That's probably about as close as a liberal will ever get to admitting Obama had no business being elected President.
Do you remember what I was saying about leftist emotionalism? : )
You literally quoted the post explaining why they were removed. Here it is again.
Because in politics, appearance is more important than reality. Delusional people thought there were death panels, so the not-actually-death-panels clause was removed.
Being elected President of the USA is not a business, but if it was Barack Obama is pretty good at it.
If they weren't really death panels, it wouldn't have been removed. I mean, for **** sake, the Libbos have let the government shutdown, to protect the Asshole Care Act, but they didn't hesitate to remove the death panel section.
Actually, those that are low income and don't have insurance are subject to the same tax penalty. They are required to get insurance, even if it is free and even if they don't earn any money.
These liberal lies needs to stop now.
Unless they choose not to apply. Try again.
It may be seen as a bit of hyperbole by you or I, but that is a statement of opinion. Last I checked he is still entitled to his opinion in the good ol USA, isn't he comrade?
If CO2 weren't a pollutant, the EPA wouldn't be regulating it.
Best things about Dr. Carson are that he is super articulate, he is absolutely fearless, he cannot be called a racist credibly and he is, in fact, an actual brain surgeon...so his intellectual abilities are beyond question.
Yes, I am absolutely sure you can look into his heart and mind and know those to be his motives... care to give us all some details of how you did that, what appears to be, incisive investigative reporting, Sherlock? Know something we don't?But his motive is greed. He knows very well that he wont be able to exploit people like he has been doing under the current system for very long. People are realizing that doctors, hospitals and insurance companies are the main cost problem and many are exploiting people in need for massive profits.
Do you really believe you are more intelligent than Sarah Palin??? PJTV: Bill Whittle on the Sarah Palin Haters - YouTube
Reality is not. An opinion can, in fact, be wrong.
Yes, low-income wage earners are required to have health insurance as well. But as I said, if they meet federal-poverty limit guidelines, they can apply for health insurance credits and if eligible, avoid the penalty.
Yet, you can't even post a few of those facts that blow his talking points out of the water.
The Democrats sure as hell removed that part quick enough, once the word got out. If they're so much smarter than those of us who a part of the swinish masses, then they should have been able to explain to us how there were no death panels.
It's not a pollutant! :lamo
Plants--plants that produce friggin' oxygen--live off CO2.
Only the idiotic Libbos in the government would classify CO2 as a pollutant.
If CO2 weren't a pollutant, the EPA wouldn't be regulating it.
Have you paid any attention what either I or Duce have said? If you understood the provision, you know that silliness actually will lead to harming people. Your side did harm, not good.
So, what you're saying is that changes to regulations aren't always made in a rational manner with strong grounding in reality? Interesting...
Yes, low-income wage earners are required to have health insurance as well. But as I said, if they meet federal-poverty limit guidelines, they can apply for health insurance credits and if eligible, avoid the penalty.
:roll: :doh
Because they couldn't just regulate anything they felt like it and call it a pollutant.
Dr. Carson: Obamacare The Worst Thing That Has Happened Since Slavery « CBS DC
Yes, it is that bad...
Yes, but that doesn't make his assessment of the state of our nation accurate.
I've heard this stupid analogy being made by many people - mostly from those who don't like ObamaCare - and I think to myself, "These folks can't be serious!?!"
Slavery held only certain people in bondage due to the color of their skin. Not everyone was held back from having an opportunity to progress in life or within this country because of the color of their skin. So, that's the first problem with Dr. Carson's slavery analogy.
Second, slavery was a socio-economic way of life for country, but only those who lived in the south benefitted the most from it. If you lived in the north, you only benefitted from the indirect revenue the slave trade brought in, i.e., slave imports and subsequent sales (but only by the slave traders and shipping merchants themselves); molasses, rum, tobacco, tea exports. The south benefited from the direct revenues slavery brought in mostly in agriculture, but also in their domestication and in some cases the local sales of slaves. It was the reciprocal earnings from crops that drew the biggest ire from those on the side of pro-slavery. They worried their entire economy (not to mention their entire way of life) would be severely disrupted if slavery were abolished. No slaves, no farming. No slaves, no carriage drivers for wealthy plantation owners. No slaves, no domestic hands to clean their homes, cook their meals, wash their clothes, or babysit their children. And that's just naming those tasks the history books showcase for the typical "house nigga".
To suggest that the health care law is anything like the fight to preserve slavery in any way is so ridiculous even calling such an analogy "ridiculous" doesn't quite explain the ridiculousness of it all. Now, if you want to say this country hasn't had an issue so deeply divide both sides of our political system nor the country so widely, then I can certainly see the argument. But to compare ObamaCare to slavery is just ignorant.No one is oppressing you because you have to have health insurance.
Yeah? How's that?
Apdst's premise relies on the assumption that a change to a regulation must have been made logically. I gave him an example in which he believes this not to be the case. However, he doesn't seem to grasp that it's possible that the Not Death Panels clause was removed even though it was harmless. He literally thinks it's impossible for a helpful clause to be removed, because if it was helpful, it wouldn't be removed. Circular logic I've tried to help him out of. To no avail.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?