Really? Now you are citing the same hack but on his radio talk show (with even fewer listeners than his MSNBC show) for a inflamatory remark three years ago?
You gotta have something better than that.
Where's the annihilation?
Where are the really scary threats for being critical?
December 9, 2013 at 10:16 p.m.
Aw come on now, I expect better than that.A comment by a hack on a station no one watches and said over 4 years ago.
Are you really that thin skinned?
Where's the "threat of annihilation"?
December 9, 2013 at 2:56 p.m.
Not close enough,
I'm straight out challenging your BS. If you have any facts and names spit them out. "a fat slob on CNBC" isn't specific enough.
December 8, 2013 at 11:03 p.m.
Eivo,Still waiting for your answer to #20. .......So far crickets......
December 8, 2013 at 9:59 p.m.
eivo...still waiting for your citation of a specific threat of annihilation that you think was on CNBC.....
You agree that the media (in general) was critical of the healthcare website. Doesn't that contradict Joe's position that "The media... have elected not to offer even the slightest criticism of government... "
December 8, 2013 at 5:38 p.m.
1)Please identify Obama's news media.Then cite a specific threat of annihilation.
2) Was "the media" critical of the healthcare website nor not?
December 8, 2013 at 3:01 p.m.
Joseph is one very sick man.
Republicans and Democrats may have sharp differences, but I don't recall either "threatening annihilation", or summary destruction of persons with a contrary viewpoint.
Joe's brave hero's, Cruz and Lee, have not made claims that the Democrats made such threats.
Joe's criticism of the media ("not the slightest criticism of the government") demonstrates how out-of-touch he is. October and November's main stream media coverage of the healthcare website was universally critical.
If Waltenbaugh really believes his editorials, and not just seeking notoriety/publicity, he really needs professional help.
December 8, 2013 at 1:44 p.m.
1) Are you saying that the insurance industry would have a “sweet deal” under a single payer system??? Your contention has been that the ACA (that actually drives business to the insurance industry) was “designed to fail” presumably so that it could be replaced with single payer. I’m suggesting that a single payer system would devastate the health care insurance industry.
2) 2.7 million Americans, will actually receive physical checks, or direct refunds to their credit or debit cards…. The largest average rebates will be seen in Washington state, where 3,007 consumers will receive an average $512 this summer. In Massachusetts, more than 473,000 people will see an average rebate of $457.
3) The only debatable argument relative to the number of pages in PL111-148 is the formatting. The version certified by the Superintendent of Documents of the PPACA is found at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111.... This version is 906 pages, there is nothing condensed or consolidated. If the same text is reprinted with 2.5 line spacing is becomes more like the number 2000, but it is the same number of words. It is a silly argument to somehow suggest that the value of a law is associated with the number of pages it is printed on. After I actually looked at the amendments, it is equally ridiculous to suggest that those amendments added tens of thousands of pages to PPACA.
For your consideration… Yesterday’s (11/3/13) front page article titled “Loss of Insurance Baffles some Ohioians”. The couple featured in this article had the same issue that you raise about coverage that they don’t need. In particular this 64 year old couple were objecting to being offered maternity coverage. Now, with the help of the Dayton paper they actually went on the HC.gov website and found a better policy: “But when the newspaper helped him view different options available through the federal government’s online marketplace, HealthCare.gov, Moyer discovered he could find better coverage for $100 less than the $800 per month he’s paying for coverage.”
November 4, 2013 at 12:45 p.m.
1) Your contention was that the insurance companies authored the ACA and that it was designed to fail. I watched/read your links but it still doesn’t explain why the insurance companies would author something that would lead to a single payer (government) system. A single payer system would effectively kill the health care insurance industry.
2) No I didn’t get a refund, because my insurer certified that their overhead (including profit) was less than 20%. However an estimated $1.1 billion -- came in rebates to consumers required because insurers had exceeded the required limits. (http://articles.latimes.com/2012/dec/...)
3) No response needed (however I can see a potential for abuse by the insurance companies. In short, at the end of 2011 or 2012 just change an existing plan “just a little bit” so that you can avoid grandfathering))
4) The link I gave is for the certified GPO text of PL-111-148, There is nothing consolidated about it. The principle reason it is different is because your link is to a double spaced version with wider margins. The words of the Act are the same.
I looked at the amendments to PL-111-148 (PPACA) as reported by CRS to Tom Coburn on Sept 5 2013. CRS, in the report to Sen. Tom Coburn, said all sides have already agreed to 14 laws that changed parts of Obamacare, though they were USUALLY MINOR changes or clarifications. (www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep...)
I went through the full text of the CRS report, and closely examined the first 7 amendments. The first two amendments added 37 words and modified 36 words respectively. The next PL 111-226 dealing with the FAA clarifies FAA regulations by the addition of 23 words to the FAA Modernization act.The next PL111-309 (8 pages) amends with Medicare and Medicaid Extenders act that postpones cuts to physicians (the so-called doctor fix). The next PL 111-312 (31 pages) The unemployment reauthorization act mentions PL111-148 but does not amend the act.The next PL111-383 adds 7 words to the National Defense authorization act for 2011, it makes no changes in the ACA, but includes Tricare coverage for dependants less than 26, so as to be in compliance with ACA.
At that point, I gave up. So far out 7 of the 14 amendments have not added or detracted substantially from the ACA as was written……
Your contention that these changes added pages to the law is incorrect, at least not to the extent of doubling the page count.
I think that you are just repeating what your conservative / tea party bloggers want you to believe.
The more important thing for you to do is to protect your family the best you can, and if that means buying on the Obamacare exchange or accepting a subsidy, so be it.
But railing about Obamacare is just venting, it does nothing to help your family.
November 3, 2013 at 1:18 p.m.
@dontbeafool,Yes, maybe I am being foolish when I try to engage people in a rational (non-extremist) discussion. I'm detecting that one of the tactics used by the Fox / Newsmax / WND / MRC devotees is to dilute the discussion with other non-pertient issues.For example, I just don't get the connection betwen who went to Princeton with Michele Obama and the Obamacare law. (If Issa's committee wants to examine that - well OK, but it has more to do with the website than it does with the law)
Similarily It is petty to be arguing that the GPO certified Public Law is 2,000 pages versus 900 pages, when the apparent difference that the 2000 page version is double spaced with extra wide margins. Double spaced or not, the law is the same. (but it makes for dandy diversion to claim that the law is 11,000 pages)
76Ytown has exhibited that she is occasionally been willing to at least listen to, and research a more moderated, less hyperbolic conversation. To that I give credit, and perhaps some hope.
November 3, 2013 at 10:41 a.m.