Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I am WAITING for ANYONE to prove there were 46 million uninsured Americans that wanted health insurance!
I am waiting for anyone to prove a family physician makes $50,000 amputating a diabetic patient's leg!
Did you understand what I wrote?I am WAITING for ANYONE to prove there were 46 million uninsured Americans that wanted health insurance!
I am waiting for anyone to prove a family physician makes $50,000 amputating a diabetic patient's leg!
I'll wait for you to prove a family physician does leg amputations.
Did you understand what I wrote?I am WAITING for ANYONE to prove there were 46 million uninsured Americans that wanted health insurance!
I am waiting for anyone to prove a family physician makes $50,000 amputating a diabetic patient's leg!
I'll wait for you to prove a family physician does leg amputations.
I am 100% confident that no family physician does leg amputations on their diabetic patients!
That's what I'm asking for is for someone to prove differently!
SO your wait and my wait is the same!
The British daily Mail has been cited several times lately, and every one of those times, it has been proven to be bullshit. With accuracy compared with WND or Fox, what idiot would try to prove anything with that rag as a source?Couple of facts that were left out first the claim came from an article in the British Daily Mail Varney simply cited their claim. Second here is what one of the people cited in the article also says. Antos said Good arithmetic doesn't count when it’s based on bad logic Obamacare is expensive and inefficient but this doesn't prove that. Finally while they do rate the 50,000 claim as false nowhere does it state that Obamacare won't cost the taxpayers any money per enrollee or save them money just that it won't cost the taxpayers 50,000 per enrollee.
Fox News pundit says health care law will cost 50 000 per enrollee PunditFact
You know you’re inside the Beltway when a report from the Congressional Budget Office triggers a fusillade of tweets and punditry from partisans spanning the political spectrum. The CBO’s latest prediction on the budget and the economy devotes an entire appendix to the human and fiscal impacts of the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare.
Fox News host and business analyst Stuart Varney helped viewers make sense of some of the hefty numbers from the CBO. Talking with America’s Newsroom host Bill Hemmer, Varney explained that even though the deficit is expected to reach its lowest point of the Obama presidency, it will soon rise again.
"The major reason for this is Obamacare," Varney said. "New figures suggest that Obamacare will be much more expensive than we thought. It will cost $50,000 per enrollee in Obamacare over the next 10 years."
Remember this post of yours and be sure to use it the next time a liberal links them as a source as they have on more than one occasion at least when they agree with what they are saying.The British daily Mail has been cited several times lately, and every one of those times, it has been proven to be bullshit. With accuracy compared with WND or Fox, what idiot would try to prove anything with that rag as a source?Couple of facts that were left out first the claim came from an article in the British Daily Mail Varney simply cited their claim. Second here is what one of the people cited in the article also says. Antos said Good arithmetic doesn't count when it’s based on bad logic Obamacare is expensive and inefficient but this doesn't prove that. Finally while they do rate the 50,000 claim as false nowhere does it state that Obamacare won't cost the taxpayers any money per enrollee or save them money just that it won't cost the taxpayers 50,000 per enrollee.
You can count on it.Remember this post of yours and be sure to use it the next time a liberal links them as a source as they have on more than one occasion at least when they agree with what they are saying.The British daily Mail has been cited several times lately, and every one of those times, it has been proven to be bullshit. With accuracy compared with WND or Fox, what idiot would try to prove anything with that rag as a source?Couple of facts that were left out first the claim came from an article in the British Daily Mail Varney simply cited their claim. Second here is what one of the people cited in the article also says. Antos said Good arithmetic doesn't count when it’s based on bad logic Obamacare is expensive and inefficient but this doesn't prove that. Finally while they do rate the 50,000 claim as false nowhere does it state that Obamacare won't cost the taxpayers any money per enrollee or save them money just that it won't cost the taxpayers 50,000 per enrollee.
Remember this post of yours and be sure to use it the next time a liberal links them as a source as they have on more than one occasion at least when they agree with what they are saying.The British daily Mail has been cited several times lately, and every one of those times, it has been proven to be bullshit. With accuracy compared with WND or Fox, what idiot would try to prove anything with that rag as a source?Couple of facts that were left out first the claim came from an article in the British Daily Mail Varney simply cited their claim. Second here is what one of the people cited in the article also says. Antos said Good arithmetic doesn't count when it’s based on bad logic Obamacare is expensive and inefficient but this doesn't prove that. Finally while they do rate the 50,000 claim as false nowhere does it state that Obamacare won't cost the taxpayers any money per enrollee or save them money just that it won't cost the taxpayers 50,000 per enrollee.
The British daily Mail has been cited several times lately, and every one of those times, it has been proven to be bullshit. With accuracy compared with WND or Fox, what idiot would try to prove anything with that rag as a source?Couple of facts that were left out first the claim came from an article in the British Daily Mail Varney simply cited their claim. Second here is what one of the people cited in the article also says. Antos said Good arithmetic doesn't count when it’s based on bad logic Obamacare is expensive and inefficient but this doesn't prove that. Finally while they do rate the 50,000 claim as false nowhere does it state that Obamacare won't cost the taxpayers any money per enrollee or save them money just that it won't cost the taxpayers 50,000 per enrollee.
Remember this post of yours and be sure to use it the next time a liberal links them as a source as they have on more than one occasion at least when they agree with what they are saying.The British daily Mail has been cited several times lately, and every one of those times, it has been proven to be bullshit. With accuracy compared with WND or Fox, what idiot would try to prove anything with that rag as a source?Couple of facts that were left out first the claim came from an article in the British Daily Mail Varney simply cited their claim. Second here is what one of the people cited in the article also says. Antos said Good arithmetic doesn't count when it’s based on bad logic Obamacare is expensive and inefficient but this doesn't prove that. Finally while they do rate the 50,000 claim as false nowhere does it state that Obamacare won't cost the taxpayers any money per enrollee or save them money just that it won't cost the taxpayers 50,000 per enrollee.The British daily Mail has been cited several times lately, and every one of those times, it has been proven to be bullshit. With accuracy compared with WND or Fox, what idiot would try to prove anything with that rag as a source?Couple of facts that were left out first the claim came from an article in the British Daily Mail Varney simply cited their claim. Second here is what one of the people cited in the article also says. Antos said Good arithmetic doesn't count when it’s based on bad logic Obamacare is expensive and inefficient but this doesn't prove that. Finally while they do rate the 50,000 claim as false nowhere does it state that Obamacare won't cost the taxpayers any money per enrollee or save them money just that it won't cost the taxpayers 50,000 per enrollee.
Link to the bullshit by Daily Mail.
Prove it's a rag. Put your money where your mouth is. And don't bother quoting anything from that left wing piece of shit PunditFact.
Remember this post of yours and be sure to use it the next time a liberal links them as a source as they have on more than one occasion at least when they agree with what they are saying.The British daily Mail has been cited several times lately, and every one of those times, it has been proven to be bullshit. With accuracy compared with WND or Fox, what idiot would try to prove anything with that rag as a source?Couple of facts that were left out first the claim came from an article in the British Daily Mail Varney simply cited their claim. Second here is what one of the people cited in the article also says. Antos said Good arithmetic doesn't count when it’s based on bad logic Obamacare is expensive and inefficient but this doesn't prove that. Finally while they do rate the 50,000 claim as false nowhere does it state that Obamacare won't cost the taxpayers any money per enrollee or save them money just that it won't cost the taxpayers 50,000 per enrollee.The British daily Mail has been cited several times lately, and every one of those times, it has been proven to be bullshit. With accuracy compared with WND or Fox, what idiot would try to prove anything with that rag as a source?Couple of facts that were left out first the claim came from an article in the British Daily Mail Varney simply cited their claim. Second here is what one of the people cited in the article also says. Antos said Good arithmetic doesn't count when it’s based on bad logic Obamacare is expensive and inefficient but this doesn't prove that. Finally while they do rate the 50,000 claim as false nowhere does it state that Obamacare won't cost the taxpayers any money per enrollee or save them money just that it won't cost the taxpayers 50,000 per enrollee.
Link to the bullshit by Daily Mail.
Prove it's a rag. Put your money where your mouth is. And don't bother quoting anything from that left wing piece of shit PunditFact.
Here a few of the more ridiculous ones. Of course, there is always the headline about how food shortages could force us to all become cannibals. Just google Ridiculous Daily Mail headlines, and pick which ever source you chose to believe. there are plenty. It's so bad till there is even a website that automatically produces "Daily Mail" like headlines. The rag is similar to The Onion, but the Onion doesn't act like they expect you to believe it.
Daily Mail-o-matic qwghlm.co.uk
How the Daily Mail escaped censure for its false immigration story Media The Guardian
17 Ridiculous Daily Mail Headlines
Fox News pundit says health care law will cost 50 000 per enrollee PunditFact
You know you’re inside the Beltway when a report from the Congressional Budget Office triggers a fusillade of tweets and punditry from partisans spanning the political spectrum. The CBO’s latest prediction on the budget and the economy devotes an entire appendix to the human and fiscal impacts of the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare.
Fox News host and business analyst Stuart Varney helped viewers make sense of some of the hefty numbers from the CBO. Talking with America’s Newsroom host Bill Hemmer, Varney explained that even though the deficit is expected to reach its lowest point of the Obama presidency, it will soon rise again.
"The major reason for this is Obamacare," Varney said. "New figures suggest that Obamacare will be much more expensive than we thought. It will cost $50,000 per enrollee in Obamacare over the next 10 years."
You mean common sense such as it costs right at 5,000 a year to insure an average individual and if you multiply that times ten years it equals 50,000 and if you multiply that by 27 million people it comes up to 1.35 trillion dollars? That kind of common sense?Fox News pundit says health care law will cost 50 000 per enrollee PunditFact
You know you’re inside the Beltway when a report from the Congressional Budget Office triggers a fusillade of tweets and punditry from partisans spanning the political spectrum. The CBO’s latest prediction on the budget and the economy devotes an entire appendix to the human and fiscal impacts of the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare.
Fox News host and business analyst Stuart Varney helped viewers make sense of some of the hefty numbers from the CBO. Talking with America’s Newsroom host Bill Hemmer, Varney explained that even though the deficit is expected to reach its lowest point of the Obama presidency, it will soon rise again.
"The major reason for this is Obamacare," Varney said. "New figures suggest that Obamacare will be much more expensive than we thought. It will cost $50,000 per enrollee in Obamacare over the next 10 years."
You kinda sorta someway knew that number was bullshit just by looking at it and spending an ounce of common sense.
You mean common sense such as it costs right at 5,000 a year to insure an average individual and if you multiply that times ten years it equals 50,000 and if you multiply that by 27 million people it comes up to 1.35 trillion dollars? That kind of common sense?Fox News pundit says health care law will cost 50 000 per enrollee PunditFact
You know you’re inside the Beltway when a report from the Congressional Budget Office triggers a fusillade of tweets and punditry from partisans spanning the political spectrum. The CBO’s latest prediction on the budget and the economy devotes an entire appendix to the human and fiscal impacts of the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare.
Fox News host and business analyst Stuart Varney helped viewers make sense of some of the hefty numbers from the CBO. Talking with America’s Newsroom host Bill Hemmer, Varney explained that even though the deficit is expected to reach its lowest point of the Obama presidency, it will soon rise again.
"The major reason for this is Obamacare," Varney said. "New figures suggest that Obamacare will be much more expensive than we thought. It will cost $50,000 per enrollee in Obamacare over the next 10 years."
You kinda sorta someway knew that number was bullshit just by looking at it and spending an ounce of common sense.
The maths, they be hard.
