Obama care website is finaly working.

When it comes to figuring out how to avoid taxes (which is what the ACA is), Americans are pretty clever.
 
Matthew said:
When it comes to figuring out how to avoid taxes (which is what the ACA is), Americans are pretty clever.
Click to expand...

Which has all sorts of unfortunate and unintended side-effects.
 
Bob Noel said:
Which has all sorts of unfortunate and unintended side-effects.
Click to expand...

Agreed, but a trusted government that truly has the best intentions for the citizens ,there has to be a better way. Most people have no problem paying a fair and reasonable amount. I would say that it is unfair that I ( or anyone else) have to work from Jan.1 thru May before I start putting money in my pocket.
I still think we would find the best way to allocate taxes would be to have real taxation with representation. That would be to have all gov. agencies that use tax money to be listed on your ballot.
If you want your tax money to go to healthcare put a check mark there
Military check mark there, pay raise for Congress check mark, education check mark. There could be percentages so you could spread it around.
It would show what people wanted to invest in ,what was important and what was not. Voting most of these officials in? Promises come cheap and most lose track of reality. Most that go into office go in with good intentions and are honest, what they become and do after elections is despicable.
Truth is this country as much as the Liberal side dreams, cannot police the world and be liked ,cannot heal all the sick and pay for it, cannot maintain the pace of growing debt and so on. Obama's Stash is not unlimited as some believe.
The Federal Gov. cannot pass a decent budget and live within it, they mismanage Social Security,medicare, medicaid, how in the world do you think this Healthcare has chance. Really if you think about it they are really not good or experts at anything.:popcorn:
 
Just an anecdote -- (I happen to think that States should handle business like this, not the Feds, but what do I know.)

Several years ago we had to deal with some specialized nursing care. We contacted two State agencies, Kansas (where we live), and Missouri (just a couple miles away) for information.

The MO agency had its act together and was a huge help, the KS agency was a mess and maybe worse than not having it at all.

Just a note on what can happen if States run their own programs. Oh, and Kathleen Sebelius was our Governor at the time.
 
Dave Siciliano said:
E-mail from my state rep this morning after the President's visit to Texas. 36 States now have rejected exchanges. We don't seem to here much in the media about only just over 1/4 of States participating.
Click to expand...

Report I heard this morning was states are reporting overwhelming numbers coming in through the exchanges are going on Medicaid, few on the exchange plans. Medicaid has already been breaking state budgets across the country. This will exacerbate that problem.

So, it's a win-win for this Administration....pushing more states to bankruptcy and driving us towards a single-payer system, the original goal.
 
Matthew said:
When it comes to figuring out how to avoid taxes (which is what the ACA is), Americans are pretty clever.
Click to expand...

Which will negatively affect overall tax revenue. I've heard more people in the last year make comments that after years of honestly ponying up, they've had it and are moving toward cash and barter transactions. Obviously doesn't work for all, but will for many.

Maybe that's a good thing....starve the beast.
 
So it is a tax. Even if you want to be off grid and pay for everything yourself.
 
I just received this e-mail from a friend of mine. He is a retired Levi Strauss Executive in his mid 60s.

-John



FYI:
Re. "Obama care"/ACA... Just some info I've gleaned from the news articles, magazines, books, and conversations with doctors and technicians in the medical profession, as well as some personal observations:

The program had lofty goals set by moderates, but was designed by the right, implemented by the left, and now being destroyed by infighting and incompetence of politicians.
Several doctors, one a director in a large regional hospital, tell me the ACA is a huge disaster and most doctors/hospitals won't honor the system.

FACTS:

1. The ACA plan is to provide health care coverage to ALL US citizens.
Currently, in the existing medical system, the upper and the lower income classes are reasonably well taken care of (including illegal immigrants), so the ACA was basically designed to cover the vulnerable lower-middle income-working classes that always get hit so hard by medical costs. It's a noble and honest quest, since most of this group represent the backbone of our workforce and pay the huge majority of taxes that sustain the health benefits for the rich and the poor.

2. To eliminate difficulties and help get the program installed, our "Lawyer" president, Obama, invited the concerned, knowledgeable republican leaders and German Health Insurance companies (who own our current major health insurance companies) to design the ACA. They did, but later attacked the plan as foolish....a slick political move.
The democratic leadership is basically clueless about the details because they had little input, and apparently little concern. So, when a democratic leader, like Pelosi, publically states on TV news that she doesn't know specific plan details, you can believe her. Sad, but predictable.

3. Funding for the plan, as designed, will come from taxpayers, until the initial five year plan grows to the point where it can take care of itself. Unfortunately, a large portion of the initial funding will be paid out of the tax dollars of the 23-38 year old segment of our working class, which unfairly also equates to the segment which has the least medical problems.

4. The government is broke, so no financial assistance will be forthcoming from them. However, the government has given themselves the power to dictate treatment options and standards for the entire medical profession...adopting a similar process set forth by Communist China and the old Soviet Union, which was/is a disaster, but is very cheap (and lousy!).

5. Under our current system of medical coverage, doctors and hospitals are stressed to make honest profits, resulting in dubious financial accounting measures, unnecessary medical procedures, and dishonest billing practices. Under the umbrella coverage of the ACA, they will now go broke.
A movement is afoot by independent doctors to develop "Boutique" coverage systems, with one large cash-only payment made yearly and a Kaiser-esque system of group coverage allowing for all-inclusive care with open visitation. In this system the patient would be responsible with any dealings involving the ACA.

6. The USA is the only industrialized country and major world leader without national health care system. Not all national care systems are good, but most are adequate and have evolved into workable systems. There are many wonderful system-ideas floating around, but in our country, without a strong profit motive for our politicians and health-care providers, any system is dead.

7.As mentioned in the past, the German Health Insurance industry makes an estimated "NET" profit of over $500 Billion per year off of our health insurance business....yet it's ironic that socialized medicine is instituted in Deutschland.
The Germans also make a fortune off of the health supply and equipment industries in the US.... Just remember the next time you pay $400-500 for an MRI, the machine is most likely of Japanese or German manufacture, and in those countries the patients only pay from $60-$75 for the same treatment. Nice, huh?
In other words, our health insurance business is an enormous cash cow for foreign countries, and also for many of our own politicians.

8. The entire ACA program has become a political-social football. There's claims it's communist inspired, a Muslim terrorist plot to destroy the fabric of our nation, it's anti-Christian, it's leftist inspired, it's fascist, big oil companies are behind the mess, death squads will have free reign, etc.
As I see it, on one side of the issue are business men, using the nut-cake fringe to do their political fighting, and on the other side are dreamers, without the skills or knowledge to produce.

9. In reality, the ACA is an attempt to give medical coverage to all people, especially honest working men and women. Not a bad idea, and certainly not an excuse to prepare for another civil war. But one of the most basic rules in any endeavor is to make adequate preparation, have an organization in place, and to have open and honest communications so everyone is appraised and understands the process. It appears that none of these requirements were met.

Obviously the program leadership has a serious lack of working experience, and because of this, the ACA is a disaster that could do serious damage the very group of people it was designed to help. What it now needs is strong leadership, a comprehensive experienced staff, industry input, and some solid funding that doesn't place further burdens on the US taxpayers.
 
LDJones said:
Report I heard this morning was states are reporting overwhelming numbers coming in through the exchanges are going on Medicaid, few on the exchange plans. Medicaid has already been breaking state budgets across the country. This will exacerbate that problem.

So, it's a win-win for this Administration....pushing more states to bankruptcy and driving us towards a single-payer system, the original goal.
Click to expand...
This is why they pushed the States to accept an expansion of Medicaid, and why they stole nearly $800B from Medicare - it is classic Cloward-Piven, the US healthcare system will implode, perhaps as early as next year - by design, and the Dem's will ride in on a white horse to 'save us' from the very chaos they deliberately caused. With the traitorous RINO's-in-waiting running right along behind them.

Problem is that Cloward-Piven was an academic theory, at least until now - the actual damage these ****ats are doing to more and more real people could cause significant social unrest, and not just in urban population centers by the usual suspects.

I see very dark times ahead.

'Gimp
 
Last edited:
Becky said:
We can assume Jose has quit reading the NY Times as well, then, if plagiarism disturbs him so.

Unfortunately, we the people are left to find our facts, sans spin, where we can. The truth almost always resides in a mix of inputs, combined with observing what is going on in the world with clear eyes, as free of ideology as possible.

Unfortunately, ideologues are often in charge, not only of our country's laws and coffers, but of the media. And ideologues are almost always immune to feedback.

Ideologues of all political ilk tend to use the scattershot method of interaction ... isolated incidents, non sequiturs, ignoring the big picture in favor of a skewed sort of rabid attachment to an idea or a person who represents that idea, regardless of what actually is playing out in front of them.

Ideologues consistently avoid addressing the larger issues, like personal freedom, system sustainability, linking life choices to consequences, thinking a problem through creatively, and constructing systems of government that serve most, best, or that get government out of issues entirely when it makes sense to do so.

It stuns me beyond belief to see ACA expecting young, healthy folk to pony up in the years when they're trying to get their careers going, raise families and buy homes. All while the government racks up more debt for them and their children and grandchildren, ad infinitum, to pay off. And to launch this one-party-voted-in bill in our enfeebled economy ... idiotic.

I don't talk with ideologues anymore beyond polite hellos and trivial topics, because they glaze over when you use words like sustainability and competence. If the ideologue is liberal, he/she will pepper you with little digs about George Bush, under their erroneous assumption that if you believe competence and sustainability are important, and you don't think our current administration is competent, you must have approved of everything George Bush did, and, from that, that you approve of everything the Tea Party does. Crazy leaps, designed, I guess, to shut down any real discussion and protect the ideologue from really having to think about the flimsy façade of an unworkable idea he is trying to hold up as something to admire and to govern a nation by.

I spend my effortful conversation time these days with those who can engage in dialogue and talk without leaping to assumptions based on perceptions of one another's political leanings.

I saw a bumper sticker the other day that read "Where was the Tea Party when Bush was overspending?" Does that mean the car owner approves of the Tea Party and hopes they'll stop Obama's overspending? The back and forths and fingerpointing and ping-pong insults based on party and perceptions do no one any good, and keep our attention off solutions.

Unfortunately, I have a sick and sinking feeling that truly competent people, who could lead effectively, avoid public office. And that if such a person did arise, and seek office, their signal would be drowned out by the screech and static of ideologues.
Click to expand...

Extremely well written. Thanks for sharing.
 
Geico266 said:
There is a woman in San Diego with stage 4 gall bladder cancer that is fighting for her life. She had a 2% chance of surviving 5 years after diagnosis. She loved her DR, and loved the insurance plan, payouts, and premiums until they canceled her because of Obamacare. She can no longer see her old DR.

You see she lives in one county and the treatment center and DR live in another. Under Obama care you can't seek treatment ( and have it covered) outside of the area where you bought your policy. So she needs to move or die. Then of course the "HealthCare Review Board" will need to approve her treatment.

Sorry AP, but your continued BS and lies are about as far fetched as Obama's.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...ld-class-insurance-plan-because-of-obamacare/
Click to expand...


Seems like all the Faux News, Daily Caller, and Breitbart stories are complete "lies" and "are about as far fetched" as can be.....

Edie Sundby, a Stage-4 gallbladder cancer patient who is losing her individual health care policy in California, could pay less for comprehensive insurance in Obamacare’s health care exchanges.
Sundby’s story first gained national attention after she penned an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal on Monday, arguing that Obamacare would cost her more and force her to abandon her cancer doctors. Her high deductible individual health care policy from United Healthcare (called PacifiCare in California) had paid $1.2 million to keep her alive and “never once questioned any treatment or procedure” until earlier this year.

In May, the company announced that it would be canceling insurance policies for its 8,000 enrollees and leaving the California market altogether. “Over the years, it has become more difficult to administer these plans in a cost-effective way for our members,” UnitedHealth spokeswoman Cheryl Randolph explained, suggesting that the company had long struggled to compete with insurers like Anthem Blue Cross, Blue Shield of California and Kaiser Permanente, who control more than 80 percent of the individual market.
Click to expand...

Source

So, it wasn't ObamaCare that caused United Health to leave Calif, it was good old fashioned competition monopoly power.


The lady goes on Fox expressing her trauma/drama and outrage because things are changing.... When it turned out her old policy was "financially traumatic" according to her husband.

During an appearance on Fox News on Wednesday, she described her old catastrophic policy as “fabulous” and “fantastic,” in part because it paid for treatment by both Stanford and UC San Diego doctors. But the policy also came at a high cost. The AARP reported last year in a profile of Sundby’s fight against cancer that the family spent “tens of thousands of dollars” on treatment beyond the cost of coverage. “The results, financially, were ‘traumatic,’” AARP quotes her husband Dale as saying. “But we are, as a family, willing to go to the end, to spend whatever it takes. That’s what vows and commitments are all about.”
Click to expand...

Turns out when her old policy is compared to a Platinum policy in Obamacare, she will be much better off....

healthy-plan-graph-1.png



A few caveats.....

The new policy comes with strong consumer protections: Sundby’s plan can’t be suddenly cancelled, it won’t be able to charge her more per month just because she’s a woman and she will likely receive a more comprehensive benefits package with her new policy.

Still, Sundby may need to find a different health care provider, since her doctor at UC San Diego is only participating in one plan offered by Anthem Blue Cross in the exchange, but the same policy is not accepted at Stanford. (“Stanford takes a different Blue Cross plan, one that uses a broader preferred provider network of doctors, but that plan is not available in San Diego.”) If Sundby continues to see the non-participating doctors, she will incur additional out-of-pocket health care costs.

The estimates also assume that the couple hit all of their spending maxes. If they don’t, they could pay even less for health care under Obamacare.
Click to expand...


It seems like there is a lot of dishonesty out there by the likes of the WSJ, Faux News (I'm looking at you Sean Hannity), and other sources that keep dragging these tales of woe out front, and then when a bit of digging is done, these "victims" have been previously mislead, or are ignorant to their current situation, or have no idea about ObamaCare...

It would be interesting to see how much Faux Outrage would be here if the truth was told instead of the intentional lies by Murdoch and Company.
 
Becky said:
We can assume Jose has quit reading the NY Times as well, then, if plagiarism disturbs him so.

Unfortunately, we the people are left to find our facts, sans spin, where we can. The truth almost always resides in a mix of inputs, combined with observing what is going on in the world with clear eyes, as free of ideology as possible.

Unfortunately, ideologues are often in charge, not only of our country's laws and coffers, but of the media. And ideologues are almost always immune to feedback.

Ideologues of all political ilk tend to use the scattershot method of interaction ... isolated incidents, non sequiturs, ignoring the big picture in favor of a skewed sort of rabid attachment to an idea or a person who represents that idea, regardless of what actually is playing out in front of them.

Ideologues consistently avoid addressing the larger issues, like personal freedom, system sustainability, linking life choices to consequences, thinking a problem through creatively, and constructing systems of government that serve most, best, or that get government out of issues entirely when it makes sense to do so.

It stuns me beyond belief to see ACA expecting young, healthy folk to pony up in the years when they're trying to get their careers going, raise families and buy homes. All while the government racks up more debt for them and their children and grandchildren, ad infinitum, to pay off. And to launch this one-party-voted-in bill in our enfeebled economy ... idiotic.

I don't talk with ideologues anymore beyond polite hellos and trivial topics, because they glaze over when you use words like sustainability and competence. If the ideologue is liberal, he/she will pepper you with little digs about George Bush, under their erroneous assumption that if you believe competence and sustainability are important, and you don't think our current administration is competent, you must have approved of everything George Bush did, and, from that, that you approve of everything the Tea Party does. Crazy leaps, designed, I guess, to shut down any real discussion and protect the ideologue from really having to think about the flimsy façade of an unworkable idea he is trying to hold up as something to admire and to govern a nation by.

I spend my effortful conversation time these days with those who can engage in dialogue and talk without leaping to assumptions based on perceptions of one another's political leanings.

I saw a bumper sticker the other day that read "Where was the Tea Party when Bush was overspending?" Does that mean the car owner approves of the Tea Party and hopes they'll stop Obama's overspending? The back and forths and fingerpointing and ping-pong insults based on party and perceptions do no one any good, and keep our attention off solutions.

Unfortunately, I have a sick and sinking feeling that truly competent people, who could lead effectively, avoid public office. And that if such a person did arise, and seek office, their signal would be drowned out by the screech and static of ideologues.
Click to expand...


I have never really read the NY Times, so I don't know that I "quit". I mostly read news aggregators, so I am sure that I sometimes get linked to NY Times articles, but their Paywall usually stops me.

But, I agree with you if you think Ideologues like Rand Paul are bad for the country. You won't get an argument from me. I will never agree with some one who wants to use Drone Strikes on criminals leaving liquor stores.
 
LDJones said:
Report I heard this morning was states are reporting overwhelming numbers coming in through the exchanges are going on Medicaid, few on the exchange plans. Medicaid has already been breaking state budgets across the country. This will exacerbate that problem.
Click to expand...

Aha, you are listing to the same radio show. What was it, 85% go into Minnesotacare and MA ?

Anyone who wanted subsidized insurance in MN already had the opportunity to get it. MN_care and the states outsized medicaid program have been breaking the bank for years, having pushed the signup into the exchange only increased the administrative cost but doesn't change the underlying subscriber base.
 
dell30rb said:
That won't be an issue, they'll be getting the money either way. Remember the fine goes up to 2.5% of income in 2016
Click to expand...

If obama-nation care is so great, how come the government has to hire 16000 IRS thugs to force us to take it?
 
JoseCuervo said:
But, I agree with you if you think Ideologues like Rand Paul are bad for the country. You won't get an argument from me. I will never agree with some one who wants to use Drone Strikes on criminals leaving liquor stores.
Click to expand...

If there weren't ideologies and people willing to live by them to the point of imprisonment, death, bankruptcy, and attacks on their families, there wouldn't have been a country.

Ever read up on what happened to the signers of the Declaration of Independence after they signed it? Not pretty.
 
denverpilot said:
If there weren't ideologies and people willing to live by them to the point of imprisonment, death, bankruptcy, and attacks on their families, there wouldn't have been a country.

Ever read up on what happened to the signers of the Declaration of Independence after they signed it? Not pretty.
Click to expand...

Are you really comparing robbers leaving a liquor store with signers of the Declaration of Imdependence?

Smh.
 
JoseCuervo said:
Are you really comparing robbers leaving a liquor store with signers of the Declaration of Imdependence?

Smh.
Click to expand...

Nope. Apparently you made that assumption though.

The statement stands on it's own without made up crap from your head.
 
JoseCuervo said:
Seems like all the Faux News, Daily Caller, and Breitbart stories are complete "lies" and "are about as far fetched" as can be.....



Source

So, it wasn't ObamaCare that caused United Health to leave Calif, it was good old fashioned competition monopoly power.


The lady goes on Fox expressing her trauma/drama and outrage because things are changing.... When it turned out her old policy was "financially traumatic" according to her husband.



Turns out when her old policy is compared to a Platinum policy in Obamacare, she will be much better off....

healthy-plan-graph-1.png



A few caveats.....




It seems like there is a lot of dishonesty out there by the likes of the WSJ, Faux News (I'm looking at you Sean Hannity), and other sources that keep dragging these tales of woe out front, and then when a bit of digging is done, these "victims" have been previously mislead, or are ignorant to their current situation, or have no idea about ObamaCare...

It would be interesting to see how much Faux Outrage would be here if the truth was told instead of the intentional lies by Murdoch and Company.
Click to expand...
If you actually read what you snipped and quoted you will find she never claimed Obamacare cancelled her insurance, her story is about the second part of his big lie, 'if you like your Dr you can keep them'.

Because of the care mandated under Obamacare, many folks (myself, my wife and my daughter included, several cousins included, and several good friends included, so far) are finding that networks are shrinking, premiums are going up, deductibles are going up and out-of-pocket is going up - again in my case premiums by 60%, deductibles by 50% and out-of-pocket exposure by 100%. We had a nice combination of employer plan for me (pre-existing), and private for the two of them. Networks are smaller, costs are significantly higher, PERIOD, to coin a phrase.

This woman was stating that the plans which remain available do not allow her to continue to see the local specialists and her oncologists, she now has to pick or pay even more - that is a result of how the law is written. Just like the grandfather clause that essentially cancels exsting insurance with even minor changes in premiums or coverage, EVEN WHEN THE CHANGES ARE REQUIRED BY THE LAW ITSELF.

So she was telling the truth, the reporting has been pretty accurate - so who is really lying about this story?

'Gimp
 
It's priceless. Looked up rates for individual coverage for next year through e-healthinsurance.

If I start my coverage in 2013, for the same price as a $4000 deductible plan through the federal exchange, I can buy our local insuers $500 deductible 80% indemnity plan. If I change the start of coverage to 2014, all the good plans go away but the $4000 plan is still $120 less if bought directly from the insurer rather than the feds.
 
weilke said:
It's priceless. Looked up rates for individual coverage for next year through e-healthinsurance.

If I start my coverage in 2013, for the same price as a $4000 deductible plan through the federal exchange, I can buy our local insuers $500 deductible 80% indemnity plan. If I change the start of coverage to 2014, all the good plans go away but the $4000 plan is still $120 less if bought directly from the insurer rather than the feds.
Click to expand...
We found similar on the Covered California site, same plan direct from insurer is about 10% less than if purchased over the exchange. And when you are approaching $1000/mo that actually adds up.

'Gimp
 
Wait. Catastrophic plans are gone? No more high deductible plans? The original intent of insurance was to prevent personal financial catastrophe. That is a model we should keep and build on, not cancel.

https://www.healthcare.gov/can-i-buy-a-catastrophic-plan/

You must be under 30 or hardshipped to buy a catastrophic plan. So basically, gone once you hit 30.

The single most intelligent, responsible, ethical and economic choice ... gone. A huge freedom ... gone.

The demise of the catastrophic plan for people over 30 is a great loss. When you buy a catastrophic plan, you are taking responsibility for a large portion of the costs of your own health care, which gives you an incentive to actually care for your health. It also lets you save some premium money to do that. But if the worst happens, you're covered.

Catastrophic insurance is the essence of insurance. I would choose it. But it is gone. Not allowed. Doesn't comply.

I quote Tom Naughton in response to a hostile commenter, who took issue with Naughton's video clip changing the president's words from "If you like your health insurance you can keep it" to "If I like your health insurance you can keep it."

"The federal government has no @#$%ing business prohibiting me from buying the type of policy I want from an insurer willing to sell it. This was supposed to be a free country, not a country where His Highness orders everyone to buy insurance that meets with his approval under the supposed “law of the land” …. while simultaneously waving his magic scepter and saying, “I grant thee an exemption, and I grant thee an exemption, and I grant thee an exemption …” His Highness just granted a new exemption to unions so they’d stop bashing Obamacare. He isn’t acting like a president who swore to uphold the law; he’s acting like an emperor who decides the law is whatever the @#$% he wants it to mean for whoever the @#$% he likes or doesn’t like.

So I guess expecting a president to apply the law equally to everyone, to uphold a promise he made over and over and over, and to stay the @#$% out of private economic decisions is “infantile” now, eh? Right, as opposed to all those responsible adults clamoring to be subsidized by their fellow citizens. Those are the grown-ups in society."
 
Becky said:
Wait. Catastrophic plans are gone? No more high deductible plans? The original intent of insurance was to prevent personal financial catastrophe. That is a model we should keep and build on, not cancel.
Click to expand...

Still plenty of high-deductible plans, but just not the straight ones with a cutoff at 10k. Even though they are high deductible, they still cover all the obamagoodies for 'free' like breast exams for males and 'free' birth control for couples in their late 50s.

Can't possibly allow people to decide for themselves what they want. I used to have a classic indemnity plan that covered 80% of usual and customary. Could go to any doctor you want, network or not. Poof, gone.
 
Becky said:
You must be under 30 or hardshipped to buy a catastrophic plan. So basically, gone once you hit 30.
Click to expand...

I'm 64.

In what way is the above snippet not age discrimination?

I realize that age discrimination is generally about employment practices, but should I not have access to the same health insurance plan that younger person would? If not, is sure seems discriminatory.
 
Last edited:
As an aside, Obama apologized - sort of:

His apology:

"Caught in the firestorm of his broken promise, Obama on Thursday apologized.

“I am sorry that they are finding themselves in this situation based on assurances they got from me,” he told NBC News Thursday evening. “We’ve got to work hard to make sure that they know we hear them and we are going to do everything we can to deal with folks who find themselves in a tough position as a consequence of this.”

A step in the tight direction, I suppose, but does that strike anyone else as a typical lawyerly (read: weasely) non-apology apology?

Not sorry for his actions, but for the consequences?

Just sayin'!
 
FastEddieB said:
As an aside, Obama apologized - sort of:

His apology:

"Caught in the firestorm of his broken promise, Obama on Thursday apologized.

“I am sorry that they are finding themselves in this situation based on assurances they got from me,” he told NBC News Thursday evening. “We’ve got to work hard to make sure that they know we hear them and we are going to do everything we can to deal with folks who find themselves in a tough position as a consequence of this.”

A step in the tight direction, I suppose, but does that strike anyone else as a typical lawyerly (read: weasely) non-apology apology?

Not sorry for his actions, but for the consequences?

Just sayin'!
Click to expand...

Yeah, sounded more like "I'm sorry you were stupid enough to believe anything that I said."
 
It is one of those 'I am so sorry you feel offended' non-apologies.

I dont want him to apologize. I want him to fix the thing. And with fix I mean reversing 9/10th of it ;) .
 
weilke said:
It is one of those 'I am so sorry you feel offended' non-apologies.

I dont want him to apologize. I want him to fix the thing. And with fix I mean reversing 9/10th of it ;) .
Click to expand...

First step in fixing things is determining exactly what the problem is.

Then (and only then) pick a legal solution that addresses that problem.
 
;)
FastEddieB said:
As an aside, Obama apologized - sort of:

His apology:

"Caught in the firestorm of his broken promise, Obama on Thursday apologized.

“I am sorry that they are finding themselves in this situation based on assurances they got from me,” he told NBC News Thursday evening. “We’ve got to work hard to make sure that they know we hear them and we are going to do everything we can to deal with folks who find themselves in a tough position as a consequence of this.”

A step in the tight direction, I suppose, but does that strike anyone else as a typical lawyerly (read: weasely) non-apology apology?

Not sorry for his actions, but for the consequences?

Just sayin'!
Click to expand...

Weasels annonomous wrote that for him...

Or maybe hilary's old law firm which is the same thing.
 
FastEddieB said:
As an aside, Obama apologized - sort of:

His apology:

"Caught in the firestorm of his broken promise, Obama on Thursday apologized.

“I am sorry that they are finding themselves in this situation based on assurances they got from me,” he told NBC News Thursday evening. “We’ve got to work hard to make sure that they know we hear them and we are going to do everything we can to deal with folks who find themselves in a tough position as a consequence of this.”

A step in the tight direction, I suppose, but does that strike anyone else as a typical lawyerly (read: weasely) non-apology apology?

Not sorry for his actions, but for the consequences?

Just sayin'!
Click to expand...

Deal with them? :confused:

Back in Brooklyn, that could have had quite a few meanings -- most of them decidedly less-than-desirable for those being "dealt with."

-Rich
 
Fox is now citing a study by a Duke University professor that also takes into account coverage that will be lost by employers as ACA takes full affect. That professor now claims up to 129,000,000 will lose their policies. recall, the employer mandate was moved back a year by Executive Order. Anyone question why?

Best,

Dave
 
denverpilot said:
Hilary will be along shortly to "fix" it. Don't worry. ;)
Click to expand...
No hope there. Her go-to "fix" is to say, "What difference does it make?" Notice she also makes her question one that cannot be answered with a yes or a no.

It's always more confusing, and thus useful for obfuscation, to ask a question, throwing it back at others to answer rather than facing the issue squarely yourself by making an actual statement. Because you don't want the question answered (too uncomfortable), you frame it as such and let it float, keeping blame (also known as responsibility) from landing on or anywhere near you.

The president could have taken a cue from her ... he made a direct statement when he consistently and repeatedly lied to all American citizens. How interesting, considering the president's proclivity for repeating "Let me make this perfectly clear."

But then, he DID consider it his sovereign duty to fool voters into thinking his signature piece of one-party legislation would provide them with the personal freedom of retaining their current coverage, and implied, to continue to arrange for the health care coverage and providers that suited their budget and needs, when in fact the reverse was true.

But then, lying ... what difference does it make? Assimilate already, "folks!"

Oops ... I mean, why don't you just assimilate already? Folks?
 
You do realize I was being sarcastic, right? Hilary hasn't ever fixed anything for anyone other than Hilary. An even bigger narcissist and sociopath than the current Prez, she'll be adored by the narcissistic sociopathic Party.
 
denverpilot said:
You do realize I was being sarcastic, right? Hilary hasn't ever fixed anything for anyone other than Hilary. An even bigger narcissist and sociopath than the current Prez, she'll be adored by the narcissistic sociopathic Party.
Click to expand...

I do realize that. :yesnod:
 
FastEddieB said:
I'm 64.

In what way is the above snippet not age discrimination?

I realize that age discrimination is generally about employment practices, but should I not have access to the same health insurance plan that younger person would? If not, is sure seems discriminatory.
Click to expand...


That is an interesting point. Will people now start to sue the federal government for age discrimination?

:nonod: That we even have to think like this is really sad. It feels like a big, slimy swamp thing has reached out with a long arm and swept everyone into its maw in some way. We are yet to be spit out.
 
Hell, if you're 64 you're lucky that 'age discrimination' does mean ending up at Soylent Inc Feed and Fertilizer instead of receiving a SS check. :rofl:
 
Henning said:
Hell, if you're 64 you're lucky that 'age discrimination' does mean ending up at Soylent Inc Feed and Fertilizer instead of receiving a SS check. :rofl:
Click to expand...

No joke. It would be more humane than starvation. :D

Logans-run-movie.bmp
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top