dipshit420
dipshit420
political car tune
Post rating:
~
Democrats are terrible. Up to 5,000,000 Americans have been deprived of health plans they did have because of new (un)ACA mandates. I'm not one to get caught up in politics by anecdote but am surprised as the arrogance, callous disregard, and hostility for all these people who have been deprived of their health care insurance. True, their policies didn't provide sex change operations but at least most were covered for cancer and heart surgeries. Maybe that was all they cared to pay for. That was better than nothing. Now they have nothing thanks to everyone who voted for President Obama. You guys ought to have some respect for the intelligence of others. They can make their own decisions. Even now, everyone in the Country has the option of getting a new (un)ACA policy if we think it is better than our existing policies. Had the old policies just been grandfathered in, the President wouldn't have come off as such a liar and people would come around to buy better policies to the extent they exist.
Thank you for making my points about arrogance, callous disregard, and hostility toward the five million Americans now on the street without insurance. Your conclusion seems to be they are better off with no insurance than with the policies they had. You offered no proof that they received no coverage. Perhaps you aren't aware that (un)ACA bureaucrats effectively blocked Vermont's attempt at having an AFFORDABLE single payer plan like those of Canadian provinces. This was accomplished by requiring any State single payer plan to include all the trial lawyers, insurance companies, big-pharma, and bureaucrats feasting off at the (un)ACA health care feed trough.
Thank you too for making my points about arrogance, callous disregard, and hostility toward the five million Americans now on the street without insurance. Your conclusion seems to be they are better off with no insurance than with the policies they had. You offered no proof that cancelled policies "are pretty much the same as having no coverage at all". How do you know more than the purchasers and what gives you the right to second guess them? Extending your logic, when new house building codes are adopted, everyone living in a home that doesn't meet the newly released guidelines should be made homeless.
Even Michelle Bachman's husband lost his policy because of new (un)ACA mandates.
There is no doubt that the President is a liar whether or not other presidents have been liars. Obama's lies are just bigger and more persistent. "If you like your health insurance plan, you can keep it."" If you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan, period.""And if you already have health care, then we're gonna work to lower your premiums by up to $2,500 per family.""I will sign a universal health care bill into law by the end of my first term as president that will cover every American and cut the cost of a typical family's premium by up to $2,500 a year."
There were no ifs, ands. or buts when the President was trying to sell his (un)ACA plan. He lied, period. Then he said he had qualified it; another lie. Then standards were changed so that anyone who had an (un)ACA plan in their carts were considered to have purchased it to fudge the purchase numbers whether or not they ever follow through. Corporations would be fined for similarly cooking the books. Then, multiple navigators were filmed explaining how to lie in order to receive better rates. Sorry, but your attempts to deflect the charges that he lied won't work. Obama is still a magna cum laude liar. Now he is acting like a dictator to re-legislate the law to allow Americans, to keep their policies until after the the 2014 election to sweep one issue under the rug. Then the "beatings will continue until morale improves".
The president didn't say "he wanted to allow people to stay on their current insurance plans for another year", he issued a dictatorial order to overturn a part of the (un)ACA and legislated a change in that law to quiet the press about this problem until after the 2014 election.
Not mentioned int he article was that Sen. Mary Landrieu has a similar bill to the bill passed in the House which could be reconciled with the House passed bill. Some compromises have to be made but that is how laws are supposed to be made. Dictatorial fiat is an unacceptable alternative to Constitutional law except with our spineless Congress and some posters here.
To the extent, though, that the President "wanted to allow people to stay on their current insurance plans for another year", many posters here seem to be at odds with the President insisting instead that all these Americans who have lost their insurance because of the (un)ACA are somehow better off without insurance. Even the President is now disagreeing with that at least until the 2014 election.
The problem is that the President repeatedly lied to bring us a program which has so far put millions of more people on the street without insurance than it has provided insurance. Given the choice between having an insurance policy or not having an insurance policy because it didn't provide such bells and whistles as keeping kids on one's policy until age 26, birth control options, and, of course, the options of paid for sex change operations, most people with the old policies would probably have choses to remain insured.
Thank you for making my points about arrogance, callous disregard, and hostility toward the five million Americans now on the street without insurance. Your conclusion seems to be they are better off with no insurance than with the policies they had. You offered no proof that they received no coverage. Perhaps you aren't aware that (un)ACA bureaucrats effectively blocked Vermont's attempt at having an AFFORDABLE single payer plan like those of Canadian provinces. This was accomplished by requiring any State single payer plan to include all the trial lawyers, insurance companies, big-pharma, and bureaucrats feasting off at the (un)ACA health care feed trough.
Thank you too for making my points about arrogance, callous disregard, and hostility toward the five million Americans now on the street without insurance. Your conclusion seems to be they are better off with no insurance than with the policies they had. You offered no proof that cancelled policies "are pretty much the same as having no coverage at all". How do you know more than the purchasers and what gives you the right to second guess them? Extending your logic, when new house building codes are adopted, everyone living in a home that doesn't meet the newly released guidelines should be made homeless.
Even Michelle Bachman's husband lost his policy because of new (un)ACA mandates.
There is no doubt that the President is a liar whether or not other presidents have been liars. Obama's lies are just bigger and more persistent. "If you like your health insurance plan, you can keep it."" If you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan, period.""And if you already have health care, then we're gonna work to lower your premiums by up to $2,500 per family.""I will sign a universal health care bill into law by the end of my first term as president that will cover every American and cut the cost of a typical family's premium by up to $2,500 a year."
There were no ifs, ands. or buts when the President was trying to sell his (un)ACA plan. He lied, period. Then he said he had qualified it; another lie. Then standards were changed so that anyone who had an (un)ACA plan in their carts were considered to have purchased it to fudge the purchase numbers whether or not they ever follow through. Corporations would be fined for similarly cooking the books. Then, multiple navigators were filmed explaining how to lie in order to receive better rates. Sorry, but your attempts to deflect the charges that he lied won't work. Obama is still a magna cum laude liar. Now he is acting like a dictator to re-legislate the law to allow Americans, to keep their policies until after the the 2014 election to sweep one issue under the rug. Then the "beatings will continue until morale improves".
The president didn't say "he wanted to allow people to stay on their current insurance plans for another year", he issued a dictatorial order to overturn a part of the (un)ACA and legislated a change in that law to quiet the press about this problem until after the 2014 election.
Not mentioned int he article was that Sen. Mary Landrieu has a similar bill to the bill passed in the House which could be reconciled with the House passed bill. Some compromises have to be made but that is how laws are supposed to be made. Dictatorial fiat is an unacceptable alternative to Constitutional law except with our spineless Congress and some posters here.
To the extent, though, that the President "wanted to allow people to stay on their current insurance plans for another year", many posters here seem to be at odds with the President insisting instead that all these Americans who have lost their insurance because of the (un)ACA are somehow better off without insurance. Even the President is now disagreeing with that at least until the 2014 election.
The problem is that the President repeatedly lied to bring us a program which has so far put millions of more people on the street without insurance than it has provided insurance. Given the choice between having an insurance policy or not having an insurance policy because it didn't provide such bells and whistles as keeping kids on one's policy until age 26, birth control options, and, of course, the options of paid for sex change operations, most people with the old policies would probably have choses to remain insured.
[account deactivated]
Superabound
Superabound
Not Your S.H.I.E.L.D.
Post rating:
~
Omumblecore