10,535 pages reduced to 4 sentences.

jwoodie

Platinum Member
Aug 15, 2012
19,276
8,040
940
4 simple sentences -- Great summary by a Notre Dame University Engineer...Here are the10,535pages of Obama Care condensed to 4 simple sentences...As humorous as it sounds... Every last word is absolutely TRUE!
1.In order to insure the uninsured, we first have to un-insure the in
-sured.
2.Next, we require the newly un-insured to be re-insured.
3.To re-insure the newly un-insured, they are required to pay extra charges to be re-insured.
4.The extra charges are required so that the original insured, who became un-insured, and then became re-insured, can pay enough extra so that the
original un-insured can be insured, so it will be ‘free-of-charge’ to them.

This is called "redistribution of wealth."
It is a common procedure incountries that practice SOCIALISM or Communism;
The politically correct name in this country for this practice is Progressivism.
 
4 simple sentences -- Great summary by a Notre Dame University Engineer...Here are the10,535pages of Obama Care condensed to 4 simple sentences...As humorous as it sounds... Every last word is absolutely TRUE!
1.In order to insure the uninsured, we first have to un-insure the in
-sured.
2.Next, we require the newly un-insured to be re-insured.
3.To re-insure the newly un-insured, they are required to pay extra charges to be re-insured.
4.The extra charges are required so that the original insured, who became un-insured, and then became re-insured, can pay enough extra so that the
original un-insured can be insured, so it will be ‘free-of-charge’ to them.

This is called "redistribution of wealth."
It is a common procedure incountries that practice SOCIALISM or Communism;
The politically correct name in this country for this practice is Progressivism.

"The politically correct name in this country for this practice is Progressivism."

You misspelled EMTALA.
 
Begin with link, Hadit. None of you and your assertions count for squat.
 
Why does he need a link. The content of the message spells things out just fine. If he simply stated it himself and he himself was the author it would be fine. The only reason you want a link is so you can discount the original author based on stuff that has nothing to do with what the message stated.
 
Regardless of whom the author may be it sums up the true nature of the bill. To think they spent so much time and money crafting bill is absurd.
 
The OP is merely opinion, nothing more without valid supporting evidence.

It's my opinion that you are a genius. But that does not make it so.
 
The OP is merely opinion, nothing more without valid supporting evidence.

It's my opinion that you are a genius. But that does not make it so.
What about his opinion is wrong? Or are you standing on your moral high ground that because it's an opinion not of your own it's automatically wrong.

What part of Democrats felt we had to fix the problem of uninsured having insurance. So we came up with a plan that would make those who have insurance have to pay more to offset the price of providing the care to the uninsured for free. They set up regulations that made it impossible for insurance companies to make a profit with their current policies and caused them to cancel them forcing the insurers to get new insurance. But only insurance that passed federally mandated bullshit was permitted so the insurers were trapped into subsidizing the poor.

We were already paying the poors medical bills through payments to hospitals in return for forcing them to accept everyone via emergency services without regards to ability to pay. We were already providing the poor with the medical treatments they needed.

If we discovered the cure to old age so that nobody had to die of old age are you going to force them to give it to the poor for free in the name of fairness? It isn't fair to those who pay full fare.
 
These are your silly words, not mine and not how I believe: "Or are you standing on your moral high ground that because it's an opinion not of your own it's automatically wrong." An opinion is not worthwhile unless it can be validated with solid evidence.

What is really happening here is the far right is still ACA butt hurt.
 
These are your silly words, not mine and not how I believe: "Or are you standing on your moral high ground that because it's an opinion not of your own it's automatically wrong." An opinion is not worthwhile unless it can be validated with solid evidence.

What is really happening here is the far right is still ACA butt hurt.
What is incorrect about my silly words.
Or, what is incorrect about the ops.
You have nothing to counter the words.
 
These are your silly words, not mine and not how I believe: "Or are you standing on your moral high ground that because it's an opinion not of your own it's automatically wrong." An opinion is not worthwhile unless it can be validated with solid evidence.

What is really happening here is the far right is still ACA butt hurt.
What is incorrect about my silly words.
Or, what is incorrect about the ops.
You have nothing to counter the words.
When you do more than assert then I can give a rebuttal.

I am not going to exchange words in an opinion war.
 
These are your silly words, not mine and not how I believe: "Or are you standing on your moral high ground that because it's an opinion not of your own it's automatically wrong." An opinion is not worthwhile unless it can be validated with solid evidence.

What is really happening here is the far right is still ACA butt hurt.
What is incorrect about my silly words.
Or, what is incorrect about the ops.
You have nothing to counter the words.
When you do more than assert then I can give a rebuttal.

I am not going to exchange words in an opinion war.
But you are exchanging words. You keep replying bullshit without explaining why it's bullshit or what specifically is bullshit about it as if your God almighty and we have to abide by what you say.
 

Forum List

Back
Top