You didn't...six months is how long it's been since the exchanges opened (October, November, December, January, February, March).Where did I say six months?
Which was done with the idea people would have chosen to keep their plans in the first place. That was the point of the grandfather clause.And because people were told that they could keep their health care if they liked it
Had the rollout gone seamlessly, the individual mandate extensions would not likely have been granted.then were told that the health care they wanted to keep was inferior, then others were granted rights not available to other groups.
Most people who play team politics don't care if it succeeds or fails, they'll latch on to whatever makes their party stronger. Republicans will always latch on to negative news and Democrats will always latch on to positive news.That' why the majority of Americans of always opposed Obamacare and those who do support it tend to support the ideology, not whether its is working or will work.
Most people who play team politics don't care if it succeeds or fails, they'll latch on to whatever makes their party stronger. Republicans will always latch on to negative news and Democrats will always latch on to positive news.
They surpassed their revised goal of 6 million signups and hit their original goal of 7 million.What's the good news for Democrats?
I can believe that. Most people will continue to get employer based healthcare coverage. Some people will absolutely refuse coverage and prefer the tax. I can believe 24 million, though there's no way to tell what will happen in the meantime to affect that number.Do you believe CBO reports that 24 million will have signed up by 2017?
Of course not, because if you demand transparency from yourself, how can you continue to brainwash the followers?Shouldn't both sides of the ACA debate demand transparency from their side as well, to get to the bottom of the numbers ?
They surpassed their revised goal of 6 million signups and hit their original goal of 7 million.
Do you believe CBO reports that 24 million will have signed up by 2017?
CBO is often cited by GOPs when it's convenient
Shouldn't both sides of the ACA debate demand transparency from their side as well, to get to the bottom of the numbers ?
They surpassed their revised goal of 6 million signups and hit their original goal of 7 million.
The present administration, despite their many promises of transparency, has shown in interest at all in 'getting to the bottom of things'.
I understood their goal was to sign up all those people who were previously uninsured. Why is it good news that they have just 6 or 7 million people?
Are you intentionally being obtuse?I understood their goal was to sign up all those people who were previously uninsured. Why is it good news that they have just 6 or 7 million people?
I've only heard signups and the goal was in line with the CBO projections. Could you please source your statement here?As I understand it, it wasn't a goal of 6 million signups, or even 7 million signups, it was 7.5 million PAYING signups by April 1 in order for the program to be self-sufficient.
Perhaps rather than just remaining in denial you can actually point to where there are any errors in the part of racism. Did you even watch the video or are so so firmly entrenched in your beliefs that you need constantly protect them?
The only one in denial is you, Grant... as usual. This issue was settled and you were shown to be wrong. Now, if you want to keep beating the dead horse that is your position on this, go ahead. I'll just keep showing that you don't know what you are talking about.
Settled??? Since when??
There is every bit of evidence to demonstrate I am correct, and you apparently ignored a link I sent demonstrating you are wrong.
Your sole argument here is to keep repeating that I, and millions of others, are wrong without offering any evidence to the contrary. Why did you even get involved in this if you can't support your position?
I presented the evidence, clearly and completely. I've done it in this thread and I did it in a discussion with you months ago. You were in denial then as you are now. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was divided along regional lines, NOT partisan lines. However, if one actually breaks down the division along partisan lines, Republicans were more against the Act than Democrats. This is clear in the Congressional record. It's only conservative lying and revisionism that takes a different position.
The original House version:[19]
Democratic Party: 152–96 (61–39%)
Republican Party: 138–34 (80–20%)
Cloture in the Senate:[20]
Democratic Party: 44–23 (66–34%)
Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)
The Senate version:[19]
Democratic Party: 46–21 (69–31%)
Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)
The Senate version, voted on by the House:[19]
Democratic Party: 153–91 (63–37%)
Republican Party: 136–35 (80–20%)
“I'll have those niggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years. [Touting his underlying intentions for the "Great Society" programs, LBJ confided with two like-minded governors on Air Force One]”
You supplied no evidence and if you are relying solely on the Civil Rights Act of 1964 you would be wrong again. You apparently deliberately overlook the success of racist Democrats like George Wallace in the Northern States. And have you really looked closely at that 1964 Act? I think not.
The only one in denial is you, Grant... as usual. This issue was settled and you were shown to be wrong. Now, if you want to keep beating the dead horse that is your position on this, go ahead. I'll just keep showing that you don't know what you are talking about.
I presented the evidence, clearly and completely. I've done it in this thread and I did it in a discussion with you months ago. You were in denial then as you are now. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was divided along regional lines, NOT partisan lines. However, if one actually breaks down the division along partisan lines, Republicans were more against the Act than Democrats. This is clear in the Congressional record. It's only conservative lying and revisionism that takes a different position.
Weasel words cannot hide the fact that the greatest percentage of those for the ACT were Republicans, the greatest percentage of those against the ACT were Democrats. There is no doubt that Lyndon Johnson was another racist Southern Democrat and we can see now his intention behind his "Great Society" initiative which worked out, so far, just like he predicted it would.
You really should do more reading on the subject rather than using adjectives to bolster your pathetic responses.
To a sophisticated political observer, its a bit silly to consider this a Democrat vs. Republican issue.... it was a Conservative vs. Liberal issue. In 1964, the liberals included northern republicans and the conservatives included southern democrats. The vote, rather than being draw on party lines, was drawn on geographic lines...
Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Johnson made the political calculation that the south would be lost to the Democrats for 100 years because of this vote. The cons abandoned the Democratic party for the Republican party.
So despite the history of Republicans supporting Blacks for over a century, including fighting and dying for their freedom, and the Democrats fighting against Black rights, in 1964 it was decided that everyone switch sides and the Democrats would henceforth become pro civil rights and the Republicans anti Black. Is that the sophisticated political observation?
It's sort of like how the republicans supported individual mandates until one day (a day that happened to be when a democrat supported individual mandates) they decided they didn't like it.
So despite the history of Republicans supporting Blacks for over a century, including fighting and dying for their freedom, and the Democrats fighting against Black rights, in 1964 it was decided that everyone switch sides and the Democrats would henceforth become pro civil rights and the Republicans anti Black. Is that the sophisticated political observation?
If your idea of debate is 'the issue is settled" then please remove yourself from any debate.
Weasel words cannot hide the fact that the greatest percentage of those for the ACT were Republicans, the greatest percentage of those against the ACT were Democrats. There is no doubt that Lyndon Johnson was another racist Southern Democrat and we can see now his intention behind his "Great Society" initiative which worked out, so far, just like he predicted it would.
You really should do more reading on the subject rather than using adjectives to bolster your pathetic responses.
The original House version:
• Southern Democrats: 7–87 (7–93%)
• Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0–100%)
• Northern Democrats: 145–9 (94–6%)
• Northern Republicans: 138–24 (85–15%)
The Senate version:
• Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5–95%)
• Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0–100%)
• Northern Democrats: 45–1 (98–2%)
• Northern Republicans: 27–5 (84–16%)
Here are some examples:
7 Southern Democratic Representatives supported the act (7%). NO Southern Republican Representatives supported it (0%).
9 Northern Democratic Representatives voted against the act (6%). 24 Northern Republican Representatives were against it (15%).
1 Southern Democratic Senator supported the act (5%). NO Southern Republican Senator supported it (0%)
1 Northern Democratic Senator voted against the act (2%). 5 Northern Republican Senators voted against it (16%)
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?