A little truth serum about Obamacare

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q...&mid=40A79B602E4BFD95D85D40A79B602E4BFD95D85D So here it is folks. Questions that needed asking, and myths that needed debunking about the ACA, by president Clinton and Obama. It's a pretty long video, and if you seek the truth, you will watch it. If not, you will stay on the course you've been on, of milking the fabrications and misinformation about the ACA, and or hating the president so much, that the ACA is just a vehicle to keep that hate fueled. Even at a cost that it may actually help the very people that hate him at their very core.

Feel free to try and debunk any of this information by Clinton and Obama. But, if you do, I ask on this thread that you limit the rebuttal information to a version of the truth with reliable serious links or facts that suggest what Obama and Clinton say are not true and accurate. HATEFUL ANGRY RANTS DO NOT CONSTITUTE A CONSTRUCTIVE DEBATE, IF WE ARE TRYING TO DISSECT THE FACTS FROM FICTION.

 

And here is more information with a graph that shows the part-time work myths the right have been floating around lately; http://video.msnbc.msn.com/all-in-/53108863#53108863

 

Well if you have been paying attention to recent conservative values, you should know by now that facts, logic, math, science, and reason are all lost on the conservative mind. This onslaught against Obamacare is purely for the sake of political grand standing and the self gratification of trying to stop something that will actually work.

None of this would even be needed is people would just follow the simple logic that if Obamacare is really so bad and terrible, why do the Tea-Partiers have to stop it "before" we find this out? It stands to reason that if they actually think it is the failure they claim it is, they would let it be implimented and let the results speak for them selves, then they would have the American people backing them to have it repealed and defunded, but because they are using extotion tactics just to stop it from even getting started, it shows they are afraid it will actually work and be just as popular as Social Security and Medicare, which nobody is going to vote to defund except the Republican party.

In other words, they don't want either Obama or the Democrats to produce yet another successful piece of legislation they will be praised for while the GOP has done NOTHING to help America in the last 70 years or more. They want people to suffer so they can accuse the left of not doing enough and take over again, but it's the most failed plot yet, but if you understand behavioral characteristics, you can see right through it for what it is.

 

Yeah, that all-caps really drives that point home, doesn't it?

 

I have seen lies from both sides regarding the ACA, but to be honest, virtually everything (not literally) negative I've heard from the right about it has turned out to be false.

 

The truth from The Impeached One and Hussein Obama? Surely you jest.

 

prove them wrong or you are just a sheep of the right wing noise machine.

 

'I did not have sex with that woman.'

 

If nationalized WillardCare portends the collapse of the empyrean as strident poultry are wont to bleat, what is now the law of the land will be extensively amended or repealed, and the President and Democrats blamed for its failure.

The conviction of such a belief is amply demonstrated by those Repubs who are so desperate to spare Mr Obama, Mr Reid, and Ms Clinton such a devastating political set-back, of course.

If it proves as successful as it has for those Americans who have already experienced it for the better part of a decade, it will be embraced by the People.

When some folks point to an extant paradigm and say, "It will work," and others gnash teeth, sport garlic leis, and flail Day-Glo crucifixes at the prospect, sensible folks reason:

"Well, reform was definitely needed.

The model for this approach has worked rather well.

The opponents have offered no alternative.

It was passed by both Houses of Congress, signed into law by the POTUS, and constitutionally validated by the Supreme Court.​

Pragmatism dictates, "Let's try it and see."

 

Was that supposed to make sense, Natty?

 

We'll, we sure know you didn't come to play. You brought no facts to the debate. I new this would be easy.

- - - Updated - - -

If you'd bother to try and dissect his words, they make plenty of sense.

 

You apparently aren't planning on bringing a rebuttal as well to this debate. You folks are dropping like flies. So, am I to assume that Clinton and Obama have it all in order about the ACA? I mean all this talk about how bad Obamacare is. It's going to destroy the country. Premiums are going to go up. Obamacare is filled with lies. Really? We'll, Clinton and Obama are calling out the right-wing naysayers on this giving as much detail about the law as they can and the right is all silent. Surely with so much misinformation being thrown around by Obama and Clinton, the right-wing haters of Obamacare shouldn't have any trouble trampling all over the facts put out by these two. And so far, I haven't heard a pin drop. Come on haters. Let's see what you've got.

 

Your grammar is somewhere south of terrible.

 

No myth about the jobs

http://http://www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/commentaries/Full-Time-vs-Part-Time-Employment.php

 

One truth you can never debunk is the fact that insurance premiums and or fines are going to PEGGED to the astronomical cost increase of healthcare costs each year. A nightmare for people that actually pay taxes.

 

Like I said before. Attach that truth to a credible source instead of leaving your own post void of that truth.

- - - Updated - - -

My bad grammar will never fix your inability to produce facts that debunk the claims made by Clinton and Obama. It's obvious you won't be playing this game either.

 

Your link wouldn't come up.

 

Have you noticed there have been very few replies to the Clinton and Obama sit down discussion on getting this ACA information out there to people? And with the rights number one agenda to defund and get rid of it, you would think there would have been a massive attack of those facts of Clinton and Obama to debunk their information. I've hardly heard a peep.

 

U

The first http:// needs to come out and it won't let me edit it.

 

When I clicked on the link, it took me to a list of videos none of which indicated a topic you suggested.

 

Socialism doesn't pay for itself.

 

Im watching now, but the idea that statistics, facts, and information can lead to a predetermined success of an idea or method teeters on the bounds of multiple logical fallacies. From what I have learned, there are two thoughts, that high insurance premiums are because of a "lack" of free market fundamentals which, in other industries have proven to keep costs low. The other, is that those who can not afford, does not want to purchase, or does not get their insurance through their employer causes premiums to rise for those who do aka, increasing health care costs. What troubles me about the latter, is that the insurance industry is not the medical industry, they are separate obviously. They work together, but to put them together would be like lumping the automotive industry together with the oil industry.

ObamaCare proponents explain the increase in insurance premiums by blaming costs in emergency rooms. Using the conclusion above, that insurance companies are not hospitals or emergency rooms, we must accept that the root cause of the rise in cost, happens at emergency rooms, and not at the insurance level. To further back this statement up, is that 80% of people in the U.S. are covered by a health insurance of some sort, which points me to think that premiums are not that high, not be such a "crisis." Basically I find their premise to be inaccurate. I'll explain my theory:

Health insurance premiums are not rising due to a lack of participation in the health insurance industry, it is rising at the hospital level because those who do not have health insurance privately, get a government guarantee through social security, medicare, and medicaid and suffer no personal benefit at all. The mere fact that the government continues to increase and increase its participation in healthcare is a much more economic explanation historically to inflate costs in many industries. IF you separate people from costs but allow them to purchase, as through credit, or through no burden at all, the ability to decide to purchase is much easier to make, since money is not coming directly out of your pocket at that time. We can see this same phenomenon in Higher Education where since students don't have to pay immediately, they are willing to take out mortgage sized loans without taking a second look at the implications, or with Credit and the fact that the U.S. consumer debt is equal to the U.S. national debt at around 15 or 16 trillion dollars.

I simply find it hard to believe that 20% of people who do not purchase health insurance can transfer a burden of rising costs on the rest of the 80% who effectively pay for insurance. I think the hospitals, like all other businesses, will accept medicare, medicaid, and social security because there is a low oversight, no consequences to the customer, and a seemingly endless cash flow. The idea that large stimulus money or large subsidies in markets will not inflate prices in other areas of that industry is inconsistent to much of economic history.

Another thing right off the bat, the president states that the U.S. is the only industrialized nation that does not offer health care to their entire population. Its not true. Social security, medicaid, and medicare serve as socialized health programs. Also, ACA is not socialized medicine, the system that those other countries use. So he starts with a false statement and a false premise. He talks about spending the same amount of money as Canada, France etc.. if we adopt similar health systems. Well, those countries have 1/4-1/3 of our populations. The French and Canadians not only have vastly smaller populations, they ration their care for serious illness like Cancer.

Im still watching, but I find many flaws in the logic, and the discussion.

 

'I was only reaching under the stall to tie my shoes'.

 

Is that what you told the cop fraudster???

Let me see how does one prove lies wrong? Anyone can generate statistics about anything andy claim nearly anything based on statisitics. For instance when GWB cut taxes the porrest tax payers got a 33% cut. Had those tax cuts been allwoed to expire the tax increase would have been 50%.
For those of you who don't understand the math - probaby 80% of the leftists here - A decrese from 15% to 10% is a reduction of 33% ie 5 divided by 15.while an increse from 10% to15% is an increse of fifty percent or 5 divided by ten. There is a reason you see that Mark Twain once famously said thet there are three kinds of lies; lies, damn lies, and statistics.

First tell me why I should trust anything given me by people who are scarcely unbiased obsdervers?

 

Perhaps you could calm down and focus on a specific question. The poster ridiculed Clinton for getting a BJ. I riciduled the Republcan dude who reached under a stall at a public rest stop to.....get something. Then, you ranted. Want to start again?