info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Obama's "keep your plan" promise labeled "Lie of the Year"
74 views
Skip to first unread message
Leroy N. Soetoro
Dec 14, 2013, 10:09:38 PM12/14/13
to
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/obamas-keep-your-plan-promise-labeled-lie-of-
the-year/
President Obama�s assurance that �If you like your health plan, you can
keep it� was named the �Lie of the Year� on Thursday by PolitiFact, a
fact-checking organization spun off of the Tampa Bay Times.
Mr. Obama�s promise, repeated ad infinitum during and after the health
care bill�s passage through Congress, was a �catchy political pitch and a
chance to calm nerves about his dramatic and complicated plan� to overhaul
the country�s health care system, PolitiFact argued. �But the promise was
impossible to keep.�
�So this fall, as cancellation letters were going out to approximately 4
million Americans, the public realized Obama�s breezy assurances were
wrong,� PolitiFact explained. �Boiling down the complicated health care
law to a soundbite proved treacherous, even for its promoter-in-chief.
Obama and his team made matters worse, suggesting they had been
misunderstood all along. The stunning political uproar led to this: a rare
presidential apology.�
After the cancellation letters began pouring in and the administration
found itself on the defense, Mr. Obama apologized to anybody who felt
misled by his statement.
�We weren�t as clear as we needed to be in terms of the changes that were
taking place, and I want to do everything we can to make sure that people
are finding themselves in a good position, a better position than they
were before this law happened,� he told NBC News in an interview last
month. �And I am sorry that they are finding themselves in this situation
based on assurances they got from me.�
Still, the administration has insisted that nothing in the health care law
explicitly forces insurance companies to cancel plans or shift customers
to a new plan. But the law�s stringent grandfather clause, intended to
preserve existing insurance plans, only applied to plans that were in
place before the law was passed and received only minimal changes since
then. Any substantial alteration to a grandfathered plan would subject
that plan would to the minimum coverage requirements stipulated by
Obamacare. If a plan did not meet those requirements, it would be
canceled.
Those complicated policy mechanics, PolitiFact argued, were not adequately
captured by the president�s glib declaration, which he repeated throughout
the 2012 presidential election.
�Obama�s ideas on health care were first offered as general outlines then
grew into specific legislation over the course of his presidency,� the
organization noted. �Yet Obama never adjusted his rhetoric to give people
a more accurate sense of the law�s real-world repercussions, even as fact-
checkers flagged his statements as exaggerated at best. Instead, he fought
back against inaccurate attacks with his own oversimplifications, which he
repeated even as it became clear his promise was too sweeping.�
Several of PolitiFact�s recent �Lie of the Year� rulings have focused on
the president�s health care law, which has become the subject of
misinformation from all sides. In 2010, the fact-checking organization
condemned Republicans� claim that Democrats were proposing a �government
takeover� of health care, noting that the Democrats� were merely proposing
a system that �at its heart�relies on private companies and the free
market.�
And in 2009, the organization called out former Gov. Sarah Palin, R-
Alaska, who warned that Democrats� health care reform plans would create
�death panels� to ration care provided to the elderly and infirm.
--
Barack Obama, reelected by the dumbest voters in the history of the United
States of America.
Eric Holder, racist black murdering United States Attorney General, still
has his job.
Nancy Pelosi, Democrat criminal, accessory before and after the fact to
improper vetting of Barry Soetoro aka Barack Hussein Obama, a confirmed
felon using SSAN 042-68-4425, belonging to a dead man.
Obama ignored the brutal killing of an American diplomat in Benghazi, then
relieved American military officers who attempted to prevent said murder
in order to cover up his own ineptitude.
Obama continues his goal of disarming America while ObamaCare increases
insurance premiums 300% and leaves millions without health care.
Obama backed the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt prior to their removal for
failing to represent the people and constitutional violations.
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---
the-year/
President Obama�s assurance that �If you like your health plan, you can
keep it� was named the �Lie of the Year� on Thursday by PolitiFact, a
fact-checking organization spun off of the Tampa Bay Times.
Mr. Obama�s promise, repeated ad infinitum during and after the health
care bill�s passage through Congress, was a �catchy political pitch and a
chance to calm nerves about his dramatic and complicated plan� to overhaul
the country�s health care system, PolitiFact argued. �But the promise was
impossible to keep.�
�So this fall, as cancellation letters were going out to approximately 4
million Americans, the public realized Obama�s breezy assurances were
wrong,� PolitiFact explained. �Boiling down the complicated health care
law to a soundbite proved treacherous, even for its promoter-in-chief.
Obama and his team made matters worse, suggesting they had been
misunderstood all along. The stunning political uproar led to this: a rare
presidential apology.�
After the cancellation letters began pouring in and the administration
found itself on the defense, Mr. Obama apologized to anybody who felt
misled by his statement.
�We weren�t as clear as we needed to be in terms of the changes that were
taking place, and I want to do everything we can to make sure that people
are finding themselves in a good position, a better position than they
were before this law happened,� he told NBC News in an interview last
month. �And I am sorry that they are finding themselves in this situation
based on assurances they got from me.�
Still, the administration has insisted that nothing in the health care law
explicitly forces insurance companies to cancel plans or shift customers
to a new plan. But the law�s stringent grandfather clause, intended to
preserve existing insurance plans, only applied to plans that were in
place before the law was passed and received only minimal changes since
then. Any substantial alteration to a grandfathered plan would subject
that plan would to the minimum coverage requirements stipulated by
Obamacare. If a plan did not meet those requirements, it would be
canceled.
Those complicated policy mechanics, PolitiFact argued, were not adequately
captured by the president�s glib declaration, which he repeated throughout
the 2012 presidential election.
�Obama�s ideas on health care were first offered as general outlines then
grew into specific legislation over the course of his presidency,� the
organization noted. �Yet Obama never adjusted his rhetoric to give people
a more accurate sense of the law�s real-world repercussions, even as fact-
checkers flagged his statements as exaggerated at best. Instead, he fought
back against inaccurate attacks with his own oversimplifications, which he
repeated even as it became clear his promise was too sweeping.�
Several of PolitiFact�s recent �Lie of the Year� rulings have focused on
the president�s health care law, which has become the subject of
misinformation from all sides. In 2010, the fact-checking organization
condemned Republicans� claim that Democrats were proposing a �government
takeover� of health care, noting that the Democrats� were merely proposing
a system that �at its heart�relies on private companies and the free
market.�
And in 2009, the organization called out former Gov. Sarah Palin, R-
Alaska, who warned that Democrats� health care reform plans would create
�death panels� to ration care provided to the elderly and infirm.
--
Barack Obama, reelected by the dumbest voters in the history of the United
States of America.
Eric Holder, racist black murdering United States Attorney General, still
has his job.
Nancy Pelosi, Democrat criminal, accessory before and after the fact to
improper vetting of Barry Soetoro aka Barack Hussein Obama, a confirmed
felon using SSAN 042-68-4425, belonging to a dead man.
Obama ignored the brutal killing of an American diplomat in Benghazi, then
relieved American military officers who attempted to prevent said murder
in order to cover up his own ineptitude.
Obama continues his goal of disarming America while ObamaCare increases
insurance premiums 300% and leaves millions without health care.
Obama backed the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt prior to their removal for
failing to represent the people and constitutional violations.
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---
Ubiquitous
Dec 16, 2013, 5:05:36 AM12/16/13
to
In article <XnsA296C2E5FC...@202.177.16.121>, leroys...@usurper.org
wrote:
>http://www.cbsnews.com/news/obamas-keep-your-plan-promise-labeled-lie-of-the-year/
with its "Lie of the Year," and it's a doozy of dishonesty: "If you like
your health care plan, you can keep it.' "
Just to show how fast the news can move, back in September this columnist
tweeted: "If 'I didn't set a red line' isn't named 'Lie of the Year,'
@PolitiFact is a state propaganda agency." "I didn't set a red line"--the
reference was to Syria's use of chemical weapons, in case you've
forgotten--didn't even make the top 10. Yet our September tweet proved to
be mistaken: We cannot fault PolitiFact for the lie it chose instead.
Which isn't to say PolitiFact doesn't function as a state propaganda
agency. For in the past--when it actually mattered, which is to say
before ObamaCare became first a law and then a practical
reality--PolitiFact vouched for Barack Obama's Big Lie.
In her lie-of-the-year write-up, PolitiFact's Angie Holan includes the
following acknowledgment:
In 2009 and again in 2012, PolitiFact rated Obama's statement
Half True, which means the statement is partially correct and
partially wrong. We noted that while the law took pains to leave
some parts of the insurance market alone, people were not
guaranteed to keep insurance through thick and thin. It was
likely that some private insurers would continue to force people
to switch plans, and that trend might even accelerate.
Her "half true" acknowledgment is itself a half-truth. As the Washington
Examiner's Sean Higgins noted last month, in October 2008 PolitiFact
rated the same statement, from then-candidate Obama, as flatly "true," on
the ground that "Obama is accurately describing his health care plan
here."
We're not making this up. PolitiFact actually rated Obama's promise as
"true" on the ground that in making the promise, he was making the
promise.
To be sure, there are some epistemological complexities here. The
cancellation letters from insurance companies provide concrete proof that
Obama's claim was false, evidence that was necessarily lacking in 2008,
2009 and 2012. Likewise, the reporting of our colleagues on the news side
of The Wall Street Journal established with a previously lacking
specificity that Obama told the lie with full knowledge and intent to
deceive.
One might have reasonably suspected, in 2008 and certainly in 2009 and
2012, that Obama was lying. But one could not prove it, because it was
not yet a factual assertion. In 2008 it was but a promise, which Obama
might or might not have intended and might or might not have been able to
keep. By 2012, we now know, it was a full-fledged fraud, but exposing it
conclusively as such would have required a degree of expertise few
journalists have.
In other words, it's not that PolitiFact was wrong to withhold its jejune
"pants on fire" designation from the Obama statement in 2008, 2009 and
2012. It was wrong even to make a pretense of "fact checking" a statement
that was, at the time, _not a factual claim_. Its past evaluations of the
statement were not "fact checks" at all, merely opinion pieces endorsing
ObamaCare.
Lots of people wrote opinion pieces endorsing ObamaCare, and some are
still at it. Apart from the substance of the arguments, there's nothing
wrong with that. But selling opinion pieces by labeling them "fact
checks" is fundamentally dishonest. In this case, it was in the service
of the most massive consumer fraud in American history.
--
Q: Why is ObamaCare like a turd?
A: You have to pass it to see what's in it.
wrote:
>http://www.cbsnews.com/news/obamas-keep-your-plan-promise-labeled-lie-of-the-year/
>
>President Obama�s assurance that �If you like your health plan, you can
>keep it� was named the �Lie of the Year� on Thursday by PolitiFact, a
>fact-checking organization spun off of the Tampa Bay Times.
PolitiFact.com, the Tampa Bay Times's "fact checking" operation, is out
>President Obama�s assurance that �If you like your health plan, you can
>keep it� was named the �Lie of the Year� on Thursday by PolitiFact, a
>fact-checking organization spun off of the Tampa Bay Times.
with its "Lie of the Year," and it's a doozy of dishonesty: "If you like
your health care plan, you can keep it.' "
Just to show how fast the news can move, back in September this columnist
tweeted: "If 'I didn't set a red line' isn't named 'Lie of the Year,'
@PolitiFact is a state propaganda agency." "I didn't set a red line"--the
reference was to Syria's use of chemical weapons, in case you've
forgotten--didn't even make the top 10. Yet our September tweet proved to
be mistaken: We cannot fault PolitiFact for the lie it chose instead.
Which isn't to say PolitiFact doesn't function as a state propaganda
agency. For in the past--when it actually mattered, which is to say
before ObamaCare became first a law and then a practical
reality--PolitiFact vouched for Barack Obama's Big Lie.
In her lie-of-the-year write-up, PolitiFact's Angie Holan includes the
following acknowledgment:
In 2009 and again in 2012, PolitiFact rated Obama's statement
Half True, which means the statement is partially correct and
partially wrong. We noted that while the law took pains to leave
some parts of the insurance market alone, people were not
guaranteed to keep insurance through thick and thin. It was
likely that some private insurers would continue to force people
to switch plans, and that trend might even accelerate.
Her "half true" acknowledgment is itself a half-truth. As the Washington
Examiner's Sean Higgins noted last month, in October 2008 PolitiFact
rated the same statement, from then-candidate Obama, as flatly "true," on
the ground that "Obama is accurately describing his health care plan
here."
We're not making this up. PolitiFact actually rated Obama's promise as
"true" on the ground that in making the promise, he was making the
promise.
To be sure, there are some epistemological complexities here. The
cancellation letters from insurance companies provide concrete proof that
Obama's claim was false, evidence that was necessarily lacking in 2008,
2009 and 2012. Likewise, the reporting of our colleagues on the news side
of The Wall Street Journal established with a previously lacking
specificity that Obama told the lie with full knowledge and intent to
deceive.
One might have reasonably suspected, in 2008 and certainly in 2009 and
2012, that Obama was lying. But one could not prove it, because it was
not yet a factual assertion. In 2008 it was but a promise, which Obama
might or might not have intended and might or might not have been able to
keep. By 2012, we now know, it was a full-fledged fraud, but exposing it
conclusively as such would have required a degree of expertise few
journalists have.
In other words, it's not that PolitiFact was wrong to withhold its jejune
"pants on fire" designation from the Obama statement in 2008, 2009 and
2012. It was wrong even to make a pretense of "fact checking" a statement
that was, at the time, _not a factual claim_. Its past evaluations of the
statement were not "fact checks" at all, merely opinion pieces endorsing
ObamaCare.
Lots of people wrote opinion pieces endorsing ObamaCare, and some are
still at it. Apart from the substance of the arguments, there's nothing
wrong with that. But selling opinion pieces by labeling them "fact
checks" is fundamentally dishonest. In this case, it was in the service
of the most massive consumer fraud in American history.
--
Q: Why is ObamaCare like a turd?
A: You have to pass it to see what's in it.
World Welfare Mandela
Dec 17, 2013, 3:10:02 PM12/17/13
to
In article <ws21-B3F4C5.17002616122013@70-3-168-
216.pools.spcsdns.net>
Bill Steele <ws...@cornel.edu> wrote:
>
> In article <l8n0s9$ici$4...@dont-email.me>,
> You refer, I assume, to the insurance industry canceling the policies it
> didn't want people to renew because it would cut their profits.
Your ignorance doesn't allow you to grasp the scope of the law
that forced insurance companies to cancel plans that didn't
contribute to the Obama Care pool.
Obama Care is a giant fraud.
216.pools.spcsdns.net>
Bill Steele <ws...@cornel.edu> wrote:
>
> In article <l8n0s9$ici$4...@dont-email.me>,
> didn't want people to renew because it would cut their profits.
Your ignorance doesn't allow you to grasp the scope of the law
that forced insurance companies to cancel plans that didn't
contribute to the Obama Care pool.
Obama Care is a giant fraud.
Bill Steele
Jun 9, 2014, 6:15:42 PM6/9/14
to
In article <ws21-B3F4C5.17002616122013@70-3-168-
216.pools.spcsdns.net>
Bill Steele <ws...@cornel.edu> wrote:
>
> In article <l8n0s9$ici$4...@dont-email.me>,
> Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
>
216.pools.spcsdns.net>
Bill Steele <ws...@cornel.edu> wrote:
>
> In article <l8n0s9$ici$4...@dont-email.me>,
> Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
>
> You refer, I assume, to the insurance industry canceling the policies it
> didn't want people to renew because it would cut their profits.
You lied. They cancelled the policies because the tax law which
> didn't want people to renew because it would cut their profits.
is Obamacare required them to.
Bill Steele
Sep 16, 2014, 3:12:53 AM9/16/14
to
Message has been deleted
Eddie Haskell
Sep 16, 2014, 12:17:36 PM9/16/14
to
"Bill Steele" <ob...@faggots.guv> wrote in message
news:2f492d446f13ad54...@dizum.com...
> In article <d63ba3903c69e1f7...@dizum.com>
> Bill Steele <ws...@cornholer.edu> wrote:
>>
>> In article <ws21-B3F4C5.17002616122013@70-3-168-
>> 216.pools.spcsdns.net>
>> Bill Steele <ws...@cornel.edu> wrote:
>> >
>> > In article <l8n0s9$ici$4...@dont-email.me>,
>> > Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
>> >
>> > > In article <XnsA296C2E5FC...@202.177.16.121>,
>> > > leroys...@usurper.org
>> > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > >http://www.cbsnews.com/news/obamas-keep-your-plan-promise-labeled-lie-of-the-
>> > > >year/
>> > > >
>> > > >President Obama�s assurance that �If you like your health plan, you
> Bill Steele <ws...@cornholer.edu> wrote:
>>
>> In article <ws21-B3F4C5.17002616122013@70-3-168-
>> 216.pools.spcsdns.net>
>> Bill Steele <ws...@cornel.edu> wrote:
>> >
>> > In article <l8n0s9$ici$4...@dont-email.me>,
>> > Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
>> >
>> > > In article <XnsA296C2E5FC...@202.177.16.121>,
>> > > leroys...@usurper.org
>> > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > >http://www.cbsnews.com/news/obamas-keep-your-plan-promise-labeled-lie-of-the-
>> > > >year/
>> > > >
>> > > >can
>> > > >keep it� was named the �Lie of the Year� on Thursday by PolitiFact,
dead sieg heiling members of a fascist cult.
Obama could rape and ass fuck their daughters and they'd love him for it.
We can't have fucking idiots like that living in our country.
Stupid motherfuckers have GOT to go.
-Eddie Haskell
BTR1701
Sep 16, 2014, 12:16:23 PM9/16/14
to
In article <2fig1ap0900rg869j...@4ax.com>,
Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Sep 2014 09:12:53 +0200 (CEST), "Bill Steele"
> <ob...@faggots.guv> wrote:
>
> >> > You refer, I assume, to the insurance industry canceling the policies it
> >> > didn't want people to renew because it would cut their profits.
> >>
> >> You lied. They cancelled the policies because the tax law which
> >> is Obamacare required them to.
> >
> >Fact.
>
> Wasn't tax law---it was the FACT that an insurance policy (by law) had
> to do specific "things" (or lose tax status).
>
> Those worthless policies were costing US (taxpayers) over $8 BIllion a
> year---racking up millions in uncompensated HC that "we" had to pay
> back to states for HC the policies did not cover.
Yes, 'worthless' policies held by men that covered everything they
needed them to, but didn't cover OB/GYN care. Much better that those men
now have to pay more for plans that cover things they biologically will
never need. Or for childless people to have to pay for pediatric dental
coverage. Their previous policy was 'worthless' because it didn't have
coverage for their non-existent children.
> Now millions have REAL policies.
'Real' policies that are more expensive because they cover things people
will never need.
Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Sep 2014 09:12:53 +0200 (CEST), "Bill Steele"
> <ob...@faggots.guv> wrote:
>
> >> > You refer, I assume, to the insurance industry canceling the policies it
> >> > didn't want people to renew because it would cut their profits.
> >>
> >> You lied. They cancelled the policies because the tax law which
> >> is Obamacare required them to.
> >
> >Fact.
>
> to do specific "things" (or lose tax status).
>
> Those worthless policies were costing US (taxpayers) over $8 BIllion a
> year---racking up millions in uncompensated HC that "we" had to pay
> back to states for HC the policies did not cover.
Yes, 'worthless' policies held by men that covered everything they
needed them to, but didn't cover OB/GYN care. Much better that those men
now have to pay more for plans that cover things they biologically will
never need. Or for childless people to have to pay for pediatric dental
coverage. Their previous policy was 'worthless' because it didn't have
coverage for their non-existent children.
> Now millions have REAL policies.
'Real' policies that are more expensive because they cover things people
will never need.
Eddie Haskell
Sep 16, 2014, 12:58:55 PM9/16/14
to
<Yoor...@Jurgis.net> wrote in message
news:2fig1ap0900rg869j...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 16 Sep 2014 09:12:53 +0200 (CEST), "Bill Steele"
> <ob...@faggots.guv> wrote:
>
> <ob...@faggots.guv> wrote:
>
>>> > You refer, I assume, to the insurance industry canceling the policies
>>> > it
>>> > didn't want people to renew because it would cut their profits.
>>>
>>> You lied. They cancelled the policies because the tax law which
>>> is Obamacare required them to.
>>
>>Fact.
>
>>> > it
>>> > didn't want people to renew because it would cut their profits.
>>>
>>> You lied. They cancelled the policies because the tax law which
>>> is Obamacare required them to.
>>
>>Fact.
>
> Wasn't tax law---it was the FACT that an insurance policy (by law) had
> to do specific "things" (or lose tax status).
>
> Those worthless policies
Those policies were the fucking policies that people chose and were told
> to do specific "things" (or lose tax status).
>
> Those worthless policies
they could keep by your lying goddamned nigger. When he said that you can
keep your plan he KNEW that was a goddamned lie, you fucking brown shirted
motherfucker.
We can't have these kind of sycophants in our country, folks. Making excuses
for very deliberate tyrannical lie told just because the fucking liar is on
their team. He's the anti-citizen who refuses to hold leaders accountable
and makes them into dictators. That's why stupid sycophant motherfuckers
like Yoorghis have got to go.
They are NOT Americans or anything resembling an American.
-Eddie Haskell
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Sherm Bradley
Sep 16, 2014, 3:06:47 PM9/16/14
to
On Tue, 16 Sep 2014 14:36:12 -0400, FPP wrote:
> "We can't have these kinds of sycophants in our country..."
>
> "They are not Americans..."
>
> Well, why not? We tolerate YOU, don't we?
That Obamacare's working well for ya, eh cupcake?
>
> "They are not Americans..."
>
> Well, why not? We tolerate YOU, don't we?
That Obamacare's working well for ya, eh cupcake?
Eddie Haskell
Sep 16, 2014, 3:15:35 PM9/16/14
to
"FPP" <fred...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:lv9vus$m6g$1...@dont-email.me...
> "We can't have these kinds of sycophants in our country..."
>
> "They are not Americans..."
>
> Well, why not? We tolerate YOU, don't we?
You don't tolerate a goddamned thing. I'm a patriotic tax paying American
>
> "They are not Americans..."
>
> Well, why not? We tolerate YOU, don't we?
and put my country first, you pig fucker. While Yoorghis and the entire
democrat party put their party ahead of the entire human race, so go fuck
yourself.
-Eddie Haskell
Eddie Haskell
Sep 16, 2014, 3:17:48 PM9/16/14
to
news:lva061$njf$1...@dont-email.me...
> On 2014-09-16 16:17:36 +0000, "Eddie Haskell" <alde...@qaeilkrg.com>
>>>> you > > >can
>>>> > > >keep it” was named the “Lie of the Year” on Thursday by
> Well, why not? We have you, don't we?
And you can get down on your knees and suck my cock while you thank almighty
god for it, you fascist shit eater.
-Eddie Haskell
> On 2014-09-16 16:17:36 +0000, "Eddie Haskell" <alde...@qaeilkrg.com>
> said:
>
>>
>>
>> "Bill Steele" <ob...@faggots.guv> wrote in message
>> news:2f492d446f13ad54...@dizum.com...
>>> In article <d63ba3903c69e1f7...@dizum.com>
>>> Bill Steele <ws...@cornholer.edu> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> In article <ws21-B3F4C5.17002616122013@70-3-168-
>>>> 216.pools.spcsdns.net>
>>>> Bill Steele <ws...@cornel.edu> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > In article <l8n0s9$ici$4...@dont-email.me>,
>>>> > Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > > In article <XnsA296C2E5FC...@202.177.16.121>,
>>>> > > leroys...@usurper.org
>>>> > > wrote:
>>>> > >
>>>> > >
>>>> >http://www.cbsnews.com/news/obamas-keep-your-plan-promise-labeled-lie-of-the-
>>
>>>>
>>>> > >year/
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > >President Obama’s assurance that “If you like your health plan,
>
>>
>>
>> "Bill Steele" <ob...@faggots.guv> wrote in message
>> news:2f492d446f13ad54...@dizum.com...
>>> In article <d63ba3903c69e1f7...@dizum.com>
>>> Bill Steele <ws...@cornholer.edu> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> In article <ws21-B3F4C5.17002616122013@70-3-168-
>>>> 216.pools.spcsdns.net>
>>>> Bill Steele <ws...@cornel.edu> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > In article <l8n0s9$ici$4...@dont-email.me>,
>>>> > Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > > In article <XnsA296C2E5FC...@202.177.16.121>,
>>>> > > leroys...@usurper.org
>>>> > > wrote:
>>>> > >
>>>> > >
>>>> >http://www.cbsnews.com/news/obamas-keep-your-plan-promise-labeled-lie-of-the-
>>
>>>>
>>>> > >year/
>>>> > > >
>>>> you > > >can
>>>> > > >keep it” was named the “Lie of the Year” on Thursday by
And you can get down on your knees and suck my cock while you thank almighty
god for it, you fascist shit eater.
-Eddie Haskell
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Eddie Haskell
Sep 16, 2014, 4:24:40 PM9/16/14
to
news:lva60u$3h3$1...@dont-email.me...
> On 2014-09-16 19:15:35 +0000, "Eddie Haskell" <alde...@qaeilkrg.com>
> Hey, you're the guy who indicated that you weren't American, not me...
You're fucking lying.
> See: "Making excuses for very deliberate tyrannical lie told just because
-Eddie Haskell
> On 2014-09-16 19:15:35 +0000, "Eddie Haskell" <alde...@qaeilkrg.com>
You're fucking lying.
> See: "Making excuses for very deliberate tyrannical lie told just because
> the fucking liar is on their team."
Yeah, what about it, shit-brain?
-Eddie Haskell
Eddie Haskell
Sep 16, 2014, 4:26:40 PM9/16/14
to
news:lva5s8$3ha$1...@dont-email.me...
> On 2014-09-16 19:17:48 +0000, "Eddie Haskell" <alde...@qaeilkrg.com>
> I'd probably have to thank almighty God just to FIND it...
Yeah, cause it's stuck up your old lady's ass.
-Eddie Haskell
> On 2014-09-16 19:17:48 +0000, "Eddie Haskell" <alde...@qaeilkrg.com>
Yeah, cause it's stuck up your old lady's ass.
-Eddie Haskell
Sherm Bradley
Sep 16, 2014, 5:40:04 PM9/16/14
to
On Tue, 16 Sep 2014 16:18:09 -0400, FPP wrote:
> Worked for the same company for 38 years... don't think I'm eligible.
That's what you think.
That's what you think.
Message has been deleted
Don't smoke; eat well; exercise; die anyway
Sep 17, 2014, 6:15:06 AM9/17/14
to
On Tue, 16 Sep 2014 19:16:38 -0400, FPP wrote:
> I pictured you saying it while looking into a mirror...
You think about him while looking in a mirror?
You think about him while looking in a mirror?
Message has been deleted
trotsky
Sep 17, 2014, 8:41:52 AM9/17/14
to
On 9/16/14 9:36 AM, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Sep 2014 09:12:53 +0200 (CEST), "Bill Steele"
> <ob...@faggots.guv> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 16 Sep 2014 09:12:53 +0200 (CEST), "Bill Steele"
> <ob...@faggots.guv> wrote:
>
>>>> You refer, I assume, to the insurance industry canceling the policies it
>>>> didn't want people to renew because it would cut their profits.
>>>
>>> You lied. They cancelled the policies because the tax law which
>>> is Obamacare required them to.
>>
>> Fact.
>
>>>> didn't want people to renew because it would cut their profits.
>>>
>>> You lied. They cancelled the policies because the tax law which
>>> is Obamacare required them to.
>>
>> Fact.
>
> Wasn't tax law---it was the FACT that an insurance policy (by law) had
> to do specific "things" (or lose tax status).
>
> to do specific "things" (or lose tax status).
>
> Those worthless policies were costing US (taxpayers) over $8 BIllion a
> year---racking up millions in uncompensated HC that "we" had to pay
> back to states for HC the policies did not cover.
>
> Worse--was that "we" (taxpayers), in turn, were shoveling millions
> year---racking up millions in uncompensated HC that "we" had to pay
> back to states for HC the policies did not cover.
>
> into the pockets of the CEO's (of those companies), paying
> shareholders dividends (to those owing stock), paying highly inflated
> costs of Medical equipment and administrative costs
>
> Bottom line----SAVING to the American taxpayers ($8 billion PER YEAR)
>
> Now millions have REAL policies.
People that have been sucking at the teat of big corporations don't
> Now millions have REAL policies.
really want to hear that Obama has made things a little more fair for
the average American. I wish these "detractors" would just label
themselves filthy, disgusting whores so we can move on.
Ookin' 'n' Eekin'
Sep 17, 2014, 9:17:24 AM9/17/14
to
Eddie Haskell
Sep 17, 2014, 1:52:18 PM9/17/14
to
news:lvagcm$ec4$1...@dont-email.me...
> On 2014-09-16 20:24:40 +0000, "Eddie Haskell" <alde...@qaeilkrg.com>
-Eddie Haskell
> On 2014-09-16 20:24:40 +0000, "Eddie Haskell" <alde...@qaeilkrg.com>
> I pictured you saying it while looking into a mirror...
Well stop looking in the mirror if you're that easily confused, dumbass.
-Eddie Haskell
Eddie Haskell
Sep 17, 2014, 1:53:47 PM9/17/14
to
"Don't smoke; eat well; exercise; die anyway"
<EatDrink&BeM...@AnywhereAnytime.net> wrote in message
news:1vwi4w58a98ld.1loy0nr0ken41$.dlg@40tude.net...
-Eddie Haskell
Eddie Haskell
Sep 17, 2014, 1:54:48 PM9/17/14
to
news:lvboj6$olk$1...@dont-email.me...
> On 2014-09-17 10:15:06 +0000, "Don't smoke; eat well; exercise; die
> Yeah, that sounded better in my head...
Dear god. He hears voices too.
Don't post to him, folks. He's deranged.
-Eddie Haskell
> On 2014-09-17 10:15:06 +0000, "Don't smoke; eat well; exercise; die
Dear god. He hears voices too.
Don't post to him, folks. He's deranged.
-Eddie Haskell
Message has been deleted
Eddie Haskell
Sep 17, 2014, 4:16:42 PM9/17/14
to
news:lvcoma$il4$1...@dont-email.me...
> On 2014-09-17 17:54:48 +0000, "Eddie Haskell" <alde...@qaeilkrg.com>
> It's just the one... but I'm not surprised you don't understand.
>
> It's more properly called "thinking". Look it up, if you're curious.
Oh, so you only "think" you hear voices?
Don't post to him, folks. He's shit-face crazy.
-Eddie Haskell
> On 2014-09-17 17:54:48 +0000, "Eddie Haskell" <alde...@qaeilkrg.com>
>
> It's more properly called "thinking". Look it up, if you're curious.
Oh, so you only "think" you hear voices?
Don't post to him, folks. He's shit-face crazy.
-Eddie Haskell
Eddie Haskell
Sep 17, 2014, 4:20:30 PM9/17/14
to
"trotsky" <gms...@email.com> wrote in message
news:kOidnSXCvbcNHITJ...@mchsi.com...
defense of that piece of shit you voted for and is ass fucking you blind.
Stupid lying motherfucker.
-Eddie Haskell
Message has been deleted
Eddie Haskell
Sep 17, 2014, 4:33:31 PM9/17/14
to
news:lvcqit$2eq$1...@dont-email.me...
> On 2014-09-17 17:53:47 +0000, "Eddie Haskell" <alde...@qaeilkrg.com>
>
>> On 2014-09-09 20:55:28 +0000, "Eddie Haskell" <alde...@qaeilkrg.com>
>> said:
>>
>>>> What business is it of ours if negroes beat women? It's a
>>>> cultural thing for them. It's what they do. It's racist to
>>>> prevent them from doing what occurs normally for them.
>>>
>>> As long as they keep their savagery amongst themselves fuck em. Strike a
>>> white woman and there's going to be lynching.
>>>
>>> -Eddie Haskell
>
>
> On 2014-08-08 15:55:12 +0000, "Eddie Haskell" <jsjw...@kjghyuoujp.com>
> said:
>
>> Now we know what you know you are guilty of, you goddamned traitor. When
>> this is all over you're going to be air dancing right beside Obama and
>> Reid while we all laugh our goddamn asses off.
>>
>> -Eddie Haskell
>
> On 2014-09-16 16:17:36 +0000, "Eddie Haskell" <alde...@qaeilkrg.com>
>
>> "Eddie Haskell" <alde...@qaeilkrg.com>
>> Newsgroups:
>> alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.democrats,soc.culture.jewish,soc.culture.usa,soc.women
>
> Oh,
>>
>> and btw, we had Iraq and the cold war won.. until your fucking nigger
>> lost both of them and set us back goddamn decades.
>>
>> Now fuck off and die.
>>
>> -Eddie Haskell
>
> On 2014-09-16 19:17:48 +0000, "Eddie Haskell" <alde...@qaeilkrg.com>
>> From Eddie Haskell
>> Date Fri, 5 Sep 2014 18:15:54 -0500
>> Newsgroups alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.politics.democrats,
>> alt.politics.elections, alt.politics.media, seattle.politics
>>
>> We'd free them like we did before and they'd shit their pants and riot in
>> the streets to be returned to bondage which is their natural state. Slave
>> mentality and there's nothing anyone can do about it. The democrats can
>> have them. Too much fucking work trying to make them work.
>>
>> -Eddie Haskell
>
>> Subject Re: Blacks left out of ObamaNomics...
>> From Eddie Haskell
>> Date Fri, 5 Sep 2014 16:18:24 -0500
>> Newsgroups alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.politics.democrats,
>> alt.politics.elections, alt.politics.media, seattle.politics
>>
>> Exactly, if you want the nigger vote you fuck them over as hard as you
>> can.
>> LBJ was the first to figure that out and the democrat party has been
>> fucking
>> them blind ever since. And they love it too so then they can flop around
>> like worthless shit whining about whitey. There's nothing you can do with
>> them. Stupidest most uncivilized beasts on earth. Fuck em.
>>
>> -Eddie Haskell
>
> You're sick, depraved and twisted. Not sarcastically "sick"... but
> literally sick. As in mentally ill.
> You should take a little of your own advice, and go fuck yourself,
> needledick.
Goddamn. That was GREAT. Post some more of my past musings. I forgot what a
fucking genius I am. I'm gonna have to compile all my posts together in a
book one day. It would be a ball blistering best seller. Goddamn I'm good.
Now, post some more of my brilliance, you sick deranged fuck..
-Eddie Haskell
> On 2014-09-17 17:53:47 +0000, "Eddie Haskell" <alde...@qaeilkrg.com>
> said:
>>
>> Sick fucker, ain't he?
>>
>> -Eddie Haskell
>
> So **I'M** a sick fucker, am I? Here are a few of YOUR fine thoughts:
>>
>> Sick fucker, ain't he?
>>
>> -Eddie Haskell
>
>
>> On 2014-09-09 20:55:28 +0000, "Eddie Haskell" <alde...@qaeilkrg.com>
>> said:
>>
>>>> What business is it of ours if negroes beat women? It's a
>>>> cultural thing for them. It's what they do. It's racist to
>>>> prevent them from doing what occurs normally for them.
>>>
>>> As long as they keep their savagery amongst themselves fuck em. Strike a
>>> white woman and there's going to be lynching.
>>>
>>> -Eddie Haskell
>
>
> On 2014-08-08 15:55:12 +0000, "Eddie Haskell" <jsjw...@kjghyuoujp.com>
> said:
>
>> Now we know what you know you are guilty of, you goddamned traitor. When
>> this is all over you're going to be air dancing right beside Obama and
>> Reid while we all laugh our goddamn asses off.
>>
>> -Eddie Haskell
>
> On 2014-09-16 16:17:36 +0000, "Eddie Haskell" <alde...@qaeilkrg.com>
> said:
>
>> And it's a fact that Obama lied and that his followers are nothing but
>> brain dead sieg heiling members of a fascist cult.
>> Obama could rape and ass fuck their daughters and they'd love him for it.
>>
>> -Eddie Haskell
>
>> And it's a fact that Obama lied and that his followers are nothing but
>> brain dead sieg heiling members of a fascist cult.
>> Obama could rape and ass fuck their daughters and they'd love him for it.
>>
>
>> "Eddie Haskell" <alde...@qaeilkrg.com>
>> Newsgroups:
>> alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.democrats,soc.culture.jewish,soc.culture.usa,soc.women
>
> Oh,
>>
>> and btw, we had Iraq and the cold war won.. until your fucking nigger
>> lost both of them and set us back goddamn decades.
>>
>> Now fuck off and die.
>>
>> -Eddie Haskell
>
> On 2014-09-16 19:17:48 +0000, "Eddie Haskell" <alde...@qaeilkrg.com>
> said:
>
>> And you can get down on your knees and suck my cock while you thank
>> almighty god for it, you fascist shit eater.
>>
>> -Eddie Haskell
>
>> Subject Re: Blacks left out of ObamaNomics...
>
>> And you can get down on your knees and suck my cock while you thank
>> almighty god for it, you fascist shit eater.
>>
>> -Eddie Haskell
>
>> From Eddie Haskell
>> Date Fri, 5 Sep 2014 18:15:54 -0500
>> Newsgroups alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.politics.democrats,
>> alt.politics.elections, alt.politics.media, seattle.politics
>>
>> We'd free them like we did before and they'd shit their pants and riot in
>> the streets to be returned to bondage which is their natural state. Slave
>> mentality and there's nothing anyone can do about it. The democrats can
>> have them. Too much fucking work trying to make them work.
>>
>> -Eddie Haskell
>
>> Subject Re: Blacks left out of ObamaNomics...
>> From Eddie Haskell
>> Date Fri, 5 Sep 2014 16:18:24 -0500
>> Newsgroups alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.politics.democrats,
>> alt.politics.elections, alt.politics.media, seattle.politics
>>
>> Exactly, if you want the nigger vote you fuck them over as hard as you
>> can.
>> LBJ was the first to figure that out and the democrat party has been
>> fucking
>> them blind ever since. And they love it too so then they can flop around
>> like worthless shit whining about whitey. There's nothing you can do with
>> them. Stupidest most uncivilized beasts on earth. Fuck em.
>>
>> -Eddie Haskell
>
> You're sick, depraved and twisted. Not sarcastically "sick"... but
> literally sick. As in mentally ill.
> You should take a little of your own advice, and go fuck yourself,
> needledick.
Goddamn. That was GREAT. Post some more of my past musings. I forgot what a
fucking genius I am. I'm gonna have to compile all my posts together in a
book one day. It would be a ball blistering best seller. Goddamn I'm good.
Now, post some more of my brilliance, you sick deranged fuck..
-Eddie Haskell
Eddie Haskell
Sep 17, 2014, 4:36:59 PM9/17/14
to
news:lva5u0$3ha$2...@dont-email.me...
yourself paying out of your ass for coverage. Obama lied like a nigger.
Wonder why? Oh, that's right. He's a nigger.
-Eddie Haskell
> Worked for the same company for 38 years... don't think I'm eligible.
You will be after the salvation army drops your coverage and you find
yourself paying out of your ass for coverage. Obama lied like a nigger.
Wonder why? Oh, that's right. He's a nigger.
-Eddie Haskell
Eddie Haskell
Sep 17, 2014, 4:42:16 PM9/17/14
to
"Sherm Bradley" <inv...@horseshit.net> wrote in message
news:1tm2wtw7nxw9c$.hpt3j6yyp4dz$.dlg@40tude.net...
going to find himself paying out the ass for heath insurance but no
healthcare. And when he ends up at the emergency room for a stumped toe he's
going to be facing a death panel. And maybe if he's been a good groveling
democrat they won't give him the thumbs down.
But I'll be on that panel, and *I* will.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
-Eddie Haskell
Message has been deleted
trotsky
Sep 18, 2014, 8:34:36 AM9/18/14
to
On 9/17/14 3:22 PM, FPP wrote:
> On 2014-09-17 17:53:47 +0000, "Eddie Haskell" <alde...@qaeilkrg.com>
were serious posters.
> On 2014-09-17 17:53:47 +0000, "Eddie Haskell" <alde...@qaeilkrg.com>
> said:
>>
>> Sick fucker, ain't he?
>>
>> -Eddie Haskell
>
>>
>> Sick fucker, ain't he?
>>
>> -Eddie Haskell
>
> So **I'M** a sick fucker, am I? Here are a few of YOUR fine thoughts:
FPP, you definitely get extra credit in engaging uber trolls as if they
were serious posters.
NoBody
Sep 18, 2014, 8:50:36 AM9/18/14
to
Eddie Haskell
Sep 18, 2014, 12:26:15 PM9/18/14
to
news:lvdp2v$en3$2...@dont-email.me...
> On 2014-09-17 20:42:16 +0000, "Eddie Haskell" <alde...@qaeilkrg.com>
> Ya' know... you even make Sarah Palin look smart.
Still pissed off that she was right about death panels and Russia invading
the Ukraine, huh, you miserable dumbfuck?
Now, who's stupid, you stupid shit?
April 13, 2011 - The deficit-reduction plan unveiled by President Barack
Obama today strengthens a cost-control tool in healthcare reform that
organized medicine fears.
The savings mechanism is the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB).
Under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), the IPAB will advise Congress on ways
to curb the per capita growth of Medicare spending if it exceeds growth-rate
targets set by the law.
If it does not implement IPAB recommendations, Congress must enact policies
that save just as much, or else let the Department of Health and Human
Services make the cuts.
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/740830
Krugman explains:
"About that advisory board: We have to do something about health care costs,
which means that we have to find a way to start saying no. "
http://blogs.forbes.com/davidwhelan/2011/04/22/paul-krugman-reveals-his-hierarchy-of-medicine-patients-doctors-washington/
Obama explains that Obamacare's cost cutting remedy is to deny seniors
vital procedures when deemed too old or unworthy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-dQfb8WQvo
"One major problem is the so-called Independent Payment Advisory Board. The
IPAB is essentially a health-care rationing body. By setting doctor
reimbursement rates for Medicare and determining which procedures and drugs
will be covered and at what price, the IPAB will be able to stop certain
treatments its members do not favor by simply setting rates to levels where
no doctor or hospital will perform them."
-Howard Dean
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324110404578628542498014414.html
> On 2014-09-17 20:42:16 +0000, "Eddie Haskell" <alde...@qaeilkrg.com>
Still pissed off that she was right about death panels and Russia invading
the Ukraine, huh, you miserable dumbfuck?
Now, who's stupid, you stupid shit?
April 13, 2011 - The deficit-reduction plan unveiled by President Barack
Obama today strengthens a cost-control tool in healthcare reform that
organized medicine fears.
The savings mechanism is the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB).
Under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), the IPAB will advise Congress on ways
to curb the per capita growth of Medicare spending if it exceeds growth-rate
targets set by the law.
If it does not implement IPAB recommendations, Congress must enact policies
that save just as much, or else let the Department of Health and Human
Services make the cuts.
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/740830
Krugman explains:
"About that advisory board: We have to do something about health care costs,
which means that we have to find a way to start saying no. "
http://blogs.forbes.com/davidwhelan/2011/04/22/paul-krugman-reveals-his-hierarchy-of-medicine-patients-doctors-washington/
Obama explains that Obamacare's cost cutting remedy is to deny seniors
vital procedures when deemed too old or unworthy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-dQfb8WQvo
"One major problem is the so-called Independent Payment Advisory Board. The
IPAB is essentially a health-care rationing body. By setting doctor
reimbursement rates for Medicare and determining which procedures and drugs
will be covered and at what price, the IPAB will be able to stop certain
treatments its members do not favor by simply setting rates to levels where
no doctor or hospital will perform them."
-Howard Dean
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324110404578628542498014414.html
Eddie Haskell
Sep 18, 2014, 12:27:49 PM9/18/14
to
news:SaidnXp28sbBTIfJ...@mchsi.com...
Did you ever get any salve for that ass kicking I gave you? Now go crawl
back under the house, you sniveling, frightened little creep.
-Eddie Haskell
back under the house, you sniveling, frightened little creep.
-Eddie Haskell
Eddie Haskell
Sep 18, 2014, 12:30:39 PM9/18/14
to
"NoBody" <NoB...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:68ll1ah5d6qotj0fl...@4ax.com...
come from reality. It comes from their marching orders. Facts are utterly
meaningless to the cultist fucks. That's why they're so destructive a
dangerous and should rounded up immediately.
-Eddie Haskell
Seminario
Sep 18, 2014, 12:51:57 PM9/18/14
to
In article <2pudnez1lZw8mobJ...@giganews.com>
"Eddie Haskell" <alde...@qaeilkrg.com> wrote:
>
>
Flush!
"Eddie Haskell" <alde...@qaeilkrg.com> wrote:
>
>
Flush!
Nomen Nescio
Sep 18, 2014, 1:17:31 PM9/18/14
to
Message has been deleted
Trayvon Obamason
Sep 18, 2014, 2:49:45 PM9/18/14
to
On Thu, 18 Sep 2014 14:28:14 -0400, FPP wrote:
> I killfiled him after he took great pleasure in his bigotry. I give
> wide latitude before dumping people into my killfile... but this NG
> is just FULL of them.
Which NG, honky?
> wide latitude before dumping people into my killfile... but this NG
> is just FULL of them.
Which NG, honky?
Message has been deleted
NoBody
Sep 19, 2014, 6:36:35 AM9/19/14
to
trotsky
Sep 19, 2014, 7:00:51 AM9/19/14
to
choices" is where, exactly? Up your arse with the crickets, perhaps?
trotsky
Sep 19, 2014, 7:35:27 AM9/19/14
to
> I killfiled him after he took great pleasure in his bigotry. I give
> wide latitude before dumping people into my killfile... but this NG is
> just FULL of them.
Wise move.
> wide latitude before dumping people into my killfile... but this NG is
> just FULL of them.
NoBody
Sep 20, 2014, 10:06:56 AM9/20/14
to
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/insurers-restricting-choice-of-doctors-and-hospitals-to-keep-costs-down/2013/11/20/98c84e20-4bb4-11e3-ac54-aa84301ced81_story.html
http://money.cnn.com/2013/10/14/news/economy/obamacare-doctors/
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/02/06/lawmakers-step-up-pressure-on-insurers-for-restricting-doctor-choice/
http://www.theihcc.com/en/communities/pharmacy_benefit_management/obamacare-yields-fewer-choices_gk62yb0e.html
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-03-20/obamacare-limits-choices-under-some-plans
I look forward to your meaningful, well thought out response (with
citations) in response to the above.
NoBody
Sep 21, 2014, 6:47:49 AM9/21/14
to
NoBody
Sep 21, 2014, 7:15:18 AM9/21/14
to
trotsky
Sep 21, 2014, 8:36:03 AM9/21/14
to
On 9/21/14 5:47 AM, NoBody wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Sep 2014 10:06:56 -0400, NoBody <NoB...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 19 Sep 2014 06:00:51 -0500, trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/19/14 5:36 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 18 Sep 2014 08:50:36 -0400, NoBody <NoB...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 07:41:52 -0500, trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:
>>>>>> People that have been sucking at the teat of big corporations don't
>>>>>> really want to hear that Obama has made things a little more fair for
>>>>>> the average American.
>>>>>
>>>>> Fair = fewer choices and higher costs???
>>>>
>>>> <crickets.wav>
>>>
>>>
>>> Oh, I'm sorry, I must have missed your post. Your proof of "fewer
>>> choices" is where, exactly? Up your arse with the crickets, perhaps?
>>
>> You don't read much I take it?
>>
>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/insurers-restricting-choice-of-doctors-and-hospitals-to-keep-costs-down/2013/11/20/98c84e20-4bb4-11e3-ac54-aa84301ced81_story.html
Okay, let me get this straight: a) you said "fewer choices and higher
> On Sat, 20 Sep 2014 10:06:56 -0400, NoBody <NoB...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 19 Sep 2014 06:00:51 -0500, trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/19/14 5:36 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 18 Sep 2014 08:50:36 -0400, NoBody <NoB...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 07:41:52 -0500, trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:
>>>>>> People that have been sucking at the teat of big corporations don't
>>>>>> really want to hear that Obama has made things a little more fair for
>>>>>> the average American.
>>>>>
>>>>> Fair = fewer choices and higher costs???
>>>>
>>>> <crickets.wav>
>>>
>>>
>>> Oh, I'm sorry, I must have missed your post. Your proof of "fewer
>>> choices" is where, exactly? Up your arse with the crickets, perhaps?
>>
>> You don't read much I take it?
>>
>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/insurers-restricting-choice-of-doctors-and-hospitals-to-keep-costs-down/2013/11/20/98c84e20-4bb4-11e3-ac54-aa84301ced81_story.html
costs" and the first article you link to is:
> Insurers restricting choice of doctors and hospitals to keep costs down
Already your response is fraught with problems. Apparently "fewer
choices" meant "fewer choices of doctors" and not "fewer choices of
doctors"--that is what you were trying to say, right? And when insurers
are keeping "costs down" you're claiming that means costs are going up?
How the fuck does that make any sense?
b) You forgot to say, "I beg your forgiveness, trotsky, because you were
absolutely right and my original claim did have no cites to support it.
I fucked up and I will try not to let it happen again."
c) This is the biggest and only real major reform of the health care
business, who would expect things to be shaken up, especially in the
first few years? Meanwhile MILLIONS of people having access to health
care they never would have otherwise means fewer death and suffering for
Americans. Are you claiming you have a problem with fewer deaths and
suffering for Americans? Why, because you hate this fucking country?
You right wing assholes are supposed to be patriotic, remember?
I'm still waiting for your apology, and for you to stop bringing rubber
duckies to gunfights. Ask for some help if you're having trouble you
fucking anonyshit and mental midget. Any questions?
trotsky
Sep 21, 2014, 8:39:06 AM9/21/14
to
you're already dead and buried at this point.
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
NoBody
Sep 22, 2014, 6:30:55 AM9/22/14
to
support my position so you have to pretend you "won" and will vanish
from the thread.
NoBody
Sep 22, 2014, 6:46:17 AM9/22/14
to
On Sun, 21 Sep 2014 07:36:03 -0500, trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:
>On 9/21/14 5:47 AM, NoBody wrote:
>> On Sat, 20 Sep 2014 10:06:56 -0400, NoBody <NoB...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 19 Sep 2014 06:00:51 -0500, trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 9/19/14 5:36 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 18 Sep 2014 08:50:36 -0400, NoBody <NoB...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 07:41:52 -0500, trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>>> People that have been sucking at the teat of big corporations don't
>>>>>>> really want to hear that Obama has made things a little more fair for
>>>>>>> the average American.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Fair = fewer choices and higher costs???
>>>>>
>>>>> <crickets.wav>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Oh, I'm sorry, I must have missed your post. Your proof of "fewer
>>>> choices" is where, exactly? Up your arse with the crickets, perhaps?
>>>
>>> You don't read much I take it?
>>>
>>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/insurers-restricting-choice-of-doctors-and-hospitals-to-keep-costs-down/2013/11/20/98c84e20-4bb4-11e3-ac54-aa84301ced81_story.html
>
>
>Okay, let me get this straight: a) you said "fewer choices and higher
>costs" and the first article you link to is:
>
>> Insurers restricting choice of doctors and hospitals to keep costs down
>
>Already your response is fraught with problems. Apparently "fewer
>choices" meant "fewer choices of doctors" and not "fewer choices of
>doctors"--that is what you were trying to say, right? And when insurers
>are keeping "costs down" you're claiming that means costs are going up?
> How the fuck does that make any sense?
The citations indicate people now have fewer choices of doctors and
>On 9/21/14 5:47 AM, NoBody wrote:
>> On Sat, 20 Sep 2014 10:06:56 -0400, NoBody <NoB...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 19 Sep 2014 06:00:51 -0500, trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 9/19/14 5:36 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 18 Sep 2014 08:50:36 -0400, NoBody <NoB...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 07:41:52 -0500, trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>>> People that have been sucking at the teat of big corporations don't
>>>>>>> really want to hear that Obama has made things a little more fair for
>>>>>>> the average American.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Fair = fewer choices and higher costs???
>>>>>
>>>>> <crickets.wav>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Oh, I'm sorry, I must have missed your post. Your proof of "fewer
>>>> choices" is where, exactly? Up your arse with the crickets, perhaps?
>>>
>>> You don't read much I take it?
>>>
>>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/insurers-restricting-choice-of-doctors-and-hospitals-to-keep-costs-down/2013/11/20/98c84e20-4bb4-11e3-ac54-aa84301ced81_story.html
>
>
>Okay, let me get this straight: a) you said "fewer choices and higher
>costs" and the first article you link to is:
>
>> Insurers restricting choice of doctors and hospitals to keep costs down
>
>Already your response is fraught with problems. Apparently "fewer
>choices" meant "fewer choices of doctors" and not "fewer choices of
>doctors"--that is what you were trying to say, right? And when insurers
>are keeping "costs down" you're claiming that means costs are going up?
> How the fuck does that make any sense?
places to go for care. It's all pretty clearly stated there isn't it?
It's interesting you take one citation from many, ignore the rest then
attempt to twist the point.
>
>b) You forgot to say, "I beg your forgiveness, trotsky, because you were
>absolutely right and my original claim did have no cites to support it.
> I fucked up and I will try not to let it happen again."
mention a single oen)? If your argument is that people have the same
choices of doctors, I eagerly await your citations (and not your
flapping gums) that demonstrate the contrary. Here's a few more
citations for you to ignore or twist:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/01/12/insurance-analysts-obamacare-to-increase-out-of-pocket-premium-costs-despite-lavish-subsidies/
http://www.bankrate.com/finance/insurance/coping-with-out-of-pocket-health-care-cost-1.aspx
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101316683
http://analytics.ubabenefits.com/news/bid/312675/Average-Worker-s-Health-Care-Costs-Increased-Due-to-Out-of-Pocket-Expenses-Families-Hit-Hardest-Nation-s-Largest-Benchmarking-Survey-Finds
>
>c) This is the biggest and only real major reform of the health care
>business, who would expect things to be shaken up, especially in the
>first few years? Meanwhile MILLIONS of people having access to health
>care they never would have otherwise means fewer death and suffering for
>Americans. Are you claiming you have a problem with fewer deaths and
>suffering for Americans? Why, because you hate this fucking country?
>You right wing assholes are supposed to be patriotic, remember?
insurance, yet the existing structure had to be torn apart to fix a
problem for the minority. Instead, a solution for the minority should
have been developed without sticking it to everyone. You left wingers
seem to be in favor of making everyone suffer while making it harder
for everyone.
>
>I'm still waiting for your apology, and for you to stop bringing rubber
>duckies to gunfights. Ask for some help if you're having trouble you
>fucking anonyshit and mental midget. Any questions?
however should apologize for ducking the issue and citations.
trotsky
Sep 22, 2014, 8:18:47 AM9/22/14
to
On 9/22/14 5:46 AM, NoBody wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Sep 2014 07:36:03 -0500, trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:
>
>> c) This is the biggest and only real major reform of the health care
>> business, who would expect things to be shaken up, especially in the
>> first few years? Meanwhile MILLIONS of people having access to health
>> care they never would have otherwise means fewer death and suffering for
>> Americans. Are you claiming you have a problem with fewer deaths and
>> suffering for Americans? Why, because you hate this fucking country?
>> You right wing assholes are supposed to be patriotic, remember?
>
> If you recall, the majority of Americans were happy with their
> insurance,
Wait, what? The 7.3 milllion people that have enrolled so far were
> On Sun, 21 Sep 2014 07:36:03 -0500, trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:
>
>> c) This is the biggest and only real major reform of the health care
>> business, who would expect things to be shaken up, especially in the
>> first few years? Meanwhile MILLIONS of people having access to health
>> care they never would have otherwise means fewer death and suffering for
>> Americans. Are you claiming you have a problem with fewer deaths and
>> suffering for Americans? Why, because you hate this fucking country?
>> You right wing assholes are supposed to be patriotic, remember?
>
> If you recall, the majority of Americans were happy with their
> insurance,
happy with their lack of existing insurance? And the people that
already "happy" with their existing insurance were well versed in what
the limitations of what those policies were? You're LYING. You're
taking advantage of people's stupidity and ignorance for political gain.
You are speaking on behalf of a dead, ideologically bankrupt political
party that doesn't give a flying fuck about helping the American people.
Moreover who gives a shit if they were "happy"? A law was passed by
the President and Congress and unless you are going to plot the violent
overthrow of the U.S. govt. you should shut the fuck up. Hey, here's a
thought: why don't you find a developed country in the free world that
doesn't have universal health coverage and move there? What's that you
say, that country doesn't exist?
yet the existing structure had to be torn apart to fix a
> problem for the minority.
suffer and die because they lack health coverage. Then fuck off you
commie bastard. I love America and don't want Americans to die. We
seem to be at an impasse here, with you looking like the asshole who
doesn't give a shit who lives or dies for the sake of "convenience"
which really means preying on those to ignorant to understand the FACTS
for political gain.
Instead, a solution for the minority should
> have been developed without sticking it to everyone. You left wingers
> seem to be in favor of making everyone suffer while making it harder
> for everyone.
Amercan lives? Dude, you're just an anonyshit who not only doesnt'
have the guts to have a real name, you don't even have the balls to
respond to words typed on a fucking computer screen. Instead you
slither on your belly like the filthy fucking weasel that you are and
repeat the same bullshit talking points over and over like a broken
fucking record. You want to be in this discussion with me you fucking
vermin? Type this first: I DON'T CARE IF AMERICANS DIE, I ONLY CARE IF
THOSE WITH EXISTING COVERAGE ARE "INCOVENIENCED", WHICH OF COURSE IS A
LIE TOO.
NOW CRAWL BACK IN YOUR FUCKING RAT HOLE YOU PIECE OF SHIT. THIS COUNTRY
WAS BUILT ON THE BACKS OF PEOPLE THAT STAND FOR THEIR PRINCIPLES, NOT
ANONYMOUS ASSHOLES THAT STAND FOR N O T H I N G .
trotsky
Sep 22, 2014, 8:23:38 AM9/22/14
to
doing rather badly at this point. I see, though, that you haven't
actually respond to the bit that he wasn't able to respond to about
saving American lives, so that really just makes you just another
blowhard shitbag that isn't worth anyone's time. Capiche?
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
NoBody
Sep 23, 2014, 6:20:19 AM9/23/14
to
On Mon, 22 Sep 2014 07:18:47 -0500, trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:
>On 9/22/14 5:46 AM, NoBody wrote:
>> On Sun, 21 Sep 2014 07:36:03 -0500, trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>> c) This is the biggest and only real major reform of the health care
>>> business, who would expect things to be shaken up, especially in the
>>> first few years? Meanwhile MILLIONS of people having access to health
>>> care they never would have otherwise means fewer death and suffering for
>>> Americans. Are you claiming you have a problem with fewer deaths and
>>> suffering for Americans? Why, because you hate this fucking country?
>>> You right wing assholes are supposed to be patriotic, remember?
>>
>> If you recall, the majority of Americans were happy with their
>> insurance,
>
>
>Wait, what? The 7.3 milllion people that have enrolled so far were
>happy with their lack of existing insurance?
Please reread what I wrote as you've gone off on a tangent. Apparently
>On 9/22/14 5:46 AM, NoBody wrote:
>> On Sun, 21 Sep 2014 07:36:03 -0500, trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>> c) This is the biggest and only real major reform of the health care
>>> business, who would expect things to be shaken up, especially in the
>>> first few years? Meanwhile MILLIONS of people having access to health
>>> care they never would have otherwise means fewer death and suffering for
>>> Americans. Are you claiming you have a problem with fewer deaths and
>>> suffering for Americans? Why, because you hate this fucking country?
>>> You right wing assholes are supposed to be patriotic, remember?
>>
>> If you recall, the majority of Americans were happy with their
>> insurance,
>
>
>Wait, what? The 7.3 milllion people that have enrolled so far were
>happy with their lack of existing insurance?
you misunderstood what I wrote since I was talking about people who
were satisfied with their existing coverage.
> And the people that
>already "happy" with their existing insurance were well versed in what
>the limitations of what those policies were? You're LYING.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/123149/cost-is-foremost-healthcare-issue-for-americans.aspx
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/09/23/gallup-80-satisfied-with-health-care-61-with-insurance/
http://www.ahipcoverage.com/2010/01/27/fact-check-redux-polls-show-american-people-satisfied-with-their-health-plan/
> You're
>taking advantage of people's stupidity and ignorance for political gain.
> You are speaking on behalf of a dead, ideologically bankrupt political
>party that doesn't give a flying fuck about helping the American people.
> Moreover who gives a shit if they were "happy"? A law was passed by
>the President and Congress and unless you are going to plot the violent
>overthrow of the U.S. govt. you should shut the fuck up. Hey, here's a
>thought: why don't you find a developed country in the free world that
>doesn't have universal health coverage and move there? What's that you
>say, that country doesn't exist?
>
>
>yet the existing structure had to be torn apart to fix a
>> problem for the minority.
>
>
>I see what you're saying: you hate American and don't mind if American
>suffer and die because they lack health coverage. Then fuck off you
>commie bastard. I love America and don't want Americans to die. We
>seem to be at an impasse here, with you looking like the asshole who
>doesn't give a shit who lives or dies for the sake of "convenience"
>which really means preying on those to ignorant to understand the FACTS
>for political gain.
>
against me because you can't deal with the simple fact that people
were quite happy with their coverage and there was no need to change
the entire system when the minority who did not have coverage could
have been addressed. I urge you to calm down, read what I said and
respond to what I did say rather than what you and your ideology
*thinks* I said.
>
> Instead, a solution for the minority should
>> have been developed without sticking it to everyone. You left wingers
>> seem to be in favor of making everyone suffer while making it harder
>> for everyone.
>
>
>OH MY GOD. Did you snip the previous part where I wrote this saves
>Amercan lives?
questionable at best. If people now delay seeing the Dr because of
the increased burden to them, there will be a cost in health and
lives.
> Dude, you're just an anonyshit who not only doesnt'
>have the guts to have a real name, you don't even have the balls to
>respond to words typed on a fucking computer screen. Instead you
>slither on your belly like the filthy fucking weasel that you are and
>repeat the same bullshit talking points over and over like a broken
>fucking record. You want to be in this discussion with me you fucking
>vermin? Type this first: I DON'T CARE IF AMERICANS DIE, I ONLY CARE IF
>THOSE WITH EXISTING COVERAGE ARE "INCOVENIENCED", WHICH OF COURSE IS A
>LIE TOO.
still believe that's what I said, I suggest you either put your own
ideology on hold and open your thought process or take a course in
reading comprehension.
>
>NOW CRAWL BACK IN YOUR FUCKING RAT HOLE YOU PIECE OF SHIT. THIS COUNTRY
>WAS BUILT ON THE BACKS OF PEOPLE THAT STAND FOR THEIR PRINCIPLES, NOT
>ANONYMOUS ASSHOLES THAT STAND FOR N O T H I N G .
your inaccurate, offensive response. Quite the shame...
NoBody
Sep 23, 2014, 6:21:39 AM9/23/14
to
On Mon, 22 Sep 2014 09:10:51 -0600, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>On Mon, 22 Sep 2014 06:46:17 -0400, NoBody <NoB...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>>The citations indicate people now have fewer choices of doctors and
>>places to go for care.
>
>"Citations" are anecdotal evidence you moron
>
Really? Explain exactly how and tell us how you come by the
"knowledge" you spout here.
>On Mon, 22 Sep 2014 06:46:17 -0400, NoBody <NoB...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>>The citations indicate people now have fewer choices of doctors and
>>places to go for care.
>
>
Really? Explain exactly how and tell us how you come by the
"knowledge" you spout here.
NoBody
Sep 23, 2014, 6:23:00 AM9/23/14
to
inaccurate.
NoBody
Sep 23, 2014, 6:25:06 AM9/23/14
to
On Mon, 22 Sep 2014 09:08:33 -0600, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>On Mon, 22 Sep 2014 06:30:55 -0400, NoBody <NoB...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>>Translation: You are unable to refute any of the five citations that
>>support my position so you have to pretend you "won" and will vanish
>>from the thread.
>
>
>People who like their insurance CAN keep it, you dullard. But it must
>conform to the intended goals of making HC better and serve us better.
>
That's a rewrite of the promise Obama made to the American people and
as such is a worthless promise.
>On Mon, 22 Sep 2014 06:30:55 -0400, NoBody <NoB...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>>Translation: You are unable to refute any of the five citations that
>>support my position so you have to pretend you "won" and will vanish
>>from the thread.
>
>
>conform to the intended goals of making HC better and serve us better.
>
That's a rewrite of the promise Obama made to the American people and
as such is a worthless promise.
trotsky
Sep 23, 2014, 7:16:06 AM9/23/14
to
On 9/23/14 5:20 AM, NoBody wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Sep 2014 07:18:47 -0500, trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:
>
>> On 9/22/14 5:46 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>> On Sun, 21 Sep 2014 07:36:03 -0500, trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> c) This is the biggest and only real major reform of the health care
>>>> business, who would expect things to be shaken up, especially in the
>>>> first few years? Meanwhile MILLIONS of people having access to health
>>>> care they never would have otherwise means fewer death and suffering for
>>>> Americans. Are you claiming you have a problem with fewer deaths and
>>>> suffering for Americans? Why, because you hate this fucking country?
>>>> You right wing assholes are supposed to be patriotic, remember?
>>>
>>> If you recall, the majority of Americans were happy with their
>>> insurance,
>>
>>
>> Wait, what? The 7.3 milllion people that have enrolled so far were
>> happy with their lack of existing insurance?
>
> Please reread what I wrote
What you wrote was a steaming pile of bullshit that didn't address the
> On Mon, 22 Sep 2014 07:18:47 -0500, trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:
>
>> On 9/22/14 5:46 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>> On Sun, 21 Sep 2014 07:36:03 -0500, trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> c) This is the biggest and only real major reform of the health care
>>>> business, who would expect things to be shaken up, especially in the
>>>> first few years? Meanwhile MILLIONS of people having access to health
>>>> care they never would have otherwise means fewer death and suffering for
>>>> Americans. Are you claiming you have a problem with fewer deaths and
>>>> suffering for Americans? Why, because you hate this fucking country?
>>>> You right wing assholes are supposed to be patriotic, remember?
>>>
>>> If you recall, the majority of Americans were happy with their
>>> insurance,
>>
>>
>> Wait, what? The 7.3 milllion people that have enrolled so far were
>> happy with their lack of existing insurance?
>
> Please reread what I wrote
issue. I addressed the issue and you said I "went off on a tangent."
Try again, unless you're phishing to be called stupid.
as you've gone off on a tangent. Apparently
> you misunderstood what I wrote since I was talking about people who
> were satisfied with their existing coverage.
you know the kind of coverage that EVERY OTHER DEVELOPED NATION EXCEPT
THE U.S. HAS. The "keep you plan" fiasco is a political ploy by a dead
and ideologically bankrupt party. *That's* the real issue. Do you
understand this concept or don't you? I'm not going to mentally
masturbate over a bullshit political ploy from a bullshit party.
>> And the people that
>> already "happy" with their existing insurance were well versed in what
>> the limitations of what those policies were? You're LYING.
>
> Assuming you're talking about the correct subject, I am quite right.
> http://www.gallup.com/poll/123149/cost-is-foremost-healthcare-issue-for-americans.aspx
Wait, what? Cost is the issue? I thought keeping their existing plan
was! Hey, and please let me know when the "polls" get around to
covering the most important tenets of the ACA: covering preexisting
conditions, abolishing caps on lifetime benefits, and covering the
uninsured. The rest is mental masturbation for perceived political benefit.
> http://hotair.com/archives/2009/09/23/gallup-80-satisfied-with-health-care-61-with-insurance/
Another exercise in ignorance not address the real issues which I have
outlined above.
> http://www.ahipcoverage.com/2010/01/27/fact-check-redux-polls-show-american-people-satisfied-with-their-health-plan/
More abject ignorance. Grow a pair of balls and address the real
issues, anonyshit.
>> You're
>> taking advantage of people's stupidity and ignorance for political gain.
>
> You're confused as that's what Obama and the Dems did.
stupid shit? You're really fucking stupid, or you are desperate to
cling to the bullshit GOP talking points. Didn't you get the memo?
They're trying to shift their "outrage" back to Benghazi!� again.
>> You are speaking on behalf of a dead, ideologically bankrupt political
>> party that doesn't give a flying fuck about helping the American people.
>> Moreover who gives a shit if they were "happy"? A law was passed by
>> the President and Congress and unless you are going to plot the violent
>> overthrow of the U.S. govt. you should shut the fuck up. Hey, here's a
>> thought: why don't you find a developed country in the free world that
>> doesn't have universal health coverage and move there? What's that you
>> say, that country doesn't exist?
>
> You've completely missed what I said. Perhaps you should reread.
and a coward.
>> yet the existing structure had to be torn apart to fix a
>>> problem for the minority.
>>
>>
>> I see what you're saying: you hate American and don't mind if American
>> suffer and die because they lack health coverage. Then fuck off you
>> commie bastard. I love America and don't want Americans to die. We
>> seem to be at an impasse here, with you looking like the asshole who
>> doesn't give a shit who lives or dies for the sake of "convenience"
>> which really means preying on those to ignorant to understand the FACTS
>> for political gain.
>>
>
> You now degenerate into attack mode and make unfounded accusations
> against me because you can't deal with the simple fact that people
> were quite happy with their coverage and there was no need to change
> the entire system when the minority who did not have coverage could
> have been addressed. I urge you to calm down, read what I said and
> respond to what I did say rather than what you and your ideology
> *thinks* I said.
you don't care about fellow Americans suffering and dying. This is a
life or death situation, so "calm down" just sounds like more cowardly
bullshit. I have been VERY clear about what the ACA exists for, and
you're such a piece of shit that you haven't had enough backbone to
address it once. You seem to think ignorant assholes whining about
their "existing policies" (which were rendered null and void by the ACA)
take precedence over Americans suffering, dying, and being forced to
declare bankruptcy because of long term illnesses. What you are saying
(although you are too stupid to say it) is they deserve to suffer and
die if they don't have enough money to pay for what they need. To help
you, though, I'm going to repeat a previous sentence a couple of times
to see if you can handle even addressing it:
You seem to think ignorant assholes whining about their "existing
policies" (which were rendered null and void by the ACA) take precedence
over Americans suffering, dying, and being forced to declare bankruptcy
because of long term illnesses.
And here it is again:
You seem to think ignorant assholes whining about their "existing
policies" (which were rendered null and void by the ACA) take precedence
over Americans suffering, dying, and being forced to declare bankruptcy
because of long term illnesses.
Here it is a third time:
You seem to think ignorant assholes whining about their "existing
policies" (which were rendered null and void by the ACA) take precedence
over Americans suffering, dying, and being forced to declare bankruptcy
because of long term illnesses.
I look forward to your "cutting and running" all over again.
>> Instead, a solution for the minority should
>>> have been developed without sticking it to everyone. You left wingers
>>> seem to be in favor of making everyone suffer while making it harder
>>> for everyone.
>>
>>
>> OH MY GOD. Did you snip the previous part where I wrote this saves
>> Amercan lives?
>
> Given that costs have risen and choice is limited, your premise is
> questionable at best. If people now delay seeing the Dr because of
> the increased burden to them, there will be a cost in health and
> lives.
preventive medicine is almost always free. Perhaps this will help:
http://kaiserfamilyfoundation.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/8219.pdf
Oh, and you didn't answer the question: did you snip my previous post to
avoid addressing the issue? If you are afraid to answer, just type "I'm
afraid!" on your keyboard.
>> Dude, you're just an anonyshit who not only doesnt'
>> have the guts to have a real name, you don't even have the balls to
>> respond to words typed on a fucking computer screen. Instead you
>> slither on your belly like the filthy fucking weasel that you are and
>> repeat the same bullshit talking points over and over like a broken
>> fucking record. You want to be in this discussion with me you fucking
>> vermin? Type this first: I DON'T CARE IF AMERICANS DIE, I ONLY CARE IF
>> THOSE WITH EXISTING COVERAGE ARE "INCOVENIENCED", WHICH OF COURSE IS A
>> LIE TOO.
>
> You've got it completely wrong. Please reread what I said and if you
> still believe that's what I said, I suggest you either put your own
> ideology on hold and open your thought process or take a course in
> reading comprehension.
be in this discussion. I've given you ample opportunity to address the
real issues here, and you snipped them out of COWARDICE. When asked if
you snipped these, you refused to answer. How many chances am I
supposed to give you you sniveling vermin?
>> NOW CRAWL BACK IN YOUR FUCKING RAT HOLE YOU PIECE OF SHIT. THIS COUNTRY
>> WAS BUILT ON THE BACKS OF PEOPLE THAT STAND FOR THEIR PRINCIPLES, NOT
>> ANONYMOUS ASSHOLES THAT STAND FOR N O T H I N G .
>
> You've provided confirmation of the mindset of the average lib with
> your inaccurate, offensive response. Quite the shame...
ass lest you suffer from further brain damage.
LOL. I crack myself up.
trotsky
Sep 23, 2014, 7:17:06 AM9/23/14
to
previous post. This is American, assclown--nobody likes a coward.
trotsky
Sep 23, 2014, 7:18:27 AM9/23/14
to
one instance Americans died and in the other lives were saved. Are you
looking to see Americans die, then?
NoBody
Sep 24, 2014, 6:48:50 AM9/24/14
to
has been morphing the discussion because of an inability to cope with
facts.
NoBody
Sep 24, 2014, 7:02:10 AM9/24/14
to
On Tue, 23 Sep 2014 06:16:06 -0500, trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:
>On 9/23/14 5:20 AM, NoBody wrote:
>> On Mon, 22 Sep 2014 07:18:47 -0500, trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/22/14 5:46 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 21 Sep 2014 07:36:03 -0500, trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> c) This is the biggest and only real major reform of the health care
>>>>> business, who would expect things to be shaken up, especially in the
>>>>> first few years? Meanwhile MILLIONS of people having access to health
>>>>> care they never would have otherwise means fewer death and suffering for
>>>>> Americans. Are you claiming you have a problem with fewer deaths and
>>>>> suffering for Americans? Why, because you hate this fucking country?
>>>>> You right wing assholes are supposed to be patriotic, remember?
>>>>
>>>> If you recall, the majority of Americans were happy with their
>>>> insurance,
>>>
>>>
>>> Wait, what? The 7.3 milllion people that have enrolled so far were
>>> happy with their lack of existing insurance?
>>
>> Please reread what I wrote
>
>
>What you wrote was a steaming pile of bullshit that didn't address the
>issue. I addressed the issue and you said I "went off on a tangent."
>Try again, unless you're phishing to be called stupid.
>
You didn't review the thread or you would realize that you didn't
>On 9/23/14 5:20 AM, NoBody wrote:
>> On Mon, 22 Sep 2014 07:18:47 -0500, trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/22/14 5:46 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 21 Sep 2014 07:36:03 -0500, trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> c) This is the biggest and only real major reform of the health care
>>>>> business, who would expect things to be shaken up, especially in the
>>>>> first few years? Meanwhile MILLIONS of people having access to health
>>>>> care they never would have otherwise means fewer death and suffering for
>>>>> Americans. Are you claiming you have a problem with fewer deaths and
>>>>> suffering for Americans? Why, because you hate this fucking country?
>>>>> You right wing assholes are supposed to be patriotic, remember?
>>>>
>>>> If you recall, the majority of Americans were happy with their
>>>> insurance,
>>>
>>>
>>> Wait, what? The 7.3 milllion people that have enrolled so far were
>>> happy with their lack of existing insurance?
>>
>> Please reread what I wrote
>
>
>What you wrote was a steaming pile of bullshit that didn't address the
>issue. I addressed the issue and you said I "went off on a tangent."
>Try again, unless you're phishing to be called stupid.
>
address what I said. You instead went off on an inaccurate,
hate-filled rant. Denial of reality seems to come naturally for you.
>
> as you've gone off on a tangent. Apparently
>> you misunderstood what I wrote since I was talking about people who
>> were satisfied with their existing coverage.
>
>
>Which has fuck all to do with the concept of universal health coverage,
already addressed that. I'd say it again, but if you ignored it the
first time, you'll ignore it again.
>you know the kind of coverage that EVERY OTHER DEVELOPED NATION EXCEPT
>THE U.S. HAS. The "keep you plan" fiasco is a political ploy by a dead
>and ideologically bankrupt party. *That's* the real issue. Do you
>understand this concept or don't you? I'm not going to mentally
>masturbate over a bullshit political ploy from a bullshit party.
>
>
>>> And the people that
>>> already "happy" with their existing insurance were well versed in what
>>> the limitations of what those policies were? You're LYING.
>>
>> Assuming you're talking about the correct subject, I am quite right.
>
>
>Sure, you're right, unless you're LYING.
concise language, free of insults and obscenities.
>
>
>> http://www.gallup.com/poll/123149/cost-is-foremost-healthcare-issue-for-americans.aspx
>
>
>Wait, what? Cost is the issue? I thought keeping their existing plan
>was! Hey, and please let me know when the "polls" get around to
>covering the most important tenets of the ACA: covering preexisting
>conditions, abolishing caps on lifetime benefits, and covering the
>uninsured. The rest is mental masturbation for perceived political benefit.
fine with what they had) much more, they get less and they have fewer
choices concern you.
>
>
>> http://hotair.com/archives/2009/09/23/gallup-80-satisfied-with-health-care-61-with-insurance/
>
>
>Another exercise in ignorance not address the real issues which I have
>outlined above.
Take a step back, review the thread then organize your thoughts into
an actual argument. I will be happy to discuss if you can do so.
>
>
>> http://www.ahipcoverage.com/2010/01/27/fact-check-redux-polls-show-american-people-satisfied-with-their-health-plan/
>
>
>More abject ignorance. Grow a pair of balls and address the real
>issues, anonyshit.
does say much about your inability to debate an issue.
>
>
>>> You're
>>> taking advantage of people's stupidity and ignorance for political gain.
>>
>> You're confused as that's what Obama and the Dems did.
>
>
>Do I need to go over the most important tenets of the ACA again you
>stupid shit? You're really fucking stupid, or you are desperate to
>cling to the bullshit GOP talking points. Didn't you get the memo?
>
Off on the tangent you go...
>
>>> You are speaking on behalf of a dead, ideologically bankrupt political
>>> party that doesn't give a flying fuck about helping the American people.
>>> Moreover who gives a shit if they were "happy"? A law was passed by
>>> the President and Congress and unless you are going to plot the violent
>>> overthrow of the U.S. govt. you should shut the fuck up. Hey, here's a
>>> thought: why don't you find a developed country in the free world that
>>> doesn't have universal health coverage and move there? What's that you
>>> say, that country doesn't exist?
>>
>> You've completely missed what I said. Perhaps you should reread.
>
>
>False claim. You are ducking what *I* said because you are an anonyshit
>and a coward.
FACTS and citations that have been provided for you. You are welcome
to try again.
answer the following question: If the problem affects only a small
portion of the population, why force change on everyone when the
result is increased cost and fewer choices than everyone had to begin
with?
Your ramblings are becoming boring. Would you care to address facts
with facts and coherent responses?
NoBody
Sep 24, 2014, 7:03:51 AM9/24/14
to
logically, just admit it and when can move on.
trotsky
Sep 24, 2014, 7:54:04 AM9/24/14
to
On 9/24/14 6:02 AM, NoBody wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Sep 2014 06:16:06 -0500, trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:
>
>> On 9/23/14 5:20 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>> On Mon, 22 Sep 2014 07:18:47 -0500, trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 9/22/14 5:46 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 21 Sep 2014 07:36:03 -0500, trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> c) This is the biggest and only real major reform of the health care
>>>>>> business, who would expect things to be shaken up, especially in the
>>>>>> first few years? Meanwhile MILLIONS of people having access to health
>>>>>> care they never would have otherwise means fewer death and suffering for
>>>>>> Americans. Are you claiming you have a problem with fewer deaths and
>>>>>> suffering for Americans? Why, because you hate this fucking country?
>>>>>> You right wing assholes are supposed to be patriotic, remember?
>>>>>
>>>>> If you recall, the majority of Americans were happy with their
>>>>> insurance,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Wait, what? The 7.3 milllion people that have enrolled so far were
>>>> happy with their lack of existing insurance?
>>>
>>> Please reread what I wrote
>>
>>
>> What you wrote was a steaming pile of bullshit that didn't address the
>> issue. I addressed the issue and you said I "went off on a tangent."
>> Try again, unless you're phishing to be called stupid.
>>
>
> You didn't review the thread or you would realize that you didn't
> address what I said. You instead went off on an inaccurate,
> hate-filled rant. Denial of reality seems to come naturally for you.
If you say so. Unless you can address what I've written in c) above
> On Tue, 23 Sep 2014 06:16:06 -0500, trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:
>
>> On 9/23/14 5:20 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>> On Mon, 22 Sep 2014 07:18:47 -0500, trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 9/22/14 5:46 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 21 Sep 2014 07:36:03 -0500, trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> c) This is the biggest and only real major reform of the health care
>>>>>> business, who would expect things to be shaken up, especially in the
>>>>>> first few years? Meanwhile MILLIONS of people having access to health
>>>>>> care they never would have otherwise means fewer death and suffering for
>>>>>> Americans. Are you claiming you have a problem with fewer deaths and
>>>>>> suffering for Americans? Why, because you hate this fucking country?
>>>>>> You right wing assholes are supposed to be patriotic, remember?
>>>>>
>>>>> If you recall, the majority of Americans were happy with their
>>>>> insurance,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Wait, what? The 7.3 milllion people that have enrolled so far were
>>>> happy with their lack of existing insurance?
>>>
>>> Please reread what I wrote
>>
>>
>> What you wrote was a steaming pile of bullshit that didn't address the
>> issue. I addressed the issue and you said I "went off on a tangent."
>> Try again, unless you're phishing to be called stupid.
>>
>
> You didn't review the thread or you would realize that you didn't
> address what I said. You instead went off on an inaccurate,
> hate-filled rant. Denial of reality seems to come naturally for you.
there is no discussion. You've got useless Republican talking points
that you keep claiming need to be 'addressed'. There is nothing to
address. Meanwhile, I've given you multiple opportunities to discuss
the actual issues surrounding the ACA, and you cut and run every time,
just as you're doing here.
>> as you've gone off on a tangent. Apparently
>>> you misunderstood what I wrote since I was talking about people who
>>> were satisfied with their existing coverage.
>>
>>
>> Which has fuck all to do with the concept of universal health coverage,
>
> You seriously need to read the thread for comprehension as I've
> already addressed that. I'd say it again, but if you ignored it the
> first time, you'll ignore it again.
>> you know the kind of coverage that EVERY OTHER DEVELOPED NATION EXCEPT
>> THE U.S. HAS. The "keep you plan" fiasco is a political ploy by a dead
>> and ideologically bankrupt party. *That's* the real issue. Do you
>> understand this concept or don't you? I'm not going to mentally
>> masturbate over a bullshit political ploy from a bullshit party.
>
> Yeah but what about the Republicans?
played like a fiddle?
>>>> And the people that
>>>> already "happy" with their existing insurance were well versed in what
>>>> the limitations of what those policies were? You're LYING.
>>>
>>> Assuming you're talking about the correct subject, I am quite right.
>>
>>
>> Sure, you're right, unless you're LYING.
>
> What have I lied about. I'll wait why you explain it in clear,
> concise language, free of insults and obscenities.
> And the people that already "happy" with their existing insurance
were well versed in what the limitations of what those policies were?
You're LYING.
the first time. You cut and ran. Now you'll do it again. I explain
this once more because you don't appear to be too bright: you keep
claiming people are "happy" with their existing policies and yet you
consistently skip addressing that these "happy" people were ignorant of
what the limitations of these policies were and how the ACA fixed them.
This happens over and over and over. You can't attract intelligent
people with your platform, so you fixate on one thing without discussing
the facts surrounding the supposed issue. Over and over and over.
Meanwhile support for your party continues to dwindle. Hey, at least
you have Benghazi!� to fall back on.
>>> http://www.gallup.com/poll/123149/cost-is-foremost-healthcare-issue-for-americans.aspx
>>
>>
>> Wait, what? Cost is the issue? I thought keeping their existing plan
>
> Read the thread as you're lost in your rant. It was a two part point.
>> was! Hey, and please let me know when the "polls" get around to
>> covering the most important tenets of the ACA: covering preexisting
>> conditions, abolishing caps on lifetime benefits, and covering the
>> uninsured. The rest is mental masturbation for perceived political benefit.
>
> Yeah don't let the fact that it costs the average worker (who was just
> fine with what they had) much more, they get less and they have fewer
> choices concern you.
that didn't before, causing fewer Americans to run the risk of
suffering, dying, or going bankrupt from long term illnesses. So you
"point" is that is more important to have people with existing plans
"happy" (read: ignorant) than it is for millions of Americans to have
coverage so they don't suffer and die? And you don't think this "point"
makes you sound like a total asshole?
Feel free to cut and run here like you've done every previous time.
>>> http://hotair.com/archives/2009/09/23/gallup-80-satisfied-with-health-care-61-with-insurance/
>>
>>
>> Another exercise in ignorance not address the real issues which I have
>> outlined above.
>
> You've outlined nothing. It's been little more than rabid rantings.
> Take a step back, review the thread then organize your thoughts into
> an actual argument. I will be happy to discuss if you can do so.
ZERO times. That's called cutting and running.
>>> http://www.ahipcoverage.com/2010/01/27/fact-check-redux-polls-show-american-people-satisfied-with-their-health-plan/
>>
>>
>> More abject ignorance. Grow a pair of balls and address the real
>> issues, anonyshit.
>
> Facts which contradict your unsupported beliefs != ignorance. But it
> does say much about your inability to debate an issue.
ACA if you want to be in this conversation. "Ignorant people wanted to
keep their shitty health plans!" isn't a point. The plans violated the
tenets of the ACA which a) made them against the law, and b) made them
shitty. Which part of this is confusing you?
>>>> You're
>>>> taking advantage of people's stupidity and ignorance for political gain.
>>>
>>> You're confused as that's what Obama and the Dems did.
>>
>>
>> Do I need to go over the most important tenets of the ACA again you
>> stupid shit? You're really fucking stupid, or you are desperate to
>> cling to the bullshit GOP talking points. Didn't you get the memo?
>>
>
> Off on the tangent you go...
That's not a "tangent", that's an analysis of the facts. You use the
>
> Off on the tangent you go...
word "tangent" to cut and run. You're afraid to discuss the topic.
>>>> You are speaking on behalf of a dead, ideologically bankrupt political
>>>> party that doesn't give a flying fuck about helping the American people.
>>>> Moreover who gives a shit if they were "happy"? A law was passed by
>>>> the President and Congress and unless you are going to plot the violent
>>>> overthrow of the U.S. govt. you should shut the fuck up. Hey, here's a
>>>> thought: why don't you find a developed country in the free world that
>>>> doesn't have universal health coverage and move there? What's that you
>>>> say, that country doesn't exist?
>>>
>>> You've completely missed what I said. Perhaps you should reread.
>>
>>
>> False claim. You are ducking what *I* said because you are an anonyshit
>> and a coward.
>
> You've type many words but the content is zero and doesn't address the
> FACTS and citations that have been provided for you. You are welcome
> to try again.
>> Hey, and please let me know when the "polls" get around to
>> covering the most important tenets of the ACA: covering preexisting
>> conditions, abolishing caps on lifetime benefits, and covering the
>> uninsured.
specific as possible please.
trotsky
Sep 24, 2014, 7:55:27 AM9/24/14
to
If you are unable to debate
> logically, just admit it and when can move on.
not we'll just have to agree you're a coward that has to cut and run
from the truth.
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
No Photo ID To Cash Welfare Checks or use EBT Cards
Sep 24, 2014, 6:45:54 PM9/24/14
to
In article <lpa62a101gbac2tkf...@4ax.com>
Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
> NOWUSSY---your entire history of the group(s) are not credibly
> addressing ANY issue at hand----.
>
> The public record of WHO put 80% (app) of the national debt in place
parasite loving democrats.
Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
> addressing ANY issue at hand----.
>
> The public record of WHO put 80% (app) of the national debt in place
parasite loving democrats.
trotsky
Sep 25, 2014, 6:29:03 AM9/25/14
to
On 9/24/14 3:39 PM, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Sep 2014 06:48:50 -0400, NoBody <NoB...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 24 Sep 2014 06:48:50 -0400, NoBody <NoB...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> NOWUSSY---your entire history of the group(s) are not credibly
> addressing ANY issue at hand----.
>
> The public record of WHO put 80% (app) of the national debt in place
> (goals, policies, programs, etc) is refuted by you screamining and
> addressing ANY issue at hand----.
>
> The public record of WHO put 80% (app) of the national debt in place
> staming yer little feeties: "Did not, did not, did not".
>
> That leaves little doubt that dealing with you is about the same as
> dealing with a 3rd grader.
>
> Stay stupid---it's your life in a nutshell.
Agreed.
trotsky
Sep 25, 2014, 6:43:43 AM9/25/14
to
On 9/24/14 3:47 PM, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
> To argue "literally" semantically is just a fucking juvenile trick of
> yours.
>
> The ACA is a REFORM piece of legislation. It deals with things that
> Taxpayers must pay for---when the policy holder must rely on the
> state/government to pay the costs.
>
> The policies that you CANNOT KEEP---are those which do NOT fulfill the
> intent and scope of the ACA.
>
> The statement of "you can keep your policy...."---was intended to
> expain to those WITH policies (that fulfilled requirements of HC) that
> government would not arbitrarily intervene and require them to take
> policies from companies they did not like. The Policies held by
> people who were adequately covered----have not had any policy taken
> away. IOW_---They KEEP THEIR POLICIES
>
> At issue---are the garbage policies that end up leaving a huge
> financial debt to the consumer---then gets passed on to taxpayers (the
> state). The Federal govt must reimburse the states for those
> costs---But with the ADDED cost of High Administration (CEO'S),
> shareholders/stockholders, and inflated medical equipment.
>
> THere is NO incongruency of the claim "you can keep your
> policy..."---because YOU CAN.
>
> It just most fulfill the requirements of the law.
The only thing I find interesting about any of this is that the right
wing should know their poll numbers continue to plummet because of the
their pointlessly lashing out at the left and yet they continue to
pointlessly lash out at the left. Weird.
> On Wed, 24 Sep 2014 07:03:51 -0400, NoBody <NoB...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>>>> That's a rewrite of the promise Obama made to the American people and
>>>> as such is a worthless promise.
>>>
>>>
>>> Should we compared this to the bullshit espoused by Bush Co.? Hint: in
>>> one instance Americans died and in the other lives were saved. Are you
>>> looking to see Americans die, then?
>>
>> Attempt at change of subject is so noted. If you are unable to debate
>> logically, just admit it and when can move on.
>
> Obama did NOT promise anyone they could keep a bogus insurance policy.
>
>>>> That's a rewrite of the promise Obama made to the American people and
>>>> as such is a worthless promise.
>>>
>>>
>>> Should we compared this to the bullshit espoused by Bush Co.? Hint: in
>>> one instance Americans died and in the other lives were saved. Are you
>>> looking to see Americans die, then?
>>
>> Attempt at change of subject is so noted. If you are unable to debate
>> logically, just admit it and when can move on.
>
> To argue "literally" semantically is just a fucking juvenile trick of
> yours.
>
> The ACA is a REFORM piece of legislation. It deals with things that
> Taxpayers must pay for---when the policy holder must rely on the
> state/government to pay the costs.
>
> The policies that you CANNOT KEEP---are those which do NOT fulfill the
> intent and scope of the ACA.
>
> The statement of "you can keep your policy...."---was intended to
> expain to those WITH policies (that fulfilled requirements of HC) that
> government would not arbitrarily intervene and require them to take
> policies from companies they did not like. The Policies held by
> people who were adequately covered----have not had any policy taken
> away. IOW_---They KEEP THEIR POLICIES
>
> At issue---are the garbage policies that end up leaving a huge
> financial debt to the consumer---then gets passed on to taxpayers (the
> state). The Federal govt must reimburse the states for those
> costs---But with the ADDED cost of High Administration (CEO'S),
> shareholders/stockholders, and inflated medical equipment.
>
> THere is NO incongruency of the claim "you can keep your
> policy..."---because YOU CAN.
>
> It just most fulfill the requirements of the law.
The only thing I find interesting about any of this is that the right
wing should know their poll numbers continue to plummet because of the
their pointlessly lashing out at the left and yet they continue to
pointlessly lash out at the left. Weird.
NoBody
Sep 25, 2014, 7:03:45 AM9/25/14
to
without addressing the current subject and then demand I address the
diversion. It just demonstrates that your arguing skills need some
help.
>You've got useless Republican talking points
>that you keep claiming need to be 'addressed'.
appears you don't understand the difference.
> There is nothing to
>address. Meanwhile, I've given you multiple opportunities to discuss
>the actual issues surrounding the ACA, and you cut and run every time,
>just as you're doing here.
reframe the debate with your rambling.
Since it's clear you are incapable of addressing the original point in
any fashion and can't even support the own diversion with supporting
facts, the rest of your rant is snipped. I'm just wasting my time.
NoBody
Sep 25, 2014, 7:04:53 AM9/25/14
to
On Wed, 24 Sep 2014 14:39:54 -0600, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>On Wed, 24 Sep 2014 06:48:50 -0400, NoBody <NoB...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>On Wed, 24 Sep 2014 06:48:50 -0400, NoBody <NoB...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>NOWUSSY---your entire history of the group(s) are not credibly
>addressing ANY issue at hand----.
You have it backwards as usual since I provide facts and credible
>addressing ANY issue at hand----.
citations to support my positions and you mumble about "the public
record".
>
>The public record of
Just like that.
NoBody
Sep 25, 2014, 7:05:40 AM9/25/14
to
anything other than your flapping gums.
NoBody
Sep 25, 2014, 7:14:13 AM9/25/14
to
On Wed, 24 Sep 2014 06:55:27 -0500, trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:
>On 9/24/14 6:03 AM, NoBody wrote:
>> On Tue, 23 Sep 2014 06:18:27 -0500, trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/23/14 5:25 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 22 Sep 2014 09:08:33 -0600, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 22 Sep 2014 06:30:55 -0400, NoBody <NoB...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Translation: You are unable to refute any of the five citations that
>>>>>> support my position so you have to pretend you "won" and will vanish
>>>>> >from the thread.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> People who like their insurance CAN keep it, you dullard. But it must
>>>>> conform to the intended goals of making HC better and serve us better.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That's a rewrite of the promise Obama made to the American people and
>>>> as such is a worthless promise.
>>>
>>>
>>> Should we compared this to the bullshit espoused by Bush Co.? Hint: in
>>> one instance Americans died and in the other lives were saved. Are you
>>> looking to see Americans die, then?
>>
>> Attempt at change of subject is so noted.
>
>
>Cutting and running as expected.
Yes that is exactly what you did. Glad you at least recognize it.
>On 9/24/14 6:03 AM, NoBody wrote:
>> On Tue, 23 Sep 2014 06:18:27 -0500, trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/23/14 5:25 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 22 Sep 2014 09:08:33 -0600, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 22 Sep 2014 06:30:55 -0400, NoBody <NoB...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Translation: You are unable to refute any of the five citations that
>>>>>> support my position so you have to pretend you "won" and will vanish
>>>>> >from the thread.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> People who like their insurance CAN keep it, you dullard. But it must
>>>>> conform to the intended goals of making HC better and serve us better.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That's a rewrite of the promise Obama made to the American people and
>>>> as such is a worthless promise.
>>>
>>>
>>> Should we compared this to the bullshit espoused by Bush Co.? Hint: in
>>> one instance Americans died and in the other lives were saved. Are you
>>> looking to see Americans die, then?
>>
>> Attempt at change of subject is so noted.
>
>
>Cutting and running as expected.
>
>
> If you are unable to debate
>> logically, just admit it and when can move on.
>
>
>I asked you a direct question.
deserves no response.
Are you capable of answering or not? If
>not we'll just have to agree you're a coward that has to cut and run
>from the truth.
>
the people in the article may have died or suffer unneededly because
their coverage was taken away?
http://nypost.com/2013/11/12/death-by-obamacare-reform-reams-cancer-patients/
http://www.tpnn.com/2014/01/31/sick-children-denied-coverage-in-seattle-due-to-obamacare/
NoBody
Sep 25, 2014, 7:15:45 AM9/25/14
to
On Wed, 24 Sep 2014 14:47:37 -0600, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>On Wed, 24 Sep 2014 07:03:51 -0400, NoBody <NoB...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>On Wed, 24 Sep 2014 07:03:51 -0400, NoBody <NoB...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>>>> That's a rewrite of the promise Obama made to the American people and
>>>> as such is a worthless promise.
>>>
>>>
>>>Should we compared this to the bullshit espoused by Bush Co.? Hint: in
>>>one instance Americans died and in the other lives were saved. Are you
>>>looking to see Americans die, then?
>>
>>Attempt at change of subject is so noted. If you are unable to debate
>>logically, just admit it and when can move on.
>
>>>> as such is a worthless promise.
>>>
>>>
>>>Should we compared this to the bullshit espoused by Bush Co.? Hint: in
>>>one instance Americans died and in the other lives were saved. Are you
>>>looking to see Americans die, then?
>>
>>Attempt at change of subject is so noted. If you are unable to debate
>>logically, just admit it and when can move on.
>
>Obama did NOT promise anyone they could keep a bogus insurance policy.
Actually there were no qualifiers to "If you like your health care
plan you can keep it". So yes, you're lying again.
Message has been deleted
Tom Benton
Sep 25, 2014, 1:29:37 PM9/25/14
to
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Phelon Holder
Sep 26, 2014, 1:16:41 AM9/26/14
to
In article <4sr82ahjrfuga5ah2...@4ax.com>
Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>
> >==============================================================
>
> On Thu, 10 May 2012 05:40:06 -0400, NoBody <NoB...@nowhere.com>
> Refused to answer:
>
> >"What percentage of the National debt was the responsibility
> >of the Republican party" (1981-2011)
Republicans didn't start the Iraq war or force Fanny & Freddy to
make loans to people who could not otherwise qualify. Democrats
did, thus causing the current financial crisis.
We can thank Bill Clinton for both.
Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>
> On Thu, 25 Sep 2014 07:14:13 -0400, NoBody <NoB...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> >>Cutting and running as expected.
> >
> >Yes that is exactly what you did. Glad you at least recognize it.
>
> Speaking of "Cut and run"----
> On Thu, 25 Sep 2014 07:14:13 -0400, NoBody <NoB...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> >>Cutting and running as expected.
> >
> >Yes that is exactly what you did. Glad you at least recognize it.
>
>
> >==============================================================
>
> On Thu, 10 May 2012 05:40:06 -0400, NoBody <NoB...@nowhere.com>
> Refused to answer:
>
> >"What percentage of the National debt was the responsibility
> >of the Republican party" (1981-2011)
Republicans didn't start the Iraq war or force Fanny & Freddy to
make loans to people who could not otherwise qualify. Democrats
did, thus causing the current financial crisis.
We can thank Bill Clinton for both.
Phelon Holder
Sep 26, 2014, 1:28:15 AM9/26/14
to
In article <ctr82al61vpasdt7n...@4ax.com>
>
> The entire scope of CHANGE (in which the statement was uttered) was
> one of REFORMING the HC system
You meant to say enriching the health insurance industry and
paying back unions for backing Obama's crime run.
Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>
> On Thu, 25 Sep 2014 07:15:45 -0400, NoBody <NoB...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 25 Sep 2014 07:15:45 -0400, NoBody <NoB...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> >>Obama did NOT promise anyone they could keep a bogus insurance policy.
> >
> >Actually there were no qualifiers to "If you like your health care
> >plan you can keep it". So yes, you're lying again.
>
> Nope
> >
> >Actually there were no qualifiers to "If you like your health care
> >plan you can keep it". So yes, you're lying again.
>
>
> The entire scope of CHANGE (in which the statement was uttered) was
> one of REFORMING the HC system
You meant to say enriching the health insurance industry and
paying back unions for backing Obama's crime run.
Message has been deleted
NoBody
Sep 26, 2014, 7:06:16 AM9/26/14
to
On Thu, 25 Sep 2014 07:28:22 -0400, FPP <fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 2014-09-25 11:14:13 +0000, NoBody <NoB...@nowhere.com> said:
>
>> Ok, I'll humor you but I'll answer like you do. Do you think some of
>> the people in the article may have died or suffer unneededly because
>> their coverage was taken away?
>
>Why limit the scope of the inquiry to the article?
>
>Do you mean more than usual, as opposed to those who would have died
>because they couldn't get insurance?
Your continued evasion is so noted.
> Or reached their yearly/lifetime
>caps? Or were dropped by their carrier when they got sick? Or because
>they were born with a problem, and it was considered a pre-existing
>condition. Or the 45,000 that a Harvard study said die EVERY YEAR from
>lack of preventative care because they can't get, or afford healthcare?
>
>I don't really know... but, on balance, I doubt things worse now.
The ORIGINAL point stands unaddressed and unrefuted: Obamacare has
increased cost and burden on the insured and those using the system
have fewer choices than they had previously. Yes, things are worse
now.
>On 2014-09-25 11:14:13 +0000, NoBody <NoB...@nowhere.com> said:
>
>> Ok, I'll humor you but I'll answer like you do. Do you think some of
>> the people in the article may have died or suffer unneededly because
>> their coverage was taken away?
>
>
>Do you mean more than usual, as opposed to those who would have died
>because they couldn't get insurance?
Your continued evasion is so noted.
> Or reached their yearly/lifetime
>caps? Or were dropped by their carrier when they got sick? Or because
>they were born with a problem, and it was considered a pre-existing
>condition. Or the 45,000 that a Harvard study said die EVERY YEAR from
>lack of preventative care because they can't get, or afford healthcare?
>
>I don't really know... but, on balance, I doubt things worse now.
The ORIGINAL point stands unaddressed and unrefuted: Obamacare has
increased cost and burden on the insured and those using the system
have fewer choices than they had previously. Yes, things are worse
now.
NoBody
Sep 26, 2014, 7:07:02 AM9/26/14
to
On Thu, 25 Sep 2014 13:44:13 -0600, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>On Thu, 25 Sep 2014 07:15:45 -0400, NoBody <NoB...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>On Thu, 25 Sep 2014 07:15:45 -0400, NoBody <NoB...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>>>Obama did NOT promise anyone they could keep a bogus insurance policy.
>>
>>Actually there were no qualifiers to "If you like your health care
>>plan you can keep it". So yes, you're lying again.
>
>Nope
>>
>>Actually there were no qualifiers to "If you like your health care
>>plan you can keep it". So yes, you're lying again.
>
Yep and you're spinning and lying (as usual).
NoBody
Sep 26, 2014, 7:08:31 AM9/26/14
to
NoBody
Sep 26, 2014, 7:10:57 AM9/26/14
to
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages