20% of new Obamacare Waivers are restaurants, nightclubs, fancy hotels in Pelosi’s District!

Originally posted by zcflint05
So where exactly is your source for this rather specious claim that they are going to jail people for not having health insurance in the future?

I said it sets a precedent for when they do it. True, I should've said "for when they want to do it", but I'll hold with the hand I was dealt.

Here's a clue: it's not even really a "fine" that you'll be paying if you don't buy--it's something that ultimately comes in or out of your taxes. And for those that can't afford the premiums that go into effect in 2014, there will be financial assistance available.

Soo...your argument here is semantic? OK, so I'll use the word "tax" instead of "fine". If you don't purchase health care, whether or not you want or need it, you'll be subject to a "tax" that isn't levied on someone that purchases insurance. A "tax" of...let's see...carry the one...oh, what the heck. Let's just look at the health care bill itself!

‘‘SEC. 59B. TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE.
20 ‘‘(a) TAX IMPOSED.—In the case of any individual
21 who does not meet the requirements of subsection (d) at
22 any time during the taxable year, there is hereby imposed
23 a tax equal to 2.5 percent of the excess of—
1 ‘‘(1) the taxpayer’s modified adjusted gross in
2 come for the taxable year, over
3 ‘‘(2) the amount of gross income specified in
4 section 6012(a)(1) with respect to the taxpayer.

OK, so it's not a "fine" as defined:

fine
2   [fahyn] noun, verb, fined, fin·ing.
–noun

1.
a sum of money imposed as a penalty for an offense or dereliction: a parking fine.

Hold on to your bologna! Why, it is a fine, after all! Glad that's cleared up!

I feel like I'm posting on a thread where people only get their news from Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, WND and Glenn Beck (who was considered too big of a loon to be even kept on Faux News). It would be futile to ask you to actually broaden your horizons, because your blind hatred for anything even considered "moderate" prevents you from ever fact checking the BS you hear from sources like that through objective outlets, or fact checking sites. Those have a "liberal bias", blah blah, etc, etc.

Whoa there, buddy! Those guys are whackjobs! I only get my information from the source. Like...the actual text of the bill.

But hey, who cares about everyone living longer and better lives if you have to pay 2% more on each paycheck for taxes?

I care, because I'm being forced to buy something I don't need or want. Not only that, even if I'm exempt with a voucher or religious excuse or I'm Nancy Pelosi's love-child, I'm STILL paying for someone else's healthcare via taxation. I care if my family has a better life. If you have one, good on you, but I'm really unconcerned.

And to be more realistic, we could fund all of this by bumping the tax rates on the rich, folks making $250,000 or more. What's even more ironic is while all of you bleat about Obama "raising your taxes", the fact is, unless you're making a quarter of a million dollars, your taxes have DROPPED under the Obama administration. But God forbid the folks living in gated communities in Newport Beach, with yachts, vacation homes, and millions in the bank account have to pay a little more into the system and government that ALLOWED them to make that money.

It's so sad that such a large amount of people in this country are so selfish that they would rather watch thousands die due to lack of insurance because Richie Rich doesn't want to pay more in taxes, so he can go buy another vacation home in the Bahamas.

I have an uncle that makes in excess of $400K a year. One of my brothers makes right at about $250K a year. You know how they make that money? By working hard, showing up on time, and working overtime for over 40 years at the same place. Gosh they sure deserve to be taxed more than we do! Those dirty, rotten scum-sucking bad people! They should care about you and your problems instead of raising a family and living some stupid American dream! RAWR!

And it's so sad that we claim we are an "educated and caring" country, when, unlike every other wealthy country on this planet, we refuse to take care of those of us who can't afford the insanely high cost of prescription drugs, hospital stays, and surgeries.

At last we agree on something. Yes, the FDA is responsible for those costs by imposing ridiculous requirements for FDA approval (an average of 92 months for approval...REALLY?). You were talking about the FDA, right? Or maybe you were talking about insurance fraud?

God Bless America, right?

Progressives believe in Obama.

/TOA

Originally posted by arbitrarygeneraiist
reply to post by spyder550

 

What do you expect from capitalism? Under the law of capitalism, the people are ruled by the almighty dollar.

And under socialism they are ruled by an unwieldy and unyielding bureaucracy. Is there no system that will allow folks to steer their own lives?

Just say "NO" - reject totalitarianism in any form.

Originally posted by AwakeinNM
In a year and a half, the white house socialist rubber stamp will be defeated and Obamacare repealed. I'm not too awful worried about it.

LOL Good luck with that. Who's going to beat Obama, Tim "Yawn" Pawlenty? Serial philanderer and racist Newt Gingrich? The pizza guy who said he wouldn't ever hire a Muslim in his adminstration? (Hint: That's not constitutional) Sarah "Half-Term" Palin? Michele "The Battles of Lexington and Concord" Bachmann? or maybe it's Mittens Romney! The fact that a guy who used to support gay marriage, abortion, and created the blueprint for Obamacare is leading the pack for the GOP is pretty telling of how sorry your field is. And no, Ron Paul's not going to win anything AGAIN, so let's not even go there (He's never topped 5% in a poll).

The fact is, Sarah, Newt, or Michele could win the primary, but wouldn't stand a chance in the general election. Newt would fare OK but we'd still be able to go to bed early on election night. Sarah or Michele getting nominated would lead to a 1984 Reagan-esque victory by Obama.

Short of Ronald Reagan rising from the grave, you guys are pretty much toast, although watching Barack make any of your candidates look like fools during the general election debates will be entertaining to say the least.

In fact, to back that up:

Obama hits 60% approval rating

Barack Obama is on the rise. A new Associated Press/​Roper poll taken May 5 — 9 finds 60% of Americans approve of the way Barack Obama is handling his job as president, up from 53% in March, and close to his high of 64% near the beginning of his term, in April and May, 2009. The 60% includes 32% who “strongly approve.” Obama’s disapproval rating is now 39% the lowest since October, 2009. Additionally, 53% — a majority of Americans — believe Obama deserves a second term, while 43% disagree.

(That's an AP poll--so let's not go down the bias route. Not everything is a conspiracy)

Ouch! The problem is, when you guys started going after unions all over the country, you overreached and now people are starting to realize that the GOP just wants to destroy the rights of the American worker. From Maine, where they want to repeal child labor laws, across the public sector where public servants are demonized. 6 Wisconsin Republican state legislators are already in the process of being recalled. Governor Scott Walker will almost surely face a recall election when he is eligible next year. Rick Scott in Florida has an approval rating of 37%. John Kasich in Ohio is at 35%. Meanwhile, the Republican led House is worried more about creating anti-abortion bills, cutting funding to NPR and Planned Parenthood, and spending $500k defending an archaic Defense of Marriage act than creating any sort of jobs, and Paul Ryan's now pissed off about 65% of Americans by trying to phase out Medicare.

None of your candidates are viable, let alone strong enough to compete with Obama in a general election. Minority votes (especially Latino and Asian) are on the rise and will contribute even more to the electorate in the 2012 election than they did in 2008.

You all have one hope, and it's Jon Huntsman. He can win independents, which you do need to win to win a general election. Unfortunately, he's a Mormon who supported civil unions and pro-enviromental legislation while working as the Governor of Utah, and served in President Obama's administration. Good luck with getting HIM out of the primary.

Maybe you'll have 2016, because that's when all the smart, intelligent Republicans are waiting to run, if you haven't noticed. And by then, most Americans will realize that allowing your older adult children onto your health insurance is a nice thing, they will enjoy not being disqualified from health insurance due to pre-existing conditions, not having lifetime caps on coverage (especially the really sick people), and insurance companies not being able to jack up rates whenever the hell they feel like it, for whatever reason ($$$) they feel like it.

Jesus, you guys don't even have the national defense issue on your side anymore. Bush spiked the ball on OBL on the 50 yard line and Barack had the balls to take it to the house and actually get the guy caught.

Oh--and now only 32% of Americans see your beloved "Tea Party" in a favorable light:

Politico

Good luck in 5 years.

Originally posted by spyder550
Clearly nobody wants Obamacare -- should be clearly Tea Baggers don't want healthcare

I knew that was coming. Mindless Obamabots are incapable of discussing politics without namecalling because you all think it's some kind of wildcard that trumps all logic.

As for Obamacare, you know as well as anyone that if it were put to a vote by the American people, it would have died a very quick death, however that means nothing to you because you high and mighty libs know what's best for all of us.

If the elitist Washington scum like Pelosi had to abide by the same rules that we do, you better believe she would have read every last page of the bill before she voted for it, and then she never would have voted in favor, as evidenced by the facts outlined title of this thread, and yet you defend her, no matter what she does, and keep voting her back in.

How you people keep begging her to use you like mindless sheep amazes me beyond words.

Originally posted by AntiNWO
Mindless Obamabots are incapable of discussing politics without namecalling because you all think it's some kind of wildcard that trumps all logic.

I just wanted to quote you before you realized what you wrote and fixed it. This kind of thing is what I keep coming back for. Those "Obamabots" and their darn name calling.

one has to wonder, if so many need to be exempted from this law, isn't there something definately wrong with the law??? and when you consider the state of the US economically along with the political climate, is it really reasonable to believe that the funds and will power will remain to bring the entire bill on line? I don't think we will see the entire healthcare package come online, there will be bits and pieces.....and well, the worst situation that I can see developing would be to have that mandate that we all have to have it stick, but any assistance for the people and businesses who can't financial absorb the cost get struck down in the name of budget cutting!! and then of course, we can have these waivers for a select few of those who are getting slammed to opt out! and well, every four to eight years when the power in washington changes hands, they can just revoke those waivers they don't like, and offer new waivers to those that they like......and we can effectively kill much of our business sector along with making alot of people miserable.......
AND STILL, WE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO AFFORD OUR HEALTHCARE!!! we will just have this useless insurance with it's high deductables and copays and the oh, we don't want to pay for that!!!
the fact that they have to hand out so many waivers seems to be proof enough that this bill needs to be shot down and head back to the drawing board!

reply to post by nenothtu


That means when you get sick I get to pay for it while you are enjoying a free ride. Begger.

reply to post by dawnstar


You have no idea what the waivers are pages and pages of debate and you still get it wrong. Not talking politics hate dont hate shades of gray -- we are talking a simple fact with maybe three plain english sub facts and you still get in wrong -- unbelievable.

reply to post by AntiNWO

I knew that was coming. Mindless Obamabots are incapable of discussing politics without namecalling because you all think it's some kind of wildcard that trumps all logic.

Pot...meet Kettle.

Did you really just try to bash someone for "namecalling" while doing the exact same thing???

I love the fact that people here, on a conspiracy site, where most of the US members are very suspicious of the Govt as a whole, and a percentage of those are just blind followers of bigger and more controlling Govt. The same Govt that has us in 2 theaters of war, with 2 more on the way, lies, cheats and steals everything they can get their hands on, violates laws and the constitution on a daily basis, yet those same people will turn a blind eye when "their" party is in power.
OutKast and Spidey, you 2 are an utter joke.
I am willing to bet that you were against the war during the Bush years, against the taxes set in place during the same years and against almost everything Bush implemented.
Now, since Obama is in power, you blindly march behind him, leading the US over the cliff.

But, hurray for bigger, more powerful and more controlling Govt.
I do admit, at least Spidey offered some sites as sources. OutKast, you are a true shining example of the Sol Alinsky way.

Originally posted by nenothtu


It's my understanding that the term "teabagger" is a perjorative, akin to the "N" word. Please refrain from using it, and in particular making blanket applications of it, as you've done here. Epithets and smears are unbecoming of civil discourse.


I am all of the above - right wing, sick, poor, and uninsured - and I want NO part of this "plan" that Obama and company have foisted off on America. I prefer to make my own choices and decisions, not delegate them to Big Brother. I'm quite capable to determine whether or not I want to throw what money I have away on this corporate lottery they've set up.

Tell you what we'll quite using "Tea Bagger" if you quit using "Obamacare" Though to be fair you picked out Tea Bagger.

as far as being sick and uninsured -- I am not poor life has been very rewarding to me. You have made a choice to be my burden, because poor/middle class hell even wealthy in this country can not afford to be self insured. Bragging about the fact pretty much says I'm a leech screw you.

But since you are my burden because you will be taken care of through expensive public services or the ever popular emergency room visit because they are free -- please quit pissing and moaning when I want a more equitable and less expensive way to take care of myself my family and the freeloaders who take pride in refusing to get insurance.

Don't say I am just going to crawl under a bridge and die. This country is not totally right wing there are still people who have some compassion and they will take care of you imaginary gladiator ass. If this galls you get it (Gaul gall) and you want to go it alone there are countries that would love to have you -- well they actually could care less if you came or went -- you might try Somalia its nice or Afganistan we'll be out of there soon -perhaps Haiti its close.

Originally posted by beezzer
If this doesnt convince the kool-aid drinkers that Pelosi and Co. aren't a bunch of elitist nuts, then nothing will.

It won't. They are so bound by their partisan "till death do us part" mentality, they will defend anything by deflecting to something a republican did. That's their defense for everything. Nixon was a crook so it's okay for Queen Nancy to be corrupt, Bill Clinton to be a womanizer, the Kennedy's to be philanderers, etc, etc. They get a free pass and will continue to wear their liberal blinders.

Originally posted by General.Lee

Originally posted by beezzer
If this doesnt convince the kool-aid drinkers that Pelosi and Co. aren't a bunch of elitist nuts, then nothing will.

It won't. They are so bound by their partisan "till death do us part" mentality, they will defend anything by deflecting to something a republican did. That's their defense for everything. Nixon was a crook so it's okay for Queen Nancy to be corrupt, Bill Clinton to be a womanizer, the Kennedy's to be philanderers, etc, etc. They get a free pass and will continue to wear their liberal blinders.

And you will wander aimlessly in a beautiful fact free world.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher

The Unconstitutionality of it is your opinion. Since it is current law, it is right now "constitutional". Until the SCOTUS rules otherwise, it will remain constitutional.

I don't recall ever seeing an amendment to the Constitution stating that the powers of congress now have authority to dictate what a business owner provides for its employees?

Just because there is " law " doesn't make it constitutional. Please tell me you don't actually believe that a law stands as Constitutional. If you do believe that.....man are you just dumb!

The whole reason we have " amendments " is so that it is officially recognized.

reply to post by spyder550


Thank you for trying to coherently address these morons. They can't seem to grasp the concept of reading information to back up their ignorance. I'm constantly trying to understand the neocon mind. Its almost as if they want liberals to make fun of them. Walking around parroting information they heard on some biased talk show or from some crack pot who makes moonshine in his basement bath tub down the road is not what normal people would consider a viewpoint. All most people in this thread have proven to me thus far, is that I think they are generally afraid that Obamacare will actually work out to be an amazing program for this country. They just want to make sure it is terminated before anything useful can come from it, so they don't have to admit they were wrong.

Originally posted by Drakmarine
reply to post by spyder550

 

Thank you for trying to coherently address these morons. They can't seem to grasp the concept of reading information to back up their ignorance. I'm constantly trying to understand the neocon mind. Its almost as if they want liberals to make fun of them. Walking around parroting information they heard on some biased talk show or from some crack pot who makes moonshine in his basement bath tub down the road is not what normal people would consider a viewpoint. All most people in this thread have proven to me thus far, is that I think they are generally afraid that Obamacare will actually work out to be an amazing program for this country. They just want to make sure it is terminated before anything useful can come from it, so they don't have to admit they were wrong.

You do understand, that while you claim the " neocons ", or right wing, are spreading propaganda, the MSM outlets are predominantly liberally backed, owned, and financed. You do realize that Liberals have never pretended to be champions of small government right? Suggesting that the people from there basements creating moonshine, have no opinion nor have a viable view, only solidifies your arrogance, and judgmental ways. You wish to defend a political party, and trample questions that do not correlate with your ideals, and yet cry foul on those who oppose your views, which contradicts that you wish to decry.

The left vs right paradigm will continue to spread division. That's what it was designed for. The sooner you figure that out, that better off you'll be. The division only grants one thing....power of the masses.

Obamacare will actually work out to be an amazing program for this country.

You have evidence that would support your claim? Or should you follow your own comment:

They can't seem to grasp the concept of reading information to back up their ignorance.

Pot, meet kettle!

You do understand that no where in Article 1 section 8 of the Constitution gives power to the Congress to enact any laws or requirements the mandate what a business owner must do right?

You do realize that it is not the job of Congress to create jobs to begin with, so why should they have " power " over the business owner, if they aren't even in the business of creating jobs?

And you were saying something about ignorance???

reply to post by zcflint05


Quote MSM polls all you want. They are just propaganda. Wait til Ron Paul says some things that makes people engage their brains. Then we'll see where Obama's numbers go.

reply to post by spyder550

Tell you what we'll quite using "Tea Bagger" if you quit using "Obamacare" Though to be fair you picked out Tea Bagger.

That's the funniest thing I have read in a long time. Thanks!!

If I may ask, what is so offensive about the term ObamaCare that it would be on par with the derogatory and sexually-connoted term "tea-bagger"? Just Curious.

ObamaCare is supposed to be the crowning achievement for Obama's first term in office. Why is it that Liberals now see it as a derogatory term? Legislation this grand often takes on the name of the person sitting at the helm.

Remember the "Bush Tax Cuts"?? We're still hearing about those using that exact term. It was much easier to use than to say The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001.

Just like Obamacare is much easier to say and use than The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

Get the picture?? Remember HillaryCare/Clinton health care plan back in 1993 (if you're old enough to remember it)? It was her baby from the get go and hence got the label. It was also a failure much like Obamacare is stacking up to be. I guess that's the real reason why the left is so bent on on the selective application of these labels. You can't have it both ways. Bush Tax Cuts.... Oh that term is so evil I just may cry into my bowl of Liberal Cheerios.

reply to post by Realms


I don't believe I ever made the claim that the MSM was not biased when it came to liberal viewpoints nor would I ever wish for or be a supporter of small government. The only way forward as a species is to unite not be divisive. The only way we can organize on a species level is through some form of government therefore the larger government gets the better. Beauracracy can be eliminated, but organizational structures need to be in place for us to survive in our not too distant future. The only thing your post "solidifies" is that you are capable of misrepresenting other peoples opinions by taking comments out of context and then writing responses to them in attempt to validate your own opinion and therefore, in all likelihood, you are in fact arrogant. I'll admit to some level of hubris, who wouldn't, but what you have attributed to me was not the intent or the meaning of my words. Purpose you need to rethink your critical reading skills and perhaps consider some remedial classes.

I was simply suggesting that neocons were only capable of "parroting" opinions they have heard and not critically thinking for themselves. Obviously this comment is an overgeneralization, but to what extent I'm not sure. However, you have suggested that I do not view their viewpoint as viable. I can think of nothing father from my intent. Anyone can maintain whatever view they wish, which is good for you or else I'm not sure how you'd fit into society, and being critical of others viewpoints is the free expression of ideas championed by our Constitution you so readily brought up.

You quote me as having said, "Obamacare will work out to be an amazingprogram for this country..." First of all, I would like to point out that I said no such thing, I simply suggested that perhaps the reason conservatives are so vehemently opposed to such potentially beneficial legislation is because they are afraid Obamacare will work out fine and then they will look foolish. So you don't get too big of a headache trying to figure out my views on the subject, I'll tell you. I remain indecisive about Obamacare because it hasn't been implemented yet and I am unable to see the results first hand. This is a viewpoint I'm sure any reasonable person could deal with, unfortunately I'm sure I'll be hearing opposition from you shortly.

I've read the constitution, bill of rights, federalist papers, etc. many times and actually have a degree in government with a focus in US governmental history. I'd like to point out that the Constitution is meant to be a living document, as in it can be interpretted in many ways in order for it to be able to adapt to situations the founding fathers could not forsee. In a perfect world, I agree no regulation of business owners large or small would be ideal, but in this world, which I think we both agree is far from perfect, man has proven time and time again that we need regulation to protect those who cannot or will not invest the time to protect themselves. An inconvenient truth for those who champion regulation free business. All that accomplishes is wealth in a smaller percentage of people hands which is not a bad thing if they are fair about its distribution. Liberals are not about redistribution of wealth, we want those who work hard and are succesful to enjoy their just desserts, but many people who are the "elite" have become wealthy through the toil and troubles of exploited peoples.

Anyway I would make some snide comment about you making comments about ignorance, but I think your post was enough for most people. I don't need the laughing emoticons to get my point accross. Try again.

Originally posted by Realms
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

 

The Unconstitutionality of it is your opinion. Since it is current law, it is right now "constitutional". Until the SCOTUS rules otherwise, it will remain constitutional.

I don't recall ever seeing an amendment to the Constitution stating that the powers of congress now have authority to dictate what a business owner provides for its employees?

Just because there is " law " doesn't make it constitutional. Please tell me you don't actually believe that a law stands as Constitutional. If you do believe that.....man are you just dumb!

The whole reason we have " amendments " is so that it is officially recognized.

They are using the Commerece Clause to justify the Constitutionality of it...and so as of right now...it is Constitutional.

Until the SCOTUS says otherwise...it is the law of the land and Constitutional.

Not every law needs to have an ammendment...it just has to comply with the Constitution.


I'll ask you the same question I've asked others. Will you accept the SCOTUS ruling once they rule on the Constitutionality of the law?