One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
Why do Republican h**e Obamacare
Page <<first <prev 3 of 17 next> last>>
Nov 29, 2013 23:26:52   #
octive9
 
larry wrote:
I apologize if you thought I was personally insulting you, I was referring only to the theme of the message. The man's skin color did not keep him from getting elected, so why should it make any difference now. It is the Character of the person in the Presidency that matters, He has continually lied about this issue, and has been caught in those lies. You seem to be overly sensitive to skin color. Forget about trying to whip that up into a reason for his mismanagement. It is his colossal ego that needs to be trimmed down. He was elected to be a servant of the people, not a dictator.
I apologize if you thought I was personally insult... (show quote)


Politicians lie. It's part of the job description. I don't think Obama is as bad as most in that department.

Reply
Nov 29, 2013 23:29:57   #
larry
 
octive9 wrote:
Good, bad or indifferent, ACA is here and probably won't be going away. It would be better if the Ds and Rs could work together to make it better than just fighting each other at our expense.

I think the Dems main intention was to get the 30 or 40 million with no insurance covered some how. Unfortunately the whole mess is more about money that about health. I would like to see some real health care reform.

For example, good nutrition is a foundation to health, but nutritional training in medical school consists of laughing at it for about an hour. If you happen to find a doctor that uses nutrition in his practice, he learned it outside of medical school. The FDA is pretty much controlled by drug companies, and they allow drugs that k**l people and hold back drug that could save lives. There is a book written by several enlightened doctors that claims that our medical system k**ls about a million people a year. You can find it here:
http://www.octive9.com/deathbymedicine1.htm
Good, bad or indifferent, ACA is here and probably... (show quote)


If the Democrats wanted to give health care to the indigent, they could have taken some of the money they are giving to our enemies in the far east, and used it as a grant for those that do not have health insurance. It would have cost far less than this bungled approach to ACA. They have already spent nearly a billion dollars on just putting it on the internet. And it still does not work, and it is still an erroneous law that should be riffed. I would rather stop spending money to support Iran and create healthcare for the indigent.

Reply
Nov 29, 2013 23:32:21   #
bmac32 Loc: West Florida
 
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/06/romneycare_vs_obamacare_does_page_count_matter.html

http://race42016.com/2012/07/09/key-differences-between-romneycare-and-obamacare/


octive9 wrote:
I looked up Hillary care on Wikipedia and there isn't a whole lot of difference between all 3. Granted, I have only see bits and pieces of clips and the bills are thousands of pages. From what I can tell, Hillary care leans toward more government provided care. All 3 are trying to get everyone covered by some sort of healthcare insurance.

As for employers cutting employees to 29 hours, that part is not in effect for about a year, and may never get there. However, I just talked to someone from a small town who said employers are reacting as though it was already here. They are reacting to the fear put out by the media.

As for cancellations, a lot of what I have seen is people getting cancellation notices and freaking out before looking into their options. A few may end up paying more, but health care has been rising at about 15% for a long time. That has already slowed. Many find that they can get better coverage for the same or less money.

I don't know how anyone can say that jobs won't be created because of Obamacare. In fact, if more people are getting healthcare I would expect there to be more jobs in that field.

Of course insurance companies will try to sell coverage for higher prices, and I know the faulty web site has kept people from learning their options. That is being fixed and I think most of those being told that by their insurance companies will be able to find better deals.

The only reasons I can objectively see for the right to be against ACA is political. Either, ideologically they don't care about all or most people being covered, or there is just such political hatred of anything Obama that they are forced to fight instead of just trying to make it work for all.
I looked up Hillary care on Wikipedia and there is... (show quote)

Reply
 
 
Nov 29, 2013 23:32:48   #
octive9
 
larry wrote:
If the Democrats wanted to give health care to the indigent, they could have taken some of the money they are giving to our enemies in the far east, and used it as a grant for those that do not have health insurance. It would have cost far less than this bungled approach to ACA. They have already spent nearly a billion dollars on just putting it on the internet. And it still does not work, and it is still an erroneous law that should be riffed. I would rather stop spending money to support Iran and create healthcare for the indigent.
If the Democrats wanted to give health care to the... (show quote)


I wish they would stop trying to rule the world. That would make a big difference in the budget. Do we really need troops in, what is it now, about 160 countries.

Reply
Nov 29, 2013 23:36:02   #
larry
 
octive9 wrote:
Politicians lie. It's part of the job description. I don't think Obama is as bad as most in that department.


And you find that acceptable?? I want honest politicians, if they can't be honest, what good are they. It doesn't cost them anything to be honest, but to get caught in a lie will bankrupt their character.

Reply
Nov 29, 2013 23:37:10   #
octive9
 
bmac32 wrote:
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/06/romneycare_vs_obamacare_does_page_count_matter.html

http://race42016.com/2012/07/09/key-differences-between-romneycare-and-obamacare/


The popularity argument is the only one I found that I could call legitimate. Romney didn't raise taxes, just fees. Same thing if you ask me.

Reply
Nov 29, 2013 23:37:45   #
VladimirPee
 
Trickle Down worked. You saw it in action in the 90s Clinton economy when venture capitalists invested in Dot Coms and created jobs. Works much better than the Obama trickle up poverty


octive9 wrote:
Since you bring up Regan, I'm still waiting for that trickle down he talked about.

Reply
 
 
Nov 29, 2013 23:41:33   #
octive9
 
larry wrote:
And you find that acceptable?? I want honest politicians, if they can't be honest, what good are they. It doesn't cost them anything to be honest, but to get caught in a lie will bankrupt their character.


I don't find it acceptable, but it is what we have now. The whole system would have to change to change that. I put a post on this thread with my ideas for change, but it would take a miracle for it to happen. Here is my post again:

I have one idea to take money out, but it would be difficult to get to. When I took a class in real estate I learned that when you buy a piece of property, you are purchasing space from the center of the earth, unless mineral rights have been sold, to infinite space. So when a TV or radio station broadcasts is signal, it is using everyone's air space, and they don't pay rent. In lieu of rent all broadcast media should be required to give fair and equal air time, not in sound byte segments, to all candidates and issues. That, and public appearances should be the only legitimate means to campaign. Fair and Balanced!!! We might even get a chance to see what the candidates are really all about.

Then if we could have some kind of term limits that would get rid of career politicians, and pay them by the hour, take away their pensions and let them participate in Social Security like the rest of us, we might get more reasonable government.

Reply
Nov 29, 2013 23:43:55   #
octive9
 
DennisDee wrote:
Trickle Down worked. You saw it in action in the 90s Clinton economy when venture capitalists invested in Dot Coms and created jobs. Works much better than the Obama trickle up poverty


I guess you haven't seen the chart that show the wealthiest people's income going up by hundreds of percentage points while the average wage earner's income went up about 18%. Not much trickle there.

Reply
Nov 29, 2013 23:45:49   #
VladimirPee
 
That has to do with the loss of manufacturing in America. Not Supply Side economics. The wealthy did very well with Carter too. Interest rates in CDs were double digit if you recall. He who had cash was king.


octive9 wrote:
I guess you haven't seen the chart that show the wealthiest people's income going up by hundreds of percentage points while the average wage earner's income went up about 18%. Not much trickle there.

Reply
Nov 29, 2013 23:49:27   #
octive9
 
larry wrote:
If the Democrats wanted to give health care to the indigent, they could have taken some of the money they are giving to our enemies in the far east, and used it as a grant for those that do not have health insurance. It would have cost far less than this bungled approach to ACA. They have already spent nearly a billion dollars on just putting it on the internet. And it still does not work, and it is still an erroneous law that should be riffed. I would rather stop spending money to support Iran and create healthcare for the indigent.
If the Democrats wanted to give health care to the... (show quote)


If more people treated health care like I do, they would be in big trouble. I have Medicare Part A now, only because it is automatically given when you hit 65.

I didn't have health insurance most of my life, so I learned how to just not participate. The more I learned about the medical profession, the less I cared to be involved. So I don't even pay for the Medicare Part B. It would be about $1200 a year, and I haven't spent that much on medical care in 2 decades.

Reply
 
 
Nov 29, 2013 23:50:49   #
Whatamess Loc: SC
 
octive9 wrote:
Alex, we are trying to have a reasonable discussion. If all you want to do is call Obama names, please use another thread.



lpnmajor wrote:
Because Obama is black and democrat, so anything he touches is poison to them. What if he succeeds? My God, we might elect another black man or, horror, a women!


Sadly I think you are right, and the whole country suffers for it.


octive9


you should practice what you preach octive

Reply
Nov 29, 2013 23:51:03   #
bmac32 Loc: West Florida
 
Ignore facts also remember Romney was dealing with mostly democrats.


octive9 wrote:
The popularity argument is the only one I found that I could call legitimate. Romney didn't raise taxes, just fees. Same thing if you ask me.

Reply
Nov 29, 2013 23:51:42   #
octive9
 
DennisDee wrote:
That has to do with the loss of manufacturing in America. Not Supply Side economics. The wealthy did very well with Carter too. Interest rates in CDs were double digit if you recall. He who had cash was king.


I remember when Regan was president, rents about doubled where I lived. Probably because he change the depreciation schedule from 3 years to 27.5 years.

Reply
Nov 29, 2013 23:52:24   #
VladimirPee
 
Has nothing to do with Obama's race. I opposed Hillarycare just as much. I find these race cards cowardly


Whatamess wrote:
lpnmajor wrote:
Because Obama is black and democrat, so anything he touches is poison to them. What if he succeeds? My God, we might elect another black man or, horror, a women!


Sadly I think you are right, and the whole country suffers for it.


octive9


you should practice what you preach octive

Reply
Page <<first <prev 3 of 17 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.