Elderly Turn Against Obamacare

[WillowTree]

i wonder if the media is proud of themselves and people like palin...scaring the elderly and the handicap...way to go....



fucking bunch of assholes will do anything to stop any type of reform...reform that is needed...the devil is always in the details but the flat out lying is amazing...

well step up to the plate and explain the eugenicists czars, the 500 billion dollar cuts in medicare,,and the no vote on the Heller amendment..

 

[WillowTree]

well it's good that there is time to hash all of this out and get the truth before all of us....if seniors are being misinformed then there is time to get the truth out, if they are not being misinformed, then there is time to correct it.

best post you ever posted.

 

[The T]

i wonder if the media is proud of themselves and people like palin...scaring the elderly and the handicap...way to go....



Fucking bunch of assholes will do anything to stop any type of reform...reform that is needed...the devil is always in the details but the flat out lying is amazing...

well step up to the plate and explain the eugenicists czars, the 500 billion dollar cuts in medicare,,and the no vote on the heller amendment..

bingo

 

[Sinatra]

Ah yes, look at those who state the elderly who are crying out to have the government keep away from their medicare as "stupid" - and yet, this healthcare bill offers up a half billion dollar reduction in medicare.

These elderly Americans are not stupid, they are simply fearful of what may be coming at them under Obamacare and the Democrat controlled Congress.

And what are the Democrat leaders' response to this concern? To call this citizens ignorant, non-American, racist, and Nazis. The Democrats have managed to do more damage to their own party in the last few weeks than anything the Republicans could have managed to pull off. (which isn't saying much because the Republicans are hardly and better...)

 

[Care4all]

geesus jimminee almighty, for the one hundredth time, the cuts they project to make in medicare spending DOES NOT AFFECT ANY medicare service cuts....they are savings that occurs BECAUSE of the insurance reforms that would take place!

LOOK IT UP for goodness sakes! Can you look it up instead of continually passing along one fricking LIE after another?

WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE that you don't even bother to use the GOD GIVEN brain in your heads????

YOU ALL are just so frustrating, i tell ya!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

care

 

[Ringel05]

Care4all Care4all wrote,

geesus jimminee almighty, for the one hundredth time, the cuts they project to make in medicare spending DOES NOT AFFECT ANY medicare service cuts....they are savings that occurs BECAUSE of the insurance reforms that would take place!

I may have missed this in an earlier post but how would the insurance reforms create these savings. Specifics please, no generalities or theoretical postulations.

 

[Fatality]

New Rasmussen polling indicates a five point drop in support for Obamacare, with the elderly in particular saying no way on the president's plans to expand the government's role in all aspects of health coverage. For those over 65, 56% are opposed to Obamacare and only39% support it.

The group most in favor of Obamacare is the one least impacted - younger voters under the age of 30 - with 67% indicating support of Obamacare. This number will likely fall though when more of them realize that under Obama's plan, they will be required to pay out over $2000 a year in health insurance premiums before a government subsidy would kick in - for a plan this age group will likely use very little if at all.

By then, the old folks won't be the only ones Obama and his Democrats will be calling an angry mob...

good for them, after seeing obama union fags beat up old men an women they know the death panel will be much worse

 

[KittenKoder]

New Rasmussen polling indicates a five point drop in support for Obamacare, with the elderly in particular saying no way on the president's plans to expand the government's role in all aspects of health coverage. For those over 65, 56% are opposed to Obamacare and only39% support it.

The group most in favor of Obamacare is the one least impacted - younger voters under the age of 30 - with 67% indicating support of Obamacare. This number will likely fall though when more of them realize that under Obama's plan, they will be required to pay out over $2000 a year in health insurance premiums before a government subsidy would kick in - for a plan this age group will likely use very little if at all.

By then, the old folks won't be the only ones Obama and his Democrats will be calling an angry mob...

good for them, after seeing obama union fags beat up old men an women they know the death panel will be much worse

Don't insult cigarettes so much.

 

[Fatality]

Eventually, this will turn around and bite the fear mongerers.

I believe the violence caused by these redneck protestors is already back firing

ya those redneck union fags and their violence, obamas brown shirts in action

 

[Meister]

Eventually, this will turn around and bite the fear mongerers.

Glenn Beck already started backing off this afternoon. I believe the violence caused by these redneck protestors is already back firing and now Beck is looking for a way out. Priceless!

There are no numbers to confrim what your stating. Where is the violence? Are you talking about verbal or physical?

 

[Xenophon]

Are they the goons and paid political operatives disrupting all?

 

[MaggieMae]

i wonder if the media is proud of themselves and people like palin...scaring the elderly and the handicap...way to go....



fucking bunch of assholes will do anything to stop any type of reform...reform that is needed...the devil is always in the details but the flat out lying is amazing...

I agree with you Bones. The problem I see is that the bill is well over a 1000 pages of convoluted wording, where it seems that nobody really understands it. Especially the people who are trying to sell it. When a bunch of lawyers set down and write it out, this is what we end up with. A lot of people I know think the government is doing this on purpose to confuse the everyday Americans.
It really does leave the door open for all kinds of interpretation of the Bills wording.
I always believe in the old adage of "Keep it simple stupid."

That's true, but in this day and age anything that huge needs to be written in specific, not broad language. It represents the first major policy change in 70 years, after all.

Remember Hank Paulson's 3-page hair on fire memo to Congress that the sky would fall tomorrow if they didn't pass a bill for an immediate $700 billion bailout of the financial institutions? Now it seems that decision might have been a little too hasty. The bill wasn't forceful enough by demanding that the big banks keep their own toxic assets on their balance sheets instead of pawning them off to others. Those toxic assets still exist, but not on their books and now they're making profits. Again. Sweet.

 

[MaggieMae]

New Gallop poll shows majority sympathize with the health care town hall protestors - and Independents sympathize by a margine of 2 to 1. Even a vast majority of Democrats polled indicated the protests were 'Democracy in action".

New poll highlights health care attitudes - USATODAY.com

I'd recommend the k00ks start doing some housekeeping in their toiletry area's. Put away the razor blades first............then the drugs. Or vise-versa.

Tell it to Glenn Beck. There's something seriously wrong with him. I was married to an alcoholic and I can tell you when they start acting as though they think everyone will BELIEVE they are acting normal, is when they aren't. Beck's little show 'n tell comparing the health care proposal to the rise of Nazism is case in point. The people at the table he was trying to convince were dumbfounded as Beck flailed around wild-eyed with his pointer.

 

[MaggieMae]

i wonder if the media is proud of themselves and people like palin...scaring the elderly and the handicap...way to go....



fucking bunch of assholes will do anything to stop any type of reform...reform that is needed...the devil is always in the details but the flat out lying is amazing...

well step up to the plate and explain the eugenicists czars, the 500 billion dollar cuts in medicare,,and the no vote on the Heller amendment..

We've already been over that in another thread, Tree, just for you. Pay attention.

 

[Meister]

i wonder if the media is proud of themselves and people like palin...scaring the elderly and the handicap...way to go....



fucking bunch of assholes will do anything to stop any type of reform...reform that is needed...the devil is always in the details but the flat out lying is amazing...

I agree with you Bones. The problem I see is that the bill is well over a 1000 pages of convoluted wording, where it seems that nobody really understands it. Especially the people who are trying to sell it. When a bunch of lawyers set down and write it out, this is what we end up with. A lot of people I know think the government is doing this on purpose to confuse the everyday Americans.
It really does leave the door open for all kinds of interpretation of the Bills wording.
I always believe in the old adage of "Keep it simple stupid."

That's true, but in this day and age anything that huge needs to be written in specific, not broad language. It represents the first major policy change in 70 years, after all.

Remember Hank Paulson's 3-page hair on fire memo to Congress that the sky would fall tomorrow if they didn't pass a bill for an immediate $700 billion bailout of the financial institutions? Now it seems that decision might have been a little too hasty. The bill wasn't forceful enough by demanding that the big banks keep their own toxic assets on their balance sheets instead of pawning them off to others. Those toxic assets still exist, but not on their books and now they're making profits. Again. Sweet.

Well, Maggie if what you say is true, this is just what we can expect. They get the wording just right to where no one understands the thing, and is still left for interpretation.
Remember Bill Clinton's remark in regards to what your definition of "is", is?
Lawyers....go figure.

 

[MaggieMae]

I agree with you Bones. The problem I see is that the bill is well over a 1000 pages of convoluted wording, where it seems that nobody really understands it. Especially the people who are trying to sell it. When a bunch of lawyers set down and write it out, this is what we end up with. A lot of people I know think the government is doing this on purpose to confuse the everyday Americans.
It really does leave the door open for all kinds of interpretation of the Bills wording.
I always believe in the old adage of "Keep it simple stupid."

That's true, but in this day and age anything that huge needs to be written in specific, not broad language. It represents the first major policy change in 70 years, after all.

Remember Hank Paulson's 3-page hair on fire memo to Congress that the sky would fall tomorrow if they didn't pass a bill for an immediate $700 billion bailout of the financial institutions? Now it seems that decision might have been a little too hasty. The bill wasn't forceful enough by demanding that the big banks keep their own toxic assets on their balance sheets instead of pawning them off to others. Those toxic assets still exist, but not on their books and now they're making profits. Again. Sweet.

Well, Maggie if what you say is true, this is just what we can expect. They get the wording just right to where no one understands the thing, and is still left for interpretation.
Remember Bill Clinton's remark in regards to what your definition of "is", is?
Lawyers....go figure.

Oh I don't doubt, if it passes at all, that eventually the thing will be capsulized in lay terms just like the skinny Medicare Guidelines are, compared to the actual Medicare bill that got enacted. The mechanisms for putting it together is where it will get sticky, and that process won't even begin for months and months. As I said elsewhere, all we have now is the basic blueprint to work from.

 

[toomuchtime_]

I agree with you Bones. The problem I see is that the bill is well over a 1000 pages of convoluted wording, where it seems that nobody really understands it. Especially the people who are trying to sell it. When a bunch of lawyers set down and write it out, this is what we end up with. A lot of people I know think the government is doing this on purpose to confuse the everyday Americans.
It really does leave the door open for all kinds of interpretation of the Bills wording.
I always believe in the old adage of "Keep it simple stupid."

That's true, but in this day and age anything that huge needs to be written in specific, not broad language. It represents the first major policy change in 70 years, after all.

Remember Hank Paulson's 3-page hair on fire memo to Congress that the sky would fall tomorrow if they didn't pass a bill for an immediate $700 billion bailout of the financial institutions? Now it seems that decision might have been a little too hasty. The bill wasn't forceful enough by demanding that the big banks keep their own toxic assets on their balance sheets instead of pawning them off to others. Those toxic assets still exist, but not on their books and now they're making profits. Again. Sweet.

Well, Maggie if what you say is true, this is just what we can expect. They get the wording just right to where no one understands the thing, and is still left for interpretation.
Remember Bill Clinton's remark in regards to what your definition of "is", is?
Lawyers....go figure.

And it's difficult to believe this is not intentional. All these references to other sections of the bill or to other bills make it almost impossible to read. How about if Congress were required to write out a version in which instead of references to other sections of the bill, everything were fully written out? So what if it took 2000 pages or 3000 or 4000, at least when you wanted to know exactly what sec. 1233 said you could read it all in plain English. How can Obama call on insurance companies to write out their policies in plain English the average consumer can understand and not call on Congress to do the same? Not only would voters have a better understanding of what the bill said, but those in Congress would have a much better understanding of what they were voting on. Doesn't real transparency in government require that Congress do this?

 

[Ringel05]

That's true, but in this day and age anything that huge needs to be written in specific, not broad language. It represents the first major policy change in 70 years, after all.

Remember Hank Paulson's 3-page hair on fire memo to Congress that the sky would fall tomorrow if they didn't pass a bill for an immediate $700 billion bailout of the financial institutions? Now it seems that decision might have been a little too hasty. The bill wasn't forceful enough by demanding that the big banks keep their own toxic assets on their balance sheets instead of pawning them off to others. Those toxic assets still exist, but not on their books and now they're making profits. Again. Sweet.

Well, Maggie if what you say is true, this is just what we can expect. They get the wording just right to where no one understands the thing, and is still left for interpretation.
Remember Bill Clinton's remark in regards to what your definition of "is", is?
Lawyers....go figure.

And it's difficult to believe this is not intentional. All these references to other sections of the bill or to other bills make it almost impossible to read. How about if Congress were required to write out a version in which instead of references to other sections of the bill, everything were fully written out? So what if it took 2000 pages or 3000 or 4000, at least when you wanted to know exactly what sec. 1233 said you could read it all in plain English. How can Obama call on insurance companies to write out their policies in plain English the average consumer can understand and not call on Congress to do the same? Not only would voters have a better understanding of what the bill said, but those in Congress would have a much better understanding of what they were voting on. Doesn't real transparency in government require that Congress do this?

Very good point, one that I hadn't even considered.

 

[oreo]

Can you believe a un-american MOB of 90 year olds doing that? --LOL

 

[bodecea]

New Rasmussen polling indicates a five point drop in support for Obamacare, with the elderly in particular saying no way on the president's plans to expand the government's role in all aspects of health coverage. For those over 65, 56% are opposed to Obamacare and only39% support it.

The group most in favor of Obamacare is the one least impacted - younger voters under the age of 30 - with 67% indicating support of Obamacare. This number will likely fall though when more of them realize that under Obama's plan, they will be required to pay out over $2000 a year in health insurance premiums before a government subsidy would kick in - for a plan this age group will likely use very little if at all.

By then, the old folks won't be the only ones Obama and his Democrats will be calling an angry mob...

good for them, after seeing obama union fags beat up old men an women they know the death panel will be much worse

"beat up old men and women"

I love fish stories. They just keep getting bigger and better.