show little interest in destroying obamacare.

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/obamacare-deadline/most-americans-don-t-want-obamacare-fully-repealed-survey-finds-n691126

Overall, 30 percent said the new president and Congress should expand what the law does, and 19 percent said it should be implemented as is. On the other side, 26 percent said the law should be entirely repealed and 17 percent called for it to be scaled back.

I knew you had zero math skills.
30% of any number is not "most", 26% is not "most", and 17% is not most
even if you numbers are considered "accurate" 30+19 is still less than half..............
now you know why you lose so many arguments. You can't add and rationalize the answer.................wadanoodge
The only people who want it are the deadbeats and illegals.
This is just another mouth-breathing article put out by mouth-breathing liberals from msm

[stjames1_53]

Most Americans have no clue what Obamacare actually is, as it contains thousands of pages of indecipherable legalese.

...but you have to pass it before you can what's in it.................

[FindersKeepers]

Fascinating. Once again Americans show little interest in destroying obamacare.

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/obamacare-deadline/most-americans-don-t-want-obamacare-fully-repealed-survey-finds-n691126

Overall, 30 percent said the new president and Congress should expand what the law does, and 19 percent said it should be implemented as is. On the other side, 26 percent said the law should be entirely repealed and 17 percent called for it to be scaled back.

As Stjames mentions -- we're not talking about "most" Americans.

However, it's already sinking. I haven't even heard or seen any national ads this year reminding folks to sign up on the exchanges -- just total silence. And, that started before the election. They've been giving up on it. Haven't you noticed? Not promoting it. Or, at least not promoting it to any great extent. It's over. Chelsea Clinton used to campaign for her mom, saying that only her mother could fix the broken program.

It was a sham from the get-go. Yes, it did offer care for some of the very poorest people, but it's in bed with Big Pharma and the insurers and the idea that it forced people who could not afford to buy premiums to pay a penalty was incredibly short-sighted.

It's going to take awhile to iron it all out, because citizens have been paying in their hard-earned cash -- but it's an incredibly bad plan and it was on its way out no matter what.

[FindersKeepers]

...but you have to pass it before you can what's in it.................

And the dems just reappointed the ignoramus that said that -- Pelosi -- to lead them once again. What is the matter with them? It's like the blind leading the blind.

[stjames1_53]

And the dems just reappointed the ignoramus that said that -- Pelosi -- to lead them once again. What is the matter with them? It's like the blind leading the blind.
as pitiful as she really is, it's all they got. That's like sending a three-legged dog into a sled race.

[Bethere]

I knew you had zero math skills.
30% of any number is not "most", 26% is not "most", and 17% is not most
even if you numbers are considered "accurate" 30+19 is still less than half..............
now you know why you lose so many arguments. You can't add and rationalize the answer.................wadanoodge
The only people who want it are the deadbeats and illegals.
This is just another mouth-breathing article put out by mouth-breathing liberals from msm

And 26 + 17 are WAAAAY less than half.

Fascinating, huh?

[stjames1_53]

And 26 + 17 are WAAAAY less than half.

Fascinating, huh?

still can't say it. 2+2 IS anything BUT 4, right?
nope. your liberal reasoning is shot dead in the azz. YOU claimed most, I merely pointed out that it wasn't most. (not even half)
I'd like to see those demographics, if you don't mind..........

[Crepitus]

The whole "obamacare is the most unpopular and hated legislation in history" was never more than a republican lie and talking point.

[DGUtley]

The whole "obamacare is the most unpopular and hated legislation in history" was never more than a republican lie and talking point.

I'm not sure I ever heard "most" attributed to obamacare, but it is disastrous. I guess that's what happens when you go it alone.

[Bethere]

still can't say it. 2+2 IS anything BUT 4, right?
nope. your liberal reasoning is shot dead in the azz. YOU claimed most, I merely pointed out that it wasn't most. (not even half)
I'd like to see those demographics, if you don't mind..........

Actually, I used the headline for the linked story. I claimed nothing, the author did.

But I did notice how insulting and confrontational you are.

With alt right spokespeople such as you, the gop is doomed.

[birddog]

Certain parts of obamacare will be maintained that the republicans tried to get before obamacare. Anyone denying that is either a liar or ignorant.

The good parts such as"age increases" for maintaining coverage under parents insurance, preexistent condition improvement, and crossing state lines for insurance will be maintained or in a new Bill, things the Rs wanted before obamacare. The dims would not do it, so have practically bankrupted the country since!

[stjames1_53]

Actually, I used the headline for the linked story. I claimed nothing, the author did.

But I did notice how insulting and confrontational you are.

With alt right spokespeople such as you, the gop is doomed.

so, you actually plagiarized the title....................and of course without verifying such an insane claim

[Crepitus]

I'm not sure I ever heard "most" attributed to obamacare, but it is disastrous. I guess that's what happens when you go it alone.

Tbere is no question that it would have been better with some cooperation instead of obstruction.

[Ethereal]

The majority of Americans did not want Obamacare in the first place. But that didn't stop Democrats from exploiting an anomalous window in the election cycle in order to ram it down our collective throats. So if the Republicans return the favor by abolishing it completely, Democrats won't have any room to complain.

In any case, nearly 70% of Americans want the individual mandate, the centerpiece of Obamacare, abolished.



Poll: Most want Supreme Court to overturn individual health care mandate (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-most-want-supreme-court-to-overturn-individual-health-care-mandate/)

http://cbsnews2.cbsistatic.com/hub/i/r/2012/06/07/a019f412-a644-11e2-a3f0-029118418759/resize/620x/323367ae2794e65702bdf088643bf18c/chart_scotus_health_120607.gif


Botched ACA Rollout Hammers Obama; Job Disapproval Reaches a Career High (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/11/botched-aca-rollout-hammers-obama-job-disapproval-reaches-a-career-high/)

...And the mandate's still widely unpopular in any case; 65 percent of Americans oppose it - a majority of them, strongly.

Abolishing the absurd tyranny of the individual mandate should be one of the Republicans' top priorities.

[Bethere]

so, you actually plagiarized the title....................and of course without verifying such an insane claim

No, I gave a link as required by fair use doctrine and the rules of this forum.

Your needlessly insulting confrontationalism are once again noted.

[Bethere]

Certain parts of obamacare will be maintained that the republicans tried to get before obamacare. Anyone denying that is either a liar or ignorant.The good parts such as"age increases" for maintaining coverage under parents insurance, preexistent condition improvement, and crossing state lines for insurance will be maintained or in a new Bill, things the Rs wanted before obamacare. The dims would not do it, so have practically bankrupted the country since!I think it is hilarious that states rights advocates like you, would wipe away state regulations on the healthcare industry in favor of national standards just because rush Limbaugh and the insurance industry told you to.You are very easy to exploit. The crossing state lines bit is just one of many good examples.

[Ethereal]

I think it is hilarious that states rights advocates like you, would wipe away state regulations on the healthcare industry in favor of national standards just because rush Limbaugh and the insurance industry told you to.You are very easy to exploit. The crossing state lines bit is just one of many good examples.
This is actually one area where the states ceded their "right" to regulate interstate commerce. Constitutionally speaking, then, interstate barriers to trade are legally dubious at best.

That was, after all, the entire point of the interstate commerce clause, i.e., to create a national free trade zone.

Of course, authoritarians of both stripes, left and right, have interpreted this clause to mean something entirely different, so that will need to be rectified in some way.

[Ethereal]

That said, I would not be surprised if the Republicans left Obamacare almost entirely in tact, to include the onerous individual mandate.

It's a form of social and economic control and the real powers behind the government, the corporate billionaires, favor any policy that tends to expand their influence over the people.

The only way this will change is if Trump can use the power of the presidency to put immense pressure on Congressional Republicans such that they have no choice but to cave.

But I highly doubt he will do that judging by all the corporate elites Trump has been surrounding himself with since he won.

[Captain Obvious]

That said, I would not be surprised if the Republicans left Obamacare almost entirely in tact, to include the onerous individual mandate.

It's a form of social and economic control and the real powers behind the government, the corporate billionaires, favor any policy that tends to expand their influence over the people.

The only way this will change is if Trump can use the power of the presidency to put immense pressure on Congressional Republicans such that they have no choice but to cave.

But I highly doubt he will do that judging by all the corporate elites Trump has been surrounding himself with since he won.

I've said this in part for a while now, O'bamacare is basically a tax on the middle class.

It's not getting repealed but it can get fixed. Even Rodham made the statement during the second debate that she would "fix O'bamacare" which is basically admitting that it's broken - and it is. Individual costs (premiums, out of pocket costs) are skyrocketing. The ACA promised lower costs and that scheme really meant lowering utilization through increased deductibles. That's not cost control, that's reducing coverage, healthcare costs continue to increase at over double the cost of living index.

I don't think anyone wants to eliminate the pre-existing condition clause or the "keep your kid on your plan until he's 26" clause but that gets a lot of press coverage because the average person doesn't understand the ACA beyond that.

What they can do is make the expanded Medicaid programs up to the individual state - which was there when the ACA kicked off and a small handful of states said "fuck you, feds" and refused. Now that federal funds for expanded Medicaid programs are over states are scrambling to find a way to pay for this program but that was part of the design of the ACA, making states dependent on federal funding.

Stop all that nonsense, release the states from this federal slavery, let them go back to designing their own Medicaid programs and offer limited federal funding for just that.

[stjames1_53]

Tbere is no question that it would have been better with some cooperation instead of obstruction.
Gruber said it was designed to fail...........................no co-operation would have saved it

[pjohns]

There are, indeed, a few elements of ObamaCare that are popular--the ability to keep a dependent child on the policy, until age 26; and the non-ability of insurance companies to refuse coverage, based upon pre-existing conditions, being foremost among these.

But president-elect Trump has spoken well of these; and some who appear apoplectic about the impending repeal of ObamaCare seem to forget the replace part of repeal and replace.

It is certainly possible to repeal ObamaCare, and yet replace it with something that contains the more popular elements of it--plus the ability to sell healthcare insurance across state lines, among other things.

[decedent]

Most Americans have no clue what Obamacare actually is, as it contains thousands of pages of indecipherable legalese.

Yes, most Americans think it's a socialist program. In fact, it's a program where people buy regulated packages in a market from private insurers.

[Tahuyaman]

Most people want it to be voluntary. They want the mandate and tax... Uh... Penalty gone.

[Cletus]

There are, indeed, a few elements of ObamaCare that are popular--the ability to keep a dependent child on the policy, until age 26; and the non-ability of insurance companies to refuse coverage, based upon pre-existing conditions, being foremost among these.

Those two reasons alone justify repealing that terrible and unconstitutional law.

[Ethereal]

Yes, most Americans think it's a socialist program. In fact, it's a program where people buy regulated packages in a market from private insurers.
Whatever it is, it's garbage and it needs to be radically reformed if not outright abolished. They should start with the wildly unpopular individual mandate, which nearly 70% of Americans oppose.

[Amadeus]

Trump should keep the good parts, and scrap the bad parts. Shame on Obama for implementing those bad parts! Bad Obama!

[Amadeus]

Most people want it to be voluntary. They want the mandate and tax... Uh... Penalty gone.
You can't pay for the good parts of Obamacare (the stuff that Trump wants to keep) without the federal mandate.

[Tahuyaman]

You can't pay for the good parts of Obamacare (the stuff that Trump wants to keep) without the federal mandate.


Then it should be eliminated.

[Amadeus]

Then it should be eliminated.
Do it! Take away everyone's healthcare, and pay the political price. Force people into choosing between their food/shelter and their cancer.

[decedent]

Whatever it is, it's garbage and it needs to be radically reformed if not outright abolished. They should start with the wildly unpopular individual mandate, which nearly 70% of Americans oppose.

Why is it 'garbage' and how does it need to be reformed? If you're taking about single-payer or universal healthcare, I agree. But that's even more socialist and I don't think Americans are ready for that even though it's working very well in Nordic countries, Canada, Australia, etc., and even though Trump supports universal healthcare.



Do it! Take away everyone's healthcare, and pay the political price. Force people into choosing between their food/shelter and their cancer.

They think that the people's hatred of Obama/Obamacare is so strong that they're willing to give up their healthcare for it.

[Valishin]

Do it! Take away everyone's healthcare, and pay the political price. Force people into choosing between their food/shelter and their cancer.

Who said anything about healthcare? Obamacare is about insurance.

That point by the way, gets to the original flaw of Obamacare the attempt to tackle insurance instead of healthcare. What Obamacare should have been was a program to get free clinics paid for by tax payers in place across the country. Providing free basic services but lets face it as is the case with other free stuff people want the lines would be longer and for more expensive stuff you have to go to the private system. In addition couple that with a program to help those who are truly destitute get help with the expensive stuff on medicaid. The only caveat that should have been placed on insurance was that they couldn't exclude those basic services from their plans. Thus making the private system the more desirable option for basic services for those with insurance plans and not letting insurance off load those services. That might have actually done some good and been a legacy of which they could proud. Of course the right would have still hated it but they would have had a heck of a time trying to attack it.

Note, I am not saying that I would have supported such a plan but if the objective was to make a basic level of healthcare universally available then that would have been the smart way for the Democrats to do so. Now if the objective was something else... but basic level of healthcare was the standard upon which the idea was sold.

[nic34]

I knew you had zero math skills.
30% of any number is not "most", 26% is not "most", and 17% is not most
even if you numbers are considered "accurate" 30+19 is still less than half..............
now you know why you lose so many arguments. You can't add and rationalize the answer.................wadanoodge
The only people who want it are the deadbeats and illegals.
This is just another mouth-breathing article put out by mouth-breathing liberals from msm


Bullshit.... from another ignorant rightie. Some of those folks you call deadbeats are hard working and are sick/injured, out of work or between jobs. You DO know that does happen don't you? Some of those people never had insurance before the ACA because the wealthy insurance companies wouldn't insure them.

When you want to badmouth your fellow less fortunate citizens at least know what the dam fuck you are talking about.

Maybe get behind a real solution like single payer or just stay out of discussions concerning other peoples health.

[Tahuyaman]

Do it! Take away everyone's healthcare, and pay the political price. Force people into choosing between their food/shelter and their cancer.


Right. No one will ever have health care again without the ACA. Everyone will have to choose between starving to death or dying of cancer.

This is why you left wing types are losing ground.

[stjames1_53]

Bull$#@!.... from another ignorant rightie. Some of those folks you call deadbeats are hard working and are sick/injured, out of work or between jobs. You DO know that does happen don't you? Some of those people never had insurance before the ACA because the wealthy insurance companies wouldn't insure them.

When you want to badmouth your fellow less fortunate citizens at least know what the dam $#@! you are talking about.

Maybe get behind a real solution like single payer or just stay out of discussions concerning other peoples health.

buggar off, chum. Other peoples health is none of my concern. I had insurance before all this BS happened and it was affordable.
As of 3 months ago, I was without, because my premiums had gone up from $129 to $500+ a month. Less coverage, but I was forced to pay for yours because you are too damned lazy to go get your own. If they couldn't afford it before, with all the premium increases, WTF makes you think they can afford it now? oh, I get it......you want the taxpayers to carry the cost of yet another socialist program. Like all of the socialist programs, it failed.
And like a good little socialist, you want us to keep pumping water into a sinking ship

[Ethereal]

Why is it 'garbage' and how does it need to be reformed? If you're taking about single-payer or universal healthcare, I agree. But that's even more socialist and I don't think Americans are ready for that even though it's working very well in Nordic countries, Canada, Australia, etc., and even though Trump supports universal healthcare.

Because it's a tax- and regulation-laden monstrosity that the country didn't want.

Forcing Americans to buy health insurance and penalizing them if they don't is a pretty authoritarian and disgraceful way of providing them with healthcare.

It would have been far easier and simpler to simply expand the coverage of programs like Medicaid.

Eliminate the individual mandate and figure something else out. Americans don't want to be bossed around and taxed anymore than they already are.

[decedent]

Because it's a tax- and regulation-laden monstrosity that the country didn't want.


Obama's biggest issue in '08 was healthcare reform. The people wanted it. They voted him in. They got it.


Forcing Americans to buy health insurance and penalizing them if they don't is a pretty authoritarian and disgraceful way of providing them with healthcare.


Preventative medicine is cheaper. If the ACA is eliminated, hospitals will be filled and the taxpayer will get the bill. As of now, most people using the ACA pay for their own policies, and it a decent plan costs them an average of $69/month.


Libertarians don't get this, but it's perfectly reasonable for a society to cover the very basic needs of the people. The results, seen in many countries, speak for themselves -- with happy, healthy, educated, wealthy people.



It would have been far easier and simpler to simply expand the coverage of programs like Medicaid.


Some states elected to get the medicaid expansion, which hurt the ACA. If they had participated in the ACA, the costs for ACA participants would have gone down even more.



Eliminate the individual mandate and figure something else out. Americans don't want to be bossed around and taxed anymore than they already are.

What do you think will happen if millions of people suddenly find themselves uninsured?


Before the ACA, many people found themselves suddenly without insurance due to preexisting conditions. We've all heard the horror stories of people getting cut off after years of paying for a private plan -- cut off for ridiculous reasons.

[Amadeus]

Right. No one will ever have health care again without the ACA.
Well, people were going bankrupt when face with a terminal illness because the health insurance industry cut them off or refused them because of preconditions. What do you say to those people? Go die in the street?

[Amadeus]

It would have been far easier and simpler to simply expand the coverage of programs like Medicaid.

That's socialism!

[Tahuyaman]

Liberals truly believe in the nanny state. They believe the purpose of government is to provide your basic human needs and wants.

Fortunately, more and more people are rejecting that philosophy.

[Tahuyaman]

Well, people were going bankrupt when face with a terminal illness because the health insurance industry cut them off or refused them because of preconditions. What do you say to those people? Go die in the street?


People weren't dying in the streets prior to the ACA. Everything about the ACA is a lie. It was based upon lies and it didn't solve any of the issues surrounding the costs and availability of health care in the US.

Why continue to maintain the failure? Just to make the hand-wringing left feel better about themselves? Give them the opportunity to say "at least we tried"? Never mind that the effort resulted in a dismal failure.

[Amadeus]

People weren't dying in the streets prior to the ACA. Everything about the ACA is a lie. It was based upon lies and it didn't solve any of the issues surrounding the costs and availability of health care in the US.
Why continue to maintain the failure? Just to make the hand-wringing left feel better about themselves? Give them the opportunity to say "at least we tried"? Never mind that the effort resulted in a dismal failure.
I like how you completely ignored the question. People weren't 'dying in the streets', but they were being forced into bankruptcy or forced to go without life-saving care because of a lack of coverage. You either want to return to those days, or you want to keep the good stuff and not pay for it. Obamacare sucks because it is a middle-of-the-road REPUBLICAN idea, not because it was too far to the left. Socialized healthcare would have been far more cost-effective.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/06/05/bankruptcy.medical.bills/


They concluded that 62.1 percent of the bankruptcies were medically related because the individuals either had more than $5,000 (or 10 percent of their pretax income) in medical bills, mortgaged their home to pay for medical bills, or lost significant income due to an illness. On average, medically bankrupt families had $17,943 in out-of-pocket expenses, including $26,971 for those who lacked insurance and $17,749 who had insurance at some point.
Overall, three-quarters of the people with a medically-related bankruptcy had health insurance (http://www.cnn.com/topics/Health_Care_Costs), they say.


"That was actually the predominant problem in patients in our study -- 78 percent of them had health insurance, but many of them were bankrupted anyway because there were gaps in their coverage like co-payments and deductibles and uncovered services," says Woolhandler. "Other people had private insurance but got so sick that they lost their job and lost their insurance."

[Valishin]

Are you under the impression that one human has a right to a service provided by another human even if it is life saving?

For ease of understanding, any service that requires the assistance of another human being to perform is a privilege not a right. You have rights from being prevented to take an action and to the outcome of said action; you have privilage to the benefits of someone else's actions but the later requires an agreement between the parties.

[pjohns]

The simple fact is that there are three objectives for healthcare insurance--not one, or even two, but three (count them)--and they militate against each other.

One is universal coverage.

Another is low price.

And the third is quality healthcare.

If one prefers universal coverage, coupled with quality healthcare,
then premiums are going to rise astronomically. (And if the government provides UHC through a single-payer system, those "premiums"--a.k.a. our tax dollars--will have to be raised substantially, in order to cover the cost.)

If one prefers low price, coupled with universal coverage, then
the quality of healthcare is certain to suffer.

And if one wishes for quality healthcare, coupled with a low price,
one simply cannot have universal coverage.

To desire all three, simultaneously, sounds very nice.

But it is a circle that simply cannot be squared...

[stjames1_53]

Obama's biggest issue in '08 was healthcare reform. The people wanted it. They voted him in. They got it.




Preventative medicine is cheaper. If the ACA is eliminated, hospitals will be filled and the taxpayer will get the bill. As of now, most people using the ACA pay for their own policies, and it a decent plan costs them an average of $69/month.


Libertarians don't get this, but it's perfectly reasonable for a society to cover the very basic needs of the people. The results, seen in many countries, speak for themselves -- with happy, healthy, educated, wealthy people.





Some states elected to get the medicaid expansion, which hurt the ACA. If they had participated in the ACA, the costs for ACA participants would have gone down even more.




What do you think will happen if millions of people suddenly find themselves uninsured?


Before the ACA, many people found themselves suddenly without insurance due to preexisting conditions. We've all heard the horror stories of people getting cut off after years of paying for a private plan -- cut off for ridiculous reasons.


Preventative medicine is cheaper. If the ACA is eliminated, hospitals will be filled and the taxpayer will get the bill. As of now, most people using the ACA pay for their own policies, and it a decent plan costs them an average of $69/month.
That's a damned lie!!!!!!

“Last year, many who liked their plan were surprised to learn they couldn’t keep it,” said Senator Orrin G. Hatch of Utah, who is in line to become chairman of the Senate Finance Committee. “This year, many who like their plan will likely have to pay more to keep it.”
Advertisement

Continue reading the main story (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/15/us/politics/cost-of-coverage-under-affordable-care-act-to-increase-in-2015.html?_r=0#story-continues-1)
The new data means that many of the seven million people who have bought insurance through federal and state exchanges will have to change to different health plans if they want to avoid paying more — an inconvenience for consumers just becoming accustomed to their coverage


A 40-year-old in Nashville, with the cheapest midlevel, or silver plan, will pay $220 a month next year, compared to $181 a month this year, for the same plan.
The least expensive plan is offered by another insurer, Community Health Alliance, one of the so-called co-op plans created under the federal law. It offers coverage for a monthly premium of $194.
But the lower premium means that consumers will have to pay a much larger annual deductible, $4,000, rather than $2,000. A policyholder who becomes seriously ill or has a costly chronic condition could pay hundreds of dollars

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/15/us/politics/cost-of-coverage-under-affordable-care-act-to-increase-in-2015.html?_r=0

IF they're only paying $69 /mo. Someone else is paying the rest. And according to this report, if you get a serious disease or illness, your deductible is $4000. How many poor people, who purchase the cheapest insurance, going to pay for this?
If you are poor and have this government's version of taxation, you are SOL, anyway.
The only people who are applauding this, ain't paying for it to begin with.

[stjames1_53]

People weren't dying in the streets prior to the ACA. Everything about the ACA is a lie. It was based upon lies and it didn't solve any of the issues surrounding the costs and availability of health care in the US.

Why continue to maintain the failure? Just to make the hand-wringing left feel better about themselves? Give them the opportunity to say "at least we tried"? Never mind that the effort resulted in a dismal failure.

he doesn't pay for his own health insurance...............either we do or his mommy and daddy do

[stjames1_53]

Liberals truly believe in the nanny state. They believe the purpose of government is to provide your basic human needs and wants.

Fortunately, more and more people are rejecting that philosophy.

"I'm from the government, and I'm here to help......." RUN!!!!

[decedent]

That's a damned lie!!!!!!


Too much caffeine today? Anger issues? Cough due to cold?


Like I said, the average person with silver plan (the most common type) pays $69/month or less.

Here's one source: Millions of Americans are paying less for Obamacare than cable
(http://www.vox.com/2014/6/18/5818386/heres-how-much-people-are-paying-for-obamacare)
Here's another source: 'Silver' Obamacare lining: $69 monthly premiums
(http://www.cnbc.com/2014/06/17/silver-obamacare-lining-69-monthly-premiums.html)



http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/15/us/politics/cost-of-coverage-under-affordable-care-act-to-increase-in-2015.html?_r=0

IF they're only paying $69 /mo. Someone else is paying the rest. And according to this report, if you get a serious disease or illness, your deductible is $4000. How many poor people, who purchase the cheapest insurance, going to pay for this?
If you are poor and have this government's version of taxation, you are SOL, anyway.
The only people who are applauding this, ain't paying for it to begin with.

To put it simply, if you can't afford a private plan, you can buy an ACA package. If you can't afford an ACA package, you can get subsidies. If you still can't afford it, you can get medicaid.

The funding for subsidies comes from many sources, including hospital savings, reduced medicare, and those making over $250K





Liberals truly believe in the nanny state. They believe the purpose of government is to provide your basic human needs and wants.


No really. We just don't like seeing people suffer. We realized that charity doesn't work because selfish people don't pull their own weight. Taxation and government programs are the only real solution to healthcare.

[Ethereal]

That's socialism!
True, but it's a better form of socialism than Obamacare.

[Amadeus]

True, but it's a better form of socialism than Obamacare.
Much better, since Obamacare has nothing to do with socialism, and was based on ideas from a conservative think tank.

[Chris]

Much better, since Obamacare has nothing to do with socialism, and was based on ideas from a conservative think tank.

Actually, that it was based on a conservative think tank's suggestions is false. They advocated insurance for everyone with a mandate to each individual to go out and purchase it, not unlike liability insurance for driving a car. The idea was, iirc, that the increase in customers would drive prices down.

[Amadeus]

Actually, that it was based on a conservative think tank's suggestions is false. They advocated insurance for everyone with a mandate to each individual to go out and purchase it, not unlike liability insurance for driving a car. The idea was, iirc, that the increase in customers would drive prices down.
So Obamacare was or wasn't based on the individual mandate, and it was or wasn't a conservative idea from the 1990s (championed by people like Gingrich well into the 2000s)? Because you say I'm wrong, then go on to say that I'm right. Which is it?

[Chris]

So Obamacare was or wasn't based on the individual mandate, and it was or wasn't a conservative idea from the 1990s (championed by people like Gingrich well into the 2000s)? Because you say I'm wrong, then go on to say that I'm right. Which is it?

Does Obamacare is crony capitalism at its finest, a few select insurance companies write their own ticket to new customers and subsidies. And oh so many other dissimilarities. You're wrong, you merely repeat an oft repeated story of the left.

[Amadeus]

Does Obamacare is crony capitalism at its finest, a few select insurance companies write their own ticket to new customers and subsidies. And oh so many other dissimilarities. You're wrong, you merely repeat an oft repeated story of the left.
You are speaking about the implementation, not the genesis of Obamacare. You don't like the implementation, neither do I. But it was absolutely based on the conservative healthcare plan from the 1990s. It's not anything remotely close to socialism. It's a market-oriented alternative to socialized medicine. The Heritage Foundation never would have included the 'good parts' of Obamacare, only the mandate.

So you didn't refute me, you only included the red herring of crony capitalism. Whether that's true or not is utterly irrelevant.

[Valishin]

You are speaking about the implementation, not the genesis of Obamacare. You don't like the implementation, neither do I. But it was absolutely based on the conservative healthcare plan from the 1990s. It's not anything remotely close to socialism. It's a market-oriented alternative to socialized medicine. The Heritage Foundation never would have included the 'good parts' of Obamacare, only the mandate.
So you didn't refute me, you only included the red herring of crony capitalism. Whether that's true or not is utterly irrelevant.

If you are using the power of government to engineer society through the forced redistribution of goods, services, or wealth to achieve a collective goal that is by definition socialism. It may be based on the most noble intention but call it what it is. It is certainly not full blown drank the kool-aid socialism but that program fits the definition.

[stjames1_53]

Too much caffeine today? Anger issues? Cough due to cold?


Like I said, the average person with silver plan (the most common type) pays $69/month or less.

Here's one source: Millions of Americans are paying less for Obamacare than cable
(http://www.vox.com/2014/6/18/5818386/heres-how-much-people-are-paying-for-obamacare)
Here's another source: 'Silver' Obamacare lining: $69 monthly premiums
(http://www.cnbc.com/2014/06/17/silver-obamacare-lining-69-monthly-premiums.html)



To put it simply, if you can't afford a private plan, you can buy an ACA package. If you can't afford an ACA package, you can get subsidies. If you still can't afford it, you can get medicaid.

The funding for subsidies comes from many sources, including hospital savings, reduced medicare, and those making over $250K






No really. We just don't like seeing people suffer. We realized that charity doesn't work because selfish people don't pull their own weight. Taxation and government programs are the only real solution to healthcare.

you can't add or subtract. There are no plans available for 69/mo. unless you are subsidized by ME........
It is NOT my responsibility to pay someone else's way. that's the first plank of communism. There are more people without insurance today than when Obama took office. Exchanges are shutting down all across America.
People are earning less today than 8 years ago. The velocity of cash has slowed to a crawl. All of those premiums are going up next year just like last year.
There is NO plan, that will insure (work) for anyone. Those beautiful plans you tout are fucking worthless when really needed. $4,000 co-pay drives them away from hospitals, and that's a fact. If you have ACA, you can't use it at 20% their cost and yours is 80% for office calls (eyecare is not offered) Dental is a separate rider. so ACA is nothing but a sham.
If you like your doctor...
if you like your plan...
what other country jails its citizens for NOT having insurance?
so tell us again, if you couldn't afford insurance before, how can you afford the $4000 deductible, much less the premiums?
Gruber is right. Only an idiot believes ACA is insurance.

[stjames1_53]

If you are using the power of government to engineer society through the forced redistribution of goods, services, or wealth to achieve a collective goal that is by definition socialism. It may be based on the most noble intention but call it what it is. It is certainly not full blown drank the kool-aid socialism but that program fits the definition.
if they really feel this works, socialism, then why aren't they down in Venezuela. Hell, they're not even paying attention.....

[Bethere]

you can't add or subtract. There are no plans available for 69/mo. unless you are subsidized by ME........
It is NOT my responsibility to pay someone else's way. that's the first plank of communism. There are more people without insurance today than when Obama took office. Exchanges are shutting down all across America.
People are earning less today than 8 years ago. The velocity of cash has slowed to a crawl. All of those premiums are going up next year just like last year.
There is NO plan, that will insure (work) for anyone. Those beautiful plans you tout are $#@!ing worthless when really needed. $4,000 co-pay drives them away from hospitals, and that's a fact. If you have ACA, you can't use it at 20% their cost and yours is 80% for office calls (eyecare is not offered) Dental is a separate rider. so ACA is nothing but a sham.
If you like your doctor...
if you like your plan...
what other country jails its citizens for NOT having insurance?
so tell us again, if you couldn't afford insurance before, how can you afford the $4000 deductible, much less the premiums?
Gruber is right. Only an idiot believes ACA is insurance.

Who has the time to refute the myriad inaccuracies you submit in your tortured posting?

You must be kidding!

[Bethere]

So Obamacare was or wasn't based on the individual mandate, and it was or wasn't a conservative idea from the 1990s (championed by people like Gingrich well into the 2000s)? Because you say I'm wrong, then go on to say that I'm right. Which is it?

You are right. Our free market friends are scared to death by actual competition.

Never shake with Smith's invisible hand. Who knows where it has been?

[Chris]

You are speaking about the implementation, not the genesis of Obamacare. You don't like the implementation, neither do I. But it was absolutely based on the conservative healthcare plan from the 1990s. It's not anything remotely close to socialism. It's a market-oriented alternative to socialized medicine. The Heritage Foundation never would have included the 'good parts' of Obamacare, only the mandate.

So you didn't refute me, you only included the red herring of crony capitalism. Whether that's true or not is utterly irrelevant.

I already explained the difference between the conservative think tank proposal and the liberal one. No point in going in circles.

Refute you? You would have to do more than state an opinion.

[Chris]

You are right. Our free market friends are scared to death by actual competition.

Never shake with Smith's invisible hand. Who knows where it has been?



Scared? Can you rise above emotions? The rest is gibberish.

[Bethere]

Scared? Can you rise above emotions? The rest is gibberish.

Scared. I picked the right word.

Our free market heroes would outlaw banding together to negotiate drug prices (as they do with medicare), and they would resist requirements to advertise prices for their services (as they do with the exchanges).

Calling my post gibberish isn't exactly a full faith effort to encourage debate, is it?

[Chris]

Scared. I picked the right word.

Our free market heroes would outlaw banding together to negotiate drug prices (as they do with medicare), and they would resist requirements to advertise prices for their services (as they do with the exchanges).

Calling my post gibberish isn't exactly a full faith effort to encourage debate, is it?


Yes, you picked the right word for your view of things. That's fine. But the projection is rejected.

I'm trying to encourage you to post things that are not pure nonsense. "Never shake with Smith's invisible hand. Who knows where it has been?" is pure nonsense. You don't have to, your choice, but neither do I need to response to nonsense.

[Bethere]

Yes, you picked the right word for your view of things. That's fine. But the projection is rejected.

I'm trying to encourage you to post things that are not pure nonsense. "Never shake with Smith's invisible hand. Who knows where it has been?" is pure nonsense. You don't have to, your choice, but neither do I need to response to nonsense.

lol.

[Chris]

lol.


https://s15.postimg.org/lunlcnei3/user_17069_2_P72_KPRQ.gif

[del]

^

not responding to nonsense

[Chris]

^

not responding to nonsense

[Bethere]

^

not responding to nonsense

^

Projection rejected.

[Bethere]

Fascinating. Once again Americans show little interest in destroying obamacare.

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/obamacare-deadline/most-americans-don-t-want-obamacare-fully-repealed-survey-finds-n691126

Overall, 30 percent said the new president and Congress should expand what the law does, and 19 percent said it should be implemented as is. On the other side, 26 percent said the law should be entirely repealed and 17 percent called for it to be scaled back.

We return you to our regularly scheduled program.

[birddog]

Again, there are a few things in Obamacare that are good, and the republicans tried to get those made into law to improve insurance coverage before Obamacare was passed, but the dims would not do it. Now we have the failing Obamacare that has less good coverage and greatly higher costs. Obama and Pelosi are idiots!

Obamacare will be repealed and a better coverage program will automatically replace it with the good parts in it.

[stjames1_53]

Again, there are a few things in Obamacare that are good, and the republicans tried to get those made into law to improve insurance coverage before Obamacare was passed, but the dims would not do it. Now we have the failing Obamacare that has less good coverage and greatly higher costs. Obama and Pelosi are idiots!

Obamacare will be repealed and a better coverage program will automatically replace it with the good parts in it.
I'd bet he's already got his people on it....

[Amadeus]

I already explained the difference between the conservative think tank proposal and the liberal one. No point in going in circles.

You called Obamacare 'crony capitalism'. If that's the case, you actually agree that it's far removed from socialism. And if so, why did you jump on my post and not the posts which called Obamacare far-left socialism? You pick your battles poorly.

[Subdermal]

You called Obamacare 'crony capitalism'. If that's the case, you actually agree that it's far removed from socialism. And if so, why did you jump on my post and not the posts which called Obamacare far-left socialism? You pick your battles poorly.

:facepalm:

You do not think that Socialistic systems breed Cronyism? Why do they have to be mutually exclusive?

[Amadeus]

:facepalm:
You do not think that Socialistic systems breed Cronyism? Why do they have to be mutually exclusive?
They're not mutually exclusive, but giving major benefit to corporations has been part of the Republican doctrine for decades. Are they socialist? I've always said that Obama is a very pro-corporate president, just like the Clintons and most Republicans.

Certainly what Trump is doing is socialism, if we're using the same definition equally.

[pjohns]

Certainly what Trump is doing is socialism, if we're using the same definition equally.
Sadly, a rather serious case can be made that any interference in the free market--such as Donald Trump has been doing with Carrier--has something in common with socialism. (It is one of the few points with which I disagree with the president-elect: I am a free-trade advocate, whereas Mr. Trump evidently believes in "fair trade" (a.k.a. protectionism).

Protectionism helps a relative handful of people (specifically, those directly affected--plus, of course, their immediate families); whereas free trade help all Americans, by keeping retail prices lower.

That said, Donald Trump is surely not a socialist. A populist, no doubt; but not a doctrinaire socialist.

And he was the vastly superior candidate, when compared with Hillary Clinton, in my opinion...

[Amadeus]

And he was the vastly superior candidate, when compared with Hillary Clinton, in my opinion...
Your post was pretty good. Except for this last part. Hillary was a terrible candidate, but the notion that Trump was superior... I can't find any justification for the claim. He made one or two good points, but you had to sift through a pile of feces to get to them.

[Chris]

Actually, that it was based on a conservative think tank's suggestions is false. They advocated insurance for everyone with a mandate to each individual to go out and purchase it, not unlike liability insurance for driving a car. The idea was, iirc, that the increase in customers would drive prices down.


You called Obamacare 'crony capitalism'. If that's the case, you actually agree that it's far removed from socialism. And if so, why did you jump on my post and not the posts which called Obamacare far-left socialism? You pick your battles poorly.


I did call it that but I also pointed out the main difference between the conservative and the liberal approaches. You can choose to ignore that, but it still stands.

Socialism is overused is why. People just mean socialized. And, yes, you can do that under capitalism. The socialists conceded the economic calculation problem in the 90s and shifted toward milking capitalism. As Reich put it not too long ago: The Answer Isn’t Socialism; It’s Capitalism that Better Spreads the Benefits of the Productivity Revolution (http://robertreich.org/post/22542609387).

[Chris]

Sadly, a rather serious case can be made that any interference in the free market--such as Donald Trump has been doing with Carrier--has something in common with socialism. (It is one of the few points with which I disagree with the president-elect: I am a free-trade advocate, whereas Mr. Trump evidently believes in "fair trade" (a.k.a. protectionism).

Protectionism helps a relative handful of people (specifically, those directly affected--plus, of course, their immediate families); whereas free trade help all Americans, by keeping retail prices lower.

That said, Donald Trump is surely not a socialist. A populist, no doubt; but not a doctrinaire socialist.

And he was the vastly superior candidate, when compared with Hillary Clinton, in my opinion...


A progressive is what I'd call him.

[Tahuyaman]

Fascinating. Once again Americans show little interest in destroying obamacare.

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/obamacare-deadline/most-americans-don-t-want-obamacare-fully-repealed-survey-finds-n691126

Overall, 30 percent said the new president and Congress should expand what the law does, and 19 percent said it should be implemented as is. On the other side, 26 percent said the law should be entirely repealed and 17 percent called for it to be scaled back.


I could conduct a survey which results in everyone wanting a complete repeal of the ACA.

CNN, NBC and Politifact have recently been exposed as the top three purveyors of fake news. Every thing they report need to be viewed as being fraudulent or fake.

[Amadeus]

CNN, NBC and Politifact have recently been exposed as the top three purveyors of fake news. Every thing they report need to be viewed as being fraudulent or fake.
Where do you get your news? Name three sources.

[Tahuyaman]

I could conduct a survey which results in everyone wanting a complete repeal of the ACA.

CNN, NBC and Politifact have recently been exposed as the top three purveyors of fake news. Every thing they report need to be viewed as being fraudulent or fake.


Where do you get your news? Name three sources.

Do you disagree with anything I sated there, or are you just trying to deflect?

[Amadeus]

Do you disagree with anything I sated there, or are you just trying to deflect?
Yes, I disagree that these are purveyors of 'fake news'. Now answer my question, if you dare. You put yourself out there as the arbiter of what qualifies as fake news. Now you have the responsibility of listing legit news sites.

[Tahuyaman]

I read several news magazines. National Review, The Economist and The American Spectator. I listen to several TV news shows from a wide variety of viewpoints. Fox, Bloomberg and even RTTV.

ABC, CBS & NBC are clones of each other. All three broadcast the exact same stories with the exact same anaysis of those stories.

You are one of the "sheeple" they rely on.

[Chris]

I get all my news from The Political Forums!!

[Amadeus]

I read several news magazines. National Review, The Economist and The American Spectator.

LOL @ The American Spectator -- a magazine that endorses and publicizes Jeffrey Lord, a notorious liar and distorter of history. And Ben Stein, a guy who thinks Darwinism is responsible for the Nazis.


I listen to several TV news shows from a wide variety of viewpoints. Fox, Bloomberg and even RTTV.

Isn't RTTV a state-sponsored, pro-Putin news network?

[Tahuyaman]

LOL @ The American Spectator -- a magazine that endorses and publicizes Jeffrey Lord, a notorious liar and distorter of history. And Ben Stein, a guy who thinks Darwinism is responsible for the Nazis.


Isn't RTTV a state-sponsored, pro-Putin news network?

RTTV is a Russian network. Unlike you, I like to see what others think.

The American Spectator is an awesome magazine as is National Review. Ben Stein is brilliant. That's probably why you don't like him.

You are one of these guys who needs 100% agreement. You only respect preaching to the choir. You are nothing but a hack. A complete partisan hack who has no ability to absorb information and form your own views.

[Amadeus]

RTTV is a Russian network. Unlike you, I like to see what others think.

But how can you crap on CNN or NBC for being 'fake' when you get your news from a network that has Putin's fingerprints on it?

http://www.spectator.co.uk/2014/12/the-truth-about-russia-today-is-that-it-is-putins-mouthpiece/

*whistles*

[Tahuyaman]

But how can you crap on CNN or NBC for being 'fake' when you get your news from a network that has Putin's fingerprints on it?

http://www.spectator.co.uk/2014/12/the-truth-about-russia-today-is-that-it-is-putins-mouthpiece/

*whistles*


Hacks like you you are becoming more irrelevant. Anything outside your limited bubble is to be ignored. People like you have no understanding of the world around you. If you suspect that you may disagree with something, you block it out.

People like me want to know what others are thinking. We want to see how others view current events. That's how you develop an understanding of those with whom you may disagree.

You live in an echo chamber. You have absolutely no intellectual curiosity. That's why you never learn anything.

[Amadeus]

Hacks like you you are becoming more irrelevant. Anything outside your limited bubble is to be ignored. People like you have no understanding of the world around you. If you suspect that you may disagree with something, you block it out.
People like me want to know what others are thinking. We want to see how others view current events. That's how you develop an understanding of those with whom you may disagree.
You live in an echo chamber. You have absolutely no intellectual curiosity. That's why you never learn anything.

Project much?

[Tahuyaman]

Project much?


Brilliant! When you get stuck, deflect......

[Amadeus]

Brilliant! When you get stuck, deflect......
What did I get stuck on? Your ad hominem tirade against me that was utterly without merit or provocation?

[Tahuyaman]

What did I get stuck on? Your ad hominem tirade against me that was utterly without merit or provocation?


You were correctly identified as a partisan hack who only respects the echo chamber effect. If that was inaccurate, you could have formed a rebuttal.

[Amadeus]

You were correctly identified as a partisan hack who only respects the echo chamber effect. If that was inaccurate, you could have formed a rebuttal.
I don't argue opinion-based insults. That may be your game, it's not mine. I think what's more telling is your hypocrisy regarding 'fake news'. You trust Putin-sponsored news. That's all I need to know.

[nic34]

Again, there are a few things in Obamacare that are good, and the republicans tried to get those made into law to improve insurance coverage before Obamacare was passed, but the dims would not do it. Now we have the failing Obamacare that has less good coverage and greatly higher costs. Obama and Pelosi are idiots!

Obamacare will be repealed and a better coverage program will automatically replace it with the good parts in it.


Bwahahahahah, you guys are in charge now, go ahead and replace away. See if YOU ALL can do it for less cost. I can't wait.

Go ahead now.....Drumpf, put your TOP people on it.

Good luck with your voters :laugh:

lol

[stjames1_53]

What did I get stuck on? Your ad hominem tirade against me that was utterly without merit or provocation?
all attacks against you are merited

[pjohns]

Your post was pretty good. Except for this last part. Hillary was a terrible candidate, but the notion that Trump was superior... I can't find any justification for the claim. He made one or two good points, but you had to sift through a pile of feces to get to them.

First, I want to thank you for the kind words.

As for which candidate was superior, that, no doubt, is a matter of subjectivity--not pure objectivity. (Hillary--to whatever extend she has any core beliefs; basically, she is just an opportunist, who was looking to further Clinton Incorporated--is center-left, whereas Donald Trump, on most issues, leans center-right. And I am center-right.)

Precisely because of this, I would look with considerable apprehension upon Hillary Clinton's Supreme Court picks, had she been elected; yet I am comforted by Donald Trump's likely picks.

Moreover, I think that Hillary Clinton would have been likely to further the cause of Political Correctness; whereas Donald Trump--to his everlasting credit, in my view--takes a finger-in-the-eye approach to PC doctrine.

Does this make sense to you?

[Amadeus]

First, I want to thank you for the kind words.

Most welcome.

Moreover, I think that Hillary Clinton would have been likely to further the cause of Political Correctness; whereas Donald Trump--to his everlasting credit, in my view--takes a finger-in-the-eye approach to PC doctrine.
Why is political correctness a bad thing? What is 'terrible' about not going out of your way to offend people? I don't get it.

[Bethere]

Most welcome.

Why is political correctness a bad thing? What is 'terrible' about not going out of your way to offend people? I don't get it.
Surely you understand why they hate "political correctness". You just don't want to admit it to yourself.

The answer to your question is the largest fundamental truth in American political science and religion.

Riddle me this, Batman: Why would "all attacks against you" be justifiable?


all attacks against you are merited

That question has the same answer the first question did.

[resister]

Most welcome.

Why is political correctness a bad thing? What is 'terrible' about not going out of your way to offend people? I don't get it.

FUCK PC and the feelings of little snowflakes,Say what ya mean, and mean what ya say:cry:

[Amadeus]

$#@! PC and the feelings of little snowflakes,Say what ya mean, and mean what ya say:cry:
And yet if Obama says something about guns and religion, or race, you blow your gasket rather than engaging in a debate. You are a hypocrite, and are just as sensitive as the most snowflake leftist.

[stjames1_53]

And yet if Obama says something about guns and religion, or race, you blow your gasket rather than engaging in a debate. You are a hypocrite, and are just as sensitive as the most snowflake leftist.
there is no debate with you about our 2nd A. You've already made your mind up, there.
Everyone except you is a racist. You've already made your mind up there, again.
so, you're not here to debate a damned thing

[Amadeus]

there is no debate with you about our 2nd A. You've already made your mind up, there.
Everyone except you is a racist. You've already made your mind up there, again.
so, you're not here to debate a damned thing

All of your points are wrong.

[stjames1_53]

All of your points are wrong.

nope. They're spot on.....

[Amadeus]

nope. They're spot on.....

You say they are, but you are ascribing traits to me which are untrue. I am a better judge of what I am than you are.

[stjames1_53]

You say they are, but you are ascribing traits to me which are untrue. I am a better judge of what I am than you are.
you are anti-gun. Period. Your posts in here (the forum) indicate you desire us to be unarmed, or require us to go through hoops to get a blessing to own....reducing the 2nd A Right to a government controlled privilege

[Amadeus]

you are anti-gun. Period. Your posts in here (the forum) indicate you desire us to be unarmed, or require us to go through hoops to get a blessing to own....reducing the 2nd A Right to a government controlled privilege
I have said very little about guns, but since you ask, I think domestic abusers and people with a criminal record shouldn't have easy-access to guns. That's about as 'anti-gun' as I get. Let me ask you, do you support stop and frisk?

[stjames1_53]

I have said very little about guns, but since you ask, I think domestic abusers and people with a criminal record shouldn't have easy-access to guns. That's about as 'anti-gun' as I get. Let me ask you, do you support stop and frisk?
nope. That should require a warrant, imo

[Amadeus]

nope. That should require a warrant, imo
I'll give you credit, then. Many conservatives are pro-Stop and Frisk, which is basically a way of saying, "No, minorities, you cannot exercise the Second Amendment like white people."

Trump's nation-wide proposal of S&F would be a crack down on the constitutional rights of minorities.

[stjames1_53]

there are no minority rights, there are only Individual Rights.

[FindersKeepers]

I'll give you credit, then. Many conservatives are pro-Stop and Frisk, which is basically a way of saying, "No, minorities, you cannot exercise the Second Amendment like white people."

Trump's nation-wide proposal of S&F would be a crack down on the constitutional rights of minorities.

Would officers only be allowed to S&F minorities? Couldn't they also S&F whites? Just out of high school, my daughter and her boyfriend were hauling limbs and tree debris from a neighborhood cleanup project to the dump and were pulled over. Maybe the officer thought her boyfriend looked like a druggie -- he had long-blonde surfer hair, and they were both dressed in their old clothes. The officer pulled them over, frisked them and searched the truck. Then he sent them on their way. No harm. No foul. They felt slightly insulted, but neither mentioned a loss of their rights.

Now, my daughter works in law enforcement so she might have a different outlook.

[stjames1_53]

Would officers only be allowed to S&F minorities? Couldn't they also S&F whites? Just out of high school, my daughter and her boyfriend were hauling limbs and tree debris from a neighborhood cleanup project to the dump and were pulled over. Maybe the officer thought her boyfriend looked like a druggie -- he had long-blonde surfer hair, and they were both dressed in their old clothes. The officer pulled them over, frisked them and searched the truck. Then he sent them on their way. No harm. No foul. They felt slightly insulted, but neither mentioned a loss of their rights.

Now, my daughter works in law enforcement so she might have a different outlook.

the only time I have seen S&F without warrant was under martial law in the PI years ago.
The Constitution only allows for searches via the 4th A is with a warrant. Probable cause is just an excuse that gets abused by the law. Can we say roadside seizures?

[Amadeus]

Would officers only be allowed to S&F minorities? Couldn't they also S&F whites? Just out of high school, my daughter and her boyfriend were hauling limbs and tree debris from a neighborhood cleanup project to the dump and were pulled over. Maybe the officer thought her boyfriend looked like a druggie -- he had long-blonde surfer hair, and they were both dressed in their old clothes. The officer pulled them over, frisked them and searched the truck. Then he sent them on their way. No harm. No foul. They felt slightly insulted, but neither mentioned a loss of their rights.


You're allowed to look like a druggie in a free society, and you're allowed to carry a gun under Constitution. Stop and Frisk targets minorities almost exclusively. Second Amendment proponents should be diametrically opposed to Stop and Frisk.

[Chris]

Would officers only be allowed to S&F minorities? Couldn't they also S&F whites? Just out of high school, my daughter and her boyfriend were hauling limbs and tree debris from a neighborhood cleanup project to the dump and were pulled over. Maybe the officer thought her boyfriend looked like a druggie -- he had long-blonde surfer hair, and they were both dressed in their old clothes. The officer pulled them over, frisked them and searched the truck. Then he sent them on their way. No harm. No foul. They felt slightly insulted, but neither mentioned a loss of their rights.

Now, my daughter works in law enforcement so she might have a different outlook.


S&F targets those with a statistical probability of committing crime. You can't target everyone because of limited resources. So it's a matter of efficiency, That it ends up targeting certain groups is something the left will decry rather than asking why.

[Subdermal]

You're allowed to look like a druggie in a free society, and you're allowed to carry a gun under Constitution. Stop and Frisk targets minorities almost exclusively. Second Amendment proponents should be diametrically opposed to Stop and Frisk.
There is no avoiding the fact that Stop and Frisk drops crime rates. It did in New York: ~13% nearly instantly, as I recall.

You want policies like this to be politically correct, but you're going to have to reconcile your feelyism with the fact that there is no equal distribution of crime amongst races, and all you're doing is removing latitude in law enforcement to exercise their judgement and intuition.

Stop and Frisk isn't executed without instinctive reason, and it results in nothing more than temporary inconvenience for law-abiding citizens.

I'll be against S&F the moment that our Second Amendment rights are no longer honored, and it simply becomes a tool used to disarm us. That is not its purpose now.

[pjohns]

Why is political correctness a bad thing? What is 'terrible' about not going out of your way to offend people? I don't get it.
I agree that it is a very good thing to not offend others.

But I do think many people have become much too thin-skinned lately; consequently, we have to be exceedingly careful about just how we phrase things.

For instance, I am one-eighth American Indian (Creek, to be exact).

Yet the Politically Correct way to say that is "Native American."

Why?

I am not at all offended by the older terminology...

[Amadeus]

I agree that it is a very good thing to not offend others.
But I do think many people have become much too thin-skinned lately; consequently, we have to be exceedingly careful about just how we phrase things.
For instance, I am one-eighth American Indian (Creek, to be exact).
Yet the Politically Correct way to say that is "Native American."

Why?

I am not at all offended by the older terminology...

I appreciate that we can discuss this stuff like adults. It's a rare thing.

Regarding Indians, the reason I personally choose to call them something else is because Indian is a misnomer, and was a result of a navigational blunder by Chris Columbo. Do I get bent out of shape over it? No, but it's something I avoid as a personal choice. In Canada, it's common to see 'Red Indian' oil cans and stuff like that, and they are seen as collectibles, not a source of controversy. Generally, I avoid the issue but try to see both sides.

I do agree that people can be too thin-skinned. Which is why I think Trump, probably the most thin-skinned person on the planet, is a poor champion to strike against political correctness.

[pjohns]

Regarding Indians, the reason I personally choose to call them something else is because Indian is a misnomer, and was a result of a navigational blunder by Chris Columbo. Do I get bent out of shape over it? No, but it's something I avoid as a personal choice. In Canada, it's common to see 'Red Indian' oil cans and stuff like that, and they are seen as collectibles, not a source of controversy. Generally, I avoid the issue but try to see both sides.
You are certainly correct about the genesis of the matter being a mistake by Christopher Columbus. Just how that could be argued otherwise, I have no idea.

But I am merely pointing out that some people get their (oh, so delicate!) feelings injured too easily. At least, too easily for my taste.

I have noted previously that soon, children will be playing Cowboys and Native Americans; and that an upscale community will be renamed "Native American Hills"...

[Peter1469]

I have said very little about guns, but since you ask, I think domestic abusers and people with a criminal record shouldn't have easy-access to guns. That's about as 'anti-gun' as I get. Let me ask you, do you support stop and frisk?

We have laws to prevent domestic abusers and felons from having firearms legally.

[decedent]

you can't add or subtract. There are no plans available for 69/mo. unless you are subsidized by ME........

You make over $250K per year? LOL

It is NOT my responsibility to pay someone else's way. that's the first plank of communism.

Then how about you take away the Obamacare they're paying for and put them on Medicaid... because that's a lot less socialist, right?




There are more people without insurance today than when Obama took office.

That's a flat out lie.


Exchanges are shutting down all across America.


Another lie.

What a weird reality you live in.

[Tahuyaman]

Unfortunately today, too many people believe government's job is to provide them with the basic necessities of life. Too many people have quit taking responsibility for their own condition and handed that responsibility over to government. Then they complain about those who reject that philosophy and achieve success on their own merits. They demand that government confiscates wealth from the earners and redistribute the rewards of that that success to those who didn't earn it.

That is unsustainable.

[Cletus]

All of your points are wrong.

Your posting history says otherwise.

[stjames1_53]

You make over $250K per year? LOL
How much I make a year is none of your business. but you bring up a good point. The number of people who make $250k a year are disappearing and are being replaced with $8.50-$10/hr. jobs. The cost of living has gone up, but wages have fallen. Who are you to decide which meal another person misses just to ensure your health?


Then how about you take away the Obamacare they're paying for and put them on Medicaid... because that's a lot less socialist, right?

those that can work, pay for their own insurance, all of it. If you don't have a job, blame Obama. If you have a job, you can thank God.
Just because YOU'RE a socialist, doesn't make a make everyone else a socialist
You're a shining example of the collective needs the individual. However, the Individual can exist without the collective.
If it wasn't for me paying taxes, you wouldn't have any insurance, just like before. It is not my responsibility to pay for your healthcare....or your wife's female problems.
take care of yourself, by yourself
Suck it up and stand like a man and take care of yourself and your family.
That's a flat out lie.
http://freebeacon.com/issues/more-than-half-of-obamacare-co-ops-are-closing/
http://dailysignal.com/2015/10/30/obamacare-co-ops-are-failing-at-a-rate-of-50-percent-heres-why/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/almost-half-of-obamacare-exchanges-are-struggling-over-their-future/2015/05/01/f32eeea2-ea03-11e4-aae1-d642717d8afa_story.html
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/05/obamacare-cost-failed-exchanges-106535
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/more-than-half-of-aca-co-ops-now-out-of-insurance-marketplaces/2015/11/03/5ba95b86-824b-11e5-9afb-0c971f713d0c_story.html?utm_term=.b2236f2580b6
http://www.forbes.com/sites/johngoodman/2015/04/16/why-are-the-obamacare-exchanges-such-a-mess/#25cb616c7c0e Another lie.
see above

What a weird reality you live in.
Sorry bub. I'm dealing with you in your alternate reality
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-healthcare-glitch-20131025-story.html
I'll still have my health insurance when you cannot pay for your own.
you cradle to gravers are stupid. How long to you think a government can afford to keep paying you for doing nothing?
IMO, let the damn thing crash, then we can get back to the business of being independent............like I was befoe the NWO tyrant came into office.
You have no Right to force me to pay for your sh*t.
Hell, even Bill Clinton said it was a clusterf*ck

[stjames1_53]

Unfortunately today, too many people believe government's job is to provide them with the basic necessities of life. Too many people have quit taking responsibility for their own condition and handed that responsibility over to government. Then they complain about those who reject that philosophy and achieve success on their own merits. They demand that government confiscates wealth from the earners and redistribute the rewards of that that success to those who didn't earn it.

That is unsustainable.
between the government coddling them, and no drive to become successful, we have a nation of incompetents. We have the laziest generation of Entitleers ever.

[decedent]

Sorry bub. I'm dealing with you in your alternate reality
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-healthcare-glitch-20131025-story.html
I'll still have my health insurance when you cannot pay for your own.
you cradle to gravers are stupid. How long to you think a government can afford to keep paying you for doing nothing?
IMO, let the damn thing crash, then we can get back to the business of being independent............like I was befoe the NWO tyrant came into office.
You have no Right to force me to pay for your sh*t.
Hell, even Bill Clinton said it was a clusterf*ck

So... you don't like Obamacare because it has Obama's name on it.

[pjohns]

So... you [addressed to another poster] don't like Obamacare because it has Obama's name on it.
Only in the vernacular.

Its official name--"The Affordable Care Act"--does not have Obama's name on it...

[AZ Jim]

And the dems just reappointed the ignoramus that said that -- Pelosi -- to lead them once again. What is the matter with them? It's like the blind leading the blind.Ahem, cough, cough, says one who voted our biggest mistake into the highest office in America.

[Cletus]

Ahem, cough, cough, says one who voted our biggest mistake into the highest office in America.

I am pretty sure she didn't vote for either Obama or Clinton.

[AZ Jim]

Then she's off the hook! LOL...^^^^

[stjames1_53]

So... you don't like Obamacare because it has Obama's name on it.
no. I don't like it because it's a gasket of sh*t. and your reading skills suck. Where did you get Obama's name out of that? shows how stupid you really are....

[Tahuyaman]

So... you don't like Obamacare because it has Obama's name on it.

There's a failed attempt to redirect the discussion and put someone on the defensive.

[Tahuyaman]

no. I don't like it because it's a gasket of sh*t. and your reading skills suck. Where did you get Obama's name out of that? shows how stupid you really are....

The ACA is a complete failure and calling by its alternate name does nothing to alter that reality in any way.

[decedent]

no. I don't like it because it's a gasket of sh*t. and your reading skills suck. Where did you get Obama's name out of that? shows how stupid you really are....

You didn't show any reason to dislike the ACA. It's far less socialist than medicaid and over 15 million more people have health insurance now than in 2008.

You don't like it because it's an Obama thing. You don't like anything about him.


BTW, a co-op isn't an exchange.

[Common]

You didn't show any reason to dislike the ACA. It's far less socialist than medicaid and over 15 million more people have health insurance now than in 2008.
Medicare is funded by americans working with the knowledge they will recieve it at retirement age.

You don't like it because it's an Obama thing. You don't like anything about him.



The aca is funded by taxpayers and ridiculously high premiums and copays for those that dont qualify for subisdies.

Decedent the ACA is a failure and its collapsing. Some of the biggest insurers stopped writing ACA policies. Drs by the droves refuse to take it, a couple of my drs have signs we do not accept the below ACA plans, theres a ton of them listed. Some Drs tell people they are accepting no new patients if they have the ACA.

The aca on the SNEAK made some big changes to medicare that cost seniors out of pocket money. Examples are medical equiptment and constant needed medical supplies for an illness, like sleep apnea and oxygen therapy. Theres many other changes, obama took a billion dollars out of medicare hoping to break its back to try and force single payer on everyone. So far that hasnt worked.

NO one can spin the aca as a success its a profound failure.

[decedent]

The aca is funded by taxpayers and ridiculously high premiums and copays for those that dont qualify for subisdies.

It's aided in part by rich taxpayers.

The average silver plan costs $69/mo after taxes.

People who don't qualify for subsidies probably don't need them (their income is too high).






Decedent the ACA is a failure and its collapsing. ... NO one can spin the aca as a success its a profound failure.

Interesting opinion.

[Peter1469]

It's aided in part by rich taxpayers.

The average silver plan costs $69/mo after taxes.

People who don't qualify for subsidies probably don't need them (their income is too high).






Interesting opinion.

a falsehood

[Peter1469]

Cost-Sharing Category
Average for a Silver Plan


Deductible for an individual enrollee
$3,177


Deductible for a family
$6,480


Doctor Visit
$29


Specialist visit
$56


Generic drugs
$13 (2014 data)


Preferred brand drugs
$47 (2014 data)


Non-preferred brand drugs
$89 (2014 data)


Specialty drugs
31% of specialty drug expense (https://www.healthpocket.com/healthcare-glossary/term/expense) charged to patient as coinsurance fee (coinsurance fees used for specialty drugs in 62% of 2014 plans studied)


Annual cap on out-of-pocket costs for an individual
$6,110


Annual cap on out-of-pocket costs for a family
$12,270


Link (https://www.healthpocket.com/individual-health-insurance/silver-health-plans)
+ Monthly premiums


Age 30
Age 40
Age 50
Age 60


$312
$351.02
$490.75
$744.99

[Common]

It's aided in part by rich taxpayers.

The average silver plan costs $69/mo after taxes.

People who don't qualify for subsidies probably don't need them (their income is too high).





I talk to people all the time that HATE the aca and especially hate the freakin fine.


Interesting opinion.


Sorry thats boulderdash, my friend passed away and his wife lost her insurance. Every year I try to find her a better plan. To make this short the first plan 3 yrs ago cost her 670 a month with some pretty big copays. SHE IS NOT RICH, This one to try and minimize the huge copays its 790.00 AMONTH for one person. Heres the good part her primary dr told her he wont take it. So she Opted out of the ACA and decided to take her chances for the 11 months till shes 65.

[decedent]

"The average cost after cost assistance subsidies for the 87% of those who qualified for cost assistance was about $69 a month for a Silver plan." -- Obamacare Facts (http://obamacarefacts.com/costof-obamacare/)



a falsehood

No facts... again.



Sorry thats boulderdash, my friend passed away and his wife lost her insurance. Every year I try to find her a better plan. To make this short the first plan 3 yrs ago cost her 670 a month with some pretty big copays. SHE IS NOT RICH, This one to try and minimize the huge copays its 790.00 AMONTH for one person. Heres the good part her primary dr told her he wont take it. So she Opted out of the ACA and decided to take her chances for the 11 months till shes 65.

I have stories too.

Which state is he in? Let's look online for a plan. I bet I'll find an affordable one within minutes in his state's exchange.

[Peter1469]

"The average cost after cost assistance subsidies for the 87% of those who qualified for cost assistance was about $69 a month for a Silver plan." -- Obamacare Facts (http://obamacarefacts.com/costof-obamacare/)




No facts... again.

They are lying to you. See my post for what you will pay.

If most could get health insurance for $70 a month, the program would be flourishing, as opposed to failing.

Also, look at the list of charges that I provided. Your monthly premium is just one part of the cost.

[stjames1_53]

It's aided in part by rich taxpayers.
bullsh*t...the largest group of taxpayers are paying for it, the lower-middle income class. That's where the largest reservoir of money is.
The average silver plan costs $69/mo after taxes.

then why is mine 500/month. I make too much to claim subsidies

People who don't qualify for subsidies probably don't need them (their income is too high).

fucking DUH!!!!!! Where would you locate that on a money graph? Anyone who makes over $27,000 a year doesn't qualify....................... Interesting opinion.

[stjames1_53]

Cost-Sharing Category
Average for a Silver Plan


Deductible for an individual enrollee
$3,177


Deductible for a family
$6,480


Doctor Visit
$29


Specialist visit
$56


Generic drugs
$13 (2014 data)


Preferred brand drugs
$47 (2014 data)


Non-preferred brand drugs
$89 (2014 data)


Specialty drugs
31% of specialty drug expense (https://www.healthpocket.com/healthcare-glossary/term/expense) charged to patient as coinsurance fee (coinsurance fees used for specialty drugs in 62% of 2014 plans studied)


Annual cap on out-of-pocket costs for an individual
$6,110


Annual cap on out-of-pocket costs for a family
$12,270


Link (https://www.healthpocket.com/individual-health-insurance/silver-health-plans)
+ Monthly premiums


Age 30
Age 40
Age 50
Age 60


$312
$351.02
$490.75
$744.99




and I'm sure anyone who is making #30k/yr. has $6,800 just laying around waiting to be spent. Of course, that's $30,000 less taxes

[Peter1469]

That is just the deductible. Don't forget the monthly premium. Prior to Obama we could get catastrophic health coverage. Basically you paid very low premiums, but the first 10K of health care costs per year were on you. Anything over that was covered.

That is much better for many people than Obamacare.


and I'm sure anyone who is making #30k/yr. has $6,800 just laying around waiting to be spent. Of course, that's $30,000 less taxes

[pjohns]

You don't like it because it's an Obama thing.
Although the above quote was directed to someone else, I will just say that I do not like ObamaCare precisely because there are other compelling goals than just the number of people covered.

Granted, that is one (rather important) goal.

But quality healthcare is another very important goal.

And low price is yet another.

ObamaCare does nothing to contribute to these last two--and, in my opinion, militates against them.

[Bethere]

Although the above quote was directed to someone else, I will just say that I do not like ObamaCare precisely because there are other compelling goals than just the number of people covered.

Granted, that is one (rather important) goal.

But quality healthcare is another very important goal.

And low price is yet another.

ObamaCare does nothing to contribute to these last two--and, in my opinion, militates against them.
And yet, in the survey only
26 percent said the law should be entirely repealed and only 17 percent called for it to be scaled back.

[stjames1_53]

And yet, in the survey only
26 percent said the law should be entirely repealed and only 17 percent called for it to be scaled back.

your claim has moved. Now, it's no longer about "Most people..." which amounted to 48% want it....now your claiming the opposite
You should probably abandon this thread and let us run it. We'll get the truth out.....

[pjohns]

And yet, in the survey only
26 percent said the law should be entirely repealed and only 17 percent called for it to be scaled back.

Together, that equals 43 percent.

The other side garnered only slightly more ("Overall, 30 percent said the new president and Congress should expand what the law does, and 19 percent said it should be implemented as is"), or 49 percent total--a plurality, but still not a majority).

I am guessing that most of those were dyed-in-the-wool Democrats.

I, on the other hand, am a Republican--the majority of which (52 percent) are opposed to the law.

That is to say, if this poll is accurate (which was certainly not the case, as regarding the presidential election).

In any case, that really does not matter much, as my opinion is not shaped by what either Americans as a whole or Republicans as a whole may currently think.

I have given my reasons for opposing ObamaCare; and percentages, in that regard, are quite irrelevant as to informing my opinion...

[Bethere]

Together, that equals 43 percent.

The other side garnered only slightly more ("Overall, 30 percent said the new president and Congress should expand what the law does, and 19 percent said it should be implemented as is"), or 49 percent total--a plurality, but still not a majority).

I am guessing that most of those were dyed-in-the-wool Democrats.

I, on the other hand, am a Republican--the majority of which (52 percent) are opposed to the law.

That is to say, if this poll is accurate (which was certainly not the case, as regarding the presidential election).

In any case, that really does not matter much, as my opinion is not shaped by what either Americans as a whole or Republicans as a whole may currently think.

I have given my reasons for opposing ObamaCare; and percentages, in that regard, are quite irrelevant as to informing my opinion...

The presidential polls were spot on. The Rcp average had it Hillary +2. In the end it is Hillary 48.2, Trump 46.1.

Dead on.

[pjohns]

The presidential polls were spot on. The Rcp average had it Hillary +2. In the end it is Hillary 48.2, Trump 46.1.

Dead on.
Well, Larry Sabato (who leans center-left; but whom I respect and admire as a political analyst, as he had previously gotten his predictions right 98 percent of the time) predicted that Hillary Clinton would win the presidency. (In fact, on November 9--the day after the election--he ran a headline that read, "Mea Culpa, Mea Culpa, Mea Maxima Culpa.")

So did Nate Silver, in his blog, FiveThirtyEight.

And so did every other political analyst I can think of.

Moreover, RealClearPolitics had Hillary Clinton winning the electoral vote--rather easily. (On the eve of the election, one writer in RCP even intoned that Hillary Clinton was "[o]n the verge of making history as the first woman president.")

Did you not notice these things?

[stjames1_53]

The presidential polls were spot on. The Rcp average had it Hillary +2. In the end it is Hillary 48.2, Trump 46.1.

Dead on.

she frickin' lost, dude......
There isn't but one way to win.
You've lost nothing this race. You're not going to wish it away. Just suck it up and go forward.

[patrickt]

Bethere can learn how Obamacare will be shut down after Congress has passed the bill. Isn't that the way Democrats like laws to be passed?

[Bethere]

Well, Larry Sabato (who leans center-left; but whom I respect and admire as a political analyst, as he had previously gotten his predictions right 98 percent of the time) predicted that Hillary Clinton would win the presidency. (In fact, on November 9--the day after the election--he ran a headline that read, "Mea Culpa, Mea Culpa, Mea Maxima Culpa.")

So did Nate Silver, in his blog, FiveThirtyEight.

And so did every other political analyst I can think of.

Moreover, RealClearPolitics had Hillary Clinton winning the electoral vote--rather easily. (On the eve of the election, one writer in RCP even intoned that Hillary Clinton was "[o]n the verge of making history as the first woman president.")

Did you not notice these things?
You confuse the track record of the people interpreting polls with the accuracy of the polls themselves.

Way to go, Republican.

[Bethere]

Bethere can learn how Obamacare will be shut down after Congress has passed the bill. Isn't that the way Democrats like laws to be passed?

Yep, it's all about punishing bethere and all of his grifter friends.


44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’
45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’
46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

[pjohns]

You confuse the track record of the people interpreting polls with the accuracy of the polls themselves.
The polls were inaccurate, in large measure, because the "Shy Trump Voter"--i.e. the person who did not wish to go on record, officially, that he (or she) would vote for Donald Trump--really did exist. (I will admit that, prior to the election, I did not know if this would turn out to be just wishful thinking on the part of the Trump camp.)

Perhaps even more importantly, these polls were based upon the 2012 model; and minorities simply did not come out to vote in the same percentages as they did in 2012. So minorities--who vote overwhelmingly Democratic--were oversampled. (I really do not think this mistake was intentional; but it was a mistake, nonetheless.)

[nic34]

"Shy Trump Voter"

lol

[Bethere]

The polls were inaccurate, in large measure, because the "Shy Trump Voter"--i.e. the person who did not wish to go on record, officially, that he (or she) would vote for Donald Trump--really did exist. (I will admit that, prior to the election, I did not know if this would turn out to be just wishful thinking on the part of the Trump camp.)

Perhaps even more importantly, these polls were based upon the 2012 model; and minorities simply did not come out to vote in the same percentages as they did in 2012. So minorities--who vote overwhelmingly Democratic--were oversampled. (I really do not think this mistake was intentional; but it was a mistake, nonetheless.)

The polls weren't inaccurate. We've already covered this.

1. Rcp average had hillary +2. Hillary was in fact +2.

2. Polls don't guarantee exactness. They guarantee a range. Most of them are +/- 4%. That explains all of the state polls.

3. Audit a public opinion course. It's interesting stuff if you can handle the math.

4. Never, ever, ever let hannity or rush explain anything to you.

[Bethere]

"Shy Trump Voter"

lol

Good times!

[pjohns]

2. Polls don't guarantee exactness. They guarantee a range. Most of them are +/- 4%. That explains all of the state polls.
I am unaware of any poll that had Donald Trump winning Ohio by over eight full points--or anywhere close to that.

His winning North Carolina by almost four percentage points was certainly a surprise. (Most pollsters, in fact, gave a slight advantage to Hillary Clinton there.)

And what polls had him winning Pennsylvania, Michigan, or Wisconsin at all?

[Bethere]

I am unaware of any poll that had Donald Trump winning Ohio by over eight full points--or anywhere close to that.

His winning North Carolina by almost four percentage points was certainly a surprise. (Most pollsters, in fact, gave a slight advantage to Hillary Clinton there.)

And what polls had him winning Pennsylvania, Michigan, or Wisconsin at all?

Again, what part of +/- 4% do you not grasp?

[patrickt]

Yep, it's all about punishing bethere and all of his grifter friends.


44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’
45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’
46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

It has nothing to do with punishment, young man. It has to do with Karma, with what goes around comes around. It has to do with payback is a bitch. The Democrats write a law, intentionally confusing because, as Dr. Gruber said, it would never have been passed if it had been clearly written and honest. And when people questioned the bill, Speaker of the House Rep. Nancy Pelosi said they had to pass the law so people could learn about the law. Naturally, Bethere, I thought that's how liberals liked to have things done so surely you don't mind finding out what's going to be done to you after it's too late to make a difference. It's the Democrat Party Way. Not punishment. Justice, perhaps.

[del]

"Shy Trump Voter"

lol

in four years or less, no one will have voted for him.

[Bethere]

It has nothing to do with punishment, young man. It has to do with Karma, with what goes around comes around. It has to do with payback is a $#@!. The Democrats write a law, intentionally confusing because, as Dr. Gruber said, it would never have been passed if it had been clearly written and honest. And when people questioned the bill, Speaker of the House Rep. Nancy Pelosi said they had to pass the law so people could learn about the law. Naturally, Bethere, I thought that's how liberals liked to have things done so surely you don't mind finding out what's going to be done to you after it's too late to make a difference. It's the Democrat Party Way. Not punishment. Justice, perhaps.

Yeah, just as I said. You want to punish the poor.