Obama Finally Says "He Is Sorry" For Obamacare

Medicare recipient spinning the facts again!

Actually, that is a mathematically incorrect statements.

The recipients number ZERO right now.

Unless you want to count those who have lost their job and/or their insurance as "recipients"!

And they probably didn't vote for the ones in Congress who voted FOR THE ACA ....

.. and/or will not vote for them again. Originally Posted by LexusLover

So there are zero medicare and SS recipients who voted for the people in Congress?

Other than that it was a great point.

So there are zero medicare and SS recipients who voted for the people in Congress?

Other than that it was a great point. Originally Posted by Doove

So, the ACA was for "medicare and SS recipients"?

It is interesting how, as the ACA goes into the shitter, folks start "spinning" the facts.

Right along with the "architect" ...

And all along I thought the ACA was for those who lack health care ...

.... isn't "medicare" .. "health care" ... as in "medical care"???? Just checking.

So there are zero medicare and SS recipients who voted for the people in Congress?

Other than that it was a great point. Originally Posted by Doove

Surely you are not confusing .... "medicare" and Obaminable Care?

There are folks receiving medicare NOW, but NO ONE is receiving "Obaminable Care" NOW!

So at the moment there are no 'RECIPIENTS"!!!

Just ask your echo, "Yesterday's Rejects," who doesn't know where Clarksville is.

In paper back ... Gaarrrraaaannnnnteeeeed ... not to clog that chimney this winter.

Surely you are not confusing .... "medicare" and Obaminable Care?

There are folks receiving medicare NOW, but NO ONE is receiving "Obaminable Care" NOW!

So at the moment there are no 'RECIPIENTS"!!!

Just ask your echo, "Yesterday's Rejects," who doesn't know where Clarksville is. Originally Posted by LexusLover

you are... you just refreshed your insurance policy that falls under the AHCA laws

Obamatron aint cha?

So, the ACA was for "medicare and SS recipients"?

It is interesting how, as the ACA goes into the shitter, folks start "spinning" the facts. Originally Posted by LexusLover

Dude, you need to re-read the thread....and pay better attention next time.

And i'm humbled that it took you 2 different posts to respond to my one comment.

WPF read a paper (or had it read to him). Now he's an expert. Hey WPF, I read a paper once. It was identical to a post you made here, that you passed off as your own.

He read a paper.

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Yes, he read a book and you've seen how good WTF's reading comprehension is plus his ability to draw logical conclusions from the digested material.

You should have been around when his "reference material" that he'd use to justify a view was movie scene dialogue or song lyrics - I SHIT YOU NOT. Does anyone has an old copy of ASPD.net somewhere? It was just a treasure trove of WTF and BigKotex missteps. The waybackmachine is just too clunky.

Is it possible to opt out of paying Medicare for ONE asshole who doesn't deserve it?

what do you think LLIdiot?

Surely you are not confusing .... "medicare" and Obaminable Care?

There are folks receiving medicare NOW, but NO ONE is receiving "Obaminable Care" NOW!

So at the moment there are no 'RECIPIENTS"!!!

. Originally Posted by LexusLover

http://useconomy.about.com/od/health...care-Start.htm
Obamacare Changes That Already Began




March 23, 2010 - President Obama signed the Affordable Care Act. Here's what immediately went into effect.

• Small businesses received a tax credits of 35% of their premium payments for workers. For details, see the IRS Small Business Tax Credit.
• Indoor tanning services must pay a 10% excise tax.
• Businesses that provided early retirees (age 55 - 64) with health insurance were reimbursed until December 31, 2011. (Source: ERRP)
• Those who had to pay part of the gap in Medicare Part D Prescription Drug coverage (the "donut hole") received a $250 rebate.
• Parents can keep their children on their insurance until age 26.
• Insurance companies could no longer drop people when they got sick, create lifetime coverage limits, or deny coverage to children with pre-existing conditions. They were required to cover 100% of preventive services.

June 17, 2010 - Federal regulations exempted health plans that were in existence on March 23, 2010 from the Affordable Care Act.


2011 - These additional benefits started in 2011:

• Medicare paid 100% of the costs of preventive services, and negotiated a 50% discount on brand name drugs.
• Insurance companies had to prove they spent at least 80% of premium payments on medical services or send rebates to policyholders. They had to submit justification to Federally-funded state boards for all rate hikes
• Federal funds increased the number of doctors, nurses, and community health centers.

Since you have "understood" the above statement for "decades," then it will not be difficult at all for you to put your "hands" (or fingers in this case) on a legitimate, governmental source that DEMONSTRATES as a fact that ....


either LBJ or Reagan ... took SS funds from the trust fund an used them on military.

1001 .. 1002 ... 1003 .... zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz Originally Posted by LexusLover

Do you understand accounting?

If you take in $500 and put in in a saving account for old age and turn around and borrow $1000 to buy a tank....you are a net minus $500. Not sure how hard that is to figure out , all you have to do is add a shit load of zero's and change the words to SS and Defense spending. Reagan increased Defense spending by a shit load. Look up the actual numbers if you do not believe me. I tired of doing research for you. gnadfly is to ignorant to even understand numbers , so I don't even bother with that lying sack of caca!

WPF read a paper (or had it read to him). Now he's an expert. Hey WPF, I read a paper once. It was identical to a post you made here, that you passed off as your own.

He read a paper.

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Maybe is wouldn't hurt you to read a little more you ignorant racist SOB.


http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/...e-bit-racist-0

The implication is clear. We may all be racist and sexist and ageist at heart, but this is not our doing—we have merely internalized what we have been hearing and reading and seeing our whole life, that is, we are thirsty sponges, and we pick up the patterns that culture happily spoonfeeds us, and we haplessly store it all in our thirsty memory banks, gladly retrieving the connection and filling in the blanks.
One conclusion from this study is clear. For most of us, the racist/sexist/ageist inside us may not be a monster of our own making; s/he is not a reflection of who we are, but a reflection of where we've been. Being faster to associate ‘black' with ‘violence' doesn't imply that you are a hardcore racist, it sadly just means you're American.
This conclusion is both reassuring and sad.
Reassuring, because now we can understand why we are all a little bit racist (and sexist, and ageist). And understanding is half the battle against it.
Sad, of course, because we indeed are all a bit racist (and sexist, and ageist). There is power in knowing, fortunately. Those gut feelings do well up from time to time—you walk through town late at night, a tall black man approaches, you feel like crossing the street, and you realize you wouldn't have this feeling this if the man were white. See these gut reactions for what they are: Responses you've acquired from too much exposure to your culture. What's important is ultimately not what you feel, but how you deal with those responses, how you transcend them to meet your neighbor as a real human being rather than as a member of a category.
Sad too because it shows how much influence the media might have on our implicit knowledge structure.
Doubly sad, perhaps, when you consider the state of these media, and how little sense of responsibility there seems to be concerning these issues. (On the contrary, maybe: The more media pundits play into preconceived notions, the larger their audience, the higher their ratings?)
Maybe triply sad because results like these could be easily misused to excuse inexcusable behavior. The consequences of bias and prejudice and hate are all too real, even if their origin must at least in part lie in the surrounding culture. Society's influence on its individual constituents, however, does not absolve these individuals from their own personal responsibilities.
Perhaps this, then, is one more reason for joy: Now that we know the Beast is there, and It's not our fault, we can at least look It squarely in the eye, and scare It away, or else tame It

Yup. By golly, that's a paper, and WPF read it. It MUST be true!

Says Hanoi Jane.

Yup. By golly, that's a paper, and WPF read it. It MUST be true!

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Basically it says we are all human and have the same flaws(sexist, racist, ageist) .

Of course you and gnadfly think you are superhuman with no flaws. Why am I not surprised...Of course you two (and a few others) turn a blind eye to the President being called a Porch Monkey and call Yssup and myself race baiters when we point out how racist that is. Tea logic at its best.