Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

ACA vs ObamacareFollow

#52 Oct 05 2013 at 10:53 AM Rating: Good
******
20,020 posts
Spoonless wrote:
Going through the single payer plans, I think I found a decent one that I can afford. I had looked at single payer plans before, but the only provider in my state for them is BCBS, and their plans were expensive, even after the income-level adjustments.

Grats. Smiley: grin

Health insurance is cool. I should get mine from my employer in about two months.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#53 Oct 05 2013 at 11:16 AM Rating: Excellent
***
1,000 posts
Catwho wrote:
Walmart of all companies apparently had to revise its policy of only hiring part timers now, because they can't convince people to keep their sh*tty part time only jobs with no benefits. As soon as someone finds something that has more hours or health insurance, they're leaving. Walmart has always scraped the bottom of the employment barrel, but even the bottom scrapings have a finite supply and know to look for a better job while they're getting shat upon.


According to the Forbes article I read on this, the reason they are hiring more full timers is they've discovered that the temp workers and part timers don't give a rat's *** about customer service. They are losing profits because the stores don't have stock on the shelves and the employees ignore customers.

Apparently, poorly paid employees with no benefits don't care if your business succeeds, go figure.

____________________________
Come on Bill, let's go home
[ffxisig]63311[/ffxisig]
#54 Oct 05 2013 at 11:49 AM Rating: Excellent
I remember when walmart first came to my city (canada) they were all about customer service. That was their mantra, when you come to walmart we care about our customers.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#55 Oct 05 2013 at 11:59 AM Rating: Good
******
21,720 posts
The Forbes article I assume is being referenced

Quote:
Wal-Mart is finally learning what all American businesses who seek to avoid their health care responsibilities to employees will soon learn.

It may be a clever enough dodge to cut employees below the 30 hours per week in order to avoid the expectations of Obamacare, but the move comes at a substantial price to be paid in lost revenue and profits. Given that the entire point of business is to show a profit, it is only a matter of time before employers learn what Home Depot learned some years ago and what Wal-Mart is slowly beginning to figure out—you get what you pay for.

Cut back on employees and you will, eventually, cut back on your profits as the savings a business creates by cutting worker hours leads to greatly decreased sales as customer satisfaction disappears.


Seems like Wal-mart couldn't see the forest for the trees, a lesson I suspect most businesses intending to cut employee hours to stave off benefits will learn more quickly than their behemoth brethren.
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#56 Oct 05 2013 at 1:15 PM Rating: Good
******
20,020 posts
I've never found the customer service at the local Walmart to be particularly good. Even after the Target opened, they continued to suck pretty badly.

Anything I would have bought at Walmart, I now buy at Target. So I can't comment on how much their business has suffered.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#57 Oct 05 2013 at 1:26 PM Rating: Decent
***
1,064 posts
I don't even understand what customer service is meant to mean in this context. You go there to buy food. You buy your food, your food is bought, matters are concluded.
____________________________
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm not quite sure that scheming is an emotion.
#58 Oct 05 2013 at 1:39 PM Rating: Excellent
Answering questions about where items are located, stocking shelves properly, keeping the place clean, being pleasant but quick in the checkout line. Is Walmart really primarily a food store in the states now? Wouldn't it's main business still be all the other stuff it carries?
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#59 Oct 05 2013 at 1:41 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,369 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
I remember when walmart first came to my city (canada)


Smiley: rolleyes
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#60 Oct 05 2013 at 2:05 PM Rating: Good
******
20,020 posts
Quote:
Answering questions about where items are located, stocking shelves properly, keeping the place clean, being pleasant but quick in the checkout line. Is Walmart really primarily a food store in the states now? Wouldn't it's main business still be all the other stuff it carries?


That's a really important part, tbh. Whenever I'm in Walmarts, they just feel so dirty. Target, by comparison, feels clean and fresh.

Obviously, the rest matters, too.

Point being, if your customers feel like you don't give a **** about them, there's a very good chance they'll go somewhere else.

And no, Walmart isn't primarily a grocery. More and more of them have food sections, but very few are at the level of supermarkets.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#61 Oct 05 2013 at 3:38 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
The "Super Walmarts" have full sized groceries but that's still maybe 33% of the building. The rest being all the clothes, housewares, etc.

But even in a grocery store, you want decent customer service. Asking where the bullion cubes are located is a different experience in a Food Lion owned low-end grocery store than it is in a Safeway or Whole Foods.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#62 Oct 05 2013 at 4:39 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
I'm not a Target fan, but I do like the smell of popcorn when I walk in. I'm all about low costs, Target is still "low end", so shouldn't pretend to be at the cost of the good prices. Walmart keeps it real with bargain bins. "Here's a bunch of crap that we don't want, that you might want". It looks sloppy and the quality is not as good, but you get what you pay for. However, there are some things worth getting out of Target or any other place.
#63 Oct 05 2013 at 5:02 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
I think I've been to Walmart twice this year. I try to avoid it at all costs. I go to Target or Kmart for non-food, Kroger or Food Lion for groceries. And some of the reasons I avoid Walmart now are the ones listed in that article. Not enough check out lines, the place looks dirty and the shelves are never fully stocked. I went there today, but only because we were in the neighborhood and I wanted to check out some mums. Their mums sucked, so I'll be going to a nursery tomorrow.
#64 Oct 05 2013 at 5:13 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
I'm all about low costs, Target is still "low end", so shouldn't pretend to be at the cost of the good prices.

I've never had an issue with Target's prices but then I'd happily pay an extra dime for my Windex to not feel like I'm shopping in a hovel. Plus I like their store brand products when I'm getting groceries there.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#65 Oct 05 2013 at 6:36 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
I'm all about low costs, Target is still "low end", so shouldn't pretend to be at the cost of the good prices.

I've never had an issue with Target's prices but then I'd happily pay an extra dime for my Windex to not feel like I'm shopping in a hovel. Plus I like their store brand products when I'm getting groceries there.


To be fair, I haven't done a cost comparison on specific items, but only viewed the differences at a glance.
#66 Oct 05 2013 at 7:38 PM Rating: Good
******
20,020 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
I'm all about low costs, Target is still "low end", so shouldn't pretend to be at the cost of the good prices.

I've never had an issue with Target's prices but then I'd happily pay an extra dime for my Windex to not feel like I'm shopping in a hovel. Plus I like their store brand products when I'm getting groceries there.


In general, I've found the Market Pantry and Up products to be fully acceptable alternatives in most cases. I actually like the Market Pantry version of Oreos better than the original. Smiley: lol

But to be fair, it's because they're less sweet and more cocoa-y, which I like.

Plus, while not innocent by any means, Target is guilty of far fewer serious ethics violations than Walmart is, so I'm much happier giving them my money. Saving $.10 to shop at a store that makes me grit my teeth is not the better deal, if I can consider anything other than the dollars/cents.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#67 Oct 07 2013 at 3:27 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,853 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
Of course it's not worse than those. WTF? Now... show me where more than an incredibly tiny fringe group of people think this, much less oppose the ACA because of this? Can't do it, right?

Hence: Irrelevant.


You said that the second group was not lied to, yet you just agreed that they were lied to. Hence: relevant.


I'm sorry. I thought it was understood that I was talking about being "lied to in order to get them to support a position on the ACA". And guess what? The overwhelming majority of people who oppose the ACA do not do so for the reasons you mentioned. Hence: Irrelevant.

Meanwhile a huge percentage of supporters of the law actually do believe that they will receive better benefits for a lower price. And to be fair a small percentage of them *will*. But it requires only simple math and an understanding of how insurance industries work to get that in order for that small percentage to benefit, a much larger percentage must pay more for the same benefits. There's no magical way around that.

Edited, Oct 7th 2013 2:30pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#68 Oct 07 2013 at 3:33 PM Rating: Excellent
Needs More Smut
******
21,262 posts
Relevant: My company just cancelled the 1% premium increase they had planned for next year- they'll eat the cost instead. My co-workers will see no premium increase at all.

(Apparently the third quarter results were really good.)
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck: Retired December 2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest and Taprara Rara on Lamia Server - Member of The Swarm
Curator of the XIV Wallpapers Tumblr and the XIV Fashion Tumblr
#69 Oct 07 2013 at 3:45 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,853 posts
Catwho wrote:
Relevant: My company just cancelled the 1% premium increase they had planned for next year- they'll eat the cost instead. My co-workers will see no premium increase at all.


Your results aren't typical though. Also, you get that your company eating the cost is ultimately still coming out of your paycheck, right? Total labor costs for a company include payroll and benefits. Anything that increases the relative size of one, tends to decrease the relative size of the other. So what you'll see is a slightly smaller raise/promotion/bonus pool going forward to offset that minor increase in health care costs that the company "ate".

There ain't so such thing as a free lunch.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#70 Oct 07 2013 at 3:54 PM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Gbaji wrote:
I'm sorry. I thought it was understood that I was talking about being "lied to in order to get them to support a position on the ACA". And guess what? The overwhelming majority of people who oppose the ACA do not do so for the reasons you mentioned. Hence: Irrelevant.


You have no idea on how many people believe the GOP rhetoric on the ACA. So, you admit that the GOP lied on those two statements? Think about it. If they are willing to lie about something so obviously wrong, is it not reasonable to believe that they lied about more subtle things?


Besides, I just quoted the most notable lies. Here are more lies.

1. You have the commercials where your doctor is replaced with Uncle Sam. The GOP has argued that ACA does not allow individuals to keep or choose their own doctor, but will be given a low waged, beginner government cheese eating doctor, like a defense attorney. That is a bold face lie that is believed, because it's believable.

2. They have been arguing that the ACA should be delayed a year for the people because businesses have been given the option and everyone should be treated the same. That's misleading, because a business != a person, nor do the rules apply the same way. EVERY PERSON in that business is still under the mandate, therefore EVERY PERSON is treated equally.

3. The GOP has been arguing that they have been compromising and it's the President who is not willing to discuss anything. That's a lie, because a compromise doesn't consist of giving up the most prized possession. Compromising would be allowing ACA to go forward, but to defund food stamps (already happened) along with other government programs.

4. Probably the biggest lie of them all. The GOP has argued that this program will only hurt the people, when in fact, they are just afraid of the "47%" liking it. This will carry on to the 2014/2016 elections.

Gbaji wrote:
Meanwhile a huge percentage of supporters of the law actually do believe that they will receive better benefits for a lower price. And to be fair a small percentage of them *will*. But it requires only simple math and an understanding of how insurance industries work to get that in order for that small percentage to benefit, a much larger percentage must pay more for the same benefits. There's no magical way around that.


ACA is built to help specifically that small percentage. This goes back to the GOP rhetoric of having Uncle Sam doing being your doctor. Even if a person is mislead about how much they will have to pay for insurance, they will not know unless they go through the process. Every person's situation is different, so you can't just do simple math without the other health factors. So, supporting it under the belief that they think that they might have lower costs isn't false support because someone else is benefiting. It's only false support if the individual only support things that support themselves.
#71 Oct 07 2013 at 4:34 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,853 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
I'm sorry. I thought it was understood that I was talking about being "lied to in order to get them to support a position on the ACA". And guess what? The overwhelming majority of people who oppose the ACA do not do so for the reasons you mentioned. Hence: Irrelevant.


You have no idea on how many people believe the GOP rhetoric on the ACA. So, you admit that the GOP lied on those two statements?


The GOP? No. I'll ask again for you to show me actual elected members of the national Republican party who said those two things. Not some guy on the radio. Not some blogger somewhere. Actual elected members of the GOP. Cause if you're going to say that the GOP lied to people, it has to start with showing the actual GOP doing this. Then, we can start looking at how significant such a claim may or may not have been in terms of convincing people to oppose the ACA.

I know this may be shocking to you, but I do happen to know a lot of conservatives. And while I'm not discounting the possible existence of nutter on "my side" of the political aisle, I've never heard someone come up to me in a conversation and say "OMG! We've got to stop Obamacare or we'll all be slaves or dead!". What I do hear is people talking about how free markets are better at providing health care than government bureaucracies and how prices will likely go up and quality down under Obamacare, and how mandates are a bad idea because they crowd out competition and how there are better ways to reform our health care than that proposed in Obamacare.


Do you understand the concept of a straw man? Because that's what you're arguing here.

Quote:
Think about it. If they are willing to lie about something so obviously wrong, is it not reasonable to believe that they lied about more subtle things?


It's so obviously wrong should be your starting point to figuring out why what you're trying to argue is wrong.

Quote:
1. You have the commercials where your doctor is replaced with Uncle Sam. The GOP has argued that ACA does not allow individuals to keep or choose their own doctor, but will be given a low waged, beginner government cheese eating doctor, like a defense attorney. That is a bold face lie that is believed, because it's believable.


Or, we can say that Obama (you know, an actual elected member of the Democratic party) repeated over and over that "Under the ACA, if you want to keep your existing health care, you can" was a lie. See how that works? Actual statement by actual elected representative of a party (head of said party even!) that is not true. Which is the point of the ad.

Quote:
2. They have been arguing that the ACA should be delayed a year for the people because businesses have been given the option and everyone should be treated the same. That's misleading, because a business != a person, nor do the rules apply the same way. EVERY PERSON in that business is still under the mandate, therefore EVERY PERSON is treated equally.


Um... Except that every person working for certain businesses (and the government) are exempted. So if we're to treat everyone the same, isn't it wrong to treat some people one way and some another? For example: Since I work for a private non-union company and receive high quality health coverage, I'm required to treat that coverage as income under Obamacare (so I pay income taxes on it now). But if I were employed by the government, or worked for a union, even if my pay and coverage were otherwise identical, I would not.

Is that fair? Is that treating every person the same? No. It's not.

Quote:
3. The GOP has been arguing that they have been compromising and it's the President who is not willing to discuss anything. That's a lie, because a compromise doesn't consist of giving up the most prized possession. Compromising would be allowing ACA to go forward, but to defund food stamps (already happened) along with other government programs.


Then offer something. How much is funding Obamacare worth to the Democrats? They haven't offered anything, or even made an attempt to balance the budget (or come close to balancing it) in 4 years. I keep saying this, but it bears repeating: This is not just about Obamcare.

Quote:
4. Probably the biggest lie of them all. The GOP has argued that this program will only hurt the people, when in fact, they are just afraid of the "47%" liking it. This will carry on to the 2014/2016 elections.


And yet another strawman. When you inject words like "only", you create an absolute position which is easy to attack. So if just one person isn't hurt, the GOP is wrong? That's kinda ridiculous, right? How about the more reasonable position that on balance more people will be harmed by the passage of Obamacare than will be helped? Obviously, and as I've pointed out repeatedly, there will be some small percentage of people who will see benefits from Obamacare. But it wont be anywhere near 47%. It can't be mathematically for the program to even come close to solvency. And the more it fails to do so, the more costs will end out being lumped on the population down the line to pay for the difference (ultimately meaning that whatever benefits people gain today will be short lived).

Quote:
ACA is built to help specifically that small percentage.


But not sold to the majority on that though. An honest approach would be Obama standing at podium and saying that since a small percentage of Americans fall through the cracks between public and private care (around 20 million or so?), we should all pay a bit more for our health insurance in order to make sure they're covered. But he didn't do that. He said that existing care would stay the same, and existing costs would stay the same for most Americans, with only the rich folks making up the difference (paying their fair share, right?).

He intentionally made it seem like like only "the rich" would see any increase in costs from this. Remember the whole rhetoric about how only people making X dollars or more would see their taxes increase? Those statements were made in direct response to conservatives arguing that taxes would have to go up to pay for Obamacare. And here's the funny bit (and the really big lie). How they got around this statement was that when the Dems were selling Obamacare, they labeled all the increases costs as "fees and fines", not taxes. Thus, they could say that taxes would not increase (a lie of omission). Of course, the GOP pointed this out and were roundly attacked for mislabeling those things as "taxes". So the conservatives sued over this, arguing that the use of such fines and fees violated the constitutional authority of congress under the commerce act. Ironically, the Supreme Court agreed, but instead of striking down the law, they simply labeled the fines and fees at "taxes" and called it constitutional.


So what we have here is a huge lie to the American people. Their taxes would not go up because what they were don't wasn't called a tax. But once it was passed (and the support of the people was no longer required), they were more than happy to argue those same fines/fees that were not called a tax when they needed to lie to the people to get support actually were taxes in order to make the whole thing constitutional.

That's a lie. That's a huge lie. And it was one of the basic arguments used to get people on board with the ACA.


Quote:
This goes back to the GOP rhetoric of having Uncle Sam doing being your doctor. Even if a person is mislead about how much they will have to pay for insurance, they will not know unless they go through the process. Every person's situation is different, so you can't just do simple math without the other health factors. So, supporting it under the belief that they think that they might have lower costs isn't false support because someone else is benefiting. It's only false support if the individual only support things that support themselves.


Uh... We can still calculate statistical effects of the law on various economic ranges of people within our workforce. And statistically, most people will see their health costs rise significantly. Actually, most people already have. But I suspect that's where the next layer of lie will occur. Since the health providers have already been raising their prices for the last couple years in preparation for Obamacare, I'm sure that folks on the left will take prices on the day before it "officially" started and say "see! Prices didn't go up!". But if you look at price increases industry wide since the law was passed, it's a whole different story.

The sheer volume of deception and outright lies used to push the ACA is pretty staggering if you stop and think about it. What's amazing to me is how many people just refuse to admit it.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#72 Oct 08 2013 at 2:59 AM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
To prevent me from wasting too much time engaging in another long drawn out argument that you will just result in a lame cop out, I will assume some questions are rhetorical and/or hit the highlights. If there is a specific comment that you want me to answer, feel free to address it as such.

Gbaji wrote:
The GOP? No. I'll ask again for you to show me actual elected members of the national Republican party who said those two things.

http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/the-daily-show-rips-rokita-s-obamacare-claim/article_95f2532f-bd06-5c65-918b-1e8c2aaf3e5a.html



Gbaji wrote:
"OMG! We've got to stop Obamacare or we'll all be slaves or dead!".
Assuming your level of intellect, I would assume that the people you know are as smart as you. In any case, your comment was that the people weren't lied to, whether or not you think people believe it is irrelevant. You can't assume other intellect based off of your own.

Gbaji wrote:

It's so obviously wrong should be your starting point to figuring out why what you're trying to argue is wrong.
??

Gbaji wrote:
Or, we can say that Obama (you know, an actual elected member of the Democratic party) repeated over and over that "Under the ACA, if you want to keep your existing health care, you can" was a lie. See how that works? Actual statement by actual elected representative of a party (head of said party even!) that is not true. Which is the point of the ad.


Besides the point that you can keep your existing health care, even if it were a lie, those commercials do not state that. Not being able to keep your healthcare isn't the same as having a "defensive lawyer" like doctor provided to you by the government.

Gbaji wrote:
Um... Except that every person working for certain businesses (and the government) are exempted. So if we're to treat everyone the same, isn't it wrong to treat some people one way and some another? For example: Since I work for a private non-union company and receive high quality health coverage, I'm required to treat that coverage as income under Obamacare (so I pay income taxes on it now). But if I were employed by the government, or worked for a union, even if my pay and coverage were otherwise identical, I would not.

Is that fair? Is that treating every person the same? No. It's not.


That doesn't address mandates, which is the argument. The argument made was that businesses get an additional year before being mandated.

Gbaji wrote:
Then offer something. How much is funding Obamacare worth to the Democrats? They haven't offered anything, or even made an attempt to balance the budget (or come close to balancing it) in 4 years.


So providing a budget close to the Ryan budget isn't good enough? President Obama originally asked for 1.203 Trillion dollars. The 2014 Ryan Budget is $967 Billion. The CR bill, proposed by the Dems is $986 Billion, which is lower than the 2011 debt ceiling agreement. That's $217 Billion less than what Dems originally wanted and $19 Billion closer to what the GOP proposed.

Gbaji wrote:
I keep saying this, but it bears repeating: This is not just about Obamcare.


Exactly, so why does the word even come up? What difference does it make how much Obamacare costs, given the outcome, if you can budget the money? There is enough government spending that can be cut to make up the difference, that's what compromising is about. Stuck on one of many government spending is not compromising.

Gbaji wrote:
And yet another strawman. When you inject words like "only", you create an absolute position which is easy to attack. So if just one person isn't hurt, the GOP is wrong? That's kinda ridiculous, right? How about the more reasonable position that on balance more people will be harmed by the passage of Obamacare than will be helped? Obviously, and as I've pointed out repeatedly, there will be some small percentage of people who will see benefits from Obamacare. But it wont be anywhere near 47%. It can't be mathematically for the program to even come close to solvency. And the more it fails to do so, the more costs will end out being lumped on the population down the line to pay for the difference (ultimately meaning that whatever benefits people gain today will be short lived).


I'm just repeating the lies made. You're acting as if the GOP isn't being misleading and in this case they are. Some are acknowledging the small gains, but the majority labels it as doing nothing but harm. While I would agree that the Dems are poor at money management, when you're talking about people's health and well being, I would much rather for my money to go there than a panda cam, public park or even the WWII memorial.

Gbaji wrote:
But not sold to the majority on that though.

Maybe not on Fox news, but it has every where else. President Obama's main talking point is and has always been that there are 30 million uninsured people that has a chance to get more affordable health care. Last time I checked, that's less than 10% of the population.

Gbaji wrote:
He intentionally made it seem like like only "the rich" would see any increase in costs from this. Remember the whole rhetoric about how only people making X dollars or more would see their taxes increase?


President Obama and President Clinton made it very clear that this can be only successful if people partake in it or prices will increase. Furthermore, that it'll be challenge to win the "young and healthy", as the fine might be more tempting.



Gbaji wrote:
Uh... We can still calculate statistical effects of the law on various economic ranges of people within our workforce. And statistically, most people will see their health costs rise significantly. Actually, most people already have. But I suspect that's where the next layer of lie will occur. Since the health providers have already been raising their prices for the last couple years in preparation for Obamacare, I'm sure that folks on the left will take prices on the day before it "officially" started and say "see! Prices didn't go up!". But if you look at price increases industry wide since the law was passed, it's a whole different story.

The sheer volume of deception and outright lies used to push the ACA is pretty staggering if you stop and think about it. What's amazing to me is how many people just refuse to admit it.


With the GOP lost in 2012 in every area except old white men, there is simply no way that the GOP would prevent the DNC from political suicide. You can believe whatever nonsense you want to believe, but any sane person realizes that the GOP fears success more than failure.
#73 Oct 08 2013 at 3:05 AM Rating: Good
***
1,064 posts
Excuse me, was you saying something?

Nu-uh, you can't tell me nothin'.
____________________________
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm not quite sure that scheming is an emotion.
#74 Oct 08 2013 at 7:27 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,594 posts
That post was like 4-feet long on full screen. That's about the length of a full grown tape worm.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#75 Oct 08 2013 at 7:34 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Since the health providers have already been raising their prices for the last couple years in preparation for Obamacare

Health care providers had already been raising their prices every year for ages. Each year I'd get hit with a premium increase back when Bush was in office and back when Clinton was in office. This was, ya know, one of the primary impetus for passing health care reform.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#76 Oct 08 2013 at 9:39 AM Rating: Excellent
******
49,650 posts
They knew about Obamacare back in the 1990s, obviously. What else could it possibly be?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 54 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (54)