Why can't Public Assistance increase?

[dblack]

There's no such thing as 'Freedom & Liberty.' That disappeared a long time ago.

There's freedom and liberty wherever and whenever we act outside the control of the state. But corporatist government becomes more and more pervasive every day.

We are now a nation 'Of the Government/Corporations, for the Government/Corporations, and by the Government/Corporations.' It is what it is.

We can take it back, but not by playing their game.

You'll get as much 'freedom' as the Government/Corporate Elites allow you to have. No more, no less.

Well, they don't (yet) have total control. They're just power-hungry assholes, not gods.

 

[paulitician]

There's no such thing as 'Freedom & Liberty.' That disappeared a long time ago.

There's freedom and liberty wherever and whenever we act outside the control of the state. But corporatist government becomes more and more pervasive every day.

We are now a nation 'Of the Government/Corporations, for the Government/Corporations, and by the Government/Corporations.' It is what it is.

We can take it back, but not by playing their game.

You'll get as much 'freedom' as the Government/Corporate Elites allow you to have. No more, no less.

Well, they don't (yet) have total control. They're just power-hungry assholes, not gods.

Well, i feel they do have total control at this point. Only a Revolution could change things. And we know that ain't gonna happen anytime soon. The Government/Corporate Elites own it all. Most Americans only exist to be their obedient slaves. They're given just enough scraps to keep them obedient and begging for more. It's very sad.

 

[dblack]

There's no such thing as 'Freedom & Liberty.' That disappeared a long time ago.

There's freedom and liberty wherever and whenever we act outside the control of the state. But corporatist government becomes more and more pervasive every day.

We are now a nation 'Of the Government/Corporations, for the Government/Corporations, and by the Government/Corporations.' It is what it is.

We can take it back, but not by playing their game.

You'll get as much 'freedom' as the Government/Corporate Elites allow you to have. No more, no less.

This sums up my response:

It gets right to the heart of the matter. No matter how much authority a government may claim, their real ability to control us is entirely dependent on our willingness to play along.

 

[Redfish]

Well, of course he did. His own party figuratively tarred, and feathered him over it. Then there was his unemployment that you guys want to ignore. His massive increases in government spending. His tripling of the budget deficit. Then, of course, there's the Iran/Contra deal you guys want everyone to forget about. Oh, and shall we discuss the economic sanctions against South African Apartheid that only happened in spite of a Reagan veto? And, finally, let's not forget about Reagan's arming, funding, and training a Mahujaden warrior name osama bin Laden, because he was a convenient tool to use against Russia. You guys want to insist that 9/11 only happened because Clinton didn't take out bin Laden during his administration, but the reality is bin Laden would never have had the training, or the equipment to even be a threat, had it not been for Saint Ronnie.

First off, Presidents don't triple of double budgets or debt, that's what the Congress does which was Democrat during the Reagan administration.

So, the last eight years of Republicans talking about how Obama tripled the debt was all a lie? Well, thanks for that.

Secondly, I don't know how old you are, but if you are older, then you remember how worn out the US was with war. It was not all that long after the end of Vietnam, so why not let others fight our battles for us?

I don't have a problem with others fighting our battle for us. I have a problem with stupidly choosing our "allies of the day". We put the Ayatollah in place. We put Hussein in power. We trained the mujahideen, who would become Al Qaida. We supported the new regime in Iraq that ousted all of the Bathist leaders who would go on to form the core of the ISIS leadership. Do you see a pattern developing here. As far as the Iran/Contra thing, I have no problem with it, except...welll...brokering the deals the way we did? It broke the law. You guys are shitting yourselves over some e-mails, and this fuckwit of a president armed the Columbian Drug Cartels, and the very terrorists who are killing everyone now! But...since it was Saint Ronnie, that's okay, right?

Bin Laden? I don't know anybody that blamed 911 on Clinton not getting Bin Laden. Although I have heard some make reference to it when the left places the blame of 911 entirely on Bush. After all, there were two attacks on the WTC: the first one did happen under Clinton, and the second under Bush. The one under Bush was just more devastating.

Then you haven't been paying attention to the right wing rants about 9/11. Every time someone mentions that that happened under Bush's watch, the go to response is to scream, "But Clinton knew about him, and didn't get him! It's all his fault!!!!"

Obama doubled it. 10T when he came in and 20T when he goes out. He will have added more debt than all previous presidents combined------------that is a fact, deal with it and stop lying.

No he didn't. Ray just said the President has nothing to do with that. That is Congress. You knows...that Republican congress that we have. So, you, and Ray might wanna get your stories straight. Either it is the President's responsibility, or it isn't. You two seem to disagree on that...

You libs hold Reagan and Bush responsible for what happened during their time, so Obama is responsible for what happens during his time. It has to go both ways.

Obozo had both houses of congress for his first 2 years and did absolutely nothing-----------except pass a dems only bill that is destroying the best medical system in the history of the world. "if you like your plan you can keep it" lie. "average premiums will go down by $2500/year" lie. If you like your doctor, you can keep him" lie. "ACA will reduce the debt" lie. "it was caused by a video" lie. "this will be the most transparent administration in history" lie.

 

[Czernobog]

Not really because much of the spending took place under a Democrat Congress. Furthermore is that the biggest fights between DumBama and the Republican Congress has been about spending. Congress kept wanting to spend less while DumBama kept wanting to spend more. The sequester, the government shutdown, losing our three star credit rating for the first time in our history all had to do with the spending discrepancies between the White House and Congress. And if we had a Republican President these last four years, not only would spending be way down, but we would probably have a balanced budget by now.

Oh,that's rich! "Budget deficits are not the President's fault...until it's convenient for us to blame the President". I will not even dignify that bit of intellectual dishonesty with a response.

I don't know if it was okay or not because it didn't effect anybody in our country. Arming our border enemies is a little different--especially when one of our agents was shot and killed with a weapon that was purchased through that program.

And these e-mails should be a concern. Now if Hillary was honest and just allowed our agencies to look through them, fine. But when you start erasing evidence, of course that's a problem for somebody running for the highest office in the land. If you are going to erase emails, apparently there are things in there she didn't want anybody to see, and no, not anything about yoga classes or her daughter's wedding.

With her crackerjack server that just about anybody could have gotten into, our enemies may very well have sensitive or classified information about our country that they can use to blackmail Hillary if she's elected President. Yes, that is a concern of ours and should be of yours as well.

Again, what Reagan had North do was a crime. Simple as that. In addition, the arming of these enemies that we call allies when it is convenient, do end up affecting people in our country. Although, in all fairness, one cannot, exactly, hold Ronnie entirely accountable for that. After all, we seem to have a really bad habit of doing that going all the way back to Eisenhower. We just seem to be really bad at picking our "allies", and should stop trying to meddle in who should run countries over in the Middle East - we suck at it.

Already dealt with the rest of the post so...

 

[Redfish]

Statistically speaking, it's a no-brainer to say that there will always be a 1%. It's what that 1% controls in terms of wealth that is the issue.

Apparently, you don't understand what percentages mean. The Top 1% refers to the people who control the top 1% of wealth. The top 1% of wealth is the same regardless of how much wealth there is... it's a percentage of the total.

Here's where there is a difference... In a Communist style system, the Top 1% are the ruling class who also control all political power, all the weapons, all the press, etc. In OUR system, anyone is free to become part of the 1% and anyone can control political power, weapons or access the press.

The "issue" is... you've been brainwashed by socialists trying to promote Marxism. That's the precursor to Communism. The reason is, because they want to be the ruling class or 1%. And they want you to submit your liberty and power to them. You've bought into their rhetoric because you're selfish and think that people who have more than you don't deserve it. You think that somehow, if you support this War on the 1%, you will eventually see some kind of windfall of all that wealth.... the socialists who are feeding you this crap have a name for you.... Useful Idiots.

No, I promote a mix of capitalism and socialism that you find in other first-world countries whose populations haven't been stupefied by the constant barrage of bullshit like you espouse.

We already have that. What you want is more socialism and less capitalism----------like they have in the failed states of Europe.

 

[Czernobog]

Well, of course he did. His own party figuratively tarred, and feathered him over it. Then there was his unemployment that you guys want to ignore. His massive increases in government spending. His tripling of the budget deficit. Then, of course, there's the Iran/Contra deal you guys want everyone to forget about. Oh, and shall we discuss the economic sanctions against South African Apartheid that only happened in spite of a Reagan veto? And, finally, let's not forget about Reagan's arming, funding, and training a Mahujaden warrior name osama bin Laden, because he was a convenient tool to use against Russia. You guys want to insist that 9/11 only happened because Clinton didn't take out bin Laden during his administration, but the reality is bin Laden would never have had the training, or the equipment to even be a threat, had it not been for Saint Ronnie.

First off, Presidents don't triple of double budgets or debt, that's what the Congress does which was Democrat during the Reagan administration.

So, the last eight years of Republicans talking about how Obama tripled the debt was all a lie? Well, thanks for that.

Secondly, I don't know how old you are, but if you are older, then you remember how worn out the US was with war. It was not all that long after the end of Vietnam, so why not let others fight our battles for us?

I don't have a problem with others fighting our battle for us. I have a problem with stupidly choosing our "allies of the day". We put the Ayatollah in place. We put Hussein in power. We trained the mujahideen, who would become Al Qaida. We supported the new regime in Iraq that ousted all of the Bathist leaders who would go on to form the core of the ISIS leadership. Do you see a pattern developing here. As far as the Iran/Contra thing, I have no problem with it, except...welll...brokering the deals the way we did? It broke the law. You guys are shitting yourselves over some e-mails, and this fuckwit of a president armed the Columbian Drug Cartels, and the very terrorists who are killing everyone now! But...since it was Saint Ronnie, that's okay, right?

Bin Laden? I don't know anybody that blamed 911 on Clinton not getting Bin Laden. Although I have heard some make reference to it when the left places the blame of 911 entirely on Bush. After all, there were two attacks on the WTC: the first one did happen under Clinton, and the second under Bush. The one under Bush was just more devastating.

Then you haven't been paying attention to the right wing rants about 9/11. Every time someone mentions that that happened under Bush's watch, the go to response is to scream, "But Clinton knew about him, and didn't get him! It's all his fault!!!!"

Obama doubled it. 10T when he came in and 20T when he goes out. He will have added more debt than all previous presidents combined------------that is a fact, deal with it and stop lying.

No he didn't. Ray just said the President has nothing to do with that. That is Congress. You knows...that Republican congress that we have. So, you, and Ray might wanna get your stories straight. Either it is the President's responsibility, or it isn't. You two seem to disagree on that...

You libs hold Reagan and Bush responsible for what happened during their time, so Obama is responsible for what happens during his time. It has to go both ways.

Obozo had both houses of congress for his first 2 years and did absolutely nothing-----------except pass a dems only bill that is destroying the best medical system in the history of the world. "if you like your plan you can keep it" lie. "average premiums will go down by $2500/year" lie. If you like your doctor, you can keep him" lie. "ACA will reduce the debt" lie. "it was caused by a video" lie. "this will be the most transparent administration in history" lie.

Well, I can only speak for myself there, but under Obama, I went, for the first time in over a decade, from having to rely on public support for medical care (ACCCSS) to finally being able to purchase private insurance, through the market exchange. So, the market exchange, and the ACA was certainly an improvement for me, and my family over the old system.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Well, I can only speak for myself there, but under Obama, I went, for the first time in over a decade, from having to rely on public support for medical care (ACCCSS) to finally being able to purchase private insurance, through the market exchange. So, the market exchange, and the ACA was certainly an improvement for me, and my family over the old system.

I'm sure. But as for myself, I lost my employer healthcare for the first time in over 55 years of my life. And there are millions more like me in the country.

Now I am totally uninsured because according to my agent, I can't buy any insurance until it goes through Commie Care, and I have to wait several months before I can even apply.

 

[Redfish]

First off, Presidents don't triple of double budgets or debt, that's what the Congress does which was Democrat during the Reagan administration.

So, the last eight years of Republicans talking about how Obama tripled the debt was all a lie? Well, thanks for that.

Secondly, I don't know how old you are, but if you are older, then you remember how worn out the US was with war. It was not all that long after the end of Vietnam, so why not let others fight our battles for us?

I don't have a problem with others fighting our battle for us. I have a problem with stupidly choosing our "allies of the day". We put the Ayatollah in place. We put Hussein in power. We trained the mujahideen, who would become Al Qaida. We supported the new regime in Iraq that ousted all of the Bathist leaders who would go on to form the core of the ISIS leadership. Do you see a pattern developing here. As far as the Iran/Contra thing, I have no problem with it, except...welll...brokering the deals the way we did? It broke the law. You guys are shitting yourselves over some e-mails, and this fuckwit of a president armed the Columbian Drug Cartels, and the very terrorists who are killing everyone now! But...since it was Saint Ronnie, that's okay, right?

Bin Laden? I don't know anybody that blamed 911 on Clinton not getting Bin Laden. Although I have heard some make reference to it when the left places the blame of 911 entirely on Bush. After all, there were two attacks on the WTC: the first one did happen under Clinton, and the second under Bush. The one under Bush was just more devastating.

Then you haven't been paying attention to the right wing rants about 9/11. Every time someone mentions that that happened under Bush's watch, the go to response is to scream, "But Clinton knew about him, and didn't get him! It's all his fault!!!!"

Obama doubled it. 10T when he came in and 20T when he goes out. He will have added more debt than all previous presidents combined------------that is a fact, deal with it and stop lying.

No he didn't. Ray just said the President has nothing to do with that. That is Congress. You knows...that Republican congress that we have. So, you, and Ray might wanna get your stories straight. Either it is the President's responsibility, or it isn't. You two seem to disagree on that...

You libs hold Reagan and Bush responsible for what happened during their time, so Obama is responsible for what happens during his time. It has to go both ways.

Obozo had both houses of congress for his first 2 years and did absolutely nothing-----------except pass a dems only bill that is destroying the best medical system in the history of the world. "if you like your plan you can keep it" lie. "average premiums will go down by $2500/year" lie. If you like your doctor, you can keep him" lie. "ACA will reduce the debt" lie. "it was caused by a video" lie. "this will be the most transparent administration in history" lie.

Well, I can only speak for myself there, but under Obama, I went, for the first time in over a decade, from having to rely on public support for medical care (ACCCSS) to finally being able to purchase private insurance, through the market exchange. So, the market exchange, and the ACA was certainly an improvement for me, and my family over the old system.

so paying for it is better for you than getting it free? Is your obozocare premium subsidized by the people paying full premiums? What are your deductibles? when you got it free you had zero deductibles.

I don't think you have thought this through.

 

[Redfish]

Well, I can only speak for myself there, but under Obama, I went, for the first time in over a decade, from having to rely on public support for medical care (ACCCSS) to finally being able to purchase private insurance, through the market exchange. So, the market exchange, and the ACA was certainly an improvement for me, and my family over the old system.

I'm sure. But as for myself, I lost my employer healthcare for the first time in over 55 years of my life. And there are millions more like me in the country.

Now I am totally uninsured because according to my agent, I can't buy any insurance until it goes through Commie Care, and I have to wait several months before I can even apply.

and when you do "qualify" your premiums and deductibles will be higher. What a deal.

 

[Czernobog]

So, the last eight years of Republicans talking about how Obama tripled the debt was all a lie? Well, thanks for that.

I don't have a problem with others fighting our battle for us. I have a problem with stupidly choosing our "allies of the day". We put the Ayatollah in place. We put Hussein in power. We trained the mujahideen, who would become Al Qaida. We supported the new regime in Iraq that ousted all of the Bathist leaders who would go on to form the core of the ISIS leadership. Do you see a pattern developing here. As far as the Iran/Contra thing, I have no problem with it, except...welll...brokering the deals the way we did? It broke the law. You guys are shitting yourselves over some e-mails, and this fuckwit of a president armed the Columbian Drug Cartels, and the very terrorists who are killing everyone now! But...since it was Saint Ronnie, that's okay, right?

Then you haven't been paying attention to the right wing rants about 9/11. Every time someone mentions that that happened under Bush's watch, the go to response is to scream, "But Clinton knew about him, and didn't get him! It's all his fault!!!!"

Obama doubled it. 10T when he came in and 20T when he goes out. He will have added more debt than all previous presidents combined------------that is a fact, deal with it and stop lying.

No he didn't. Ray just said the President has nothing to do with that. That is Congress. You knows...that Republican congress that we have. So, you, and Ray might wanna get your stories straight. Either it is the President's responsibility, or it isn't. You two seem to disagree on that...

You libs hold Reagan and Bush responsible for what happened during their time, so Obama is responsible for what happens during his time. It has to go both ways.

Obozo had both houses of congress for his first 2 years and did absolutely nothing-----------except pass a dems only bill that is destroying the best medical system in the history of the world. "if you like your plan you can keep it" lie. "average premiums will go down by $2500/year" lie. If you like your doctor, you can keep him" lie. "ACA will reduce the debt" lie. "it was caused by a video" lie. "this will be the most transparent administration in history" lie.

Well, I can only speak for myself there, but under Obama, I went, for the first time in over a decade, from having to rely on public support for medical care (ACCCSS) to finally being able to purchase private insurance, through the market exchange. So, the market exchange, and the ACA was certainly an improvement for me, and my family over the old system.

so paying for it is better for you than getting it free? Is your obozocare premium subsidized by the people paying full premiums? What are your deductibles? when you got it free you had zero deductibles.

I don't think you have thought this through.

Well, no. But, since universal healthcare is not an option here, as conservatives shit them selves over that ebul socialized medicine, I do prefer to have my own insurance, so those same conservatives can't ***** that I'm freeloading off of them.

 

[Redfish]

Obama doubled it. 10T when he came in and 20T when he goes out. He will have added more debt than all previous presidents combined------------that is a fact, deal with it and stop lying.

No he didn't. Ray just said the President has nothing to do with that. That is Congress. You knows...that Republican congress that we have. So, you, and Ray might wanna get your stories straight. Either it is the President's responsibility, or it isn't. You two seem to disagree on that...

You libs hold Reagan and Bush responsible for what happened during their time, so Obama is responsible for what happens during his time. It has to go both ways.

Obozo had both houses of congress for his first 2 years and did absolutely nothing-----------except pass a dems only bill that is destroying the best medical system in the history of the world. "if you like your plan you can keep it" lie. "average premiums will go down by $2500/year" lie. If you like your doctor, you can keep him" lie. "ACA will reduce the debt" lie. "it was caused by a video" lie. "this will be the most transparent administration in history" lie.

Well, I can only speak for myself there, but under Obama, I went, for the first time in over a decade, from having to rely on public support for medical care (ACCCSS) to finally being able to purchase private insurance, through the market exchange. So, the market exchange, and the ACA was certainly an improvement for me, and my family over the old system.

so paying for it is better for you than getting it free? Is your obozocare premium subsidized by the people paying full premiums? What are your deductibles? when you got it free you had zero deductibles.

I don't think you have thought this through.

Well, no. But, since universal healthcare is not an option here, as conservatives shit them selves over that ebul socialized medicine, I do prefer to have my own insurance, so those same conservatives can't ***** that I'm freeloading off of them.

you just don't get it. You had access to free medical care before ACA, now you (or someone else) is paying a premium for partial insurance, and you are faced with paying deductibles-------------and you think that's better?

Ask Canadians or Brits about socialized medicine. Ask them how long they have to wait for an MRI or Xray. Ask them why they come to the USA if they have a serious illness.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

and when you do "qualify" your premiums and deductibles will be higher. What a deal.

Yes indeed. I've been warned about that. For any reasonable coverage, the cost to me would be about the same as a small house payment or very fancy SUV.

My life was so much better before DumBama. I didn't have all these costly problems. But hey! The french fry maker at my McDonald's now has health insurance, so I guess that makes me feel all better. I'll just have to quit putting money into circulation in our economy, not make any investments, and continue paying minimum on my debts. And if I complain, the liberals will tell me it's all because of Ronald Reagan.

Isn't liberalism wonderful?

 

[Redfish]

and when you do "qualify" your premiums and deductibles will be higher. What a deal.

Yes indeed. I've been warned about that. For any reasonable coverage, the cost to me would be about the same as a small house payment or very fancy SUV.

My life was so much better before DumBama. I didn't have all these costly problems. But hey! The french fry maker at my McDonald's now has health insurance, so I guess that makes me feel all better. I'll just have to quit putting money into circulation in our economy, not make any investments, and continue paying minimum on my debts. And if I complain, the liberals will tell me it's all because of Ronald Reagan.

Isn't liberalism wonderful?

well said, whats really scary is that most libs don't even understand what they are asking for and how it would hurt them personally.

 

[P@triot]

And let's not even talk about the amnesty he gave to 3 million immigrants.

And why is it you people are so obsessed with granting amnesty? I mean - liberals are the party of unions. Job protection - right? Why would you want 20 million people with the potential to take jobs away from American's at a time when there aren't many jobs thanks to Obama and the Dumbocrats job-killing policies? And why would you liberals want to reward criminals with the highest reward imaginable?

Could it be that libtard realize they can't win clean elections and that they need people from other countries to win?

But...but...Reagan created a Utopia! So, you must be okay with amnesty. After all, the guy who creates Utopia created it with amnesty.

But....but.....I said as CLOSE to utopia as possible. Funny how you misquote when convenient. Even funnier how you run from a question posed to you when it exposes your true agenda.

 

[P@triot]

And let's not even talk about the amnesty he gave to 3 million immigrants.

And why is it you people are so obsessed with granting amnesty? I mean - liberals are the party of unions. Job protection - right? Why would you want 20 million people with the potential to take jobs away from American's at a time when there aren't many jobs thanks to Obama and the Dumbocrats job-killing policies? And why would you liberals want to reward criminals with the highest reward imaginable?

Could it be that libtard realize they can't win clean elections and that they need people from other countries to win?

But...but...Reagan created a Utopia! So, you must be okay with amnesty. After all, the guy who creates Utopia created it with amnesty.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

No,moron. Reagan never promised nor claimed to create a Utopia. That unrealistic nonsense comes from you loons on the Left. What Reagan did promote and prove is that in an imperfect world, individual freedom and limited government provide the best environment for people to improve their own lives.

Hey, fucknozzle. I never said that Reagan claimed to have created a Utopia. Go back and read the threads. P@triot said, "It was the closest to utopia the world has ever seen." I was mocking his characterisation of the Reagan years.

You said it in your post, weasel.

You have to remember - libtards can't even remember what they've said (much less what anybody else has said).

 

[Czernobog]

And why is it you people are so obsessed with granting amnesty? I mean - liberals are the party of unions. Job protection - right? Why would you want 20 million people with the potential to take jobs away from American's at a time when there aren't many jobs thanks to Obama and the Dumbocrats job-killing policies? And why would you liberals want to reward criminals with the highest reward imaginable?

Could it be that libtard realize they can't win clean elections and that they need people from other countries to win?

But...but...Reagan created a Utopia! So, you must be okay with amnesty. After all, the guy who creates Utopia created it with amnesty.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

No,moron. Reagan never promised nor claimed to create a Utopia. That unrealistic nonsense comes from you loons on the Left. What Reagan did promote and prove is that in an imperfect world, individual freedom and limited government provide the best environment for people to improve their own lives.

Hey, fucknozzle. I never said that Reagan claimed to have created a Utopia. Go back and read the threads. P@triot said, "It was the closest to utopia the world has ever seen." I was mocking his characterisation of the Reagan years.

You said it in your post, weasel.

You have to remember - libtards can't even remember what they've said (much less what anybody else has said).

Oh, **** you. I quoted your retarded Utopia comment.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[Czernobog]

And let's not even talk about the amnesty he gave to 3 million immigrants.

And why is it you people are so obsessed with granting amnesty? I mean - liberals are the party of unions. Job protection - right? Why would you want 20 million people with the potential to take jobs away from American's at a time when there aren't many jobs thanks to Obama and the Dumbocrats job-killing policies? And why would you liberals want to reward criminals with the highest reward imaginable?

Could it be that libtard realize they can't win clean elections and that they need people from other countries to win?

But...but...Reagan created a Utopia! So, you must be okay with amnesty. After all, the guy who creates Utopia created it with amnesty.

But....but.....I said as CLOSE to utopia as possible. Funny how you misquote when convenient. Even funnier how you run from a question posed to you when it exposes your true agenda.

What question is that? I missed it. What? Your ignorant question about amnesty? I don't support blanket amnesty. But providing a pathway to citizenship makes a duck ton more sense, is more realistic and certainly less expensive than trying to round up 11 million people to ship out. Especially considering that the vast majority of those people have made a life for themselves, are gainfully employed, and have broken no laws other than coming here undocumented, contrary to the bigoted narrative of the orangutan-haired, carnival barker shitsplat.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[francoHFW]

No he didn't. Ray just said the President has nothing to do with that. That is Congress. You knows...that Republican congress that we have. So, you, and Ray might wanna get your stories straight. Either it is the President's responsibility, or it isn't. You two seem to disagree on that...

You libs hold Reagan and Bush responsible for what happened during their time, so Obama is responsible for what happens during his time. It has to go both ways.

Obozo had both houses of congress for his first 2 years and did absolutely nothing-----------except pass a dems only bill that is destroying the best medical system in the history of the world. "if you like your plan you can keep it" lie. "average premiums will go down by $2500/year" lie. If you like your doctor, you can keep him" lie. "ACA will reduce the debt" lie. "it was caused by a video" lie. "this will be the most transparent administration in history" lie.

Well, I can only speak for myself there, but under Obama, I went, for the first time in over a decade, from having to rely on public support for medical care (ACCCSS) to finally being able to purchase private insurance, through the market exchange. So, the market exchange, and the ACA was certainly an improvement for me, and my family over the old system.

so paying for it is better for you than getting it free? Is your obozocare premium subsidized by the people paying full premiums? What are your deductibles? when you got it free you had zero deductibles.

I don't think you have thought this through.

Well, no. But, since universal healthcare is not an option here, as conservatives shit them selves over that ebul socialized medicine, I do prefer to have my own insurance, so those same conservatives can't ***** that I'm freeloading off of them.

you just don't get it. You had access to free medical care before ACA, now you (or someone else) is paying a premium for partial insurance, and you are faced with paying deductibles-------------and you think that's better?

Ask Canadians or Brits about socialized medicine. Ask them how long they have to wait for an MRI or Xray. Ask them why they come to the USA if they have a serious illness.

Brainwashed, selfish, and short sighted beyond belief. No wonder the rest of the world outside your bubble believes the US RWers are total ignoramuses/idiots/a-holes. Ugly American whack job ring a bell, dupes?

 

[francoHFW]

and when you do "qualify" your premiums and deductibles will be higher. What a deal.

Yes indeed. I've been warned about that. For any reasonable coverage, the cost to me would be about the same as a small house payment or very fancy SUV.

My life was so much better before DumBama. I didn't have all these costly problems. But hey! The french fry maker at my McDonald's now has health insurance, so I guess that makes me feel all better. I'll just have to quit putting money into circulation in our economy, not make any investments, and continue paying minimum on my debts. And if I complain, the liberals will tell me it's all because of Ronald Reagan.

Isn't liberalism wonderful?

Out of control, idiotic Reaganism, not Reagan. At this point, he'd probably be a Dem again...