Won't Anything Satisfy The Right?...

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
no, that's not what he was saying at all.

you reading compensation leaves something to be desired.
funny it sounds like cheezie IS saying BHO and MLK are in the same line of work, therefore they are in fact playing in the same league...

this implies that BHO is comparable to MLK.

and yes, this idea is LAUGHABLE

MLK leads, BHO simpers and pouts until he gets what he wants.
 

Red1966

Well-Known Member
President Obama has been getting a lot of grief in the last few weeks over his pledge that with the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in place, people would be able to keep their insurance if they like it. The media have been filled with stories about people across the country who are having their insurance policies terminated, ostensibly because they did not meet the requirements of the ACA. While this has led many to say that Obama was lying, there is much less here than meets the eye. First, it is important to note that the ACA grand-fathered all the individual policies that were in place at the time the law was enacted. This means that the plans in effect at the time that President Obama was pushing the bill could still be offered even if they did not meet all the standards laid out in the ACA. The plans being terminated because they don’t meet the minimal standards were all plans that insurers introduced after the passage of the ACA. Insurers introduced these plans knowing that they would not meet the standards that would come into effect in 2014. Insurers may not have informed their clients at the time they sold these plans that they would not be available after 2014 because they had designed a plan that did not comply with the ACA. However if the insurers didn’t tell their clients that the new plans would only be available for a short period of time, the blame would seem to rest with the insurance companies, not the ACA. After all, President Obama did not promise people that he would keep insurers from developing new plans that will not comply with the provisions of the ACA. In addition to the new plans that were created that did not comply with the terms of the ACA, there have been complaints that the grandfathering was too strict. For example, insurers can only raise their premiums or deductibles by a small amount above the rate of medical inflation. As a result, many of the plans in existence at the time of the ACA are losing their grandfathered status. In this case also it is wrong to view the insurers as passive actors who are being forced to stop offering plans because of the ACA. The price increases charged by insurers are not events outside of the control of insurers. If an insurer offers a plan which has many committed buyers, then presumably it would be able to structure its changes in ways that are consistent with the ACA. If it decides not to do so, this is presumably because the insurer has decided that it is not interested in continuing to offer the plan Friday, Nov 15, 2013 07:00 AM CST[h=1] No, Obama didn’t lie to you about your health care plan [/h][h=2]Terminated policies were introduced after ACA's passing -- often with insurers' knowledge they'd be scrapped[/h]Dean Baker, AlterNet
Topics: AlterNet, Obamacare, Affordable Care Act, Barack Obama, Conservatives, aca, Politics News Enlarge(Credit: AP/Jacquelyn Martin) President Obama has been getting a lot of grief in the last few weeks over his pledge that with the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in place, people would be able to keep their insurance if they like it. The media have been filled with stories about people across the country who are having their insurance policies terminated, ostensibly because they did not meet the requirements of the ACA. While this has led many to say that Obama was lying, there is much less here than meets the eye. First, it is important to note that the ACA grand-fathered all the individual policies that were in place at the time the law was enacted. This means that the plans in effect at the time that President Obama was pushing the bill could still be offered even if they did not meet all the standards laid out in the ACA. The plans being terminated because they don’t meet the minimal standards were all plans that insurers introduced after the passage of the ACA. Insurers introduced these plans knowing that they would not meet the standards that would come into effect in 2014. Insurers may not have informed their clients at the time they sold these plans that they would not be available after 2014 because they had designed a plan that did not comply with the ACA. However if the insurers didn’t tell their clients that the new plans would only be available for a short period of time, the blame would seem to rest with the insurance companies, not the ACA. After all, President Obama did not promise people that he would keep insurers from developing new plans that will not comply with the provisions of the ACA. In addition to the new plans that were created that did not comply with the terms of the ACA, there have been complaints that the grandfathering was too strict. For example, insurers can only raise their premiums or deductibles by a small amount above the rate of medical inflation. As a result, many of the plans in existence at the time of the ACA are losing their grandfathered status. In this case also it is wrong to view the insurers as passive actors who are being forced to stop offering plans because of the ACA. The price increases charged by insurers are not events outside of the control of insurers. If an insurer offers a plan which has many committed buyers, then presumably it would be able to structure its changes in ways that are consistent with the ACA. If it decides not to do so, this is presumably because the insurer has decided that it is not interested in continuing to offer the plan. [HR][/HR]advertisement [HR][/HR]As a practical matter, there are many plans that insurers will opt to drop for market reasons that may or may not have anything to do with the ACA. It’s hard to see how this could be viewed as a violation of President Obama’s pledge. After all, insurers change and drop plans all the time. Did people who heard Obama’s pledge understand it to mean that insurers would no longer have this option once the ACA passed? If Obama’s pledge was understood as ensuring that every plan that was in existence in 2010 would remain in existence, then it would imply a complete federal takeover of the insurance industry. This would require the government to tell insurers that they must continue to offer plans even if they are losing money on them and even if the plans had lost most of their customers. This would at the least be a strange policy. It would be surprising if many people thought this was the meaning of President Obama’s pledge. Finally, there will be many plans that insurers will stop offering in large part because of the changed market conditions created by the ACA. For example, last week the Washington Post highlighted a plan for the “hardest to insure” that was being cancelled by Pathmark Blue Cross of Pennsylvania. This plan is likely being cancelled because it is unable to compete with the insurance being offered through the exchanges. The exchanges charge everyone the same rate regardless of their pre-existing health conditions. A plan that is especially designed for people who have serious health conditions would almost certainly charge a far higher rate. If these high-priced plans no longer exist because they cannot compete with the exchanges would this mean that President Obama had broken his pledge? On closer inspection, the claim that President Obama lied in saying that people could keep their insurance looks like another Fox News special. In the only way that the pledge could be interpreted as being meaningful, the pledge is true. The ACA does not eliminate plans that were in existence at the time the bill was approved. If we want to play Fox News, President Obama also promised people they could keep their doctor. Since 2010 tens of thousands of doctors have retired or even died. Guess the pledge that people could keep their doctor was yet another lie from the Obama administration. http://www.salon.com/2013/11/15/no_obama_didnt_lie_to_you_about_your_health_care_plan_partner/
All a lie. Obama said we could keep our plans and doctors, period. Adding all these "qualifiers" to promises Obama years after he began making them and pretending that there was a "but" is dishonest. What kind of creep tries to pass off this bullshit when they know damn well they are lying through their teeth and no one believes them?
 

Red1966

Well-Known Member
no he didn't..because: 1. he clearly, throughout his presidency, relied on appointed members of his cabinet 2. his cabinet is responsible for day-to-day activity that failed 3. being in charge of nearly 2M federal employees is no easy task
^^^^^^^^^^That's your excuse?^^^^^^^^The words still came out of his mouth, didn't they? What the fuck is wrong with you?
 

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
All a lie. Obama said we could keep our plans and doctors, period. Adding all these "qualifiers" to promises Obama years after he began making them and pretending that there was a "but" is dishonest. What kind of creep tries to pass off this bullshit when they know damn well they are lying through their teeth and no one believes them?
the image says it all

placid expression of calm superiority, upturned chin denoting his noble disdain for the observer, gazing off into the distance as if seeing things beyond our reckoning...

we are insignificant in his grand scheme, it's all about Him, our Divine Ruler, Bearer of the Mandate of Heaven.

Emperor Obama!

whenever the press puts out an obama image it almost always follows the same pattern, but at least he doesnt have a symbolic halo this time.





yeah, just like MLK only more divine.
 

Red1966

Well-Known Member
have you ever worked for a large corporation?..a fortune 500, perhaps?..if you did, you'd know that we, at a point, must delegate and trust in those to whom we assign the responsibility..it is up to the president if he chooses to continue with those in his cabinet..imo ms. sebelius is/was responsible for the project..and that's how it would be in ANY rightie corporation (which are basically the fortune 500/1000).
You might have a claim that Sebelius bungled the website, but pretending Obama bears no responsibility for choosing subordinates for party loyalty instead of ability is giving him a free pass he doesn't merit. And Sebelius didn't put those lies in his mouth.
 

Red1966

Well-Known Member
o what a short memory we have..back in the '50's with mccarthyism it was my understanding saying "anything" against a sitting president was met with a visit from g-men for "escort" to an "interview" where one may never be seen again walking free..neighbors "reporting" neighbors..
Is there a point in there? And McCarthyism was about Communism, not a sitting president. And NOBODY disappeared. Liar.
 

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
why not just call him uppity, kynes?

you've already exhausted all possible synonyms.
egocentric, megalomaniacal, sociopathic, self-centered, napoleonic, delusional, self-reverential, and pretentious, but "uppity?

nope. not uppity.

he is in many ways similar to clinton, but clinton's handlers cultivated an image of aw shucks southern bonhomie while Obama's handlers want him on a pedestal, as an icon, or idol, and all dissent is simply proof of heresy, or worse RACISM!!
 

Red1966

Well-Known Member
i don't speak negatively in general..so no..however, there is a difference in "bad" and "un-american"..speaking negatively against the commander-in-chief, the president is un-american no matter what your politics..at the end of the day, we are americans..everyone wants to be us.
"i don't speak negatively in general..so no." .....Liar............"speaking negatively against the commander-in-chief, the president is un-american" Really? After 15 years of incessant bitching about Booosh, or every president to hold office, ever, suddenly it's un-american? What the fuck is wrong with you?
 

Red1966

Well-Known Member
don't get me wrong..say all you want per 1st..i'm just talking in general..i don't quite remember this much ill will, negativity for any other sitting president..and i think those who are so critical, those who do not come up with solutions..just the typical grousing having nothing positive to add to the mix..should just STFU because you look stupid.. keep in mind, significant historical change are preceded by paradigm shift.
Hey, didn't you plagiarize that from some right wing war criminal in the Booosh administration?
 

Red1966

Well-Known Member
Please explain why hierarchy is needed to be used against a peaceful person? Isn't that application of hierarchy an act of aggression against individual right? So you seem to embrace what you are against. Don't you get dizzy when arguing in a circle?
To make him pay taxes?
 
Top