07-15-2014 12:26 PM
1,900 ... 2930313233 ...
tools
  1. pappy53's Avatar
    Check it out at the 1:09 mark. His guarantee.

    cdmjlt369 likes this.
    10-29-2013 11:54 PM
  2. Scott7217's Avatar
    He didn't just say it in that video.
    He said it many times, at many press conferences, town halls, etc.
    I think that's why Obama saved Obamacare for his second term. He can't run for office again, so it really doesn't matter if he can't keep his word. It's more of an issue for the next Democrat who runs for office. Of course, the American people are stuck with it no matter what.
    10-30-2013 01:18 PM
  3. Aquila's Avatar
    I think that's why Obama saved Obamacare for his second term. He can't run for office again, so it really doesn't matter if he can't keep his word. It's more of an issue for the next Democrat who runs for office. Of course, the American people are stuck with it no matter what.
    It passed in 2010 though, halfway through the 1st term. If it were going to be a major election issue, it could have been in 2012 (and sorta was).

    XT1060. Through spacetime.
    10-30-2013 01:29 PM
  4. Scott7217's Avatar
    It passed in 2010 though, halfway through the 1st term. If it were going to be a major election issue, it could have been in 2012 (and sorta was).
    However, would people know in 2010 that they couldn't keep the health insurance plan that they liked, despite Obama's promise? I think that's the problem that people are just starting to realize.
    10-30-2013 01:52 PM
  5. Aquila's Avatar
    However, would people know in 2010 that they couldn't keep the health insurance plan that they liked, despite Obama's promise? I think that's the problem that people are just starting to realize.
    The information was there in the 2009 speech that pappy53 linked, where he qualified and clarified who he was talking about. My guess is that isn't the first time anyone explained it. Honesty, there is enough to like or dislike for a debate without going on and on about the made up arguments.

    XT1060. Through spacetime.
    10-30-2013 02:10 PM
  6. Scott7217's Avatar
    The information was there in the 2009 speech that pappy53 linked, where he qualified and clarified who he was talking about. My guess is that isn't the first time anyone explained it. Honesty, there is enough to like or dislike for a debate without going on and on about the made up arguments.
    That's a valid point. The information was available for people to see. I was thinking that if Obama implemented the ACA in his first term, he wouldn't have a second one. You could also think of it this way. If the election were held today, people wouldn't vote for Obama.
    10-30-2013 02:25 PM
  7. Aquila's Avatar
    That's a valid point. The information was available for people to see. I was thinking that if Obama implemented the ACA in his first term, he wouldn't have a second one. You could also think of it this way. If the election were held today, people wouldn't vote for Obama.
    Some major parts of it went into effect long ago, 2014 is when exchange purchased plans go into effect and when the mandate starts. I'm not sure that the people who voted for and financed the president are displeased with the rollout, but proud that he didn't cave into the shutdown like he caves into the other republican plans. Single issue voters probably haven't changed their minds yet, nor the strict party line voters. What are you seeing to suggest that dems are unhappy?

    XT1060. Through spacetime.
    10-30-2013 02:31 PM
  8. NoYankees44's Avatar
    Some major parts of it went into effect long ago, 2014 is when exchange purchased plans go into effect and when the mandate starts. I'm not sure that the people who voted for and financed the president are displeased with the rollout, but proud that he didn't cave into the shutdown like he caves into the other republican plans. Single issue voters probably haven't changed their minds yet, nor the strict party line voters. What are you seeing to suggest that dems are unhappy?

    XT1060. Through spacetime.
    Lol when has Obama caved to anything?

    Sent from my ASUS Transformer Pad TF300T
    10-30-2013 03:50 PM
  9. Aquila's Avatar
    Lol when has Obama caved to anything?

    Sent from my ASUS Transformer Pad TF300T
    Is that a serious question?

    XT1060. Through spacetime.
    msndrstood likes this.
    10-30-2013 04:07 PM
  10. Aquila's Avatar
    Just stumbled upon this guy explaining the aca bring based on a 40 year old plan drafted by the GOP and insurance companies. http://www.kansascity.com/2013/10/29...til-obama.html

    This is why it's funny to see the debates, because the democrats are vehemently defending the old corporatist Republican plan that was meant to avoid the Democratic plan of a single payer system. Meanwhile, the Republicans pretend to hate it while they and insurance companies laugh all the way to the bank. And the public on both sides bought into the silly taking points.

    XT1060. Through spacetime.
    10-31-2013 10:22 AM
  11. Scott7217's Avatar
    No college, no work, 22yo.
    If the ACA didn't exist, how would you have changed the law to get insurance coverage for your son? For example, if your son was a minor (instead of 22 years old), you could have put him under your plan as a dependent, so the issue you face now is that he is too old to be eligible. Maybe simply fixing that part would have helped your son?
    10-31-2013 12:48 PM
  12. rexxman's Avatar
    Scott7217,

    Your example doesn't make sense because I cannot change the age of my son.

    If I had the power to change health care coverage for the American citizenry, I would implement single payor.

    Lastly, the vast majority of workers who get their health insurance thru their employer will keep their present insurance. It will change only in the sense that it will improve to meet the ACA requirements.

    Posted via Android Central App
    11-01-2013 06:19 PM
  13. NoYankees44's Avatar
    Scott7217,

    Your example doesn't make sense because I cannot change the age of my son.

    If I had the power to change health care coverage for the American citizenry, I would implement single payor.

    Lastly, the vast majority of workers who get their health insurance thru their employer will keep their present insurance. It will change only in the sense that it will improve to meet the ACA requirements.

    Posted via Android Central App
    And in some cases have less coverage because of the taxes that the law puts on "too much" coverage. While everyone will pay more regardless...
    11-01-2013 08:00 PM
  14. jaj324's Avatar
    Ultimately the demise of Ocare will not be the website but the fact that nobody wants the product. The only people who will enroll are the people who have nothing to put into the system and want to suck as much out of it as possible. It is a flawed theory and will go down in history as the worst piece of legislation ever enacted. The fool who's name it bears will forever be remembered for its failure and his failure as a president.

    Sent from my LG-D800
    plumbrich and mayo1024#AC like this.
    11-01-2013 08:13 PM
  15. rexxman's Avatar
    NoYankees44,

    With or without ACA, costs go up. So what's new?

    Posted via Android Central App
    11-01-2013 10:50 PM
  16. NoYankees44's Avatar
    NoYankees44,

    With or without ACA, costs go up. So what's new?

    Posted via Android Central App
    Your right, but when there is a quantitative reason for them going up across the board significantly, I tend to blame the reason. If you want to be in denial about the reason or even not care that there is a reason that is your business. Me? I do math and see my costs going up significantly with no extra benefits to myself or anyone I am in direct contact with and no other tangible reason for the sudden jump.

    When all the business mandates start to hit the effects on the economy are going to be big. I am sure you will just say "Economy goes down sometimes. What's new?" then as well...
    mayo1024#AC likes this.
    11-01-2013 11:10 PM
  17. rexxman's Avatar
    Jaj324,

    So what is it? Nobody wants the product, or, only those who will suck it for all its worth?

    What will these folks who sign up be sucking from the rest of us? Booze, cigarettes or illegal drugs? No. Health care, pure and simple. I hope they all stay healthy only because I wish no illness on anyone.

    Those who do not have health insurance will want it. And don't kid yourself, when an uninsured avails themselves of the local emergency room, the taxpayers pick up the tab.

    I work for a large US corporation. We have received information that our health plans are in compliance. We are keeping our current coverage. Rates have not changed. YMMV.

    Failures of our current federal government are more the fault of an out of control and dangerous house then the executive branch.

    Extortion is not the method for making law described in our Constitution. And when this anti ACA group threatened economic harm to our nation, that harm would have hurt ALL of us, pro or anti ACA.

    Posted via Android Central App
    msndrstood likes this.
    11-01-2013 11:19 PM
  18. Mooncatt's Avatar
    Your right, but when there is a quantitative reason for them going up across the board significantly, I tend to blame the reason.
    Not quite. What's new is the inflation happening now is artificial due to the new law and the monopolistic attitude of the government saying do it their way or else they will fine us... oh wait, they will tax us for not buying their idea of insurance.
    11-01-2013 11:37 PM
  19. Mooncatt's Avatar
    Extortion is not the method for making law described in our Constitution. And when this anti ACA group threatened economic harm to our nation, that harm would have hurt ALL of us, pro or anti ACA.
    Debating on a possible eventual outcome is not extortion. An unconstitutional law fining us for not buying something we don't want in the first place is extortion.
    11-01-2013 11:41 PM
  20. rexxman's Avatar
    Mooncat,

    The ACA is constitutional law. That is not my assessment. The Supreme Court has so ruled. What is your source for your claim?

    Posted via Android Central App
    11-01-2013 11:45 PM
  21. cdmjlt369's Avatar
    Jaj324,

    So what is it? Nobody wants the product, or, only those who will suck it for all its worth?

    What will these folks who sign up be sucking from the rest of us? Booze, cigarettes or illegal drugs? No. Health care, pure and simple. I hope they all stay healthy only because I wish no illness on anyone.

    Those who do not have health insurance will want it. And don't kid yourself, when an uninsured avails themselves of the local emergency room, the taxpayers pick up the tab.

    I work for a large US corporation. We have received information that our health plans are in compliance. We are keeping our current coverage. Rates have not changed. YMMV.

    Failures of our current federal government are more the fault of an out of control and dangerous house then the executive branch.

    Extortion is not the method for making law described in our Constitution. And when this anti ACA group threatened economic harm to our nation, that harm would have hurt ALL of us, pro or anti ACA.

    Posted via Android Central App
    The ACA is going to kill the economy. You need to really look ay what reasons the ACA can use to qualify your insurance as unacceptable. Within a couple years, no one will be allowed to keep their insurance and the government will have control of 1/6 of the economy. Call it extortion if you would like, its how Washington has conducted business for years on both sides of the aisle. I will also say this, if its so great and so many people want it, why is it mandated, even to the point of fining people? Its being turned into yet another entitlement, and entitlements have ruined this country, financially and mentally.

    Sent from a device that supports the proposed 28th amendment
    11-01-2013 11:48 PM
  22. Mooncatt's Avatar
    Mooncat,

    The ACA is constitutional law. That is not my assessment. The Supreme Court has so ruled. What is your source for your claim?

    Posted via Android Central App
    The constitution itself. Point to one place in there where forcing anyone to buy anything is an enumerated power of the federal government. It's not the first time there has been questioning of a Supreme Court ruling.
    cdmjlt369 likes this.
    11-01-2013 11:55 PM
  23. Aquila's Avatar
    THIS IS SUPER LONG. I RECOMMEND NOT READING IT.

    The ACA is going to kill the economy. You need to really look ay what reasons the ACA can use to qualify your insurance as unacceptable. Within a couple years, no one will be allowed to keep their insurance and the government will have control of 1/6 of the economy. Call it extortion if you would like, its how Washington has conducted business for years on both sides of the aisle. I will also say this, if its so great and so many people want it, why is it mandated, even to the point of fining people? Its being turned into yet another entitlement, and entitlements have ruined this country, financially and mentally.

    Sent from a device that supports the proposed 28th amendment
    The mandate exists to maintain profitability for the insurance companies. That was proposed by them, agreed to by the GOP candidates and by the conservative think tanks and actually passed into law previously.

    The people who have policies ending this year will not be added to government programs, but will have the option to purchase conforming plans from the same or another insurance company, either through the exchanges or by shopping directly with insurance companies (still an option).

    At no point does the government get control over which individuals obtain which policies outside of medicare/medicaid and the VA.

    The vast majority of people have plans through their employers, and for the most part nothing is changing there. There are a few companies that are trying to dodge providing conforming insurance, but as rexxman intimated, for many people, nothing will change at all. A lot of people have seen their costs go down. The variance in delta varies greatly by state based on how the state is implementing their portions of the law.

    I'm missing how there is an entitlement argument here. The newly insured are buying something, not taking something. For a large portion of the country, they're now able to BUY insurance (note, it's not GIVEN to them) when they were previously unable to. They're now contributing to that portion of the economy, whereas before many would have still received care, not paid for it, and we'd be paying for it anyways.... However, even if it were an entitlement issue, 11% of the budget is for non-financed "entitlements". That's a huge amount of money, but hardly anything that's ruining the country financially. Mentally, I'll agree. Both sides of the entitlements argument are absolutely bonkers. Rather than trying to think of the most efficient way to help the maximum amount of people for the lowest amount of money... yeah, bonkers.
    Financed entitlements would not be a drain at all, had the bipartisan plans of the 80's and 90's to make those funds off-limits to congressional borrowing been enacted. The only reason those things cost us money, is because their trusts were completely raided, then borrowed against and because of artificial caps on revenue being added to the law, which make it a very left heavy curve, which is bad in just about every industry. Rather than solving problems, we're basically stealing from ourselves.. but actually, we're stealing from our children and grandchildren in order to pay giant buckets of money to banks, war profiteers, foreign countries that generally hate us and media companies, while we blame the debt they'll receive on the poor people.


    On a side note: I think it's really weird that the liberals don't come here and argue their points at all, although I can see why. The inability to get past the misinformation and disinformation campaigns is exactly what is wrong with the "republican party", or parties rather, and it seems like they don't have to. I'd love to see a strong, actually conservative (as in conservation and optimization, etc, rather than fear, hatred and ignorance), candidate to challenge the democrats, because the dems aren't putting up much of a fight. But the party split based on who lies the loudest is devastating and it's going to get worse. Much worse.

    At this point I can't think of a single republican or independent member of the Congress that actually believes (and acts accordingly) in the traditional conservative values and I can't really understand why so many citizens stand for it. Is the actual conservative a "no true scotsman" thing now? I know A TON of them in real life, yet none would support Romney or Bachman or Rand Paul, or any of these clowns. In 312 million people, we don't have ANYONE that can do better? Oh wait, they just don't have a billion dollars in donations from their puppeteers to buy the elections. Right, sorry, end of rant.

    I disagree with most democrats on most things and recently with most republicans on most things.... we definitely need a third choice that ignores absurd extremism and thinks only in terms of minimum cost for maximum benefit in a sustainable net zero model, where no more resources are consumed than are produced (trees, oil, dollars, whatever) and waste is eliminated, not value. Capitalism would do this if allowed to function, but having a different set of rules for the giants than for the start up makes capitalism fail, and that's before the subsidies, etc.
    11-02-2013 12:22 AM
  24. Aquila's Avatar
    The constitution itself. Point to one place in there where forcing anyone to buy anything is an enumerated power of the federal government. It's not the first time there has been questioning of a Supreme Court ruling.
    Do you sometimes wonder how different the world would be if we treated the Constitution with the same reverence and literal interpretation that fundamentalists treat the parts of the bible they're vaguely aware of? If the court ruled on the literal word, rather than precedent (it'd never work, they'd have to re-argue every philosophical point for every little thing forever)? What if the Federal Government literally only did the things enumerated and never touched anything else? If adding a power required an amendment, which had to be ratified by the several states? I spend a lot of time thinking about what that would look like...

    I also wonder which country (or countries) we'd be a part of now were everything replayed differently with just that one beginning. Obviously some huge things would be different, with the Civil War, the South would have become a part of Europe again in the 1800's, not sure the North would have lasted long being surrounded. Of course the Civil War may have been avoided entirely and we would then be outright owned by the Bank of England, rather than indirectly owned by the banking cartel centralized under that leadership. Unfortunately, the Constitution was corrupted almost immediately, so changing how it's wielded (to wielded by US not by THEM), would rewrite everything.
    11-02-2013 12:32 AM
  25. Mooncatt's Avatar
    The vast majority of people have plans through their employers, and for the most part nothing is changing there. There are a few companies that are trying to dodge providing conforming insurance, but as rexxman intimated, for many people, nothing will change at all. A lot of people have seen their costs go down. The variance in delta varies greatly by state based on how the state is implementing their portions of the law.
    I just heard a report that Forbes did a study that found upwards of 94 million people could be losing their current health insurance when looking at both private and company subsidized policies, small and large companies alike. I haven't had a chance to find and read the full report myself yet, so I don't know what they expect the outcome from those to be. I.e. going without, buying other coverage that complies with the law, etc. Regardless, you're looking at over 25% of the population being negatively effected by this law. At what point should we finally say enough is enough? Even if that study was over off by half, that's still a pretty big slice of the population.

    And going back to your constitutional question, I don't think any of us can really say what the world would look like if we held government firmly to the Constitution, but the way you said it made it sound like we shouldn't even try. Just because it's happened in the past doesn't mean we shouldn't fight to prevent it from happening again and demand they pull back in areas where they have over stepped, or modify the Constitution to allow powers we believe would be best left to them.
    11-02-2013 01:12 AM
1,900 ... 2930313233 ...

Similar Threads

  1. Should there be another category for Games?
    By Basis in forum Android Games
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-21-2010, 09:22 PM
  2. Should I be upset about this dirt under my screen.
    By rem_kujawa in forum HTC EVO 4G
    Replies: 53
    Last Post: 07-06-2010, 08:12 PM
  3. Should I be disappointed? Screen color availability!
    By TREOpalooza in forum HTC EVO 4G
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 05-31-2010, 01:56 PM
  4. Should GMail be telling me how many new?
    By dgalanter in forum Verizon Droid Incredible
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 05-09-2010, 04:46 PM
  5. Should I be worried about the LED?
    By solideliquid in forum Motorola Droid
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 04-28-2010, 09:30 PM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD