RE: OBAMA LIED!!!

RE: OBAMA LIED!!! (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

DesideriScuri -> RE: OBAMA LIED!!! (11/2/2013 11:42:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: joether Here is a list of 25 Republicans that supported it BEFORE President Obama. They didn't just support some of it, but mostly all of it. There are some major differences in the legislation crafted to oppose Clintoncare, and Obamacare. HEART Act of 1993 (LoC Summary) Differences 579 pages 12 years for citizens to get coverage (mandate starts in 2005) Religious exemption Health insurance spending and employee Medical Savings Account contributions are deducted from Gross Income for business Qualified health spending and MSA contributions by the employee are deducted from employee's income Increases ability for businesses to group together into one larger plan. Medical Tort Reform Similarities Coverage Mandate (and tax penalties for non-compliance) Subsidies for low income people to help pay for insurance Employer mandate The lists being different in length is not intended to mean that what the GOP offered in 1993 is more dissimilar to Obamacare than it is similar. The similarities listing has much broader categories than the differences listing. The biggest differences I see is that health care spending was tax exempt for both business and for individuals. That was incentive for a business to cover employees and to help pay for qualified expenses. The excise taxes levied on non-compliant business was another incentive, too. The same goes for individuals not on an employer plan. This legislation included a penalty for not buying insurance, but also provided tax exemptions for qualified health spending as an incentive. There was also a plan to help Medicare beneficiaries pay for private insurance (if the beneficiary so chose) that would be the primary insurance, leaving Medicare as the secondary insurance. Not only was there a stick, but there was also a carrot. An yet, they were STILL for Health Coverage of all American Citizens, is the basic bottom line on display here. At what point have any in the GOP made the claim that they didn't want all Americans covered by health insurance? That isn't the question at all. The difference is in how we get people covered. Rather than using just a stick (Obamacare), they also used a carrot.

Phydeaux -> RE: OBAMA LIED!!! (11/3/2013 12:19:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux Exactly the point. Which is what I have said all along. If the insurance company changed the price $5.15 cents - it is enough to lose grandfathered status. So the insurance company is precluded to make even minor changes to the plan. Changing the plan makes it a new plan. How hard is this to understand? Anyone who has bought insurance on the open market knows that when the insurance company changes the plan in any way you have to sign a new contract because it is a new plan! quote: The insurance company is precluded from offering the plan to new customers. Why should they be able to sell a plan not in conformance with the law to new customers? And which part of "not being able to change a plan to conform to law" don't you understand means that "you WONT be able to keep your health insurance"

Phydeaux -> RE: OBAMA LIED!!! (11/3/2013 12:28:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux It is about as true as it ever gets that this bill is a democrat bill. Created, debated, and crafted by democrats. And and any attempts to portray republican involvement is just an excercise in blame management. This bill had something rather curious about it. One something ? Oh I think it had a good deal more than that. - bribe to landrieu to secure her vote. - bribe for nelsons vote. - few if any markups, meaning that most of the discussions were done behind the scenes. Even the supreme court noted this. This from the most transparent administration in history. - The use of three bills to actually pass the thing. - The use of the reconciliation process to preclude cloture. - The starring role for the parliamentarian on the byrd dropping rulings. -Harry read filling up the amendment tree with his own amendments so no others could be filed. -Directives to the CBO dictating the what the numbers would be. I could go on for pages on how ... curious... this bill was. . Democrats got things done in three, where as Republicans failed 43 times in a row! Your bitching at efficiency with Democrats and giving a blank check to 'gross miss use of taxpayer funds' to Republican/Tea Party? HAHAHAHAHA. Your bitching at me for not going to a library? The person that hasn't bothered to read the Affordable Care Act in the three years its been on the books and making incorrect assumptions all over? And then, to be INSULTING about it? I do research, you don't, that's the bottom line. It shows in ALL your posts. From Healthcare, to the Theory of Climate Change. quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux How many pages of republican amendments made it into the bill? Exact numbers, please. Here's a hint. Its less than 3%. Let me SCHOOL you on bills at the federal level: They NEVER state WHO created the amendment, only those sections that were amended. For your information, there are SEVENTEEN PAGES of amendments to the Affordable Care Act. They are easy to find as they are the first seventeen pages of the whole 2409 page law. quote: Blackburn (R-TN) #4 Summary: This amendment would require the HHS Secretary to certify that no American will lose access to his or her current health insurance due to the establishment and operation of health plans offered through a state Exchange. This will be an annual certification, and until certification is made, no state is required or penalized for the failure to establish plans in an Exchange." Really? Another lie. Find my quote where I was bitching about democrat efficiency, especially in the context of ACA. But you'll say anything, just to have something to say. I notice that you didn't contest the facts on how the law was passed - because, of course, its all true. Now, let me school you on the amendment process. You can find what ammendments were offered and by whome by tracking through the legislative history of the bill. Which I have done, and you have not. See, Notice up above where I quoted the burton amendment? So much for not being possible. So, now that you've said that there are 17 pages of amendments - lets go back to your breathless claim that the Republicans had significant impact on a 3000 page bill. 17 whole pages. Of course, the amendment pages are not the only amendments. And they weren't only (or even predominantly) submitted by republicans. But I'll go with your number. 17 whole pages. Wow.

MrRodgers -> RE: OBAMA LIED!!! (11/3/2013 12:30:06 AM)
Yea, sure do wish for the good ole days when presidents lied about countries trying to get nuke materials and outing CIA field agents not to mention 9/11. These alleged lies about legislation is just too much to take.

Phydeaux -> RE: OBAMA LIED!!! (11/3/2013 12:38:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers Yea, sure do wish for the good ole days when presidents lied about countries trying to get nuke materials and outing CIA field agents not to mention 9/11. These alleged lies about legislation is just too much to take. Snicker. You need to read more. Valerie wasn't a field agent. The entire reason Joe Wilson was suggested to go on that yellow cake expedition was because of Valerie. I wrote an opinion piece before novak did on why Wilson was chosen. And yeah, those desk jockies sure are in a lot of danger. By the way. I suppose you didn't read the NPR report that said several thousand tons of chemical components were found and destroyed in Iraq, along with rockets with Sarin warheads. Course, we bloody well knew he had them. He used them against the Iranians all the damn time.

Kirata -> RE: OBAMA LIED!!! (11/3/2013 12:44:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers Yea, sure do wish for the good ole days when presidents lied about countries trying to get nuke materials and outing CIA field agents not to mention 9/11. These alleged lies about legislation is just too much to take. Ah, the old WMD gambit... Secret U.S. mission hauls uranium from Iraq For those still in denail, Saddam's WMD went to Syria K.

Kirata -> RE: OBAMA LIED!!! (11/3/2013 1:01:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: The insurance company is precluded from offering the plan to new customers. Why should they be able to sell a plan not in conformance with the law to new customers? The WSJ has a piece defending Obama's promise. Unfortunately it's paywalled, but here's an excerpt: Richard Kirsch, the former national campaign manager of Health Care for America Now, which pushed for the 2010 health law, said the words were reassuring—and true—for the vast majority of the people, and so his group never raised concerns about that claim. Adding an asterisk to note that people who had “shoddy insurance” might need to change plans was not practical, he said. “The actual, accurate statement is if you have good insurance, and you like it, you can keep it,” said Mr. Kirsch, now a senior fellow at the Roosevelt Institute, a liberal policy organization. ~Wall Street Journal However, as Todd Zywicki over at The Volokh Conspiracy observes... One Obama official quoted in the article gives up the game when he admits that President Obama easily could have told the truth – you can “probably” keep your insurance or “most people can keep their insurance” – but simply chose not to because telling the truth would have hurt him politically: “The former official added that in the midst of a hard-fought political debate ‘if you like your plan, you can probably keep it’ isn’t a salable point.” Quite a confession. Zywicki then turns his focus to the claim that only those with “shoddy insurance” would lose their coverage, and finds that that's not true either. Consider just a couple of examples. The wife of a friend had a hysterectomy, and as a result cannot have children. Yet she is being required to now buy a policy that requires her to pay for maternity and pediatric care and her rates are going up. Single men or married couples with adult children are required to pay for maternity and pediatric care. Their rates are going up substantially. "Substandard" thus becomes an arbitrary matter of how you define it, and the definitions are in many cases absurd. Zywicki asks, for example, whether it makes any sense to define an auto-insurance policy as "substandard" if it doesn't provide motorcycle coverage, even if the person doesn't own a motorcycle. I mean seriously. Any way you cut it, 'if you like your plan you can keep it' was a lie. K.

Phydeaux -> RE: OBAMA LIED!!! (11/3/2013 1:46:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: The insurance company is precluded from offering the plan to new customers. Why should they be able to sell a plan not in conformance with the law to new customers? The WSJ has a piece defending Obama's promise. Unfortunately it's paywalled, but here's an excerpt: Richard Kirsch, the former national campaign manager of Health Care for America Now, which pushed for the 2010 health law, said the words were reassuring—and true—for the vast majority of the people, and so his group never raised concerns about that claim. Adding an asterisk to note that people who had “shoddy insurance” might need to change plans was not practical, he said. “The actual, accurate statement is if you have good insurance, and you like it, you can keep it,” said Mr. Kirsch, now a senior fellow at the Roosevelt Institute, a liberal policy organization. ~Wall Street Journal However, as Todd Zywicki over at The Volokh Conspiracy observes... One Obama official quoted in the article gives up the game when he admits that President Obama easily could have told the truth – you can “probably” keep your insurance or “most people can keep their insurance” – but simply chose not to because telling the truth would have hurt him politically: “The former official added that in the midst of a hard-fought political debate ‘if you like your plan, you can probably keep it’ isn’t a salable point.” Quite a confession. Zywicki then turns his focus to the claim that only those with “shoddy insurance” would lose their coverage, and finds that that's not true either. Consider just a couple of examples. The wife of a friend had a hysterectomy, and as a result cannot have children. Yet she is being required to now buy a policy that requires her to pay for maternity and pediatric care and her rates are going up. Single men or married couples with adult children are required to pay for maternity and pediatric care. Their rates are going up substantially. "Substandard" thus becomes an arbitrary matter of how you define it, and the definitions are in many cases absurd. Zywicki asks, for example, whether it makes any sense to define an auto-insurance policy as "substandard" if it doesn't provide motorcycle coverage, even if the person doesn't own a motorcycle. I mean seriously. Any way you cut it, 'if you like your plan you can keep it' was a lie. K. Denied new subscribers, it is unavoidable that all insurance will be government approved and sanctioned over time.

DomKen -> RE: OBAMA LIED!!! (11/3/2013 4:10:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux Exactly the point. Which is what I have said all along. If the insurance company changed the price $5.15 cents - it is enough to lose grandfathered status. So the insurance company is precluded to make even minor changes to the plan. Changing the plan makes it a new plan. How hard is this to understand? Anyone who has bought insurance on the open market knows that when the insurance company changes the plan in any way you have to sign a new contract because it is a new plan! quote: The insurance company is precluded from offering the plan to new customers. Why should they be able to sell a plan not in conformance with the law to new customers? And which part of "not being able to change a plan to conform to law" don't you understand means that "you WONT be able to keep your health insurance" The entire thing cause it is a lie. The law explicitly allows the plans to change to conform to the law without losing grandfather status. The entire and only reason anyone is losing their individual health insurance plan is because the insurance companies are choosing to change those plans outside the confines dictated by the law.

DomKen -> RE: OBAMA LIED!!! (11/3/2013 4:14:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers Yea, sure do wish for the good ole days when presidents lied about countries trying to get nuke materials and outing CIA field agents not to mention 9/11. These alleged lies about legislation is just too much to take. Snicker. You need to read more. Valerie wasn't a field agent. lie. Plame had traveled extensively before being outed as an energy consultant dealing with stopping nuclear proliferation. That she wasn't doing sabotage doesn't mean she didn't have a protected identity. quote: The entire reason Joe Wilson was suggested to go on that yellow cake expedition was because of Valerie. I wrote an opinion piece before novak did on why Wilson was chosen. Since Plame was one of the top experts on proliferation issues and Wilson had contacts in the region why wouldn't he be the one chosen when they needed someone? quote: And yeah, those desk jockies sure are in a lot of danger. By the way. I suppose you didn't read the NPR report that said several thousand tons of chemical components were found and destroyed in Iraq, along with rockets with Sarin warheads. Course, we bloody well knew he had them. He used them against the Iranians all the damn time. He'd had them in 1991 and we destroyed them after the 1991 war. We know for a fact he had none when W invaded. Stop telling so many lies.

DomKen -> RE: OBAMA LIED!!! (11/3/2013 4:28:53 AM)
naughty naughty. Helping spread bullshit. quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers Yea, sure do wish for the good ole days when presidents lied about countries trying to get nuke materials and outing CIA field agents not to mention 9/11. These alleged lies about legislation is just too much to take. Ah, the old WMD gambit... Secret U.S. mission hauls uranium from Iraq This was old yellowcake he'd had since before 1991 and had been under the control of outside inspectors the whole time. from your own link quote: Later, U.N. inspectors documented and safeguarded the yellowcake, which had been stored in aging drums and containers since before the 1991 Gulf War. There was no evidence of any yellowcake dating from after 1991, the official said. quote: For those still in denail, Saddam's WMD went to Syria Clownhall? You based a claim on that? I stopped laughing long enough to dig up the actual US report on WMD in Iraq which has this to say on the matter quote: Based on the evidence available at present, ISG judged that it was unlikely that an official transfer of WMD material from Iraq to Syria took place. However, ISG was unable to rule out unofficial movement of limited WMD-related materials. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-DUELFERREPORT/pdf/GPO-DUELFERREPORT-4.pdf

Kirata -> RE: OBAMA LIED!!! (11/3/2013 9:17:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Clownhall? You based a claim on that? I stopped laughing long enough to dig up the actual US report on WMD in Iraq which has this to say on the matter quote: Based on the evidence available at present, ISG judged that it was unlikely that an official transfer of WMD material from Iraq to Syria took place. However, ISG was unable to rule out unofficial movement of limited WMD-related materials. Townhall isn't floating the claim on its own, it's quoting Lt. Gen. Clapper. So let's take this by the numbers: 1. A logical fallacy. 2. Big laugh. 3. A link that expressly declines to refute the claim. Fucking spectacular. Do you have a day job or do you do this for a living? K.

DomKen -> RE: OBAMA LIED!!! (11/3/2013 10:11:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Clownhall? You based a claim on that? I stopped laughing long enough to dig up the actual US report on WMD in Iraq which has this to say on the matter quote: Based on the evidence available at present, ISG judged that it was unlikely that an official transfer of WMD material from Iraq to Syria took place. However, ISG was unable to rule out unofficial movement of limited WMD-related materials. Townhall isn't floating the claim on its own, it's quoting Lt. Gen. Clapper. So let's take this by the numbers: 1. A logical fallacy. 2. Big laugh. 3. A link that expressly declines to refute the claim. Fucking spectacular. Do you have a day job or do you do this for a living? K. Yes it did expressly refute the claim. The author claimed Clapper claimed the Iraqi government systematically shipped some unidentified WMD to Syria before the invasion. The report expressly says they found no evidence of that. Therefor Clapper did not have the pictures he claimed to have or he misrepresented them or the author made it up himself. BTW I didn't reject the claim due to its source. I pointed out the source has been caught in numerous falsehoods and is not reliable then I went ahead and dug up the actual conclusive proof that it was bullshit.

Kirata -> RE: OBAMA LIED!!! (11/3/2013 10:33:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Therefor Clapper did not have the pictures he claimed to have or he misrepresented them or the author made it up himself. Oh I get it now... THEY LIED!!! Hell, they're ALL lying! [:D] U.S. Naval Institute Blog The New York Sun The Inquisitr K.

DomKen -> RE: OBAMA LIED!!! (11/3/2013 11:49:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Therefor Clapper did not have the pictures he claimed to have or he misrepresented them or the author made it up himself. Oh I get it now... THEY LIED!!! Hell, they're ALL lying! [:D] U.S. Naval Institute Blog The New York Sun The Inquisitr K. Do you not understand this? Clapper made his claim before the Inspectors final report. The final report says they investigated and found no evidence of this claim. So where is Clapper coming out afterwards and saying they didn't have access to or dismissed what he gave them? You have nothing but opinion pieces backed up by no evidence. I have presented the definitive report by the people tasked with finding if Iraq had any WMD or WMD programs prior to the 2003 invasion which explicitly states there is no evidence that there were any WMD or WMD programs and no evidence at all that any WMD material was removed to Syria.

Phydeaux -> RE: OBAMA LIED!!! (11/3/2013 11:52:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux Exactly the point. Which is what I have said all along. If the insurance company changed the price $5.15 cents - it is enough to lose grandfathered status. So the insurance company is precluded to make even minor changes to the plan. Changing the plan makes it a new plan. How hard is this to understand? Anyone who has bought insurance on the open market knows that when the insurance company changes the plan in any way you have to sign a new contract because it is a new plan! quote: The insurance company is precluded from offering the plan to new customers. Why should they be able to sell a plan not in conformance with the law to new customers? And which part of "not being able to change a plan to conform to law" don't you understand means that "you WONT be able to keep your health insurance" The entire thing cause it is a lie. The law explicitly allows the plans to change to conform to the law without losing grandfather status. The entire and only reason anyone is losing their individual health insurance plan is because the insurance companies are choosing to change those plans outside the confines dictated by the law. Pay attention here. I never said change the plan to comply with the ACA law. I said the insurers are not allowed to change the plan to conform to law. The FDA makes a ban on a drug, for health complications. Or a drug becomes deprecated because other drugs are more efficacious. Under the terms of the ACA, the insurance company is precluded from making changes to the formulary. Which means that EVEN if the change is to comply with an FDA requirement, the company may not do it.

Kirata -> RE: OBAMA LIED!!! (11/3/2013 11:59:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen The final report says they investigated and found no evidence of this claim. However, ISG was unable to rule out unofficial movement of limited WMD-related materials It may not have occurred to you, but there is a difference between taking official reports on faith - calling anybody who disputes them a liar - and thinking for yourself. It should be obvious that a country denying possession of WMD would not "officially" transfer weapons that they claim don't exist. K.

Yachtie -> RE: OBAMA LIED!!! (11/3/2013 12:22:46 PM)
What does Iraq, WMDs, even Bush have to do with - "President Obama repeatedly assured Americans that after the Affordable Care Act became law, people who liked their health insurance would be able to keep it. But millions of Americans are getting or are about to get cancellation letters for their health insurance under Obamacare, say experts, and the Obama administration has known that for at least three years."

Phydeaux -> RE: OBAMA LIED!!! (11/3/2013 12:24:10 PM)
quote: quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Snicker. You need to read more. Valerie wasn't a field agent. lie. Plame had traveled extensively before being outed as an energy consultant dealing with stopping nuclear proliferation. That she wasn't doing sabotage doesn't mean she didn't have a protected identity. Ignorant twaddle. Travelling extensively doesn't make one a field agent. Her title was "Systems Analyst". Her (desk) job was to analyze data produced by field agents. The fact that the idea that she had a "protected identity" would be laughed out of court was the reason it was never brought to court. And it was much more useful that this charge be bandied about by the dimocrats - so it was never something that would ever be brought to court. Face it. A special prosecutor was appointed. No charge was ever brought for revealing her id. Especially since it was already in the public domain. The only charge brought was obstruction of justice. Which Cheney was ticked that Bush didn't have the balls to pardon, instead of commuting. The pubs won't pardon libby, but the dims will pardon Rich; the peurto rican terrorists, and the technology guy that made almost 50 million in selling communications secrets to the Chinese. quote: quote: The entire reason Joe Wilson was suggested to go on that yellow cake expedition was because of Valerie. I wrote an opinion piece before novak did on why Wilson was chosen. Since Plame was one of the top experts on proliferation issues and Wilson had contacts in the region why wouldn't he be the one chosen when they needed someone? Top expert, eh? Now your making stuff up. You're suggesting this was actually a real intelligence operation. When in fact it was a political operation. The dims wanted pushback. Wilson is a huge dim operative, and so the idea of "investigating" bushes yellowcake was pushed. I mean really - what kind of intelligence operation has the real goal of finding out if the Iraqi's had attempted and failed to purchase yellow cake. From an intelligence standpoint, Iraq's aborted attempt to purchase yellowcake is uninteresting. They didn't get yellowcake there; there is no yellowcake trail to follow. From a political standpoint - however the issue is was a godsend to the democrats. There is no actual question but that the Iraqis actually attempted it. Like the Italian intelligence agency; the german agency - did before it - here's what the britts said: (from wiki) The Butler Committee, appointed by then Prime Minister Tony Blair, concluded that the report Saddam's government was seeking uranium in Africa appeared "well-founded": a. It is accepted by all parties that Iraqi officials visited Niger in 1999. b. The British government had intelligence from several different sources indicating that this visit was for the purpose of acquiring uranium. Since uranium constitutes almost three-quarters of Niger's exports, the intelligence was credible. c. The evidence was not conclusive that Iraq actually purchased, as opposed to having sought, uranium, and the British government did not claim this. d. The forged documents were not available to the British Government at the time its assessment was made, and so the fact of the forgery does not undermine it.[31] Additionally, the prime minister of Nigeria made the statement that the Iraqi's came with the hope of obtaining yellowcake. The Iraqi's attempting to buy uranium (secretly) when they have no commercial reactors can only be evidence of a desire for a nuclear program. A few democrats were, nodoubt motivated by a desire to discern appropriate actions going forward. However, Wilson's motivation was partisan advantage, and there were documents published to that effect. quote: quote: And yeah, those desk jockies sure are in a lot of danger. By the way. I suppose you didn't read the NPR report that said several thousand tons of chemical components were found and destroyed in Iraq, along with rockets with Sarin warheads. Course, we bloody well knew he had them. He used them against the Iranians all the damn time.

DomKen -> RE: OBAMA LIED!!! (11/3/2013 12:59:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen The final report says they investigated and found no evidence of this claim. However, ISG was unable to rule out unofficial movement of limited WMD-related materials It may not have occurred to you, but there is a difference between taking official reports on faith - calling anybody who disputes them a liar - and thinking for yourself. It should be obvious that a country denying possession of WMD would not "officially" transfer weapons that they claim don't exist. K. The claim was that a systematic removal of WMD materials occurred. First off there were no WMD materials to remove and there was no evidence of the systematic removal since such a removal would have involved planning by someone in government which would have made it official. The report specifically says what you claim happened did not happen.

Page: << < prev 6 7 [8] 9 10 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.078125