Obamacare called ‘The fiasco for the ages’

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 07, 2013 3:11 PM GMT
    It sure will be an interesting next 2 years or so as this clunker of a law starts working its "magic." icon_lol.gif

    Nancy Pelosi told us there would be days like this. The only way to find out what was in Obamacare was to pass it and see what happens. Congress passed it, the messiah signed it, and we’re beginning to see what happens.

    The best the Democrats can say about Obamacare is that it’s an approaching train wreck, in the memorable description of Sen. Max Baucus of Montana. Mr. Baucus was one of the authors of the legislation and now he’s hurrying home to Montana for good, anxious to avert his eyes from all the hair, teeth and eyeballs soon to be scattered along the railroad right-of-way.

    The editors of The New York Times, Mr. Obama’s most reliable sycophants, are deep in mourning, but working furiously to apply more rouge to the corpse before it turns the parlor too fragrant for a wake. It’s summer, and they’re running out of ice.

    Obamacare probably can’t be fixed short of dumping it and starting over, but this would require an admission by the president and his men (and women) that they’re as incompetent and maladroit as events reveal them to be. The president’s acolytes in the media hail the delay as a genius stroke of politics, something to get the Democrats past the 2014 congressional elections before “the fiasco for the ages” is displayed in full.

    The language of the Affordable Care Act sets out in Section 1513 in “black-letter law” that its provisions “shall apply to months beginning after December 31, 2013.” The language is plain and clear; only a lawyer or judge could misunderstand it.

    Plain and clear though the language is, Obamacare was carelessly written and pounded through Congress with such speed and abandon that no one had time (or inclination) to see what was in it. Now we know, and the best is yet to come.


    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jul/5/pruden-obamacare-called-fiasco-ages/


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 07, 2013 3:29 PM GMT
    Sharpton saidSomeone is jealous......

    Someone is just working off his old anti-Obama script. No matter what Obama does, it's a disaster for the US, if not the world, all evidence & logic to the contrary. Therefore you can simply ignore this RJ member, regardless of whatever account name he's using at present, he just spouts obsessive hate-filled ideology, not facts. icon_razz.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 07, 2013 4:05 PM GMT
    Sharpton saidYou ARE obsessed with Obama though, SB.


    Not really. But when you have Metta8 churning out dozens of new pro-Democrat pro-Obama posts a day on here unrestrained, it's in everyone else's best interest to see an opposing point of view (even though many would prefer to live in their spoon-fed pro-liberal cocoon).

    Admittedly, I am not permitted to post as many items pro-right as Metta8 is pro-left. I tried that once and got banned for that, even though I matched post-for-post with Metta8 that day, but the only difference being that my posts were 180 degrees opposite his politically.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 07, 2013 4:29 PM GMT
    southbeach1502 said
    Admittedly, I am not permitted to post as many items pro-right as Metta8 is pro-left. I tried that once and got banned for that, even though I matched post-for-post with Metta8 that day, but the only difference being that my posts were 180 degrees opposite his politically.

    Reality check: you got banned on that occasion, I believe, because you were posting a flood of distracting, annoying posts that you evidently thought were a parody of metta8. Not because they were Right Wing.

    And I don't understand your tack here. Admin knows why they banned you, and it wasn't because you're Right Wing.

    By insulting Admin's decision in this way you're begging to be banned again. So I wonder what your game is? Are you playing for some larger audience, beyond RJ here? Or setting traps for other RJ members? Interesting to consider.
  • rnch

    Posts: 11525

    Jul 07, 2013 4:31 PM GMT
    Sharpton saidYou ARE obsessed with Obama though, SB.



    Many, many of us here have also noticed his obsession.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 07, 2013 4:35 PM GMT
    ART_DECO said
    southbeach1502 said
    Admittedly, I am not permitted to post as many items pro-right as Metta8 is pro-left. I tried that once and got banned for that, even though I matched post-for-post with Metta8 that day, but the only difference being that my posts were 180 degrees opposite his politically.

    Reality check: you got banned on that occasion, I believe, because you were posting a flood of distracting, annoying posts that you evidently thought were a parody of metta8. Not because they were Right Wing.

    And I don't understand your tack here. Admin knows why they banned you, and it wasn't because you're Right Wing.

    By insulting Admin's decision in this way you're begging to be banned again. So I wonder what your game is? Are you playing for some larger audience, beyond RJ here? Or setting traps for other RJ members? Interesting to consider.


    Big truths in the bold.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 07, 2013 4:37 PM GMT
    rnch said
    Sharpton saidYou ARE obsessed with Obama though, SB.

    Many, many of us here have also noticed his obsession.

    I suppose if we had the Internet during the 1930s SB would have been claiming that President Roosevelt's Social Security program was the "disaster of the ages", as the Republican opposition was doing back then.

    Whatever else you say about US Republicans and conservatives, they never change their stripes. Hostile to ordinary working people, and in the hip pockets of corporations. It's been the same in the US for nearly 100 years.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 07, 2013 5:04 PM GMT
    I thought OP was b&d or had died a bad death?

    What comforts me is knowing that OP will suffer, bitch, moan, and whine through at least 2016. jaja!

    "Block/Ignore"
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 07, 2013 5:31 PM GMT
    southbeach1502 said
    Admittedly, I am not permitted to post as many items pro-right as Metta8 is pro-left.


    No, but your socks have had a damn good try.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 07, 2013 7:49 PM GMT
    Well, of course the implementation of the Affordable Care Act is problematic. The "original sin" was Obama "negotiating with himself" way back in his first two years in office to take single-payer national health insurance off the agenda. This is an overly complicated, underwhelming Rube Goldberg contraption. We should simply have single-payer national health insurance like most civilized first-world countries have...

    It's certainly true that the Republicans have been trying to sabotage the implementation of the ACA from the start, but the big problem was that the Democrats didn't have the cojones to put in place a real national health insurance plan instead of the less-than-halfway measure that people are now calling "Obamacare."

  • TroyAthlete

    Posts: 4269

    Jul 07, 2013 8:39 PM GMT
    ART_DECO saidNo matter what Obama does, it's a disaster for the US, if not the world, all evidence & logic to the contrary.


    It just goes to show you how rhetorically stupid Republicans are. When everything is an "outrage" and a "disaster" and the end of the world and a "scandal", people just tune you out.

    They're like chicken little: the sky is falling every day for these people. Their critiques would be more effective if they paced them, but the GOP's paid trolls never give it a rest. That's why voters have just stopped caring about what they say.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 08, 2013 12:53 AM GMT
    ART_DECO said

    By insulting Admin's decision in this way you're begging to be banned again.


    I am NOT "insulting Admin's decision" at all. I just pointed out some curious facts.



    ART_DECO said
    So I wonder what your game is? Are you playing for some larger audience, beyond RJ here? Or setting traps for other RJ members? Interesting to consider.


    Ah, classic Kolonel KooKoo. A "larger audience, beyond RJ" - by posting on RJ? Do expand on this hair-brained theory of yours.

    And what "trap" could one set for an RJ member by posting in the forums? Well, I suppose a person could disguise a URL as a link to some virus site or something like that. However, I have not done that. So once again, do share with us more of your paranoid ruminations. They're quite entertaining.
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Jul 08, 2013 2:27 AM GMT
    LOL SouthBeach or whatever name you go by these days

    Look around you .... when it comes to healthcare in America YOU ARE INA FIASCO
    We are the only society in the industrialized world where millions upon millions have no healthcare
    so you know ... everyday that you listen to your tilted journalism that feeds your red tinted wishlist
    There are people ... DYING because they cannot afford to buy it
    or remain with chronic illnesses or visit ERs or hospitals of last resort because they have no alternative
    and everyone of your silly posting days healthcare in all of its major dysfunction eats more and more of our GDP

    So post all you want .... without healthcare reform the case id terminal
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 08, 2013 7:58 AM GMT
    Sharpton said
    southbeach1502 said
    Sharpton saidYou ARE obsessed with Obama though, SB.


    Not really. But when you have Metta8 churning out dozens of new pro-Democrat pro-Obama posts a day on here unrestrained, it's in everyone else's best interest to see an opposing point of view (even though many would prefer to live in their spoon-fed pro-liberal cocoon).

    Admittedly, I am not permitted to post as many items pro-right as Metta8 is pro-left. I tried that once and got banned for that, even though I matched post-for-post with Metta8 that day, but the only difference being that my posts were 180 degrees opposite his politically.


    Ive seen his posts and they aren't as pro-Obama as they are pro-Democrat.
    Maybe you should be pro-Republican and you won't get banned. Its not a good look to constantly bash the POTUS whether you like him or not.


    Now I bet you guys would have never done something like that to President Bush, now would you?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 08, 2013 11:11 AM GMT
    freedomisntfree said
    Sharpton said
    southbeach1502 said
    Sharpton saidYou ARE obsessed with Obama though, SB.


    Not really. But when you have Metta8 churning out dozens of new pro-Democrat pro-Obama posts a day on here unrestrained, it's in everyone else's best interest to see an opposing point of view (even though many would prefer to live in their spoon-fed pro-liberal cocoon).

    Admittedly, I am not permitted to post as many items pro-right as Metta8 is pro-left. I tried that once and got banned for that, even though I matched post-for-post with Metta8 that day, but the only difference being that my posts were 180 degrees opposite his politically.


    Ive seen his posts and they aren't as pro-Obama as they are pro-Democrat.
    Maybe you should be pro-Republican and you won't get banned. Its not a good look to constantly bash the POTUS whether you like him or not.


    Now I bet you guys would have never done something like that to President Bush, now would you?



    But Bush was evil incarnate and Obama is the second coming of Jeebus, so it's completely different. icon_wink.gif
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Jul 08, 2013 11:29 AM GMT
    No Bush was Bush ... a war criminal who was in office when the worst recession since the Great depression hit and left office with a ruined economy

    Obama the second coming of Jesus?
    Nah but he is cleaning up the republican mess

    1017557_606928749328994_447093218_n.jpg
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 08, 2013 11:49 AM GMT
    GQjock saidNo Bush was Bush ... a war criminal who was in office when the worst recession since the Great depression hit and left office with a ruined economy

    Obama the second coming of Jesus?
    Nah but he is cleaning up the republican mess

    1017557_606928749328994_447093218_n.jpg


    If you grabbed a selective set of metrics for Bush, you'd have something similar even at the height of the financial crisis given the wave of economic wealth created under Bush (of course then, corporate profits were seen as a bad thing).

    And the deficit is down? What of the debt accumulated over this period? And how effective was that stimulus spending?

    Obamacare is singlehandedly responsible for the slow recovery and move towards part time over full time jobs.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 08, 2013 12:50 PM GMT
    GQjock, I was joking with freedomisntfree.

    Riddler, singlehandedly? Hyperbolic much? This is why no one outside of your tiny RJ echo chamber pays attention to you.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 08, 2013 12:57 PM GMT
    showme saidGQjock, I was joking with freedomisntfree.

    Riddler, singlehandedly? Hyperbolic much? This is why no one outside of your tiny RJ echo chamber pays attention to you.


    If that's what you want to believe. And yes, single handedly - because of the issues around 50 employee restriction which you may have missed because you apparently needed to pass the bill before you could find out what was in it.

    There are other issues but they pale in comparison.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 08, 2013 1:46 PM GMT
    showme said
    freedomisntfree said
    Sharpton said
    southbeach1502 said
    Sharpton saidYou ARE obsessed with Obama though, SB.


    Not really. But when you have Metta8 churning out dozens of new pro-Democrat pro-Obama posts a day on here unrestrained, it's in everyone else's best interest to see an opposing point of view (even though many would prefer to live in their spoon-fed pro-liberal cocoon).

    Admittedly, I am not permitted to post as many items pro-right as Metta8 is pro-left. I tried that once and got banned for that, even though I matched post-for-post with Metta8 that day, but the only difference being that my posts were 180 degrees opposite his politically.


    Ive seen his posts and they aren't as pro-Obama as they are pro-Democrat.
    Maybe you should be pro-Republican and you won't get banned. Its not a good look to constantly bash the POTUS whether you like him or not.


    Now I bet you guys would have never done something like that to President Bush, now would you?



    But Bush was evil incarnate and Obama is the second coming of Jeebus, so it's completely different. icon_wink.gif


    Gotcha. I do expect to hear pretty much that (and have many times in the past).
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 08, 2013 3:02 PM GMT
    meninlove said
    ART_DECO said
    southbeach1502 said
    Admittedly, I am not permitted to post as many items pro-right as Metta8 is pro-left. I tried that once and got banned for that, even though I matched post-for-post with Metta8 that day, but the only difference being that my posts were 180 degrees opposite his politically.

    Reality check: you got banned on that occasion, I believe, because you were posting a flood of distracting, annoying posts that you evidently thought were a parody of metta8. Not because they were Right Wing.

    And I don't understand your tack here. Admin knows why they banned you, and it wasn't because you're Right Wing.

    By insulting Admin's decision in this way you're begging to be banned again. So I wonder what your game is? Are you playing for some larger audience, beyond RJ here? Or setting traps for other RJ members? Interesting to consider.


    Big truths in the bold.

    So if he were posting a similar number of messages as metta8, it would be annoying? There are many on RJ who are not fiscally liberal, or whatever you call it, and do like to read other points of view. But it appears from the comments that some oppose that diversity on RJ. It is quite likely that they engage in letter writing campaigns to the Admin instead of just skipping the threads or authors they dislike.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 08, 2013 4:17 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    meninlove said
    ART_DECO said
    southbeach1502 said
    Admittedly, I am not permitted to post as many items pro-right as Metta8 is pro-left. I tried that once and got banned for that, even though I matched post-for-post with Metta8 that day, but the only difference being that my posts were 180 degrees opposite his politically.

    Reality check: you got banned on that occasion, I believe, because you were posting a flood of distracting, annoying posts that you evidently thought were a parody of metta8. Not because they were Right Wing.

    And I don't understand your tack here. Admin knows why they banned you, and it wasn't because you're Right Wing.

    By insulting Admin's decision in this way you're begging to be banned again. So I wonder what your game is? Are you playing for some larger audience, beyond RJ here? Or setting traps for other RJ members? Interesting to consider.


    Big truths in the bold.

    So if he were posting a similar number of messages as metta8, it would be annoying? There are many on RJ who are not fiscally liberal, or whatever you call it, and do like to read other points of view. But it appears from the comments that some oppose that diversity on RJ. It is quite likely that they engage in letter writing campaigns to the Admin instead of just skipping the threads or authors they dislike.


    True. You know it was so long ago, I forgot that I had posted some items of "general interest" - which made it all the more puzzling why I was banned for doing so, since I did not exceed the number of topics that Metta8 had posted. The only difference being that Metta8's topics were skewed to the political left and mine were not.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 08, 2013 4:21 PM GMT
    southbeach1502 said
    socalfitness said
    meninlove said
    ART_DECO said
    southbeach1502 said
    Admittedly, I am not permitted to post as many items pro-right as Metta8 is pro-left. I tried that once and got banned for that, even though I matched post-for-post with Metta8 that day, but the only difference being that my posts were 180 degrees opposite his politically.

    Reality check: you got banned on that occasion, I believe, because you were posting a flood of distracting, annoying posts that you evidently thought were a parody of metta8. Not because they were Right Wing.

    And I don't understand your tack here. Admin knows why they banned you, and it wasn't because you're Right Wing.

    By insulting Admin's decision in this way you're begging to be banned again. So I wonder what your game is? Are you playing for some larger audience, beyond RJ here? Or setting traps for other RJ members? Interesting to consider.


    Big truths in the bold.

    So if he were posting a similar number of messages as metta8, it would be annoying? There are many on RJ who are not fiscally liberal, or whatever you call it, and do like to read other points of view. But it appears from the comments that some oppose that diversity on RJ. It is quite likely that they engage in letter writing campaigns to the Admin instead of just skipping the threads or authors they dislike.


    True. You know it was so long ago, I forgot that I had posted some items of "general interest" - which made it all the more puzzling why I was banned for doing so, since I did not exceed the number of topics that Metta8 had posted. The only difference being that Metta8's topics were skewed to the political left and mine were not.


    That's no different than how Real Queer Politics runs their site. They post links to both pro and con on almost all topics. It at least gives the appearance of balance.

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/?state=nwa
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 08, 2013 4:25 PM GMT
    southbeach1502 said
    socalfitness said
    meninlove said
    ART_DECO said
    southbeach1502 said
    Admittedly, I am not permitted to post as many items pro-right as Metta8 is pro-left. I tried that once and got banned for that, even though I matched post-for-post with Metta8 that day, but the only difference being that my posts were 180 degrees opposite his politically.

    Reality check: you got banned on that occasion, I believe, because you were posting a flood of distracting, annoying posts that you evidently thought were a parody of metta8. Not because they were Right Wing.

    And I don't understand your tack here. Admin knows why they banned you, and it wasn't because you're Right Wing.

    By insulting Admin's decision in this way you're begging to be banned again. So I wonder what your game is? Are you playing for some larger audience, beyond RJ here? Or setting traps for other RJ members? Interesting to consider.


    Big truths in the bold.

    So if he were posting a similar number of messages as metta8, it would be annoying? There are many on RJ who are not fiscally liberal, or whatever you call it, and do like to read other points of view. But it appears from the comments that some oppose that diversity on RJ. It is quite likely that they engage in letter writing campaigns to the Admin instead of just skipping the threads or authors they dislike.


    True. You know it was so long ago, I forgot that I had posted some items of "general interest" - which made it all the more puzzling why I was banned for doing so, since I did not exceed the number of topics that Metta8 had posted. The only difference being that Metta8's topics were skewed to the political left and mine were not.


    Take it up with admin.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 08, 2013 4:36 PM GMT
    freedomisntfree said
    southbeach1502 said
    socalfitness said
    meninlove said
    ART_DECO said
    southbeach1502 said
    Admittedly, I am not permitted to post as many items pro-right as Metta8 is pro-left. I tried that once and got banned for that, even though I matched post-for-post with Metta8 that day, but the only difference being that my posts were 180 degrees opposite his politically.

    Reality check: you got banned on that occasion, I believe, because you were posting a flood of distracting, annoying posts that you evidently thought were a parody of metta8. Not because they were Right Wing.

    And I don't understand your tack here. Admin knows why they banned you, and it wasn't because you're Right Wing.

    By insulting Admin's decision in this way you're begging to be banned again. So I wonder what your game is? Are you playing for some larger audience, beyond RJ here? Or setting traps for other RJ members? Interesting to consider.


    Big truths in the bold.

    So if he were posting a similar number of messages as metta8, it would be annoying? There are many on RJ who are not fiscally liberal, or whatever you call it, and do like to read other points of view. But it appears from the comments that some oppose that diversity on RJ. It is quite likely that they engage in letter writing campaigns to the Admin instead of just skipping the threads or authors they dislike.


    True. You know it was so long ago, I forgot that I had posted some items of "general interest" - which made it all the more puzzling why I was banned for doing so, since I did not exceed the number of topics that Metta8 had posted. The only difference being that Metta8's topics were skewed to the political left and mine were not.


    That's no different than how Real Queer Politics runs their site. They post links to both pro and con on almost all topics. It at least gives the appearance of balance.

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/?state=nwa


    Yep, good observation.