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.
Last time I checked it was Clinton's fault for letting Bin Landen run free and plan the 9/11 terror attacks. Remember Bush was barely President when 9/11 happen.
Last I checked Osama bin Ladin was armed by Ronald Reagan.
The writer is defiantly very liberal.look up his articles.
NO CREDIBILITY as an un-biased "journalist"
The first major point in his article was based 100% on a 'research study' whose sample was calling 742 people and asking them if they had obamacare. That means the 'research' the author is relying on talked to 422 people across the nation to make the claim that '57% of Obamacare enrollees used to uninsured'.
Basically according to that journalist, a survey of 0.00023% of the adult population in the United States is good enough to make sweeping statements about all republicans.
The writer is defiantly very liberal.look up his articles.
NO CREDIBILITY as an un-biased "journalist"
And . . in with biased article because I can't refute the points. Is is definiantly liberal or definitely liberal? I'm defiantly liberal myself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by armory
Has anyone visited an ER lately?
You will be asked question you haven't in the past. They will ask about all drug use, whether or not you have urges to harm yourself or others and whether or not you have access to firearms.
I told the nurse to quit asking me ACA questions. She seemed puzzled and told me she wasn't - I told her not to ask me any questions for other than the reason I was there.
Obamacare is just another means of CONTROL. The FDA controls our food sources and medications, the EPA controls our environment, the NRC controls nuclear policy, including power plants and the federal reserve controls our money. The litany of federal police forces control air travel and like to put up traffic stops for various reasons, usually under the guise of DUI or immigration checkpoints.
Government has intruded itself too far into our private lives and needs to butt out - Obamacare is one of the major programs that need to go away, no matter how successful its fans claim it to be.
Why aren't the Obamas enrolled in the program? Are the elite exempt?
Well, if you've been to an ER or even a doc-in-the-box anytime in the past ten years, you would know that these questions are not, repeat NOT, new. Sheesh.
I'm not elite and I'm exempt. Let that blow your mind.
The first major point in his article was based 100% on a 'research study' whose sample was calling 742 people and asking them if they had obamacare. That means the 'research' the author is relying on talked to 422 people across the nation to make the claim that '57% of Obamacare enrollees used to uninsured'.
Basically according to that journalist, a survey of 0.00023% of the adult population in the United States is good enough to make asweeping statements about all republicans.
This is just a factually ignorant point to make about polling. Presidential polls generally are of 1000 people in a nation of 300million with 100's of millions of voters, yet Presidential polls are accurate in predicting who'll win.
You are basically making the very first argument against polling which was the sample sizes were too small to be accurate.
Ignorant people used to make that argument against polls until those polls were proven accurate in predicting who'd win.
In other words arguing about the sample size as a criticism of a poll's accuracy is pure nonsense.
This is just a factually ignorant point to make about polling. Presidential polls generally are of 1000 people in a nation of 300million with 100's of millions of voters, yet Presidential polls are accurate in predicting who'll win.
You are basically making the very first argument against polling which was the sample sizes were too small to be accurate.
Ignorant people used to make that argument against polls until those polls were proven accurate in predicting who'd win.
In other words arguing about the sample size as a criticism of a poll's accuracy is pure nonsense.
Nothing about what I said is factually ignorant. I personally don't have much patience for skewed data on either side of the isle. I was on this forum when Bush was in office and complained as much about republicans back then as I do about democrats today.
It is, however, scientifically ignorant to think that polling is anything but the least valid source for research studies.
What you just told me is this: "I listen to other factually ignorant polls, so why wouldn't I listen to this one as well?"
The other flaw in this poll is that it asked how many people didn't have insurance the day they enrolled in ACA coverage. It did not look whether or not they previously had insurance and was dropped due to rising costs to insurance companies tied to the ACA.
Faulty poll size and deceptive questions. This has all the makings of a great 'source' for partisan hacks.
Single payer is going no where especially since ACA was passed. But even the actual cost is planned I over quite a few years and many changes were delayed by exemptions. Even leading democrats know it needs reforms. The taxpayers have not seen the cost at all especially state taxpayers taking on large increase in Medicaid rolls in 2017 when federal temporary increase ends.
"Conservatives spent years predicting Obamacare would collapse in all manner of gloomy scenarios. But those predictions all occurred in the run-up to the law coming on-line, on the basis of sketchy, preliminary data or pure conjecture. But in the months since the law has come into effect, a steady stream of far more solid data has come in, and the doomsaying predictions are being hunted to extinction. The right’s ideological objections to Obamacare remain, but I can’t think of a single practical analytic claim they made that still looks correct."
Good article that shows that all the rightwing talking points about the ACA have proven to be untrue.
It's based upon common sense, a few self appointed bureaucratic masterminds sitting in Washington DC cannot possibly know, much less predict, the health care requirements, circumstances, needs, wants and desires for 300 million people.
Hardly anyone predicted that the ACA roll out would be this horribly planed and this ineptly administered.
Nothing about what I said is factually ignorant. I personally don't have much patience for skewed data on either side of the isle. I was on this forum when Bush was in office and complained as much about republicans back then as I do about democrats today.
It is, however, scientifically ignorant to think that polling is anything but the least valid source for research studies.
What you just told me is this: "I listen to other factually ignorant polls, so why wouldn't I listen to this one as well?"
The other flaw in this poll is that it asked how many people didn't have insurance the day they enrolled in ACA coverage. It did not look whether or not they previously had insurance and was dropped due to rising costs to insurance companies tied to the ACA.
Faulty poll size and deceptive questions. This has all the makings of a great 'source' for partisan hacks.
Yes, the part about you criticizing a poll's accuracy based on sample size is a factually ignorant argument to make against polls. In fact, the very first criticism of polls about the sample size being too small to predict the winner, proved to be completely wrong.
Polling data is not infallible, but sample size is usually an irrelevant criticism because Polls predict with a high degree of accuracy who'll win Presidential elections in this nation despite only polling 1000 people.
Exactly. I worked with these type of right-wing lunatics for years, and they were a joke.
On the one hand, they'd rant and rave about "those people" - except they'd use the n-word - in the "ghetto" who "didn't pay a dime and got free healthcare and stuff!"
Then, the ACA passes, which forces everyone to pitch in, and now the right-wing stooges are angry about that, despite the ACA eliminating the "free ride" they so hated.
Of course, when it comes right down to it, what they really hated was that the poor and "those people" might be able to afford health care, and - worse! - some of THEIR money might go to help "those people," and they just hated that and were very vocal about hating it!
These are the same clowns that gave me a KKK recruitment speech, think the 1st Amendment covers lynching people, and can't go a week without blaming the "n-words" for ruining "mericah!" so what else is to be expected...
The final irony? The company's health care premiums went up LESS the first year into the ACA than in any previous year in a long, long time... but Obama is still "the worst president ever" and the whining continues...
I'm curious. Do you "pitch in", Rambler, from your salary? Are you paying full price for your annual health insurance premiums, without subsidies?
Then, the ACA passes, which forces everyone to pitch in, and now the right-wing stooges are angry about that, despite the ACA eliminating the "free ride" they so hated.
{snip}
So those people getting their expensive ObamaCare premiums paid for with taxpayer subsides is not resulting in millions more people getting a free ride???
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.
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.
