bigskyvikes Posted July 19, 2015 Posted July 19, 2015 Blame Obama for everything? From 2007 until about a year ago, every Dem in DC was STILL blaming the previous tenant at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue for everything that was wrong in this country. Education Minnesota recently blamed Bush and "No Child Left Behind" for teachers helping students cheat on exams. Funny that no one ever mentions that legislation's chief author and sponsor in the Senate, isn't it? His name was Ted Kennedy. Why when I comment about people blaming my President of the US for everything except, but almost bad weather, do I hear about "dems blaming Bush for everything". I hated that also, and still defend my former President Bush! I respect the position, even though I voted for Bush both times and not Obama! But he is still my President! For people to blame everything on the president don't understand obviously what is the Presidency! No child Left behind is a bad thing started by whoever you say, but it was pushed hard by the Bush administration?
MafiaMan Posted July 19, 2015 Posted July 19, 2015 Why when I comment about people blaming my President of the US for everything except, but almost bad weather, do I hear about "dems blaming Bush for everything". I hated that also, and still defend my former President Bush! I respect the position, even though I voted for Bush both times and not Obama! But he is still my President! For people to blame everything on the president don't understand obviously what is the Presidency! No child Left behind is a bad thing started by whoever you say, but it was pushed hard by the Bush administration? Passed the House by a vote of 384-45, the Senate 91-8. Pure revisionist history to think of it as "unpopular" legislation.
bigskyvikes Posted July 19, 2015 Posted July 19, 2015 Passed the House by a vote of 384-45, the Senate 91-8. Pure revisionist history to think of it as "unpopular" legislation. I don't understand, are you defending no child Left behind? I don't want to argue about political crap, but to say no child Left behind is a good thing, I think is silly. My children graduate soon, so..... Bush wanted it, if he got the house and senate to pass it with flying colors, he just did his job. I never said it was unpopular legislation, just said its a bad thing...
wxman91 Posted July 19, 2015 Posted July 19, 2015 But some 21 year old white kid with racist views shooting up a traditional black church is an indictment of every white guy in the south? Can you point to Obama making that statement? I'd like to read that.
wxman91 Posted July 19, 2015 Posted July 19, 2015 To your first point.....it is brainwashing because Islam is a religion of "peace and non violence". To your second point...did not seem to effect the "black community negatively" in that Kane example. Falls into roughly the same double standard of blacks using the N word as they see fit. You have not and you won't here any of these words uttered from Obama on the TN shootings......"radical Islam", "terrorist" or "jihad". His uber PC mentality on situations like this is pathetic. How would his use of those words, especially in the immediate hours after the attack affect anything? It would make you feel better? All of the sudden the terrorists would stop because they got called out? As with everything in Obama's presidency, he is being criticized for something that the opposition has no realistic opposing view on. Health care - not perfect, still 100x better than the alternatives posed. Economy - middling, and still far better off than where we would be with the R alternative. Iran - do we think "bomb, bomb, bomb" is the answer? Simply put, Obama's opponents are getting more and more frustrated as the president works his way into the upper eschelon historically. 1 2
Oxbow6 Posted July 19, 2015 Posted July 19, 2015 How would his use of those words, especially in the immediate hours after the attack affect anything? It would make you feel better? All of the sudden the terrorists would stop because they got called out? As with everything in Obama's presidency, he is being criticized for something that the opposition has no realistic opposing view on. Health care - not perfect, still 100x better than the alternatives posed. Economy - middling, and still far better off than where we would be with the R alternative. Iran - do we think "bomb, bomb, bomb" is the answer? Simply put, Obama's opponents are getting more and more frustrated as the president works his way into the upper eschelon historically. Do you work in healthcare? If you don't that is an ignorant statement. If you do you're completely delusional. Upper echelon can be looked at 2 different ways.
MafiaMan Posted July 19, 2015 Posted July 19, 2015 Can you point to Obama making that statement? I'd like to read that.Can you point to me making the statement that it was Obama himself making that statement? I'd like to read that too.
wxman91 Posted July 19, 2015 Posted July 19, 2015 Can you point to me making the statement that it was Obama himself making that statement? I'd like to read that too. Then what was the point of you chiming in on this discussion?
wxman91 Posted July 19, 2015 Posted July 19, 2015 Do you work in healthcare? If you don't that is an ignorant statement. If you do you're completely delusional. Upper echelon can be looked at 2 different ways. There was just an article that health insurance rates would be going up in certain states quite quickly because the insurance companies did not anticipate how sick the new people getting care would be. Some people cited that as the ACA not working. I view it as the ACA working spectacularly. Sick people getting care is the only important thing and is completely opposite of what the opposing political party wants. They prefer the status quo of diminishing insurance coverage and medical-related bankruptcies because anything that benefits the wealthy is the only thing that matters. But neither of us are going to convince the other, so there isn't much point arguing. 1
Oxbow6 Posted July 19, 2015 Posted July 19, 2015 There was just an article that health insurance rates would be going up in certain states quite quickly because the insurance companies did not anticipate how sick the new people getting care would be. Some people cited that as the ACA not working. I view it as the ACA working spectacularly. Sick people getting care is the only important thing and is completely opposite of what the opposing political party wants. They prefer the status quo of diminishing insurance coverage and medical-related bankruptcies because anything that benefits the wealthy is the only thing that matters. But neither of us are going to convince the other, so there isn't much point arguing. We can agree on your last point.
UNDBIZ Posted July 19, 2015 Posted July 19, 2015 There was just an article that health insurance rates would be going up in certain states quite quickly because the insurance companies did not anticipate how sick the new people getting care would be. Some people cited that as the ACA not working. I view it as the ACA working spectacularly. Tell that to the people paying for their own insurance. 1
Oxbow6 Posted July 19, 2015 Posted July 19, 2015 Tell that to the people paying for their own insurance.Correct.......you people are paying for all the "sick people" who have been dumped in the ACA pot that wxman speaks of. But the bigger issue is these "sick people" because they receive very discounted healthcare, if not free, have zero self responsibility to get healthy or change their poor life style habits because they know they can just go see a doctor to get "better" on someone else's dime so in reality the "sick" become "sicker" which is and will be the greatest cost of the ACA moving forward. To state the ACA is "working spectacularly" and is "100x better" than others previous proposed options or what the nation's healthcare system was prior to the ACA is a complete failure to understand the workings and guts of what the ACA actually is. No healthcare system is perfect by let's be real on what the ACA has been to date and what it will eventually mushroom into down the road. This Titanic will hit the iceberg! 1 1
Oxbow6 Posted July 19, 2015 Posted July 19, 2015 Oh and this just in......the Muslim POS in the TN shootings had "depression" per his family. Case closed I guess......nothing more to see here. Move along.
bison73 Posted July 19, 2015 Posted July 19, 2015 There was just an article that health insurance rates would be going up in certain states quite quickly because the insurance companies did not anticipate how sick the new people getting care would be. Some people cited that as the ACA not working. I view it as the ACA working spectacularly. Sick people getting care is the only important thing and is completely opposite of what the opposing political party wants. They prefer the status quo of diminishing insurance coverage and medical-related bankruptcies because anything that benefits the wealthy is the only thing that matters. But neither of us are going to convince the other, so there isn't much point arguing. Poor people were not turned down for healthcare. All they had to do was go to the Emergency Room. One of the supposed selling points of Oscamacare was it would lower premiums because the poor would now have coverage. That has now been disproven and is a lie. Why you ask? One---ER visits have not gone down. TWO---the insurance that poor people can buy on the exchange have such high deductibles and out of pocket expenses they still cant pay it. So we-I are paying for insurance that they still cant afford to use. Three---many who couldnt qualify fo Oscamacare were kicked over to medicaid. Four--by law the insurance companies are Guaranteed a profit. Thats right. Oscama sold us out. A fund was set up to pay the insurance companies on top of what they were getting. The fund is now gone so guess who gets stuck? Question to you---how can you justify a rate increase on a premium from 300.00 a month before oscama to 800.00 a month after Oscama is implemented? Or the 6.6 million people who were fined because they refused to purchase a crappy policy. Theres more but this is a start. ps--the excuse that they didnt expect to treat that many sick people and the costs involved is BULL-----------. They have actuaries who have been figuring this out for a century or more. They new exacty what the costs were. This is just another ruse to raise rates.
wxman91 Posted July 19, 2015 Posted July 19, 2015 Poor people were not turned down for healthcare. All they had to do was go to the Emergency Room. One of the supposed selling points of Oscamacare was it would lower premiums because the poor would now have coverage. That has now been disproven and is a lie. Why you ask? One---ER visits have not gone down. TWO---the insurance that poor people can buy on the exchange have such high deductibles and out of pocket expenses they still cant pay it. So we-I are paying for insurance that they still cant afford to use. Three---many who couldnt qualify fo Oscamacare were kicked over to medicaid. Four--by law the insurance companies are Guaranteed a profit. Thats right. Oscama sold us out. A fund was set up to pay the insurance companies on top of what they were getting. The fund is now gone so guess who gets stuck? Question to you---how can you justify a rate increase on a premium from 300.00 a month before oscama to 800.00 a month after Oscama is implemented? Or the 6.6 million people who were fined because they refused to purchase a crappy policy. Theres more but this is a start. ps--the excuse that they didnt expect to treat that many sick people and the costs involved is BULL-----------. They have actuaries who have been figuring this out for a century or more. They new exacty what the costs were. This is just another ruse to raise rates. Yep, it would be the best move to eliminate the for-profit health care insurance industry completely.
Fetch Posted July 19, 2015 Posted July 19, 2015 Why not just get rid of the middlemen INSURANCE COMPANIES ?
Oxbow6 Posted July 19, 2015 Posted July 19, 2015 Yep, it would be the best move to eliminate the for-profit health care insurance industry completely. I won't even bother to reply to whatever you post but please...please...I have to hear your reasoning on this?
bison73 Posted July 19, 2015 Posted July 19, 2015 I won't even bother to reply to whatever you post but please...please...I have to hear your reasoning on this? Its a ideology where they think a one payer system is best. IOW socialist health care. 1
Oxbow6 Posted July 19, 2015 Posted July 19, 2015 Its a ideology where they think a one payer system is best. IOW socialist health care. Trust me.......I know where he was going.
The Sicatoka Posted July 20, 2015 Posted July 20, 2015 Its a ideology where they think a one payer system is best. IOW socialist health care. Sweet. I'm sure they'll run it as well as the US Post Office and "$800 for a hammer" Pentagon.
bison73 Posted July 20, 2015 Posted July 20, 2015 Sweet. I'm sure they'll run it as well as the US Post Office and "$800 for a hammer" Pentagon. The real problem is Oscama has made the ACA so convoluted and unworkable it might force us to a one payer system. This was his goal from the beginning.
JohnboyND7 Posted July 20, 2015 Posted July 20, 2015 Yep, it would be the best move to eliminate the for-profit health care insurance industry completely. Put down the manifesto. 2
wxman91 Posted July 20, 2015 Posted July 20, 2015 Its a ideology where they think a one payer system is best. IOW socialist health care. Yup.
wxman91 Posted July 20, 2015 Posted July 20, 2015 Put down the manifesto. Yes, because eliminating the for-profit middlemen and having the government negotiate directly with the private sector providers on behalf of the 300M+ Americans is the equivalent to walking around calling each other comrade. 1
Oxbow6 Posted July 20, 2015 Posted July 20, 2015 Yes, because eliminating the for-profit middlemen and having the government negotiate directly with the private sector providers on behalf of the 300M+ Americans is the equivalent to walking around calling each other comrade. I would love to buy you a one way ticket to Greece.........first class no less. I insist. 1
Recommended Posts