Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-06-2013, 10:44 AM
 
Location: Buckeye, AZ
38,936 posts, read 23,912,657 times
Reputation: 14125

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech View Post
So, you are complaining that when people get promoted and end up making more money they lose the subsidy? So? Most people would rather make more money than stay low paid and get a subsidy.
But here's the thing, the costs are so much higher under Obamacare. the cost I would pay is easily 2k a year for the Silver. I still have to pay about have with subsidy for my area. I make less money, I have to fork over less for healthcare. Hell paying the tax penalty is STILL about 4 times cheaper than the Silver plan (I used national average vs. Arizona coverage, the cost and subsidy both went down for AZ.)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-06-2013, 10:48 AM
 
Location: Buckeye, AZ
38,936 posts, read 23,912,657 times
Reputation: 14125
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech View Post
Amazing. You think it is legitimate to use impeachment to do what you couldn't do at the ballot box.
Hello, I defended against that logic. Unless we have a huge drop off in senate democrats (not likely) IT WONT HAPPEN.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-07-2013, 03:32 PM
 
Location: Wasilla, Alaska
17,823 posts, read 23,462,250 times
Reputation: 6541
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkpunk View Post
I know CNN championed Obama in some ways but now with the issues he faces now, it seems more fair and balanced rather than more towards the left. CBS, I don't watch enough so I cannot actually give my view on it. NBC and Fox are just polar opposites and spout out their agenda to the brainwashed anyway.

Obama can;t get impeached because the Senate is DEMOCRAT. You need-two thirds of a vote to actually vote him out. There is no way we can see that until 2015 the earliest.
Precisely.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-07-2013, 03:35 PM
 
Location: Wasilla, Alaska
17,823 posts, read 23,462,250 times
Reputation: 6541
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech View Post
Amazing. You think it is legitimate to use impeachment to do what you couldn't do at the ballot box.
When the ballot box fails to prevent a criminal from taking a public office of trust and abusing it for their own nefarious purposes, then yes, impeachment is the appropriate course of action. Unless, of course, you are advocating assassination.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-07-2013, 08:23 PM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
90,297 posts, read 120,810,305 times
Reputation: 35920
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ed from California View Post
Color me surprised he lied to our faces about that too:

A Stage-4 Gallblader Cancer Survivor Says: I Am One of ObamaCare's Losers - WSJ.com
Here is another side to that story:
The Cancer Patient From The Wall Street Journal Will Likely Save Thousands Under Obamacare | ThinkProgress
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-07-2013, 09:16 PM
 
Location: Meggett, SC
11,011 posts, read 11,029,970 times
Reputation: 6192
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
Her complaint wasn't the cost. It was the access to her choice of doctors. She loved her insurance because of her doctors that had saved her life, I think her chances was around 2%, and now would no longer be in-network with Obamacare insurance. I can understand her issue. That's my complaint too. See, when we actually had choice, I could shop plans and networks that fit me best in terms of coverage and costs. Obamacare, due to the policies it has instituted, has created ultra narrow networks with less coverage. Sometimes, especially when you're dealing with something more serious, the choice of doctor is the key. This article even admits she would not be able to keep her doctors. So basically all they did was prove her point.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-07-2013, 10:20 PM
 
27,158 posts, read 15,330,669 times
Reputation: 12078
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkpunk View Post
Hello, I defended against that logic. Unless we have a huge drop off in senate democrats (not likely) IT WONT HAPPEN.


We'll see, 20 are up for reelection in 2014.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-07-2013, 10:40 PM
 
Location: Wasilla, Alaska
17,823 posts, read 23,462,250 times
Reputation: 6541
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluesjuke View Post
We'll see, 20 are up for reelection in 2014.
Indeed, and 5 of those 20 Democrats have already decided not to run for reelection. By comparison, 2 of the 13 Republican Senators up for reelection have decided not to run for reelection.

If Republicans pick up 4 of those 5 open seats vacated by the Democrats, and keep their 2 open seats, then the Republicans will have a majority in the Senate.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-08-2013, 04:53 AM
 
46,307 posts, read 27,124,387 times
Reputation: 11135
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post

Hahaaa...the only thing in that article are guesstimates....

No real numbers, nothing is linked, just "last year we talked" and "we think she is payig" blah blah blah....


oh and lets not forget this portion "her policy was likely heavily underwritten" so, basically they have NO clue what they are talking about, yet you believe them....

So again, only guesses....nothing more nohting less....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-08-2013, 05:03 AM
 
Location: Long Island, NY
19,792 posts, read 13,956,603 times
Reputation: 5661
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkpunk View Post
But here's the thing, the costs are so much higher under Obamacare. the cost I would pay is easily 2k a year for the Silver. I still have to pay about have with subsidy for my area. I make less money, I have to fork over less for healthcare. Hell paying the tax penalty is STILL about 4 times cheaper than the Silver plan (I used national average vs. Arizona coverage, the cost and subsidy both went down for AZ.)
The news is full of reports by people claiming that their insurance cost will rise under the ACA only to be bunked later. I suspect that if one looked on the exchange one would find a plan that is similar to your current plan and -- unless you formerly had a cheap worthless junk plan, no more expensive.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:02 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top