With Obamacare and failed promises and social policies, who do YOU

1. 82

   gmwilliamsposted 11 years ago

   
   believe would have made a more efficient president?  Why?

   replyreport
   1. 89

      wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      My 5 year old grandson.  We wouldn't have the abortion called Obamacare.

      replyreport
      1. 82

         gmwilliamsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Obamacare will seem to be QUITE a disaster.  I don't trust it at all.  Anytime government gets into something, it oftentimes spells trouble.   Nope, I am quite leery of Obamacare.  Government sponsored care is an oxymoron.  I know this and I am a Liberal.   Leave WELL enough alone!  Obamacare, I am afraid, is going to further BANKRUPT this nation.    I also believe that your 5 year old grandson and other brilliant children have better organization skills and innate intelligence than many of our "politicians".

         replyreport
         1. 51

            AnalogousMethodposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            We're going bankrupt. There's no way around it, there's no avoiding it.
            
            The only way we could turn our debt around would be if our economy to recover, but for it to recover enough, the global economy would have to recover. Unfortunately, if the global economy recovered, then interest rates would rise. Then when we issued new notes and bonds we would do so at higher rates than we are now, and we would drown in interest payments.
            
            If the global economy were suddenly doing very well again right now, we would probably end up with $1 trillion/year in interest payments very quickly, and there would be no chance of paying that.

            replyreport
            1. 57

               retief2000posted 11 years agoin reply to this

               One of the major reasons the global economy is still faltering is that it is inexorable and inextricable bound to our own.  Once American falls as far as leftists want it to the dollar will be replaced by a global currency as the global reserve currency and that will be the last straw.  Obama has done a wonderful job accomplishing his goals.  Can we re-elect him?

               replyreport
         2. 89

            wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            I don't know about intelligence; those same politicians have managed to fool 300 million people into thinking they are working for the good of the country!
            
            Organizational skills?  Probably.  Alex can put his shoes away in the closet each night...

            replyreport
            1. 82

               gmwilliamsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               That's a start.   These politicians are totally amiss as to what is occurring in the United States.  Many are so far removed from everyday occurrences.  Many feel that the constituents do not matter in the least.  These politicians believe that THEY are the BE and END all and they can do as they please with our votes and taxes.   What they refuse to acknowledge that it is THE CONSTITUENTS who ELECT them!

               replyreport
               1. 57

                  retief2000posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  Which politicians are defending Obamacare with every fiber of their beings, Democrats or Republicans?  This is where there is a real difference.

                  replyreport
               2. 89

                  wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  I'm not sure we can actually say we elect them anymore.  They flat out buy the elections, whether by handouts through welfare, pork barrel projects benefiting their constituents or tax breaks to corporations.

                  replyreport
         3. 57

            retief2000posted 11 years agoin reply to this

            And yet Obamacare has been a staple of Obama's political plans long before he was a Presidential candidate. It is fun to watch all of this happen.  I can't wait to see how it all turns out.  America was bankrupt before Obama took office, he has merely dug the hole deeper.

            replyreport
         4. 0

            mbuggiehposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            I can only assume that at least some of those hostile to the Affordable Care Act have been fortunate people and have had no family members with a pre-existing medical conditions such as Type 1 Diabetes or asthma and have never had a child who required significant perinatal and/or lifelong medical care.
            
            For some people, life is very good isn't it.

            replyreport
            1. 55

               Education Answerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               Supporters of Obamacare tout the benefits of universal healthcare and expound upon all of the successes in certain European countries that have such plans.  We, however, did not receive a plan that was modeled after any of these plans.  Supporters of Obamacare often mention how financially successful universal healthcare is in certain European countries.  We, however, do not have a country that is known for its efficient use taxpayer money in ANY endeavor.  We basically passed a program that is so poorly conceived that everybody knows it's doomed to fail unless it is overhauled right off the bad.  That's what I call great legislation!  What could go wrong with signing over another 1/6 of our total economy to a failed government that can't even pass a budget? 
               
               My insurance has skyrocketed, over the past four years, and plummeted in quality.  Wasn't Obamacare supposed to save the average family $2,500 a year?  The same people who informed President Bush that there were WMD's in Iraq must be informing President Obama about the cost/benefits of Obamacare.

               replyreport
               1. 82

                  gmwilliamsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  +1,000,000,000,000,000,000-any right thinking person would be against this health care fiasco.  America is going to be THE WORSE for accepting this monstrosity called Obamacare!   Education, these people who tout Obamacare will realize WHEN IT'S TOO LATE how these "health care" will be detrimental to the American family.  People are going to be impoverished because of this Obama"care". I have said IT before, leave our health care THE WAY it is.

                  replyreport
   2. 57

      retief2000posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Does anyone seriously believe that Romney would have been worse - still???

      replyreport
      1. 61

         Zelkiiroposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Even if Obama snapped and ran around doing nothing but shanking people in the face with school scissors for the next 3 years, he'd still be a better president than Mitt Romney.
         
         A used wad of toilet paper would be a better president than Mitt Romney.
         
         Achmed the Dead Terrorist would be a better president than Mitt Romney.
         
         Cookie Monster would be a better president than Mitt Romney.

         replyreport
         1. 80

            Seth Winterposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Well if the President Obama were in Washington DC doing that, the stabbings might actually get something accomplished thats on a positive note...instead Obama's decided to be the typical immature President he always has been and tells America that if he won't play his game, then nobody gets to play (reference to Obamacare).
            
            However, I think the cookie monster would make a great President. I'm sure they democrats will try to get the cookie monsters to run for them under the platform of change or 1st party to elect a Monster. Afterwards they will spend the next four years reminded everyone that he's in fact a cookie monster and that your racist if you believe he's door a poor job.

            replyreport
            1. 55

               Education Answerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               What a great, great testimonial for President Obama; your guy was so bad that my guy looks good.

               replyreport
      2. 73

         aliasisposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Um... YES. As in, over 50% of American citizens, myself included.

         replyreport
         1. 57

            retief2000posted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Do you have a poll to verify that over 50% claim.  Currently Obama's favorable rating is below 50%.  Let's see how that looks in another 6 months as he further stumbles and bumbles his way along.

            replyreport
            1. 73

               aliasisposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               lol compare Obama to Romney and you won't find numbers much changed from the original election. Romney can stay far, far away from office, thank you very much.
               
               Plus, I believe Obama is overall doing a great job. I am VERY supportive of the Affordable Care Act and most of Obama's policies.

               replyreport
               1. 51

                  AnalogousMethodposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  Why are you supportive of forcing the average insurance premium in the country to double?
                  
                  Are your premiums going up, or are you one of the people getting subsidized by the rest of us who have to carry the burden?

                  replyreport
                  1. 0

                     mbuggiehposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                     There is NO evidence whatsoever that the "average" insurance premium is going to double. None. In fact, many people will be able to opt OUT of their current insurance plans and, in fact, pay less for year for their insurance premiums.
                     
                     The cost of insurance of each person's or family's insurance premium is a complicated formula based on several variables including choice of plans, place of residence. income, size of household.
                     
                     It is time to stop watching FoxNews and reading townhall.com and start dealing with facts.
                     
                     And as for the subsidized: I don't see Ted Cruz buying his insurance in the private marketplace. I see that he and his family are going to continue with his Senate heath insurance plan which under the Affordable Care Act will, in fact, be subsidized by taxpayers.

                     replyreport
                     1. 51

                        AnalogousMethodposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                        Haha, try Forbes. Try CNN. Try business and economic websites.
                        
                        My premiums are going to more than double for worse coverage. Unless you're poor, that's just what is going to happen. There is plenty of evidence, all you have to do is open your eyes.
                        
                        And, Ted Cruz did buy his insurance in the private market! Lol politics cause people to spew absolute drivel with no thought whatsoever. He doesn't use the federal health insurance that he qualifies for.
                        
                        Still some people think you can give free healthcare to a bunch of people, without it costing anything.

                        replyreport
                        1. 0

                           mbuggiehposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                           Actually, Ted Cruz get his health insurance from his wife's employer who pays the entire premium of $40,000/year. That employer: Goldman-Sachs. Mr Cruz is paying ZERO dollars for his health insurance.
                           
                           And if opting-in to the Affordable Care Act doubles your premiums, perhaps you should opt-out. Go into the private marketplace of health insurance---and there is a lively private market, and get a better deal.

                           replyreport
                           1. 51

                              AnalogousMethodposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                              Are you just uninterested in facts?

                              replyreport
                              1. 0

                                 mbuggiehposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                 I know it must be tough to hear that Ted Cruz's health insurance premium is paid for by Goldman-Sachs.
                                 
                                 And I am sorry that you don't understand the mechanisms of the private health insurance coverage market, but there are all sorts of private plans and options available. You might want to contact your local Chamber of Congress and see if there are any group plans being offered in your area. Many self-employed people and/or contractors form groups through local Chambers of Commerce and get fairly low premium rates for group members.
                                 
                                 You might also check into special-interest or common-interests groups that also offer health insurance to members. Among some of these groups: The National Rifle Association, Sierra Club, AARP.
                                 
                                 In addition, there are many other groups that have negotiated discounts with insurance companies for members.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 51

                                    AnalogousMethodposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                    You still think Cruz takes the federal health insurance? He stood up on the senate floor and said that he doesn't. Why do you think differently?
                                    
                                    I understand the free market. The free market is what I am on now. I have good insurance for under $90/month, but next year it appears a slightly worse plan is going to cost me more than double. Why do you think I don't understand how it works? I'm using it right now. You just keep making up things that have no basis in what I've actually said.
                                    
                                    There are huge burdens being forced on insurance companies. It's a simple economic fact that someone has to pay for them.

                                    replyreport
                                 2. 57

                                    retief2000posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                    I think it is wonderful that his wife's employer is paying for her family's insurance, as one would expect of a good employer. How is that an uncomfortable fact?  Many families have members who work just for the insurance  accepting lower wages and less comfortable work. 
                                    
                                    I suspect that Mrs. Cruz is not in that situation but an increasing number of households are as employer insurance premiums climb to pay for insurance offered by an entity that can't reliably deliver the mail, invade the right country, keep out of private electronic information, secure its own computer system or keep its employees from view porn, squandering huge sums on goofy videos or lavish parties and vacations resulting in decreased full time employment, contracted coverage and continued layoffs.
                                    
                                    Trust the bloated, arrogant, spoiled, expensive, inefficient and incompetent Federal government with your own welfare, I would rather not trust them with mine.  Obamacare is an unqualified disaster and it isn't even a week old.

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 68

                                       Cody Hodge5posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                       If by disaster you mean one of the greatest programs in American history...

                                       report
                                    2. 80

                                       Seth Winterposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                       So Cody's throwing his full support behind a program less then a week old and naming it the best...yikes. Next you'll be saying the Titanic is an unsinkable ship.

                                       report
                                       1. 57

                                          retief2000posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                          An amusing comparison, Obamacare and the Titanic. I am disappointed I didn't think of that myself.  It is obvious that Obamacare has more in common with the Hawley-Smoot Tariff than the Titanic - all three quite sinkable.

                                          report
                                       2. 68

                                          Cody Hodge5posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                          Eh, sounds about as reasonable as calling it an unmitigated disaster?

                                          report
                                    3. 0

                                       mbuggiehposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                       I think that Jimmy Kimmel demonstrated what the REAL problem is here with just about anything that the current administration does.
                                       
                                       Kimmel's staff approached people on the street and asked them: "Do you support Obamacare?" Most said, "No".
                                       
                                       He then asks those same people: "Do you support the Affordable Care Act?" They said---almost to a person. "Yes".
                                       
                                       This says ALL that needs to be said.
                                       
                                       For the record: The US postal service is NOT run by this imagined federal government which you see as the problem to be solved. The US Postal Service is an independent agency of the federal government that is authorized by the US Constitution, but receives NO tax dollar support.

                                       report
                                       1. 57

                                          retief2000posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                          1)This is why laws have sweet labels. Language is powerful.  Calling this monstrosity "affordable" makes it palatable to the uninformed. 
                                          
                                          (parenthetically - how amusing to seek out Jimmy Kimmel {doesn't Kimmel shoot in a bluer than blue city in a bluer than blue state?} as a truly meaningful source yet, out of hand, reject an actual news channel.  No wonder lefties love the Daily Show)
                                          
                                          2)Not according to Politifact.

                                          report
                              2. 0

                                 mbuggiehposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                 No...I don't have any capacity to deal with facts because the facts will just get in the way of my agenda.
                                 
                                 Since I do not agree with your opinions, I am clearly wrong and clearly have no interest in, or capacity to appreciate, "the facts".

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 51

                                    AnalogousMethodposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                    I believe the first part...
                                    
                                    Why don't you go check out the healthcare.gov facebook page? There are thousands of comments where people share how much their premiums are going up. Check out any business, economic, or non-partisan news agency, and you'll see, costs are going up. Way up.
                                    
                                    Do you want to share your premiums for this year and next year?

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 0

                                       mbuggiehposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                       You seem to not understand that anyone among the 85% of Americans with health insurance (private insurance or employer paid insurance or retirement benefits insurance) you do NOT need to opt into so-called "Obamacare". There is NO mandate that you opt into the government system. None.
                                       
                                       The idea of "exemption" comes only for the 15% of people who do not have health insurance. It is possible to seek an exemption from getting coverage if you have none.
                                       
                                       In fact, there are 6 types of exemptions or waivers for the uninsured. Among these are waivers granted to all citizens of some states (like South Carolina) and exemptions for religious reasons and if purchasing the insurance creates a hardship (among other exemptions).
                                       
                                       That said, before you opt-in to "Obamacare" needlessly, you might want to consult a financial planner and/or call the outreach office in your state that is dealing with questions related to the Affordable Care Act.

                                       report
                                       1. 51

                                          AnalogousMethodposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                          So your plan is exempted? Otherwise, it has to comply with the ACA.
                                          
                                          I posted one example in one of these threads about a family of 4 whose premiums went up by $20/month, but their deductibles went from $5000 for the family to $10,000, because their existing coverage didn't meet ACA standards.

                                          report
                        2. 68

                           Cody Hodge5posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                           Lol.......yea, and pink aliens are invading the moon tomorrow.
                           
                           You can't be serious right now

                           replyreport
   3. 81

      Dr Billy Kiddposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      The question sounds a little like a troll trap. The assumptions is that things are not working. One could equally say they're working the best that can be expected following a war-crazy president, who deregulated Wall Street (by lack of the enforcement of the law) and who brought on the Great Recession, and allowed bin Laden to attack.
      
      Who could do better following that last train wreck?  The American people. They could stop grazing like cows and get some information in their heads.

      replyreport
   4. 0

      mbuggiehposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      For comment regarding the claim that women in the US were "never" denied birth control---learn some history.
      
      Composed primarily of Protestant moral reformers and middle-class women a Victorian-era moral purity campaign attacked contraception, which it viewed as an immoral practice that promoted prostitution and venereal disease. Anthony Comstock, a postal inspector and leader in the purity movement, successfully lobbied for the passage of the 1873 Comstock Act---a federal law prohibiting mailing of "any article or thing designed or intended for the prevention of conception or procuring of abortion" as well as any form of contraceptive information. Many states also passed similar state laws (collectively known as the Comstock laws), sometimes extending the federal law by outlawing the use of contraceptives, as well as their distribution.
      
      These laws persisted (though there was a strong post-World War II underground market for contraceptives) and by 1965 millions of unmarried women in 26 states and millions of married women in some states---including Connecticut and Massachusetts, were denied birth control.
      
      It was not until 1972 when a Supreme Court case---Eisenstadt v. Baird, legalized birth control for all American women.
      
      Of course, I am sure that you will deny of veracity of this post; claim that none of this is true; claim that I am uninformed and clueless and need to learn some history.

      replyreport
      1. 82

         gmwilliamsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         I never said that women were never denied birth control.We all know that in some areas of America, women were denied reproductive freedom.   I know this, I have read this.  Not only Protestant authorities in Viictorian England.  When Margaret Sanger advocated contraception in America, religious authorities,  Protestant and particularly Catholic, were against birth control, claiming that it will cause "the destruction" of the family.  I am for reproductive freedom for women.  I AM A WOMAN and a STAUNCH FEMINIST.  I would be a gender traitor if I weren't for reproductive freedom.  No woman should have to endure an unwanted pregnancy.  I am pro-choice and support Planned Parenthood.   I also have my NARAL card.  I know about what you have stated.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            mbuggiehposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            I know you did not say that. I cannot imagine ANY women or man who knows anything about US history [no matter what their politics....] to believe that there was never any prohibitions regarding access to birth control in the US.
            
            I was challenged by someone posting to this forum who said the following:
            
            "Also when in history were women denied birth control? Or is that another fact you decided to conjure out of thin air?"

            replyreport
            1. 82

               gmwilliamsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               It's good to have these discourses.

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  mbuggiehposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  It is...I enjoy them---when people are, like you, informed. We can debate "spin" all day---so long as we agree on the basic facts...

                  replyreport
                  1. 60

                     John Holdenposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                     

                     replyreport
         2. 57

            retief2000posted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Margaret Sanger advocated birth control for those she saw as undesirable to American society.  She was a racist and a eugenicist.

            replyreport
            1. 0

               mbuggiehposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               With that, I must agree.

               replyreport
            2. 61

               Zelkiiroposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               Corn Flakes were advocated as a cure for masturbation.
               
               What's your point?

               replyreport
2. 55

   Education Answerposted 11 years ago

   Let's allow a government that hasn't been able to balance its budget more than five times in the past fifty years to control ANOTHER 1/6 of the economy.  Our government, regardless of the party in control, has been such a bastion of economic responsibility!  What could go wrong?
   
   Let's penalize healthy young people with mandatory health insurance or tax penalties, so we can afford greater healthcare for more people.  It's not like our young people are going to be cheated out of social security.  It's not like our young people are going to have to, somehow, figure out how to repay or default on seventeen trillion dollars worth of borrowing.  It's not like record numbers of young people are living with their parents, because their economic future is in jeopardy.  Let's stick it to our children.  What could go wrong?

   replyreport
3. 71

   Sychophantasticposted 11 years ago

   Government sponsored health care? The basic premise of Obamacare is a health care exchange where consumers buy health care from private insurers. This basic idea was taken from conservatives, who proposed it as an alternative to Hillarycare. Then Romney took it and made it work in Massachusetts. Now, because Obama is using the idea, conservatives suddenly hate it.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      mbuggiehposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Exactly!
      
      And the ROMNEY plan (which was the blueprint for the Affordable Care Act/"Obamacare") is a success in Massachusetts where some 99% of residents have health insurance and where costs have steadily declined.
      
      In New York State we've had a health care exchange similar to the Affordable Care Act for some time and it works great.  The Affordable Care Act will expand New York's "Health Plus" program as it will allow many New Yorkers who could not participate in "Health Plus" (because of things like home ownership, modest but approaching middle-class earned incomes, and/or modest retirement account savings plans) buy low-cost health insurance.
      
      In addition, the Affordable Care Act will allow young people to either stay on their parents' policies (until age 26) or purchase very low-cost insurance on their own as well as enable people with pre-existing health problems (like Type 1 Diabetes, asthma, etc.) to get insurance; will allow people whose insurance coverage has lapsed (due, for example, to unemployment and who were as a matter of routine denied access to health insurance upon re-employment) to buy health insurance.

      replyreport
4. 60

   Paul Wingertposted 11 years ago

   Obama is doing just fine as president. I would rather vote for a sock puppet than a Republican.

   replyreport
   1. 82

      gmwilliamsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Wow,what a smart and logical answer-NOT!  Inverse logic is in operation!  There are good Republicans as well as incompetent, inane Democrats. Sad to say that President Obama is becoming a disaster........more and more people are losing respect for him!
      

      replyreport
      1. 68

         Cody Hodge5posted 11 years agoin reply to this

         That's a lot of hyperbole....
         
         Apparently if a Tea Party member says that the Democrats won't negotiate, it must be because the Democrats are just mean and stubborn. It couldn't possibly be that the House GOP isn't offering up anything worth negotiating?

         replyreport
         1. 80

            Seth Winterposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            I seem to be remember a house bill that failed because the Republicans wants to delay the individual mandate and prohibit lawmakers from receiving government subsides for their health care...your right Cody that seems perfectly unreasonable.
            
            People should be fine for living in America and deciding not to buy health insurance..it's not like this is a free country or anything.

            replyreport
            1. 68

               Cody Hodge5posted 11 years agoin reply to this

               More hyperbole......thanks for proving my point

               replyreport
            2. 0

               mbuggiehposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               Whether you or anyone else likes it or not:
               
               The Affordable Care Act passed BOTH Houses of Congress almost 3 years ago and with bipartisan support;
               
               In 2012 conservative Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts wrote an opinion on the fundamental constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act;
               
               On Day #1 of the implementation of the Act, some 2.8 million Americans went online to enroll in the new health care exchanges.
               
               And, whether you or anyone else doesn't like it: Extending access to health insurance coverage to more Americans is NOT a marker of some deluded notion that we no longer live in a free country. The only markers of  erosion of American freedom are Tea Party and right-wing Christian conservative efforts to deny basic human rights to all Americans---gay and lesbian, female, disabled, and in need of health insurance and health care.

               replyreport
               1. 51

                  AnalogousMethodposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  No it didn't. Every Republican in the Senate voted against it. In the house, every Republican and 34 Democrats voted against it.
                  
                  So don't say it was bi-partisan. It was only shoved through the Senate because they managed to get the vote done before Scott Brown got in.
                  
                  The whole thing was a lie. Passing bills on Christmas eve, without anyone having read it, without any discussion on it like the President promised.

                  replyreport
                  1. 0

                     mbuggiehposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                     Republican Congressman Anh "Joseph" Quang Cao voted for the bill and Republican Senator Jim Bunning abstained from the vote.
                     
                     That said, do you really think that support for a bill in Congress is measured by the PUBLIC vote of its members?

                     replyreport
                     1. 51

                        AnalogousMethodposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                        Anh Quang Cao didn't vote for the final version of the bill, he voted for a different draft.
                        
                        I really think that saying it passed with bipartisan support, when not a single R voted for it in either branch, is a lie.

                        replyreport
                        1. 0

                           mbuggiehposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                           If you think that bills are passed in Congress without bipartisan support---even if covert and not public in terms of voting with the cameras on and the media watching, then you to do a little research about not only Congressional history (past and present), but also a little research about the essential political culture of Washington, DC.
                           
                           If you listen carefully to the current Washington, DC chatter---including that of the Republican Party and its Tea Party caucus, then you would hear the complaints that nothing is being negotiated "behind the scenes"; deals are not being made---even behind the scenes deals.

                           replyreport
                           1. 80

                              Seth Winterposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                              Actually "mbuggieh" the free country bit I was referring to was Obama's no healthcare tax/fine. You have to get health care or you get an exponentially increasing fine. So yes it isn't a free country anymore.

                              replyreport
                              1. 82

                                 gmwilliamsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                 Seth, you are an intelligent and informed grown up.  You know that Obama"care" will be detrimental for this country.  President Obama has an underlying agenda for this country and it ISN'T good!

                                 replyreport
                              2. 0

                                 mbuggiehposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                 Whatever. I suspect you thought it was still a "free country" when same-sex couples were denied marriage or when women were denied basic reproductive rights---including the right to birth control.
                                 
                                 There is NO "exponentially increasing fine". There is a modest fine based on taxable income which is $95/person and $285/family.
                                 
                                 If you understood the term "exponentially increasing" you would understand that, for example at fine of $100 (or 10^1) this year would be $100,000 next year (or 10^2). The facts make your statement absurd.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 82

                                    gmwilliamsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                    Jeez, it's still a FINE!  F-I-N-E, GET IT!  Seth is right!  You are just rationalizing and lauding this Obama"care".   Sing Obama's praises if you will, Seth and other aware people KNOW better! You will one day wake up and see Obama for who he really is.   He is destroying America bit by bit....and you refuse to see it!

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 0

                                       mbuggiehposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                       Who exactly to you think that President Obama is? What exactly do you think that this man will be exposed as being?
                                       
                                       And why, do you insist that those who do not share you opinions about his presidency or his agenda are imbeciles who refuse to "see" this presumed bogey man for whatever it is you claim he is?

                                       report
                                       1. 82

                                          gmwilliamsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                          President Obama was raised by parents who inculcated him in a socialist and communist ideology, particular his maternal grandparents.  He even admitted that the Constitution is flawed and was more appropriate for colonial times than it is today.  He also stated that in his famous speech that if a person succeeded, he/she did not do it himself/herself. 
                                          
                                          He is anti-capitalist and anti-success. He is demonizing the wealthy and successful.  There is also more debt under his administration than in prior administrations.  He had the IRS spy on conservatives and others who are opposed to his ideology.  Then there is Benghazi.   I'M DONE here!  I once believed in President Obama and his promises to improve America.  However, I studied the man and do some reading from books and other sources and Obama's only intention is to socialize America. He even admitted his goal for America in his autobiography.  People SEE  and BELIEVE what THEY wish to see, and believe, no more, no less.

                                          report
                                    2. 80

                                       Seth Winterposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                       Tsk, tsk, tsk, ahhh "mbuggieh" take another sip of Cool-aid and pay attention.
                                       
                                       While exponential is a math term it can also be used informally to imply rapidly growing. And you are right about the FINE/TAX being only $95/person but what about next year? Here's where the exponentially part comes in...in 2015 the F-I-N-E becomes 325/per person.And 695/per person in 2016.
                                       
                                       Also when in history were women denied birth control? Or is that another fact you decided to conjure out of thin air?
                                       
                                       GMWilliams is right, Obama is destroying our nation one bit at a time.

                                       report
5. 51

   AnalogousMethodposted 11 years ago

   Yeah, there are negotiations off camera.
   
   That doesn't mean that a bill that passes without a single Republican vote is 'bipartisan'. That's just silly, there's a reason why the Democrats lost so much ground in 2010.

   replyreport