Republicans supporting the FIRST bill are…. supporting the bill.
Conservative Republicans, on the other hand, have doubts and won’t commit to the FIRST bill as it is currently written.
The Brookings Institution Think Tank says 15 million people will lose coverage, but no other details on the claim are provided. Obfuscating the denial likely means they based THEIR projected loss of coverage on some yet-undisclosed analysis of market dynamics and consumer demand. But I haven’t seen any ACTUAL rates projected to be charged, to see if they are higher than the 15 million can / want to pay. Perhaps the 15 million who lose coverage will ALSO go back to the coverage they were FORCED TO DROP because their prior policies weren’t ACA compliant? If so, the NET change in policies could very well be zero, or close to it.
Further, some of the 15 million to ‘lose coverage’ who paid the tax penalty for a few years, then insured when the penalty increased recently, may be projected to drop the policies they bought in preference to paying a penalty and getting nothing in return.
The infighting among Republicans who are RINOs and Conservative will result in some sort of turmoil, yet to be understood. But it could easily be resolved by changes to the FIRST bill.
I’m highly skeptical of the projected turmoil by Dems and Libitterals who are frustrated by their loss of control over 1/6th of the US economy, and who are now lashing out at Republicans working to replace the ACA before it completely crashes and burns. They’re lying and/ or speculating about dire results for the partially dislcosed ACA R&R plan, and no one in the media will hold them accountable for that in the near future.
Yes, that’s right! I’m speaking the truth about bitter clingers, …ooops, that was Obama’s phrase for people resisting against his Socialist agenda. I’m speaking about Libitterals who vote down conservative comments, had used BOTs until IJ IT staff put in filters to stop multiple votes, and who do not have ANYTHING to say in refutation of my comments… because it’s difficult to refute the truth.
Words are not RANDOMLY capitalized in my posts. They are used in lieu of italicizing, underlining, or bold-ing, to emphasize points that SOME may glean over.
Polar, the bitter Liboterals are at it again on your comments.
There really is a simple way to handle all this. It is called Choice and Competition with the carriers. Most of them are busily re-designing plans that Americans want rather than the mandated plans of the failure ridden Obamacare.
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
Thumb up 10
Thumb down 20
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
A summary of this article is as follows:
Republicans supporting the FIRST bill are…. supporting the bill.
Conservative Republicans, on the other hand, have doubts and won’t commit to the FIRST bill as it is currently written.
The Brookings Institution Think Tank says 15 million people will lose coverage, but no other details on the claim are provided. Obfuscating the denial likely means they based THEIR projected loss of coverage on some yet-undisclosed analysis of market dynamics and consumer demand. But I haven’t seen any ACTUAL rates projected to be charged, to see if they are higher than the 15 million can / want to pay. Perhaps the 15 million who lose coverage will ALSO go back to the coverage they were FORCED TO DROP because their prior policies weren’t ACA compliant? If so, the NET change in policies could very well be zero, or close to it.
Further, some of the 15 million to ‘lose coverage’ who paid the tax penalty for a few years, then insured when the penalty increased recently, may be projected to drop the policies they bought in preference to paying a penalty and getting nothing in return.
The infighting among Republicans who are RINOs and Conservative will result in some sort of turmoil, yet to be understood. But it could easily be resolved by changes to the FIRST bill.
I’m highly skeptical of the projected turmoil by Dems and Libitterals who are frustrated by their loss of control over 1/6th of the US economy, and who are now lashing out at Republicans working to replace the ACA before it completely crashes and burns. They’re lying and/ or speculating about dire results for the partially dislcosed ACA R&R plan, and no one in the media will hold them accountable for that in the near future.
Reply
This isn’t a Republican or Democrat issue for most of us. What we want is a concerted effort by lawmakers and the medical community (of which I’ve seen no ideas – why should they, they love seeing the gov’t paying their bills) to lower cost and provide options. And just because some of us don’t think Trump can deliver doesn’t make us libbitterals (not sure what this is). You see, whenever I pay my monthly health premium I have to pay exact dollars. I can’t use the “don’t take me literally” argument. This problem is much more complex than picking a side (your path) and following a party.
Key distinction that you are missing; the government is merely an intermediary for forwarding the money taxpayers pay (indirectly) to medical care pros and hospitals.
Medical care providers whose rates are accepted by Medicare certainly do appreciate payment by the federal government. But capped bills are not appreciated by med pros. What is the solution for displeased med pros? Greater competition among them, to drive down their costs. That requires private insurance replacing government involvement; e.g. Medicare. I’m talking about market forces driving prices down, not government controls, which are artificial and cannot be sustained indefinitely, unless the government subsidizes the costs. And we all see how well that works with the ACA (death spiral in progress).
Please give me an example of Democrats cooperating with Republicans to replace ACA… for the benefit of US citizens.
Also, to your point about new ideas… they are being discussed in regard to sales across state lines to increase competition among insurers. The COMPETITION will eventually drive down costs, not the simple law allowing cross-state-line sales.
Another ‘new’ idea is tort reform, to encourage more students to pursue a medical care career, increasing the supply of medical services, possibly leading to innovations, thus leading to slowed increases in costs (they’re not likely to LOWER costs for a very long period of time).
Policy forms revisions are ‘new’ ideas being discussed, as is reinstatement of high cost risk poools.
First up, no one needs your summary. As insurance professionals are quite skilled when it comes to interpreting insurance concepts. Second, it’s just you they object to.
You, much more than anyone else, need a lesson in manners.
IF everyone in insurance were so skilled in interpreting concepts, why haven’t problems in HI been fixed yet? A: lack of foresight and creativity, along with comfort with the status quo, yielding inertia in a broken system. Hence, the government stepped in when it saw an opening to take control of health care and insurance.
Polar, you are correct as usual. Progressives have long wanted to take control of Health Insurance so they could control the economy/nation and dictate to us. They had their chance, massively failed and almost ruined the economy in 8 long and painful years. Good thing this country is resilient and will bounce back. All Progressives should consider moving to Canada, Venezuela or Cuba.
… said the person who can’t accept defeat at the ballot box…. and continue to resist, to no avail or success.
March 13, 2017 at 1:47 pm
Jack Kanauph says:
Like or Dislike:
10
8
How long was Obama in office before the ACA passed? 2 years? Trump hasn’t been in office for 2 full months and yet he is expected to have the plan in place. Makes no sense. He should be afforded a chance to succeed.
President-elect Trump…said a “repeal-and-replace” plan for Obamacare would be submitted as soon as the Senate approves his nominee, Rep. Tom Price, R-Ga., for secretary of the U.S. Health and Human Services Department. “It will be essentially simultaneously,” Trump said. “The same day or the same week … could be the same hour.”
He should not have set an unreasonable time frame. Had he not said the above, I would not have an issue with a final plan not being submitted yet.
I am just holding Trump accountable for what he said he would do in the time frame he told millions of people he would get it done.
“words literally”?
The guy would certainly enhance his governing skill-sets if he simply learned and practiced the meaning of only one word. TRUTH
March 14, 2017 at 1:18 pm
Captain Planet says:
Like or Dislike:
5
1
Boondoggle,
Pathological liars aren’t capable of practicing the truth. And that’s EXACTLY what we have in i45. Also, you might want to be careful next time you go to pop some popcorn. You never know who might be watching you!
March 14, 2017 at 2:12 pm
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
1
3
Libitterals are now following Liberal talking points set out by Stephen Colbert, who they hold to be a ‘leader’. LOL!
March 14, 2017 at 6:38 pm
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
Please explain in a few words why an INSTANT repeal is preferred to a well-thought-out, time consuming plan to fix the mess created by ACA, and improve health care and insurance.
Focus on the challenge I made above.
Focus.
March 15, 2017 at 12:19 pm
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
4
0
Pose that question to the one who promised as such, President Trump.
Can you quote even one person on this blog who actually advocated for an immediate repeal and replace? I want their post quoted with article, date and time, not just names.
Focus on that.
March 15, 2017 at 2:53 pm
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
@Ron; look all around at the various threads wherein criticism of TrumPresident includes his ‘broken promise’ to repeal immediately.
I assume you are either being sarcastic or trolling. I can’t decide which is worse.
March 15, 2017 at 3:04 pm
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
None of these threads have anyone wanting an immediate repeal and replacement. That is why you are unable to quote anyone doing as such.
That is my point.
For some reason you think those criticizing President Trump for making an irrational promise want an immediate repeal and replacement. We don’t. We just want you Trump supporters to hold him as accountable for everything her says like you did President Obama.
Does that help clear things up?
March 16, 2017 at 2:18 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
“None of these threads have anyone wanting an immediate repeal and replacement. That is why you are unable to quote anyone doing as such.
That is my point.
For some reason you think those criticizing President Trump for making an irrational promise want an immediate repeal and replacement. We don’t. We just want you Trump supporters to hold him as accountable for everything her says like you did President Obama.
Does that help clear things up?”
This does not clear up anything. This doesn’t show anything other than you guys obsessing over criticisms. By what measure would you not weigh in on the people who are slowing Trump down? A delay does not put the burden on the culprit being Trump.
When he is putting out fires everywhere for people calling his appointees Russian spies, it’s a bit hard to keep to a strict schedule. Regardless, his time frame is in line with par for the course, equal to Obama’s, he has the plan out now, and it came out within a few weeks of what he said. A delay of a few weeks, as things explode from democrats is not something you need to run around holding anyone accountable for. You need to find ACTUAL ISSUES WITH ACTUAL CONSEQUENCES.
If you’re just trying to call someone a liar 24/7, this is Marxism. I’m sorry, it is. This is not political policy debate.
If it is, tell me which policy you disagree with?
The policy of the policy arriving a week or two beyond? If that is the case why? What specifically made that a problem? Or is it as usual, like the dumb moron you are, you need to decry hypocrisy every two seconds to shut down the government, something you said you were not ok with congressional republicans doing? You’re a fool, a hypocrite, and a moron.
Keep your partisan crap out of politics.
March 16, 2017 at 3:54 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
I should clarify two things further here:
With regards to Obama, you keep saying you are simply holding him accountable like the conservatives did, however, you did not when these conservatives told you Obama was in error.
In the second point, Obama we held him accountable not for how slowly it rolled out, but rather for when he said it would save $2,500 per family. That was a big statement and promise for which he didn’t deliver.
Anything else, I don’t really care about. Whether he said it would come in a month off base or not. It doesn’t matter.
The plan does.
You are willing to manufacture a crises against Trump, and then you use false equivalency (remember I keep saying this is your weakness) to say that you’re treating Trump fairly for another scenario which is not the same scenario. We should hold Obama accountable for that $2,500 line, we should not hold Trump accountable for saying it would come and then it came a few weeks late.
March 16, 2017 at 5:46 pm
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
@bob; thanks for the defense and explanation of what Libitterals are doing now, out of their frustration in having no power, and feeling they were cheated by the Electoral College system, etc.
Their resistance, by criticizing hyperbole by Trump (Trumperbole), is childish.
They are parsing words and criticizing things they take literally that are meant as sarcasm and hyperbole.
And they can’t see they aren’t convincing ANYONE they have a valid point in such tactics.
Got to go do some work now…
March 16, 2017 at 6:06 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
PolarBearRepeal,
I agree, I have way too much to do to be here. I’ve been making great strides in my field.
That’s why I’ve been a bit silent again.
I’m off to bigger and better things. Have a productive day!
March 16, 2017 at 1:44 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
Had the democrats not have caused crises after crises, he could have got more done, and as of yet, missing a target date by not much at all, is not something you need to hold him accountable for. What damages occurred? This is insanity.
Trump ran on a platform of repeal and replace on Day 1 — so the expectation is coming from his voters and the GOP — not the Democrats. Besides, the GOP ALWAYS said they had a better plan. It’s much more fun being the opposition party!
Guess what Celtica, your party lost. I would think you were still shedding tears from the devastating loss. Massive failure of the Progressive Democratic Party by a non politician businessman with a vision to correct all the abuses of Obama.
Dear Agent: A primary characteristic of being the opposition party is that they didn’t win. Politics 101.
We’ll see if you are still standing behind the non politician businessman when he is convicted of corruption.
March 13, 2017 at 4:02 pm
Uw says:
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
13
3
The failure was the electoral college, a garbage system, and the FBI and Russia tilting the election. You clearly support party over country. You are un-American, not Christian, and a net negative on society.
Millions more people preferred Clinton over Trump. But like the other idiots you probably don’t believe that, just like you don’t believe science and are a loser, trashy, racist Birther.
Dear Celtica, the swamp is being drained (thank God) of hundreds of Obama holdovers who are seeking to undermine the new POTUS. The Federal Bureaucracy will be shrunk, much to your chagrin. Once we have people in place that want to do the right thing and know right from wrong, we will be on the right track to recover the country.
March 13, 2017 at 5:47 pm
Celtica says:
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
13
2
Dear Agent, Trump did not drain the swamp, he replenished the stock with all the vipers who caused the 2008 meltdown.
Doing the right thing? Does that involve twittering on Saturday morning while the nanny Ivanka is observing the Sabbath?
March 13, 2017 at 8:19 pm
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
2
4
@UW: if the EC is a failed system, why did it work so well in preventing the disaster of a Hillary Presidency?
But, aside from that fortunate result, why did Hillary agree to a primary system with SUPER DELEGATES? Why did her campaign behave as if popular vote didn’t matter, but later claim she ‘won’ per the popular vote?
Answer to most of the above Qs: Democrat hypocrisy.
March 14, 2017 at 2:14 pm
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
2
2
Libitterals can’t accept the EC system AFTER Hillary won the Dem Primary through pre-determined Super Delegates and then campaigned on an Electoral College System strategy of campaigning only in battleground states. Go figure.
March 14, 2017 at 5:19 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
3
0
New Executive Order just signed that will reduce the size of the Federal Government. That, I can get behind. Eliminate waste and unneeded programs costing billions of our tax dollars. Efficiency in operation is the goal. Sounds like sound business to me.
March 15, 2017 at 12:22 pm
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
2
0
Agent, I also agree with the EO.
Good job President Trump. Now, please stop lying and making false accusations.
March 16, 2017 at 1:52 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
“The failure was the electoral college, a garbage system, and the FBI and Russia tilting the election. You clearly support party over country. You are un-American, not Christian, and a net negative on society.
Millions more people preferred Clinton over Trump. But like the other idiots you probably don’t believe that, just like you don’t believe science and are a loser, trashy, racist Birther.”
Conservatives do not believe in bad science, that compiles averages, and does not have a formula compiled with the same locations, same method of measurement, over the same period of time. That formula does not extrapolate, therefore the formula is wrong, and those pushing it, are lying. It’s that simple. You cannot compile data from 100 years ago, when you expanded by hundreds or in some cases thousands of temperature monitoring locations, and monitoring methods.
Your side is the one saying they have science facts rather than science theory, and are using it to push government control.
People who support Trump are not un-American. Russia tried to interfere to throw off the whole system, it was not in favor of or against any party, Lyndon Johnson made comments about Russia, so have other democrats, and other republicans, and they have all been semi right that Russia intervened. Does Russia just keep changing party? NO! What is happening is Russia loves to create social direst. Get over it kid! You’re playing into Russia, not us.
Also: Birtherism is not racism. The same card was used against Cruz, but I’m sure you aren’t aware of it, as to whether or not a citizen through the process of being naturalized can be a U.S. President. Wanting Obama to prove he was born in the U.S. is over the top, but it simply is not racist.
You’re a fool.
March 16, 2017 at 1:55 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
And further to the point: The U.S. is not stupid enough to throw an election over emails, Russia would not have changed the election result.
Further to that: If Russia leaked something true, it doesn’t matter if “Russia” did it. If the fact were true, and it is, and the democrats sabotaged Bernie, which they did, and they were tilting the game in their favor by receiving questions from the media and actually colluding, which they were, then the people who actually tilted the public against the, were the democrats.
James O’keefe already revealed this corruption in your party, and you just ignored it, and this was well before the Russian leaks. Get the plank out of your own eye (party) and stop being a partisan hack doing witch hunts.
March 13, 2017 at 3:57 pm
Uw says:
Like or Dislike:
8
1
Plus they ran on repealing the bill for 6 years, and passed a bill Obama vetoed. They were frauds then as now. They know their bills are garbage or they would pass the bill they sent Obama: They just don’t want their names on it
In a matter of a few weeks, when a revised bill is passed to simply repeal ACA, you won’t have anything to criticize.
Recall that ACA is in a death spiral. I suspect it is remotely possible the Republicans are slowing down the repeal so that the end result of ACA’s death spiral can be plainly seen by all. Now, many people are using the current enrollment numbers to project LOSS OF COVERAGE by millions if ACA is repealed. The truth is that ACA remaining in place will result in just as many policy losses. Think about it; what is the proper comparison; what ACA enrollment is NOW or what it will eventually be?
March 13, 2017 at 8:23 pm
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
1
2
‘proper comparison BASE’, not ‘proper comparison’.
bear culpa.
March 14, 2017 at 8:36 am
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
4
1
PolarBeaRepeal,
Thank you for admitting that Republicans are only interested in playing political games instead of governing for the benefit of the people. This is why they are already on a path of being replaced like the Democrats were in 2010.
March 14, 2017 at 2:18 pm
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
Death Spiral. Created by ACA.
Responsibility of ACA clean up, including the damage done by the conditions ACA created that yielded the Death Spiral, is now assigned to those in power (True Republicans, not RINOs) who will act like adults instead of spoiled children (Dems / Libitterals).
March 16, 2017 at 1:58 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
So the fact that they have made another bill now means that they are frauds how precisely?
The new bill is less popular.
I could have sworn before you said they never had a plan. Now they had a plan but they didn’t want to pass it because they are cowards.
Also: Stop liking your own posts. It was funny when Insurance journal corrected likes and dislikes a few weeks back.
Did you remember what happened?
My likes went down by 1 or 2, probably agent. My dislikes went down by 20. Literally, 20. Your dislikes stayed about the same, and your likes went down to 1. I wonder what that means, and who was upvoting all your links UW?
March 16, 2017 at 1:46 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
They have several, that your side made unpopular by forcing a mandate, then claiming that a higher number of insureds was more important than low costs of insurance.
It’s just you’re too stupid to see the flaw in that reasoning. Low cost insurance is more important than forcing people to buy insurance, and granting entitlements to large degrees discourages work.
It’s rather simple. You have to make sure as little people get something for free as possible.
@Celtica; EO was issued on Day One, 1/20/17, to repeal the penalty for not insuring. THAT is enough to satisfy most people that he took the pain out of the ACA, and would be tearing it apart, piece by piece ‘ASALP’ – As Soon As Legally Possible.
Ron, thank you for continuing to be a stupid troll. Your side lost for a good reason. Progressivism is a total failure in all policies including Health Insurance. The Economy will be recovered, taxes will be reduced and Healthcare will be fixed.
Since I do not have a side, I am not sure why you made that statement.
Please advise what metrics we may use to determine whether or not our country realizes all of the successes you mentioned. Or will you continue to base your positions on your opinion?
HAH! You did not vote for George W Bush. You are most CERTAINLY not older than I am.
I call BS!
March 16, 2017 at 2:39 pm
Confused says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
Would you like a copy of Ron’s long form birth certificate?
March 16, 2017 at 4:13 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
“Confused says:
Would you like a copy of Ron’s long form birth certificate?”
You tried to make me look like a conspiracy theorist, but that backfired more than you know Confused. Why should I believe he was eligible to vote? Common sense shows there are differences in the ages. He is simply NOT my older brother’s age. While my older brother is a liberal, and he is 36, there is a definitive change between 31 and 36. This is because right around 40 is when most people define politics in ways that are not immature and ignorant, if they are going to define them that is.
I can literally hear someone’s age when talking to them, and, if they write well, like Ron does, I can tell.
Ron is younger than me. He is not older. There is not even a chance he is older. It is a matter of how much younger. I doubt very much I can tell 1 year. That’s the only amount younger he can be than me and still vote. I was able to vote in 2003. If he was one year younger it would be 2004, Bush’s election. He however, sounds like he is less mature than my younger brother, who is 28, and more mature than his wife, who is 24. I will literally be willing to bet you $100 dollars this is his age range, + or minus a few years if he is slightly ahead maturity wise (doubtful considering his argument style) and minus a whole hack of a lot, if he’s closer to graduation than I just mentioned (which is also very possible, given his debate style this sounds like he was a lot closer to college graduation than nearly anyone else here). Of course another possibility is he went to college late, which gives him the college sound even though he’s older than me, but I still doubt this. He would not argue the way he does at that point. No one that I have seen in my brother and sister’s age range argues like him. Literally no one. He is not 36-41. This last one I make comment on 100% certainty.
so this just leaves a narrow range: 24, and if he’s horribly immature, maybe, maybe, as old as 33, but the range here leaves a lot more room for younger than I am. I make this assessment for many reasons. There is a greater chance he is younger than me than older.
I know demographics very well.
March 16, 2017 at 4:18 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
By the way confused:
This has been your argument style for some time. You say the republicans here are making brotherism type comments.
You know what actually is mainstream? What isn’t one off?
The Russian spy bull crap, that’s what. The posts I’ve made with liberals flip flopping, NewsWeek in particular about safe havens being better for Muslims, to now saying it will start a war.
We don’t need cultural Marxism monitoring quotes on stupid issues. You’re arguing like a national inquirer level person.
And yet you call the conservatives on that, like you have to.
This is also how I know you’re my same age. THAT is common in my age. You, ARE older than Ron.
March 17, 2017 at 8:27 am
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I have been voting since 1990.
I voted for him in 2000, but not 2004 because he betrayed fiscal conservatism and plunged us into an unnecessary war based on faulty intelligence and lies.
As I have said multiple times to you, Agent and the other lunatic righties, you know nothing about me outside of a few political positions.
March 17, 2017 at 11:46 am
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
@bob;
Ron is like John Kerry; he does not have a side until he has a side.
John Kerry voted for the War in Iraq before he voted against it.
March 17, 2017 at 1:27 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
“I have been voting since 1990.
I voted for him in 2000, but not 2004 because he betrayed fiscal conservatism and plunged us into an unnecessary war based on faulty intelligence and lies.
As I have said multiple times to you, Agent and the other lunatic righties, you know nothing about me outside of a few political positions.”
You are not 44-45. I’m sorry, you’re just not. When you want to lie, lie by a few years rather than by a decade kiddo.
I know you’re going to use this to say the old “you don’t know me” and then use that to bolster your idiotic arguments you place here (since that is typically your argument style) but that just plays to your age as well.
You’re a 44-45 year old whose main argument is “You don’t know me” “You don’t understand”?
Is that it?
Our generation (I know you’re younger than me, or my age at max) MADE THAT SLOGAN. And we use it. Quite a lot.
But the generations around us DON’T. Even just older than me, generation X, MOCK people who use that argument style, and generation Z completely mocks people who do. It was a very slimly used slogan.
Regardless, while you use this to say it reflects on me that I would “label you” as this age, I’m actually giving you POSITIVE leeway here.
Do you know how? Read my post again. I said I have a hard time seeing someone being as immature as you would have to be in order to argue like you do at 44-45. Would you rather I think you’re youthful and naïve, or someone who is a complete idiot for 44-45?
Which…You’re not 44-45. You’ve never mentioned who you voted for in 1992 or 1996. If you were really this age range you would have brought up that vote by now, you’ve had the chance several times. Instead you’ve constantly referred to the years around it, like George W, Gary Johnson, Obama twice, and you have never said your history further.
March 17, 2017 at 1:46 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Ok, I’ve decided to believe you on your 44-45.
Here are my comments:
You’re not worth my time. You’re arrogant and act like a kid for the age bracket. If you are 44-45, in the Catholic demographic you fit the basis for why I can disregard you:
You’re stuck in your ways, plainly wrong, plainly against the Church, clearly will make emotional arguments outside of facts, because of a corrupted moral compass, and somehow still don’t know the basic aspects of Catholicism. At 44-45. This is so far behind, and you are so far behind on the laws as well for your age, that combined with your moral lacking and clear lack of spiritual growth and involvement in the Church, you are not going to be given leeway or the time of day from me.
Have you read the quotes from the saints regarding the sinners who will be punished the most? Catholics. They don’t get the same pass as what would be considered modern day gentiles (non believers). If you are in this age range misleading Catholics the way you are, it is something that I will continue to show how wrong you are, but it is not something I will waste my time trying to change someone who is plainly evil. Note the change. At 44-45, you’re evil. My age, you’re just dumb.
March 14, 2017 at 12:26 pm
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
3
1
One other thing, if you are going to judge someone based on 2 votes, then you are the troll.
How about a funny take on Healthcare? This is called “Sarcasm” for those who may not get it.
The American Medical Association has weighed in on Trump’s Healthcare Package.
The Allergists wee in favor of scratching it, but the Dermatologists advised not to make any rash moves.
The Gastroenterologists had a sort of gut feeling about it, but the Neurologists thought the Administration had a lot of nerve.
Meanwhile, Obstetricians felt certain that everyone was laboring under a misconception, while the Ophthalmologists considered the idea shortsighted.
Pathologists yelled, “Over my dead body” while the Pediatricians said “Oh, grow up”!
The Psychiatrists thought the whole idea was madness, while the Radiologists could see right through it.
Surgeons decided to wash their hands of the whole thing and the Internists claimed it would be a bitter pill to swallow.
The Plastic Surgeons opined that this proposal would put a whole new face on the matter.
The Podiatrists thought it was a step forward, but the Urologists were pi —- off at the whole idea.
Anesthesiologists thought the whole idea was a gas, and those lofty Cardiologists didn’t have the heart to say no.
In the end, the Proctologists won out, leaving the entire decision up to the as- – – – – in Washington.
March 14, 2017 at 6:46 pm
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
@Ron; you don’t have a side? Really?
[Heath Ledger Joker voice] Not sure if serious. [/Heath Ledger Joker Voice]
March 14, 2017 at 6:49 pm
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
2
0
Did dentists project how many people would be impacted?
March 16, 2017 at 4:20 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
When it comes to votes on Obama that you defended for years, yes. It does show a lot about you.
Naïve nature among other things. No one with half a brain fell for Obama’s crap in 2008.
Anyone ahead of the curve saw it for what it was.
March 17, 2017 at 11:54 am
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
Can we judge john Kerry on his 2 votes on the War in Iraq?
I’d only judge him to be deceitful by voting against his principles for POLITICAL GAIN.
Does anyone else do such DECEITFUL, double talk?
The reset with Russia button pushed by Hillary… followed with the Libitterals accusations of hacking of the US Electoral College Election by Russia…
and…
The denouncement of Trump for not being willing to accept during a debate, the possibility of defeat in the election followed by Libitterals contesting the Electoral College system, then recounting the vote in a handful of states won by Trump – indirectly through Jill Stein, and claiming the popular vote was credible after using super delegates in their rigged primary and following an Electoral College system strategy for campaigning in battleground states… is another composite example of their hypocrisy/ double talk.
March 20, 2017 at 1:05 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
Polar, didn’t Kerry say he was before it before he was against it? Did he try to avoid taxes on his yacht before he finally had to pay them? Good thing Lurch is history now.
A summary of this article is as follows:
Republicans supporting the FIRST bill are…. supporting the bill.
Conservative Republicans, on the other hand, have doubts and won’t commit to the FIRST bill as it is currently written.
The Brookings Institution Think Tank says 15 million people will lose coverage, but no other details on the claim are provided. Obfuscating the denial likely means they based THEIR projected loss of coverage on some yet-undisclosed analysis of market dynamics and consumer demand. But I haven’t seen any ACTUAL rates projected to be charged, to see if they are higher than the 15 million can / want to pay. Perhaps the 15 million who lose coverage will ALSO go back to the coverage they were FORCED TO DROP because their prior policies weren’t ACA compliant? If so, the NET change in policies could very well be zero, or close to it.
Further, some of the 15 million to ‘lose coverage’ who paid the tax penalty for a few years, then insured when the penalty increased recently, may be projected to drop the policies they bought in preference to paying a penalty and getting nothing in return.
The infighting among Republicans who are RINOs and Conservative will result in some sort of turmoil, yet to be understood. But it could easily be resolved by changes to the FIRST bill.
I’m highly skeptical of the projected turmoil by Dems and Libitterals who are frustrated by their loss of control over 1/6th of the US economy, and who are now lashing out at Republicans working to replace the ACA before it completely crashes and burns. They’re lying and/ or speculating about dire results for the partially dislcosed ACA R&R plan, and no one in the media will hold them accountable for that in the near future.
Thumbs down, but no rebuttals? Why not? Objecting just to resist?
It’s PROBABLY because you use “words” like ‘libitteral’ and CAPITALIZE random words in your incoherent SENTENCES.
Yes, that’s right! I’m speaking the truth about bitter clingers, …ooops, that was Obama’s phrase for people resisting against his Socialist agenda. I’m speaking about Libitterals who vote down conservative comments, had used BOTs until IJ IT staff put in filters to stop multiple votes, and who do not have ANYTHING to say in refutation of my comments… because it’s difficult to refute the truth.
Words are not RANDOMLY capitalized in my posts. They are used in lieu of italicizing, underlining, or bold-ing, to emphasize points that SOME may glean over.
Polar, the bitter Liboterals are at it again on your comments.
There really is a simple way to handle all this. It is called Choice and Competition with the carriers. Most of them are busily re-designing plans that Americans want rather than the mandated plans of the failure ridden Obamacare.
I hope those plans meet the criteria I hinted at with this clue (but not ALL of the items):
HEALTH CARE SPECIFICCS
Note that there are 3 C’s in the last word. That is intentional.
Recall three I already disclosed are:
HEA = Health Expense Accounts (Not exactly the same as HSA)
IFIC = Interstate For Increased Competition.
CS = Costs Savings (efforts)
I’ll reveal the others in the middle (…LTH CARE SPEC…) very soon. Stay tuned!
Re-Posted due to censorship by Libitterals:
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
Thumb up 10
Thumb down 20
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
A summary of this article is as follows:
Republicans supporting the FIRST bill are…. supporting the bill.
Conservative Republicans, on the other hand, have doubts and won’t commit to the FIRST bill as it is currently written.
The Brookings Institution Think Tank says 15 million people will lose coverage, but no other details on the claim are provided. Obfuscating the denial likely means they based THEIR projected loss of coverage on some yet-undisclosed analysis of market dynamics and consumer demand. But I haven’t seen any ACTUAL rates projected to be charged, to see if they are higher than the 15 million can / want to pay. Perhaps the 15 million who lose coverage will ALSO go back to the coverage they were FORCED TO DROP because their prior policies weren’t ACA compliant? If so, the NET change in policies could very well be zero, or close to it.
Further, some of the 15 million to ‘lose coverage’ who paid the tax penalty for a few years, then insured when the penalty increased recently, may be projected to drop the policies they bought in preference to paying a penalty and getting nothing in return.
The infighting among Republicans who are RINOs and Conservative will result in some sort of turmoil, yet to be understood. But it could easily be resolved by changes to the FIRST bill.
I’m highly skeptical of the projected turmoil by Dems and Libitterals who are frustrated by their loss of control over 1/6th of the US economy, and who are now lashing out at Republicans working to replace the ACA before it completely crashes and burns. They’re lying and/ or speculating about dire results for the partially dislcosed ACA R&R plan, and no one in the media will hold them accountable for that in the near future.
Reply
This isn’t a Republican or Democrat issue for most of us. What we want is a concerted effort by lawmakers and the medical community (of which I’ve seen no ideas – why should they, they love seeing the gov’t paying their bills) to lower cost and provide options. And just because some of us don’t think Trump can deliver doesn’t make us libbitterals (not sure what this is). You see, whenever I pay my monthly health premium I have to pay exact dollars. I can’t use the “don’t take me literally” argument. This problem is much more complex than picking a side (your path) and following a party.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Please give me an example of Democrats cooperating with Republicans to replace ACA… for the benefit of US citizens.
Also, to your point about new ideas… they are being discussed in regard to sales across state lines to increase competition among insurers. The COMPETITION will eventually drive down costs, not the simple law allowing cross-state-line sales.
Another ‘new’ idea is tort reform, to encourage more students to pursue a medical care career, increasing the supply of medical services, possibly leading to innovations, thus leading to slowed increases in costs (they’re not likely to LOWER costs for a very long period of time).
Policy forms revisions are ‘new’ ideas being discussed, as is reinstatement of high cost risk poools.
First up, no one needs your summary. As insurance professionals are quite skilled when it comes to interpreting insurance concepts. Second, it’s just you they object to.
You, much more than anyone else, need a lesson in manners.
IF everyone in insurance were so skilled in interpreting concepts, why haven’t problems in HI been fixed yet? A: lack of foresight and creativity, along with comfort with the status quo, yielding inertia in a broken system. Hence, the government stepped in when it saw an opening to take control of health care and insurance.
Polar, you are correct as usual. Progressives have long wanted to take control of Health Insurance so they could control the economy/nation and dictate to us. They had their chance, massively failed and almost ruined the economy in 8 long and painful years. Good thing this country is resilient and will bounce back. All Progressives should consider moving to Canada, Venezuela or Cuba.
…said the person who used the word Libitterals as an example of poor manners…
… said the person who can’t accept defeat at the ballot box…. and continue to resist, to no avail or success.
How long was Obama in office before the ACA passed? 2 years? Trump hasn’t been in office for 2 full months and yet he is expected to have the plan in place. Makes no sense. He should be afforded a chance to succeed.
President-elect Trump…said a “repeal-and-replace” plan for Obamacare would be submitted as soon as the Senate approves his nominee, Rep. Tom Price, R-Ga., for secretary of the U.S. Health and Human Services Department. “It will be essentially simultaneously,” Trump said. “The same day or the same week … could be the same hour.”
He should not have set an unreasonable time frame. Had he not said the above, I would not have an issue with a final plan not being submitted yet.
I am just holding Trump accountable for what he said he would do in the time frame he told millions of people he would get it done.
No one but Libitterals took his words literally. No one.
“words literally”?
The guy would certainly enhance his governing skill-sets if he simply learned and practiced the meaning of only one word. TRUTH
Boondoggle,
Pathological liars aren’t capable of practicing the truth. And that’s EXACTLY what we have in i45. Also, you might want to be careful next time you go to pop some popcorn. You never know who might be watching you!
Libitterals are now following Liberal talking points set out by Stephen Colbert, who they hold to be a ‘leader’. LOL!
Please explain in a few words why an INSTANT repeal is preferred to a well-thought-out, time consuming plan to fix the mess created by ACA, and improve health care and insurance.
Focus on the challenge I made above.
Focus.
Pose that question to the one who promised as such, President Trump.
Can you quote even one person on this blog who actually advocated for an immediate repeal and replace? I want their post quoted with article, date and time, not just names.
Focus on that.
@Ron; look all around at the various threads wherein criticism of TrumPresident includes his ‘broken promise’ to repeal immediately.
I assume you are either being sarcastic or trolling. I can’t decide which is worse.
None of these threads have anyone wanting an immediate repeal and replacement. That is why you are unable to quote anyone doing as such.
That is my point.
For some reason you think those criticizing President Trump for making an irrational promise want an immediate repeal and replacement. We don’t. We just want you Trump supporters to hold him as accountable for everything her says like you did President Obama.
Does that help clear things up?
“None of these threads have anyone wanting an immediate repeal and replacement. That is why you are unable to quote anyone doing as such.
That is my point.
For some reason you think those criticizing President Trump for making an irrational promise want an immediate repeal and replacement. We don’t. We just want you Trump supporters to hold him as accountable for everything her says like you did President Obama.
Does that help clear things up?”
This does not clear up anything. This doesn’t show anything other than you guys obsessing over criticisms. By what measure would you not weigh in on the people who are slowing Trump down? A delay does not put the burden on the culprit being Trump.
When he is putting out fires everywhere for people calling his appointees Russian spies, it’s a bit hard to keep to a strict schedule. Regardless, his time frame is in line with par for the course, equal to Obama’s, he has the plan out now, and it came out within a few weeks of what he said. A delay of a few weeks, as things explode from democrats is not something you need to run around holding anyone accountable for. You need to find ACTUAL ISSUES WITH ACTUAL CONSEQUENCES.
If you’re just trying to call someone a liar 24/7, this is Marxism. I’m sorry, it is. This is not political policy debate.
If it is, tell me which policy you disagree with?
The policy of the policy arriving a week or two beyond? If that is the case why? What specifically made that a problem? Or is it as usual, like the dumb moron you are, you need to decry hypocrisy every two seconds to shut down the government, something you said you were not ok with congressional republicans doing? You’re a fool, a hypocrite, and a moron.
Keep your partisan crap out of politics.
I should clarify two things further here:
With regards to Obama, you keep saying you are simply holding him accountable like the conservatives did, however, you did not when these conservatives told you Obama was in error.
In the second point, Obama we held him accountable not for how slowly it rolled out, but rather for when he said it would save $2,500 per family. That was a big statement and promise for which he didn’t deliver.
Anything else, I don’t really care about. Whether he said it would come in a month off base or not. It doesn’t matter.
The plan does.
You are willing to manufacture a crises against Trump, and then you use false equivalency (remember I keep saying this is your weakness) to say that you’re treating Trump fairly for another scenario which is not the same scenario. We should hold Obama accountable for that $2,500 line, we should not hold Trump accountable for saying it would come and then it came a few weeks late.
@bob; thanks for the defense and explanation of what Libitterals are doing now, out of their frustration in having no power, and feeling they were cheated by the Electoral College system, etc.
Their resistance, by criticizing hyperbole by Trump (Trumperbole), is childish.
They are parsing words and criticizing things they take literally that are meant as sarcasm and hyperbole.
And they can’t see they aren’t convincing ANYONE they have a valid point in such tactics.
Got to go do some work now…
PolarBearRepeal,
I agree, I have way too much to do to be here. I’ve been making great strides in my field.
That’s why I’ve been a bit silent again.
I’m off to bigger and better things. Have a productive day!
Had the democrats not have caused crises after crises, he could have got more done, and as of yet, missing a target date by not much at all, is not something you need to hold him accountable for. What damages occurred? This is insanity.
Your side has lost their minds.
As shown here:
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2017/03/06/oops-senate-democrat-backtracks-on-trumprussia-collusion-claim-n2294788
And I don’t see you talking about this, all you can do is complain about Trump’s phrasings, which is hallmark Marxism Confused! It is a serious issue.
Trump ran on a platform of repeal and replace on Day 1 — so the expectation is coming from his voters and the GOP — not the Democrats. Besides, the GOP ALWAYS said they had a better plan. It’s much more fun being the opposition party!
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Dear Agent: A primary characteristic of being the opposition party is that they didn’t win. Politics 101.
We’ll see if you are still standing behind the non politician businessman when he is convicted of corruption.
The failure was the electoral college, a garbage system, and the FBI and Russia tilting the election. You clearly support party over country. You are un-American, not Christian, and a net negative on society.
Millions more people preferred Clinton over Trump. But like the other idiots you probably don’t believe that, just like you don’t believe science and are a loser, trashy, racist Birther.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Dear Agent, Trump did not drain the swamp, he replenished the stock with all the vipers who caused the 2008 meltdown.
Doing the right thing? Does that involve twittering on Saturday morning while the nanny Ivanka is observing the Sabbath?
@UW: if the EC is a failed system, why did it work so well in preventing the disaster of a Hillary Presidency?
But, aside from that fortunate result, why did Hillary agree to a primary system with SUPER DELEGATES? Why did her campaign behave as if popular vote didn’t matter, but later claim she ‘won’ per the popular vote?
Answer to most of the above Qs: Democrat hypocrisy.
Libitterals can’t accept the EC system AFTER Hillary won the Dem Primary through pre-determined Super Delegates and then campaigned on an Electoral College System strategy of campaigning only in battleground states. Go figure.
New Executive Order just signed that will reduce the size of the Federal Government. That, I can get behind. Eliminate waste and unneeded programs costing billions of our tax dollars. Efficiency in operation is the goal. Sounds like sound business to me.
Agent, I also agree with the EO.
Good job President Trump. Now, please stop lying and making false accusations.
“The failure was the electoral college, a garbage system, and the FBI and Russia tilting the election. You clearly support party over country. You are un-American, not Christian, and a net negative on society.
Millions more people preferred Clinton over Trump. But like the other idiots you probably don’t believe that, just like you don’t believe science and are a loser, trashy, racist Birther.”
Conservatives do not believe in bad science, that compiles averages, and does not have a formula compiled with the same locations, same method of measurement, over the same period of time. That formula does not extrapolate, therefore the formula is wrong, and those pushing it, are lying. It’s that simple. You cannot compile data from 100 years ago, when you expanded by hundreds or in some cases thousands of temperature monitoring locations, and monitoring methods.
Your side is the one saying they have science facts rather than science theory, and are using it to push government control.
People who support Trump are not un-American. Russia tried to interfere to throw off the whole system, it was not in favor of or against any party, Lyndon Johnson made comments about Russia, so have other democrats, and other republicans, and they have all been semi right that Russia intervened. Does Russia just keep changing party? NO! What is happening is Russia loves to create social direst. Get over it kid! You’re playing into Russia, not us.
Also: Birtherism is not racism. The same card was used against Cruz, but I’m sure you aren’t aware of it, as to whether or not a citizen through the process of being naturalized can be a U.S. President. Wanting Obama to prove he was born in the U.S. is over the top, but it simply is not racist.
You’re a fool.
And further to the point: The U.S. is not stupid enough to throw an election over emails, Russia would not have changed the election result.
Further to that: If Russia leaked something true, it doesn’t matter if “Russia” did it. If the fact were true, and it is, and the democrats sabotaged Bernie, which they did, and they were tilting the game in their favor by receiving questions from the media and actually colluding, which they were, then the people who actually tilted the public against the, were the democrats.
James O’keefe already revealed this corruption in your party, and you just ignored it, and this was well before the Russian leaks. Get the plank out of your own eye (party) and stop being a partisan hack doing witch hunts.
Plus they ran on repealing the bill for 6 years, and passed a bill Obama vetoed. They were frauds then as now. They know their bills are garbage or they would pass the bill they sent Obama: They just don’t want their names on it
In a matter of a few weeks, when a revised bill is passed to simply repeal ACA, you won’t have anything to criticize.
Recall that ACA is in a death spiral. I suspect it is remotely possible the Republicans are slowing down the repeal so that the end result of ACA’s death spiral can be plainly seen by all. Now, many people are using the current enrollment numbers to project LOSS OF COVERAGE by millions if ACA is repealed. The truth is that ACA remaining in place will result in just as many policy losses. Think about it; what is the proper comparison; what ACA enrollment is NOW or what it will eventually be?
‘proper comparison BASE’, not ‘proper comparison’.
bear culpa.
PolarBeaRepeal,
Thank you for admitting that Republicans are only interested in playing political games instead of governing for the benefit of the people. This is why they are already on a path of being replaced like the Democrats were in 2010.
Death Spiral. Created by ACA.
Responsibility of ACA clean up, including the damage done by the conditions ACA created that yielded the Death Spiral, is now assigned to those in power (True Republicans, not RINOs) who will act like adults instead of spoiled children (Dems / Libitterals).
So the fact that they have made another bill now means that they are frauds how precisely?
The new bill is less popular.
I could have sworn before you said they never had a plan. Now they had a plan but they didn’t want to pass it because they are cowards.
Also: Stop liking your own posts. It was funny when Insurance journal corrected likes and dislikes a few weeks back.
Did you remember what happened?
My likes went down by 1 or 2, probably agent. My dislikes went down by 20. Literally, 20. Your dislikes stayed about the same, and your likes went down to 1. I wonder what that means, and who was upvoting all your links UW?
They have several, that your side made unpopular by forcing a mandate, then claiming that a higher number of insureds was more important than low costs of insurance.
It’s just you’re too stupid to see the flaw in that reasoning. Low cost insurance is more important than forcing people to buy insurance, and granting entitlements to large degrees discourages work.
It’s rather simple. You have to make sure as little people get something for free as possible.
@Celtica; EO was issued on Day One, 1/20/17, to repeal the penalty for not insuring. THAT is enough to satisfy most people that he took the pain out of the ACA, and would be tearing it apart, piece by piece ‘ASALP’ – As Soon As Legally Possible.
Ron, thank you for continuing to be a stupid troll. Your side lost for a good reason. Progressivism is a total failure in all policies including Health Insurance. The Economy will be recovered, taxes will be reduced and Healthcare will be fixed.
Since I do not have a side, I am not sure why you made that statement.
Please advise what metrics we may use to determine whether or not our country realizes all of the successes you mentioned. Or will you continue to base your positions on your opinion?
You didn’t have a side? I seem to remember you voted for the Socialist in Chief twice. That is pure Progressive Socialism and proves your side.
I also voted for President GW Bush, Gary Johnson plus several other Republicans in state and local elections. What is your point?
HAH! You did not vote for George W Bush. You are most CERTAINLY not older than I am.
I call BS!
Would you like a copy of Ron’s long form birth certificate?
“Confused says:
Would you like a copy of Ron’s long form birth certificate?”
You tried to make me look like a conspiracy theorist, but that backfired more than you know Confused. Why should I believe he was eligible to vote? Common sense shows there are differences in the ages. He is simply NOT my older brother’s age. While my older brother is a liberal, and he is 36, there is a definitive change between 31 and 36. This is because right around 40 is when most people define politics in ways that are not immature and ignorant, if they are going to define them that is.
I can literally hear someone’s age when talking to them, and, if they write well, like Ron does, I can tell.
Ron is younger than me. He is not older. There is not even a chance he is older. It is a matter of how much younger. I doubt very much I can tell 1 year. That’s the only amount younger he can be than me and still vote. I was able to vote in 2003. If he was one year younger it would be 2004, Bush’s election. He however, sounds like he is less mature than my younger brother, who is 28, and more mature than his wife, who is 24. I will literally be willing to bet you $100 dollars this is his age range, + or minus a few years if he is slightly ahead maturity wise (doubtful considering his argument style) and minus a whole hack of a lot, if he’s closer to graduation than I just mentioned (which is also very possible, given his debate style this sounds like he was a lot closer to college graduation than nearly anyone else here). Of course another possibility is he went to college late, which gives him the college sound even though he’s older than me, but I still doubt this. He would not argue the way he does at that point. No one that I have seen in my brother and sister’s age range argues like him. Literally no one. He is not 36-41. This last one I make comment on 100% certainty.
so this just leaves a narrow range: 24, and if he’s horribly immature, maybe, maybe, as old as 33, but the range here leaves a lot more room for younger than I am. I make this assessment for many reasons. There is a greater chance he is younger than me than older.
I know demographics very well.
By the way confused:
This has been your argument style for some time. You say the republicans here are making brotherism type comments.
You know what actually is mainstream? What isn’t one off?
The Russian spy bull crap, that’s what. The posts I’ve made with liberals flip flopping, NewsWeek in particular about safe havens being better for Muslims, to now saying it will start a war.
We don’t need cultural Marxism monitoring quotes on stupid issues. You’re arguing like a national inquirer level person.
And yet you call the conservatives on that, like you have to.
This is also how I know you’re my same age. THAT is common in my age. You, ARE older than Ron.
I have been voting since 1990.
I voted for him in 2000, but not 2004 because he betrayed fiscal conservatism and plunged us into an unnecessary war based on faulty intelligence and lies.
As I have said multiple times to you, Agent and the other lunatic righties, you know nothing about me outside of a few political positions.
@bob;
Ron is like John Kerry; he does not have a side until he has a side.
John Kerry voted for the War in Iraq before he voted against it.
“I have been voting since 1990.
I voted for him in 2000, but not 2004 because he betrayed fiscal conservatism and plunged us into an unnecessary war based on faulty intelligence and lies.
As I have said multiple times to you, Agent and the other lunatic righties, you know nothing about me outside of a few political positions.”
You are not 44-45. I’m sorry, you’re just not. When you want to lie, lie by a few years rather than by a decade kiddo.
I know you’re going to use this to say the old “you don’t know me” and then use that to bolster your idiotic arguments you place here (since that is typically your argument style) but that just plays to your age as well.
You’re a 44-45 year old whose main argument is “You don’t know me” “You don’t understand”?
Is that it?
Our generation (I know you’re younger than me, or my age at max) MADE THAT SLOGAN. And we use it. Quite a lot.
But the generations around us DON’T. Even just older than me, generation X, MOCK people who use that argument style, and generation Z completely mocks people who do. It was a very slimly used slogan.
Regardless, while you use this to say it reflects on me that I would “label you” as this age, I’m actually giving you POSITIVE leeway here.
Do you know how? Read my post again. I said I have a hard time seeing someone being as immature as you would have to be in order to argue like you do at 44-45. Would you rather I think you’re youthful and naïve, or someone who is a complete idiot for 44-45?
Which…You’re not 44-45. You’ve never mentioned who you voted for in 1992 or 1996. If you were really this age range you would have brought up that vote by now, you’ve had the chance several times. Instead you’ve constantly referred to the years around it, like George W, Gary Johnson, Obama twice, and you have never said your history further.
Ok, I’ve decided to believe you on your 44-45.
Here are my comments:
You’re not worth my time. You’re arrogant and act like a kid for the age bracket. If you are 44-45, in the Catholic demographic you fit the basis for why I can disregard you:
You’re stuck in your ways, plainly wrong, plainly against the Church, clearly will make emotional arguments outside of facts, because of a corrupted moral compass, and somehow still don’t know the basic aspects of Catholicism. At 44-45. This is so far behind, and you are so far behind on the laws as well for your age, that combined with your moral lacking and clear lack of spiritual growth and involvement in the Church, you are not going to be given leeway or the time of day from me.
Have you read the quotes from the saints regarding the sinners who will be punished the most? Catholics. They don’t get the same pass as what would be considered modern day gentiles (non believers). If you are in this age range misleading Catholics the way you are, it is something that I will continue to show how wrong you are, but it is not something I will waste my time trying to change someone who is plainly evil. Note the change. At 44-45, you’re evil. My age, you’re just dumb.
One other thing, if you are going to judge someone based on 2 votes, then you are the troll.
How about a funny take on Healthcare? This is called “Sarcasm” for those who may not get it.
The American Medical Association has weighed in on Trump’s Healthcare Package.
The Allergists wee in favor of scratching it, but the Dermatologists advised not to make any rash moves.
The Gastroenterologists had a sort of gut feeling about it, but the Neurologists thought the Administration had a lot of nerve.
Meanwhile, Obstetricians felt certain that everyone was laboring under a misconception, while the Ophthalmologists considered the idea shortsighted.
Pathologists yelled, “Over my dead body” while the Pediatricians said “Oh, grow up”!
The Psychiatrists thought the whole idea was madness, while the Radiologists could see right through it.
Surgeons decided to wash their hands of the whole thing and the Internists claimed it would be a bitter pill to swallow.
The Plastic Surgeons opined that this proposal would put a whole new face on the matter.
The Podiatrists thought it was a step forward, but the Urologists were pi —- off at the whole idea.
Anesthesiologists thought the whole idea was a gas, and those lofty Cardiologists didn’t have the heart to say no.
In the end, the Proctologists won out, leaving the entire decision up to the as- – – – – in Washington.
@Ron; you don’t have a side? Really?
[Heath Ledger Joker voice] Not sure if serious. [/Heath Ledger Joker Voice]
Did dentists project how many people would be impacted?
When it comes to votes on Obama that you defended for years, yes. It does show a lot about you.
Naïve nature among other things. No one with half a brain fell for Obama’s crap in 2008.
Anyone ahead of the curve saw it for what it was.
Can we judge john Kerry on his 2 votes on the War in Iraq?
I’d only judge him to be deceitful by voting against his principles for POLITICAL GAIN.
Does anyone else do such DECEITFUL, double talk?
The reset with Russia button pushed by Hillary… followed with the Libitterals accusations of hacking of the US Electoral College Election by Russia…
and…
The denouncement of Trump for not being willing to accept during a debate, the possibility of defeat in the election followed by Libitterals contesting the Electoral College system, then recounting the vote in a handful of states won by Trump – indirectly through Jill Stein, and claiming the popular vote was credible after using super delegates in their rigged primary and following an Electoral College system strategy for campaigning in battleground states… is another composite example of their hypocrisy/ double talk.
Polar, didn’t Kerry say he was before it before he was against it? Did he try to avoid taxes on his yacht before he finally had to pay them? Good thing Lurch is history now.