[sailor]

One_of_us, on 22 July 2012 - 09:25 PM, said:

I hope that after the elections in November we can ship to you a Mitt Romney with plenty of idle time to fix your healthcare system with another "MittObamaCare".

How kind of you.... but no, thanks.

[One_of_us]

sailor, on 18 July 2012 - 01:27 PM, said:

Back that care-train up a bit, mr. O.

Until a few years back we had 2 kinds of healthinsurances over here.

1. a kind of Obama-care for those who earned less than, let's say 30.000 a year;

2. privat insurances for everyone who earned more.

On one sad day, the minister of health woke up and came with a plan to merge them, because in his view it would make the system more efficient and much cheaper. Yeah... right.

Since than the premiums rose every single year......

I hope that after the elections in November we can ship to you a Mitt Romney with plenty of idle time to fix your healthcare system with another "MittObamaCare".

[sailor]

Back that care-train up a bit, mr. O.

Until a few years back we had 2 kinds of healthinsurances over here.

1. a kind of Obama-care for those who earned less than, let's say 30.000 a year;

2. privat insurances for everyone who earned more.

On one sad day, the minister of health woke up and came with a plan to merge them, because in his view it would make the system more efficient and much cheaper. Yeah... right.

Since than the premiums rose every single year......

[One_of_us]

I keep talking to health care professionals of various specialties. Without exception they are in favor of Obamacare and see nothing but advantages both for their practice and their patients.

At the same time there is a surprising lack of complains of people about REAL shortcomings of the new healthcare law. It seems that all the negatives only exist in a virtual space of conservative bullshit disseminated by conservative low-lives.

Those in the GOP are such losers! I hope they are such once again come November...

[sailor]

SAS, on 11 July 2012 - 09:45 PM, said:

Your I have no need of your validation to function as a moderator. What you have constantly failed to understand is that if a moderator, any moderator, in any forum, requires validation from the forummers to function, then that moderator automatically ceases to have any credibility by the simple virtue that he is so dependant on not displeasing forum users like you that he ceases to be independant.

You opinion of how I carry out the office of a moderator is at best insignificant to how the office functions and thus completely irrelevant.

Dear mr. S., don't you worry... nobody doubts your functioning as a moderator.

That is to say, only one nobody does, but than again, talking to him/it is the same as talking to a concrete wall. He/it is a hero in his/its own narrow mind....

[One_of_us]

jetguyz, on 11 July 2012 - 11:17 PM, said:

<ignored> no credibility as a moderator.

To read jetz is to witness a perfect case of psychosis...

He "ignores" a message by answering it with <ignored>

HAHAHAHA!

[SAS]

jetguyz, on 11 July 2012 - 10:17 PM, said:

<ignored> no credibility as a moderator.

Your inability to refute the facts is just that - an inability. Whether you have any faith in me as a moderator is irrelevant to your inability to refute the facts of your mistake - here and your mistakes elsewhere.

What was presented, which you chose to ignore, are facts that you cannot dispute. But true to your nature, what you cannot argue against you choose to ignore and if you are true to that nature you will claim that the facts were not pointed out at a much later date.

I have no need of your validation to function as a moderator. What you have constantly failed to understand is that if a moderator, any moderator, in any forum, requires validation from the forummers to function, then that moderator automatically ceases to have any credibility by the simple virtue that he is so dependant on not displeasing forum users like you that he ceases to be independant.

You opinion of how I carry out the office of a moderator is at best insignificant to how the office functions and thus completely irrelevant.

[jetguyz]

One_of_us, on 09 July 2012 - 01:22 AM, said:

Really? Practically all the republicans who are corrupt support their corrupt leaders in the GOP.

And similarly all the democrats who are corrupt support their corrupted deceitful president...duh!
So what`s new...tsk..tsk

[jetguyz]

SAS, on 08 July 2012 - 11:01 PM, said:

As pointed out before, the current Supreme Court is currently considered pro Republican. There are only 9 supreme court judges at any one time. Further they are appointed for life until such time that the retire, step down or are impeached. And even then should Obama or any succeeding president want to appoint a new judge, the appointment would have to get approval from the Senate.

And no the President cannot unilaterally decide to appoint any Tom, Dick or Harry to the position without the approval of the Senate. This was a safeguard in the American Constitution to ensure the seperation of powers, nor can he forcibly remove anyone of the supreme court judges so as to appoint someone new to his liking.

Further, only 2 of the 9 judges were appointed, with approval from the Senate, by Obama.

It would be more accurate to say that the current supreme court judges, while not corrupt, are definitely indebted - to the Republican powers that got them there. So it is not surprising that they almost unilaterally voted against the Act despite it being one that was initally proposed by the Republicans.

<ignored> no credibility as a moderator.

[sailor]

jetguyz, on 06 July 2012 - 07:40 PM, said:

Did it occur to you that there are Republicans who are corrupt too and who support Obama?

Or are you so naive as to believe that all Democrats support Obama and all Republicans are anti-Obama...izzit?

I suggest you think with your brain and not with your mouth...

Did it occur to you that this is no answer to my question?

No. of course not.

If you had one, I would suggest you think with your brain and not with your mouth.

[One_of_us]

jetguyz, on 07 July 2012 - 02:40 AM, said:

Did it occur to you that there are Republicans who are corrupt too and who support Obama?

Really? Practically all the republicans who are corrupt support their corrupt leaders in the GOP.

[SAS]

jetguyz, on 01 July 2012 - 11:10 PM, said:

<sigh>
How many times do I have to remind you that it is the president who appointed the Supreme Court justices....?
Do you think Obama will appoint someone who is obviously against him and his policies....?

You tell me if the Supreme Court justices are corrupt or in debt to Obama...

As pointed out before, the current Supreme Court is currently considered pro Republican. There are only 9 supreme court judges at any one time. Further they are appointed for life until such time that the retire, step down or are impeached. And even then should Obama or any succeeding president want to appoint a new judge, the appointment would have to get approval from the Senate.

And no the President cannot unilaterally decide to appoint any Tom, Dick or Harry to the position without the approval of the Senate. This was a safeguard in the American Constitution to ensure the seperation of powers, nor can he forcibly remove anyone of the supreme court judges so as to appoint someone new to his liking.

Further, only 2 of the 9 judges were appointed, with approval from the Senate, by Obama.

It would be more accurate to say that the current supreme court judges, while not corrupt, are definitely indebted - to the Republican powers that got them there. So it is not surprising that they almost unilaterally voted against the Act despite it being one that was initally proposed by the Republicans.

[jetguyz]

sailor, on 06 July 2012 - 11:26 AM, said:

Gid it occur to you that it was a republican judge that gave those in favour a majority?

And who again appointed him???

Did it occur to you that there are Republicans who are corrupt too and who support Obama?

Or are you so naive as to believe that all Democrats support Obama and all Republicans are anti-Obama...izzit?

I suggest you think with your brain and not with your mouth...

[sailor]

jetguyz, on 01 July 2012 - 05:10 PM, said:

<sigh>
How many times do I have to remind you that it is the president who appointed the Supreme Court justices....?
Do you think Obama will appoint someone who is obviously against him and his policies....?

You tell me if the Supreme Court justices are corrupt or in debt to Obama...

Gid it occur to you that it was a republican judge that gave those in favour a majority?

And who again appointed him???

[jetguyz]

Obama is ignorant and totally out of touch with the decent American people....
He must be surrounded by dumb and clueless supporters who say "yes" to his every policies that they would probably not know what hit them when the time comes for them to cough up the "tax hikes" that is in the Obamacare!

Quote

Even If It Survives the Court, the Health Care Law Is Doomed

A Commentary By Scott Rasmussen

Friday, March 30, 2012

Media coverage now implies that the U.S. Supreme Court will determine the fate of President Obama's health care law. But nothing the court decides will keep the law alive for more than a brief period of time.

There are three ways the health care law could meet its end. The first, obviously, is the Supreme Court could declare some or all of it unconstitutional in June.

If it gets past that hurdle, the law also could be ended by Election 2012. If a Republican president is elected, the GOP will almost certainly also win control of the Senate and retain control of the House. While the details might take time, a Republican sweep in November would ultimately end the Obama experiment.

But even if the law survives the Supreme Court and the next election, the clock will be ticking.

Recent estimates suggest that the law would cause 11 million people to lose their employer-provided insurance and be forced onto a government-backed insurance plan. That's a problem because 77 percent of those who now have insurance rate their current coverage as good or excellent.
Only 3 percent rate their coverage as poor. For most of the 11 million forced to change their insurance coverage then, it will be received as bad news and create a pool of vocally unhappy voters.

Additionally, the cost estimates for funding the program are likely to keep going up. Eighty-one percent of voters expect it to cost more than projected, and recent Congressional Budget Office estimates indicate voters are probably right. But it's not the narrow specifics and cost estimates that guarantee the ultimate demise of the president's health care plan.
It's the fact that the law runs contrary to basic American values and perceptions.

This, then, is the third hurdle the law faces: Individual Americans recognize that they have more power as consumers than they do as voters. Their choices in a free market give them more control over the economic world than choosing one politician or another.

Seventy-six percent think they should have the right to choose between expensive insurance plans with low deductibles and low-cost plans with higher deductibles. A similar majority believes everyone should be allowed to choose between expensive plans that cover just about every imaginable medical procedure and lower-cost plans that cover a smaller number of procedures. All such choices would be banned under the current health care law.

Americans want to be empowered as health care consumers.
Eighty-two percent believe that if an employer pays for health insurance, the worker should be able to use that money and select an insurance product that meets his or her individual needs. If the plan they select costs less than the company plan, most believe the worker should get to keep the change.

It's not just the idea of making the choice that drives these numbers, it's the belief held by most Americans that competition will do more than government regulation to reduce the cost of health care.
For something as fundamental as medical care, government policy must be consistent with deeply held American values. That's why an approach that increases consumer choice has solid support and a plan that relies on mandates and trusting the government cannot survive.

COPYRIGHT 2012 SCOTT RASMUSSEN

Quote

62% Think Health Law Will Cause Companies To Drop Employee Health Insurance

Friday, March 23, 2012

Most voters still worry that the national health care law will cause some companies to drop employee health care coverage and think it would be bad if those employees were forced into a government insurance plan instead.

[jetguyz]

One_of_us, on 29 June 2012 - 11:56 AM, said:

The "Obama cronies in the Supreme Court"??? Maybe some like Chief Justice Roberts?

The republican campaign is not gearing up for the intelligent people. These already know what is right and wrong. The campaign is instead targeting the very naive and the very conservative-brain-washed fools who want to be what they are not and think that being conservative makes them more upper-class. They were already fooled into electing GW Bush ten years ago!

Today Romney did some of his most blatant, open, crude lying of his extensive record when he described the negatives of the healthcare reform bill. Hopefully the Obama campain focuses on that to expose him for what he is, and to make a strong case for the bill and for Obama.

Given that the Democrats voters are dumb and clueless to vote for an unconstitutional elect President, I am sure the Obama campaign is targeting the very naive and the very liberal-brain-washed fools who want to be what they are not and think that being democrats makes them more "intelligent"...duh!
They were already fooled into electing Obama 4 years ago!

As for the Obamacare, it would be amusing to see how Obama can explain why the people have to pay for another of his tax hike just to be in his Obamacare...and why did he lied that it is not a tax hike.

A strong case for Republicans...no doubt.

[jetguyz]

sailor, on 29 June 2012 - 11:48 AM, said:

So, now the Supreme Court is corrupt too?

<sigh>
How many times do I have to remind you that it is the president who appointed the Supreme Court justices....?
Do you think Obama will appoint someone who is obviously against him and his policies....?

You tell me if the Supreme Court justices are corrupt or in debt to Obama...

[jetguyz]

SAS, on 29 June 2012 - 10:53 PM, said:

Any intelligent person can see that the poll you are using to back your argument is 2 years old.

Gee...
And I thought the date of the report is clearly marked as March 19-21, 2010.
Don`t tell me you (or anyone else) need magnifying glass or perhaps are "not intelligent" enough to see that it is an intentional 2 years old report...izzit?

SAS, on 29 June 2012 - 10:53 PM, said:

Why don't you use one that is more recent? Like this one from Business Insider which shows the Public Religion Research Institute poll done just before the court ruling.

Guess what? Amazingly 43 percent of all respondents, regardless of party affiliation, actually oppose a Supreme Court ruling overturning all of the legislation.

According to the BI report, Republicans, actually, support most of these provisions, including banning insurance denials based on pre-existing conditions, the increased age limit for parental coverage, and even an increase to the Medicare payroll tax for individuals making more than $250,000.

The report also made clear that despite Republican bluster over repealing all of the Obamacare legislation, there's no indication that there is a groundswell of support for this type of measure, especially if the court decides to strike down only the individual mandate.

Really?
And you strongly believe that only Democrats support Obamacare and that there are no Republicans who support Obamacare...izzit?
Or that there are no Democrats who are against Obamacare...izzit?
Now...how naive is that....

Is it becos Business Insider is more pro-Obama for our taste ...izzit?
Why don`t you use the recent one like the reputable Rasmussen Report then?

Quote

Health Care Law
54% Still Favor Repeal of Obama’s Health Care Law

Monday, June 25, 2012

With the U.S. Supreme Court poised to decide the fate of President Obama’s national health care law, most voters still would like to see the law repealed.
It’s indicative of how steady support for repeal has been that this week’s finding is identical to how voters felt in the first survey after the law’s passage by Congress in March 2010.

In fact if you were to read YOUR Business Insider other reports, you will realized the reason why the Supreme Court upheld Obamcare...(and that`s not flattering to Obama)
The rest of the justices found that under the Commerce Clause, the mandate requiring all U.S. citizens to buy health insurance was not valid. They upheld it as a tax. (and not a fee)
"Justice Roberts argued that the individual mandate is constitutional because it enacts a tax, not a fee."

And now Romney is justified to accurately accuse Obama of raising taxes in the coming Election....lor!

Quote

Actually, Justice Roberts Demolished Obama In His Supreme Court Ruling

Jun. 28, 2012, 2:20 PM

But while Roberts may have saved Obama's signature domestic legislation — and perhaps his reelection campaign — by siding with the court's liberal wing, he actually did it in spite of Obama, not because of him.

It seems like a very real possibility, then, that when the glow of today's victory wears off, Obama may find that Roberts' ruling was actually a Trojan Horse. Democrats have adamantly argued that the individual mandate is not a tax, but that claim will hold a lot less water after today's decision. Meanwhile, Republicans, despite their newfound dislike of Robert immediately seized on the "Obamacare raises taxes" attack line, and are already raising the specter of the IRS to fire up the conservative base.

[One_of_us]

SAS, on 30 June 2012 - 12:53 AM, said:

According to the BI report, Republicans, actually, support most of these provisions, including banning insurance denials based on pre-existing conditions, the increased age limit for parental coverage, and even an increase to the Medicare payroll tax for individuals making more than $250,000.

There is growing evidence that the condemnation of this law by the Republican party is nothing but bad, destructive politics.

And it's not that there was not ample evidence before the events of this week. To begin with, the law was written with unusual concessions to the opposing party by adopting practically all their ideas in the new law, taking Romney's mandate in Massachusetts as their template. The law should be called Romneycare! These consessions were made with a spirit of bipartisanism that unfortunately the Republicans totally rejected.

Another irony is in the alleged opposition by Republicans to this "individual mandate", that now the Supreme Court recasted as a "voluntary tax". (yes, "voluntary" because everybody can choose not to pay it by simply buying healthcare insurance). The so alleged cost-conscious conservatives oppose the very prevision that PAYS for the new law? How absurd!

Intelligent Americans who have no vested interest in the Republican party already should see the destructive, deceptive politics behind the opposition to the law. They are not the problem. Unfortunately, this group is only a fraction of Americans. Hopefully in the next four months the Obama campaign opens the eyes of the rest of Americans to he big fraud the GOP is concocting which could precipitate America into another setback like the 8 years of GW Bush have been.

As an optimist I look forward to the time when these coming elections will be seen as another good choice my country made to avoid disaster, and by then everybody will be thankful to this guy Obama for what he accomplished in passing this law. Something for the history books!

[SAS]

Any intelligent person can see that the poll you are using to back your argument is 2 years old. Why don't you use one that is more recent? Like this one from Business Insider which shows the Public Religion Research Institute poll done just before the court ruling.

Guess what? Amazingly 43 percent of all respondents, regardless of party affiliation, actually oppose a Supreme Court ruling overturning all of the legislation.

According to the BI report, Republicans, actually, support most of these provisions, including banning insurance denials based on pre-existing conditions, the increased age limit for parental coverage, and even an increase to the Medicare payroll tax for individuals making more than $250,000.

The report also made clear that despite Republican bluster over repealing all of the Obamacare legislation, there's no indication that there is a groundswell of support for this type of measure, especially if the court decides to strike down only the individual mandate.