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.
First, the ACA wasn't 'bad legislation.' It got 20 million more Americans on insurance and added many, many provisions that help Americans, including no discrimination against preexisting conditions and no lifetime caps on coverage.
Obama said preniums would come down by up to 400%. It hasn't happened. Mine went up 62% last year and 110% this year.
being forced to buy insurance on an exchange that will soon have no choices is absolutely bad legislation.
covering people that are more sick than should be covered based on a bet that 20somethings that dont need insurance would buy that they dont need to cover the subsidies needed for such is bad legislation.
but hey kudos to those that got insurance on the back of my premium hikes, if I wanted to live in a socialist hellhole country Id move rather than have it dropped on my doorstep.
Obama said preniums would come down by up to 400%. It hasn't happened. Mine went up 62% last year and 110% this year.
being forced to buy insurance on an exchange that will soon have no choices is absolutely bad legislation.
covering people that are more sick than should be covered based on a bet that 20somethings that dont need insurance would buy that they dont need to cover the subsidies needed for such is bad legislation.
but hey kudos those that got insurance on the back of my premium hikes, if I wanted to live in a socialist hellhole country Id move rather than have it dropped on my doorstep.
Your analogies could use improvement
what state are you in that you have no choice and can not even buy a NON ACA off exchange plan...
Classic! I was struck with your reply that no one had answered your question in all the years you have been asking. Odd, because I did answer that question, some time ago, and more than once, but you don't even remember! Or is it something else perhaps? I might have even included that same article which does in fact describe much of what else happened beyond your simple "lies, lies, lies" explanation for all things "promised." I've read similar explanations and narratives in any case.
Given all you can quickly dismiss as excuse or BS, and all you seem to know that should have easily transpired, you must work in the Justice Department or somewhere deep in the center of these controversies to know all you do with such absolute certainty. This is the only way your quick judgment and want to hang Obama from the highest tree can be explained.
Ultimately you might ask yourself another question of many that might help to enlighten yourself a bit (though not necessarily make you feel any better), do you really think Obama had more to lose than gain by looking the other way as you suggest? You really think Obama needed Wall Street money after getting elected the first time, or the second time?
No he didn't but he most certainly felt the DNC did and as we have seen, he wasn't done with politics. He wanted a (D) to follow his term.
Quote:
If so, perhaps you can connect those dots with REAL facts that demonstrate Obama's true intentions or fears, in quantifiable verifiable terms. In any case, if in Obama's judgment he felt best not to push further for prosecution of these easy win cases as you claim, there would have to be a far better reason or explanation than yours, because Obama did NOT need Wall Street money.
Consider this as well. When Obama was actually running the first time, he might have taken not even $20 million from the "securities and investment" sector of campaign contributions, hardly a drop in the bucket of over $775 million raised! Then Obama came down pretty hard on the same industry with new restrictive legislation they were altogether against.
Conclusion: your theory and rationale for your theory to explain what happened between Obama and those who didn't end up in jail is unfounded, not congruent with the facts or sound reason.
Goldman Sachs was Obama's top donor. He wanted them to remain so for the DNC.
First, the ACA wasn't 'bad legislation.' It got 20 million more Americans on insurance and added many, many provisions that help Americans, including no discrimination against preexisting conditions and no lifetime caps on coverage. It also paid for everything it got and now, according to the CBO, is running a third less expensive than predicted.
Second, AHCApolypse was horrid legislation, that was really a rich person's tax-cut disguised as health care legislation. It was a bill that confirmed all the cruel and vicious claims leveled against conservatives for decades.
Third, saying the GOP was "reasonable enough" not to pass AHCApolypse is like saying I tried to shoot my spouse but I was reasonable enough to have bad aim. It isn't like the GOP didn't try to pass it. It's just that their most conservative members wouldn't vote for it because it wasn't cruel, punishing and vindictive enough on the American people. The Dems wouldn't vote for it because it wasn't nearly as good as the ACA.
Taxpayers will fork over nearly $10 billion more next year to cover double-digit premium hikes for subsidized health insurance under President Barack Obama’s law, according to a study released Thursday.
In reality, I don't think we really have an exact handle on how much this has cost taxpayers in subsidies.
No he didn't but he most certainly felt the DNC did and as we have seen, he wasn't done with politics. He wanted a (D) to follow his term.
Goldman Sachs was Obama's top donor. He wanted them to remain so for the DNC.
You are assuming you know what Obama was thinking - and unless you are claiming to be psychic, that's just not the case. You can of course assume whatever you want - that doesn't make it a fact.
You are assuming you know what Obama was thinking - and unless you are claiming to be psychic, that's just not the case. You can of course assume whatever you want - that doesn't make it a fact.
Ken
He made a campaign promise to prosecute them. He did not. Fact.
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,615,202 times
Reputation: 9169
Quote:
Originally Posted by slo1318
Its not my narrative, its just liberal tears
It IS your narrative, you assert that every single person who voted for Hillary is like those stupid cry babies in the YouTube videos. Don't let some small group like that paint the picture of 65 million people 😒 I'd hope you're smarter than that
You are assuming you know what Obama was thinking - and unless you are claiming to be psychic, that's just not the case. You can of course assume whatever you want - that doesn't make it a fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp
He made a campaign promise to prosecute them. He did not. Fact.
Oh, you mean like when Trump promised that if he won he'd prosecute 'Crooked Hillary?' Got it.
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.
