Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Big O says he is sorryFollow

#27 Nov 12 2013 at 5:55 PM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
Quote:
It's tough for Republicans though since the Left has much better PR, much better media support
So Republicans suck at modern politics.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#28 Nov 12 2013 at 6:13 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
You make it sound like the GOP never proposed any alternative reform here Joph. That's simply not true.

They really didn't. More to the point, they refused to engage in the law that WAS going to pass and try to help shape it into something they found better.

David Frum phrased it well in his infamous column where he made himself into a GOP pariah for daring to say the obvious:
David Frum wrote:
Now comes the hard lesson:

A huge part of the blame for today’s disaster attaches to conservatives and Republicans ourselves.

At the beginning of this process we made a strategic decision: unlike, say, Democrats in 2001 when President Bush proposed his first tax cut, we would make no deal with the administration. No negotiations, no compromise, nothing. We were going for all the marbles. This would be Obama’s Waterloo – just as healthcare was Clinton’s in 1994.

Only, the hardliners overlooked a few key facts: Obama was elected with 53% of the vote, not Clinton’s 42%. The liberal block within the Democratic congressional caucus is bigger and stronger than it was in 1993-94. And of course the Democrats also remember their history, and also remember the consequences of their 1994 failure.

This time, when we went for all the marbles, we ended with none.

Could a deal have been reached? Who knows? But we do know that the gap between this plan and traditional Republican ideas is not very big. The Obama plan has a broad family resemblance to Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts plan. It builds on ideas developed at the Heritage Foundation in the early 1990s that formed the basis for Republican counter-proposals to Clintoncare in 1993-1994.

Barack Obama badly wanted Republican votes for his plan. Could we have leveraged his desire to align the plan more closely with conservative views? To finance it without redistributive taxes on productive enterprise – without weighing so heavily on small business – without expanding Medicaid? Too late now. They are all the law.

No illusions please: This bill will not be repealed. Even if Republicans scored a 1994 style landslide in November, how many votes could we muster to re-open the “doughnut hole” and charge seniors more for prescription drugs? How many votes to re-allow insurers to rescind policies when they discover a pre-existing condition? How many votes to banish 25 year olds from their parents’ insurance coverage? And even if the votes were there – would President Obama sign such a repeal?

We followed the most radical voices in the party and the movement, and they led us to abject and irreversible defeat.

There were leaders who knew better, who would have liked to deal. But they were trapped. Conservative talkers on Fox and talk radio had whipped the Republican voting base into such a frenzy that deal-making was rendered impossible. How do you negotiate with somebody who wants to murder your grandmother? Or – more exactly – with somebody whom your voters have been persuaded to believe wants to murder their grandmother?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#29 Nov 12 2013 at 10:56 PM Rating: Excellent
I just wanted to chime in that just because the "administration" changes hands, it doesn't mean that every single person in an opposing political party within the fed automatically loses their jobs. There's a crapton of Republicans in the fed left over from the Bush era.
#30 Nov 13 2013 at 6:16 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
You make it sound like the GOP never proposed any alternative reform here Joph. That's simply not true.

They really didn't.


You're kidding, right? The GOP proposed a number of alternative methods of reform during the debate/discussion in 2009, and every single year since then. I get that it's a fun bit of rhetoric for liberals to pretend that the GOP has no ideas and is just the "party of no", but that's simply not true. I rattled of a couple of alternatives that Republicans proposed back in 2009 right off the top of my head Joph. Clearly, there were alternatives proposed.

Quote:
More to the point, they refused to engage in the law that WAS going to pass and try to help shape it into something they found better.


They were not allowed to engage in anything other than "agree with us, or stand on the sidelines". The Dems refused to bargain on any single issue Joph. Not one. WTF?

Quote:
David Frum phrased it well in his infamous column where he made himself into a GOP pariah for daring to say the obvious:


Frum was wrong then and is still wrong. Quoting someone who is wrong doesn't make him right. It was not the GOP who made the ACA a partisan bill. It was the Democrats refusal to accept a single proposal by the GOP that made it so. The GOP never adopted a "nothing or bust" approach Joph. They did, however, have certain key points on which they were not willing to negotiate. But that's not the same as saying they were unwilling to negotiate at all on health care reform. There's a whole wide range of possible methods of reform. The Dems chose to insist on one that they knew the GOP could not support. That was their fault, not the GOPs.

It is now becoming obvious that the exact portions of the law which the GOP opposed are the ones that are making the law a disaster. So wasn't the GOP right to oppose those things? I'd say yes.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#31 Nov 13 2013 at 6:22 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
You're kidding, right?

Nope.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#32 Nov 13 2013 at 6:24 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Catwho wrote:
I just wanted to chime in that just because the "administration" changes hands, it doesn't mean that every single person in an opposing political party within the fed automatically loses their jobs. There's a crapton of Republicans in the fed left over from the Bush era.


Sure. But given that Obamacare did not exist when last a Republican ran the White House we can reasonably assume that the overwhelming majority of people employed in making Obamacare work from top to bottom were hired *after* the law's passage. I'm not sure how Bush could have slipped some conservative saboteurs into an organizational structure that didn't even exist yet. So unless the folks that Obama's staff picked to build out this organization decided to put conservatives in key positions of power, I'm not sure how exactly you think anyone on the "right" could have sabotaged this.


BTW, it's not really about the technical problems either. I know that's what everyone is focused on, but that's really just a smokescreen for a bigger set of problems. The real problem is that the young healthy people they need to sign up in order to meet their cost goals will certainly *not* sign up (who on earth would?). Fixing the technical glitches wont fix that fundamental and fatal flaw. The law cannot work. It will cost more than projected and fail absent some additional funding. And when even more Americans are suddenly told that they have to pay a hell of a lot more for their health care than they were promised, it's going to make the whole "if you like your health plan you can keep it" thing look like a day in the park.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#33 Nov 13 2013 at 6:24 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
You're kidding, right?

Nope.


Then you're pretty foolish for actually believing such a thing.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#34 Nov 13 2013 at 6:37 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
My heart breaks. Don't get me wrong, I recognize that they gave plenty of sound bites and talking points. Lots of "Tort reform would save us!" and crap like that. Stuff that absolutely failed to address coverage and really boiled down to "Free market!" And I understand that you no doubt bought into that and said "Yup, look at all those alternatives!". Did they actually cobble together an alternative proposal? Not really. Did they put together an alternative proposal that would hit the points the ACA was trying to accomplish? Not at all.

But that's really pretty irrelevant anyway. The GOP was the minority party. Stomping their feet and huffing and giving the occasional talking point about insurance across state lines wasn't any serious attempt at making sure responsible legislation passed. The GOP was 100% committed to their "Make this Obama's Waterloo" strategy. And it failed. And now there's a law that you can cry over and pout and try and say "I told you so!" but one thing that you can't say is that the GOP acted responsibly or made any actual effort to be part of the process.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#35 Nov 13 2013 at 6:41 PM Rating: Excellent
gbaji wrote:
Catwho wrote:
I just wanted to chime in that just because the "administration" changes hands, it doesn't mean that every single person in an opposing political party within the fed automatically loses their jobs. There's a crapton of Republicans in the fed left over from the Bush era.


Sure. But given that Obamacare did not exist when last a Republican ran the White House we can reasonably assume that the overwhelming majority of people employed in making Obamacare work from top to bottom were hired *after* the law's passage. I'm not sure how Bush could have slipped some conservative saboteurs into an organizational structure that didn't even exist yet. So unless the folks that Obama's staff picked to build out this organization decided to put conservatives in key positions of power, I'm not sure how exactly you think anyone on the "right" could have sabotaged this.


Actually, most of the staff either came from within HHS or were contracted out. The new hires have primarily been at the state level, with the health navigators.

I'm not saying that Republicans deliberately sabotaged it from within. I'm saying it's absurd to assume that every single person in a department or a contracted company is automatically a Dem. Yes, even positions of relative power. Kathleen Sebelius and her hand picked staff? Sure. The DBA who handles queries to the SSN database? Who knows! If he's doing his job well (or even just decently), they'd have no reason to fire him even if he was a Tea Partier. At least not without risking a lawsuit.
#36 Nov 13 2013 at 7:25 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
My heart breaks. Don't get me wrong, I recognize that they gave plenty of sound bites and talking points. Lots of "Tort reform would save us!" and crap like that. Stuff that absolutely failed to address coverage and really boiled down to "Free market!" And I understand that you no doubt bought into that and said "Yup, look at all those alternatives!". Did they actually cobble together an alternative proposal? Not really. Did they put together an alternative proposal that would hit the points the ACA was trying to accomplish? Not at all.


Um... What criteria are you using though? Because if "putting together an alternative proposal" requires pushing some bill through a committee, and getting it put out for a vote, then you are correct in that they didn't do that. But they didn't do that because they were the minority party and *couldn't* do that. The party in power doesn't just have a voting advantage in that house of Congress. They also get to decide what gets put on the schedules. That means every committee and floor vote. Thus, all the majority party has to do is not take up a proposal and it doesn't exist. It wont appear on any record, it'll never get voted on, and the majority party can then pretend that the minority party never presented an alternative proposal.

Which is exactly what happened.

Quote:
But that's really pretty irrelevant anyway. The GOP was the minority party. Stomping their feet and huffing and giving the occasional talking point about insurance across state lines wasn't any serious attempt at making sure responsible legislation passed.


Again, what constitutes a "serious attempt"? If the majority party refuses to schedule any of the minority party's proposals, even in committee, then they don't exist. The GOP can be as serious as they want. They can write proposal after proposal. But if those in the other party refuse to do anything with them, then they will never go anywhere.

The only option the minority party has is to publish these ideas outside congress. So you'll see their proposals appear in periodicals and published by advocacy groups aligned with that party (like say Heritage in this case). But, of course, you dismiss all the stuff that appeared there are "not being serious". Your cart is leading your horse.


Quote:
The GOP was 100% committed to their "Make this Obama's Waterloo" strategy.


Sigh. Stop quoting one source over and over. That's not it at all. The GOP opposed the ideas that the Obama administration and the Dems wanted. Pure and simple. Whether that becomes the political equivalent of a Waterloo is a completely separate issue.

You don't seriously believe that the only reason the GOP opposed Obamacare was because they wanted to hurt Obama? That's insane! The GOP has consistently opposed socialized medicine for like the last 4 or 5 decades. They opposed it in the 70s. They opposed it in the 80s. They opposed it in the 90s. And they opposed it in the 2000s. Why on earth would you suddenly think that this has nothing to do with principle and must just be some political maneuver or something? I'll say it again: That's insane.

Quote:
And it failed.


Something they weren't trying to do failed? Seriously? Yes, they failed to prevent the Dems from passing a law that they GOP opposed. That was (and is) a failure. But the idea that they only opposed it for political reasons is nutty as hell.

Quote:
And now there's a law that you can cry over and pout and try and say "I told you so!" but one thing that you can't say is that the GOP acted responsibly or made any actual effort to be part of the process.


The fact that the law sucks and wont work isn't the GOP's fault though. It's an inherent component of the law your guys passed. Maybe if more people had listened to the GOP we would not have a health care law that is broken. I guess what I find so bizarre is that the GOP opposed a law that they clearly have a long history being ideologically opposed to. Yet, despite that, you insist that they opposed it purely for political reasons. And then, when the law is passed and turns out to be a disaster, you blame the GOP for making the law they opposed not work? Really? Maybe it was just a bad idea in the first place? Can't you acknowledge even the possibility that maybe the GOP was just plain right to oppose this?


And maybe, just maybe, if the Dems hadn't been so insistent on their mandates and more willing to work with the GOP on an actual bipartisan health care reform, we could have come up with something that both parties could agree on and that would actually have worked? I know, shocking idea! And you know what? It wasn't the GOP who prevented that from happening. It was the Dems. They refused to listen to any GOP proposals, and insisted on pushing a law that included components that they knew were absolute deal breakers for the GOP. The fault is the Dems all the way around.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#37 Nov 13 2013 at 7:49 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Sigh. Stop quoting one source over and over.

Jim DeMint?

Sorry that one of the GOP senators' moment of honesty made the GOP's plan so crystal clear and that it's uncomfortable for you but DeMint was 100% on target. Obstruction was the entire GOP strategy. So you get what you worked for. Well, in this case you DIDN'T get what you were directly working for (ruining Obama politically) and are instead stuck with what happened while you were too busy playing politics to do any governing.
Quote:
You don't seriously believe that the only reason the GOP opposed Obamacare was because they wanted to hurt Obama? That's insane!

You're adorable. Seriously. Don't ever change.

No, you're right. The GOP set themselves against the ACA from the start because they were deeply worried about the "socialized medicine" plan that mimicked Romneycare and the Heritage Foundations' health care plan. That's why. Wasn't politics at all.

Adorable.

Edited, Nov 13th 2013 7:52pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#38 Nov 14 2013 at 8:36 AM Rating: Excellent
*****
10,601 posts
Yep, playing politics and getting nothing done is pretty insane.
____________________________
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
#39 Nov 14 2013 at 3:33 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Sigh. Stop quoting one source over and over.

Jim DeMint?


Frum. The same guy you quoted earlier, and the source of the "Waterloo" analogy.

Quote:
Sorry that one of the GOP senators' moment of honesty...


Excuse me?


Quote:
No, you're right. The GOP set themselves against the ACA from the start because they were deeply worried about the "socialized medicine" plan that mimicked Romneycare and the Heritage Foundations' health care plan. That's why. Wasn't politics at all.


Um... State versus Federal power is a significant part of the whole "small government" position of the Right Joph. I get that *you* don't understand it, but very few conservatives are actually confused about the differences between Romneycare and Obamacare and why the oft-repeated argument liberal try to use comparing them is flawed.

But given that this isn't the first time I've explained this to you, and almost certainly wont be the last, we're left with either you being unable to learn anything or you intentionally ignoring facts when they are inconvenient for whatever argument you're trying to make. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it's the latter.

Edited, Nov 14th 2013 1:34pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#40 Nov 14 2013 at 4:57 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Frum. The same guy you quoted earlier, and the source of the "Waterloo" analogy.

Ummm... the source of the Waterloo analogy was Senator DeMint. Don't get your news from anywhere, etc etc.



Talking to you is always such a treat.

Edited, Nov 14th 2013 4:59pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#41 Nov 14 2013 at 7:12 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Frum. The same guy you quoted earlier, and the source of the "Waterloo" analogy.

Ummm... the source of the Waterloo analogy was Senator DeMint. Don't get your news from anywhere, etc etc.


Nope. I don't (and for the record my original statement was in the context of political opinion/coverage, not basic information). So maybe this was a bigger deal around the liberal watercooler than the conservative's. Which kinda derails your original "GOP was 100% behind this" claim. I honestly had no clue where the analogy came from Joph. But you'd linked to an article with Frum talking about it, so I assumed he came up with it.

Point being that this was hardly a major point for folks on the right. It's not why we opposed Obamacare, no matter how much you guys on the left want it to appear that way. Which is precisely why you know about the quote and where it came from off the top of your head and I do not. You know, you'd think someone who did nothing but parrot stuff said on Fox News would know this if that's really what they were saying on Fox News all the time, right? Ever consider that maybe the information you hear from your liberal sources about what us conservatives talk and what we care about about isn't quite accurate?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#42 Nov 14 2013 at 7:15 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
So maybe this was a bigger deal around the liberal watercooler than the conservative's.

Yeah, that's always your excuse when you're ignorant of something. Smiley: laugh

"It's your fault for knowing about it! Liberal!!"

Edit: And your original statement was actually in the context of basic news. It was me asking why you kept getting basic facts about budget negotiation wrong.


Edited, Nov 14th 2013 7:20pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#43 Nov 14 2013 at 7:45 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Edit: And your original statement was actually in the context of basic news. It was me asking why you kept getting basic facts about budget negotiation wrong.


In the actual statement I made, it's clear I'm not talking about "news" in the sense of journalism, but in the sense of political opinion:

Quote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph. Unlike you, I don't sit around regurgitating what others are saying. I'm looking at what you are saying, finding it to be lacking in sense, and pointing out the glaring problems (and stating a few opinions of my own along the way of course).



But hey. If it makes you feel better to think that I don't get the information I base my opinions on from any source at all (does that even make sense?), you go right ahead. As to the sources of information? They were referenced within the thread itself. I wasn't providing any data at all, but merely making comments about the data provided by others. What's strange is that you and I can look at the exact same information and arrive at two completely different opinions about that data. And *thats* what I was talking about with my response to you. You kept asking me "where do you get your news", but I didn't introduce any facts into the discussion at all. I only looked at facts other people (including you) provided and provided my analysis of those facts.

But you kept calling that "news". I don't know why, and I clearly shouldn't have made the mistake of responding to you by using the same incorrect terminology, but there you have it. I'll repeat again: When I answered your question, I assumed you were talking about opinion, not facts.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#44 Nov 14 2013 at 8:11 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
In the actual statement I made, it's clear I'm not talking about "news" in the sense of journalism, but in the sense of political opinion:
Quote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph. Unlike you, I don't sit around regurgitating what others are saying. I'm looking at what you are saying, finding it to be lacking in sense, and pointing out the glaring problems (and stating a few opinions of my own along the way of course).

That would certainly explain why you kept getting basic factual information wron--- wait, no it didn't. What would explain why you were getting basic facts wrong would be if you were merely knee-jerk refuting as a response to me on ideological grounds rather than actually looking at a news site (or station, paper, etc).
Quote:
But hey. If it makes you feel better to think that I don't get the information I base my opinions on from any source at all (does that even make sense?), you go right ahead.

Oh, you definitely get fed opinions. Just not from news sources. That's pretty obvious. It was just funny to see you admit to it whether you want to cop to it now or not.

Hey, remember when the final numbers wound up exactly where I said they were going (based on all those non-news opinion and partisan sites you said I was regurgitating)? Man, good times, huh?

Edited, Nov 14th 2013 8:12pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#45 Nov 14 2013 at 9:34 PM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
Um... State versus Federal power is a significant part of the whole "small government" position of the Right Joph.
Oh, we're back to small government this week? Did we also switch back to "Constitution must never be questioned" or are you still on "it's for the best that (something ) be changed" ? Sorry, gets a little rough keeping up with your consistency.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#46 Nov 15 2013 at 6:51 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
lol. I guess "changing the subject" is what's called for. Predictable, I guess.


Can we get back to talking about how Obamcare was a predictable disaster all along? Cause that's always a hoot!
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#47 Nov 15 2013 at 7:16 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,564 posts
gbaji wrote:
lol. I guess "changing the subject" is what's called for. Predictable, I guess.


Can we get back to talking about how Obamcare was a predictable disaster all along? Cause that's always a hoot!


Is it even in effect yet?

I didn't think it actually started until 2014.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#48 Nov 15 2013 at 8:24 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
gbaji wrote:
lol. I guess "changing the subject" is what's called for. Predictable, I guess.


Can we get back to talking about how Obamcare was a predictable disaster all along? Cause that's always a hoot!


Is it even in effect yet?

I didn't think it actually started until 2014.


Have you been under a rock for the last month? What's been happening is that Obamcare went online on Oct 1st. That's the point at which people could begin to sign up. There have been a host of technical problems (and I suspect some structural problems as well), which has resulted in very few people signing up. Anyone who doesn't currently have health insurance is required to sign up by March of next year I believe, with their new coverage on the exchanges starting Jan 1st of next year (so like a month and a half from now).

At the same time, insurance companies are required to comply with the Obamcare mandates regarding coverage starting on Jan 1st as well. Because of this, anyone who was previously signed up for coverage that didn't match those defined by the new law received notices that their current plan would be cancelled over the last couple months. Why this matters is because this was precisely what many opponents of the law said would happen all along (people who had coverage and were happy with it would be forced to lose it), and to which Obama repeatedly stated over and over for like 2 years that "if you like your current health insurance you'll be allowed to keep it".

Obviously, that promise was wrong. The conservatives who warned that this would happen where right. The uproar and fallout is that this is something that really was not just obvious, but actually required by the law itself, so why did Obama continually insist that it wouldn't happen? Lots of people are basically calling what he said a lie and are very unhappy about it. Because of this, Obama has begun backpedaling to try to satisfy people over this whole thing. He's been trying to find someway to reverse the requirement and/or grandfather in people. The problems with this are legion:

1. It may not be something that can legally be done at the executive level. So it may take an act of Congress to fix this. But there's some question about what exactly congress should do.

2. Simply allowing the grandfathering of existing people's programs isn't likely to work because this would require insurance companies (who've already spent significant time and money calculating and configuring the new compliant plans) to basically maintain two separate sets of plans, one of which doesn't have the criteria which may be required to make it work (old plans almost certainly required that new people could sign up for them over time to work in the long run).

3. Thus, it's likely that the only way to actually allow people to keep those plans is to remove the coverage level mandates entirely. Not just for existing folks, but new people as well. But this would effectively break Obamacare. The law itself is more or less dependent on forcing people to buy insurance plans that cover more stuff, so that the healthy people will have to buy more insurance than they need, so as to subsidize the costs for less healthy people. Take that out and the entire thing collapses.


Of course, that last bit should be telling all by itself. Given that this was the fundamental core of the law, it's kinda hard to believe that Obama could possibly have just not known that people would lose their existing health coverage. The funny bit is how he originally tried to play the whole "we didn't force this, the insurance companies did". Then, when that didn't fly, he went with the "what I really said was that anyone who has a compliant plan and wants to keep it can". Which also didn't fly (cause tha's kinda like saying that if we lower the speed limit, we really aren't limiting how fast you can drive because anyone who was already driving less than the new speed limit doesn't have to drive any slower). Yeah. He's been that silly about this and increasingly desperate to find a way out.


Ultimately the problem is that the core of Obamacare is that mandated coverage. But that's exactly what people are now outraged over, and exactly what Obama more or less lied to the public about. How do you fix that without breaking the law? So yeah, Obama and the Dems are kinda up a creek without a paddle right now.

Edited, Nov 15th 2013 6:29pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#49 Nov 15 2013 at 8:35 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
7,564 posts
Nope I am pretty sure Obamacare doesn't actually start until Jan 1st 2014.

I mean open enrollment started....but that isn't Obamacare....thats enrolling for Obamacare...which starts next year.

the enrollment and the affordable care act are two different things man...you need to get over it. Welcome to socialism *****.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#50 Nov 15 2013 at 8:51 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
Nope I am pretty sure Obamacare doesn't actually start until Jan 1st 2014.

I mean open enrollment started....but that isn't Obamacare....thats enrolling for Obamacare...which starts next year.


What the? Maybe stop smoking weed?

How can people start enrolling for plans if the plans don't exist? What the hell do you think that entails?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#51 Nov 15 2013 at 8:54 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
7,564 posts
gbaji wrote:
rdmcandie wrote:
Nope I am pretty sure Obamacare doesn't actually start until Jan 1st 2014.

I mean open enrollment started....but that isn't Obamacare....thats enrolling for Obamacare...which starts next year.


What the? Maybe stop smoking weed?

How can people start enrolling for plans if the plans don't exist? What the hell do you think that entails?


Just because plans exist doesn't mean it is in effect. That doesn't happen until Jan 1 2014.

Maybe you should smoke weed? or read the ACA.





Edited, Nov 15th 2013 9:55pm by rdmcandie
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 321 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (321)