Not a bold statement at all because unless Hillary has some major health issue
in the next couple of years I have no doubt she will be the Democratic nominee for
President...L
What do you mean "unless?" She already has major health issues.What are these health issues? Is it the fainting spell that you guys claim she faked to get out of testifying about Benghazi? Please enlighten us about these health problems that only you seem to know about.
They are well-chronicled in "Blood Feud." I think you'll agree that it's highly unlikely
that Klein would fabricate these issues and open himself up to a slam dunk legal action.
Also odd, nobody from the Clinton camp has refuted any of it.On her fainting, it's not an isolated incident to say the least. She has demonstrated
a pattern of being faint prone, which often points to a serous health problem.Just letting logic and documentation be the judge.
Did you read Blood Feud? Klein prefaces almost all of his remarks about Hillary with the words "I believe". In other words, it is his opinion. Is he a doctor? He also says that he believed that Hillary has lost the urge to run, but will run anyway. Does that make sense to you? Pure speculation on the authors part.
I've read excerpts. The sections on her health are based on what her doctors know, not what
Klein believes. The diagnoses are quite serious.
"Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists"
This statement (or one very similar) made by President Bush at the time really bothered me. I felt as though someone needed to remind him that he was not The King of America. There was so much flag waving fervor because of 911; just showed me how easily manipulated the voting populace can be in difficult times. Kind of like the CDC telling us "Not to worry about Ebola, we've the situation under control"
Right.
Back to topic, the mere thought of Hillary Clinton calling the shots scares the living Hell out of me.
So specifically who would you feel comfortable with calling the shots? Names?
Two years away from the Election and I can place my vote....nowhere. But I can say with an unparalleled degree of certainty who will not be receiving my vote in the next Presidential election.
That is a copout. It is the easiest thing in the world to oppose every candidate. That way you can complain about whoever is elected for four years by saying "I didn't vote for him". You have the right to feel however you wish, but when you constantly come out against everyone and everything it is difficult to take your stand or lack thereof seriously.
Wow. Fundamental reading skills not your thing, huh? I will not vote for Hillary is what this post clearly reads. "Two years away from the Election and I can place my vote....nowhere"...is my exact quote from above.
Name all of the Candidates for President who have declared so far. I'll wait. Kind of hard to choose when there are no people to vote for. The Presidential election is when?...Please refresh my memory!
That is correct. 2016. What year is this? So quite accurately, I can not yet state who I would back, because NO ONE has yet made their Candidacy a certainty.
Name "Everyone" I have "come out against" so far by name, once again , I will wait.
Wow, just wow.
If there are no candidates yet, why did you feel the need to say that you would vote for none of the nonexistent candidates? Why are you even making a comment at all if Hillary hasn't declared? Your history on this site has shown time and time again that you oppose both parties and never like any candidate. While I agree that most of what you post is forgettable, it is easy to remember how one trends with his comments.
Not a bold statement at all because unless Hillary has some major health issue
in the next couple of years I have no doubt she will be the Democratic nominee for
President...L
What do you mean "unless?" She already has major health issues.What are these health issues? Is it the fainting spell that you guys claim she faked to get out of testifying about Benghazi? Please enlighten us about these health problems that only you seem to know about.
They are well-chronicled in "Blood Feud." I think you'll agree that it's highly unlikely
that Klein would fabricate these issues and open himself up to a slam dunk legal action.
Also odd, nobody from the Clinton camp has refuted any of it.On her fainting, it's not an isolated incident to say the least. She has demonstrated
a pattern of being faint prone, which often points to a serous health problem.Just letting logic and documentation be the judge.
Did you read Blood Feud? Klein prefaces almost all of his remarks about Hillary with the words "I believe". In other words, it is his opinion. Is he a doctor? He also says that he believed that Hillary has lost the urge to run, but will run anyway. Does that make sense to you? Pure speculation on the authors part.
I've read excerpts. The sections on her health are based on what her doctors know, not what
Klein believes. The diagnoses are quite serious.
Excerpts. I' sure it was more than a sentence or two. OK. BTW, HPPA laws being what they are, how did Klein legally get this stuff? 😛
"Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists"
This statement (or one very similar) made by President Bush at the time really bothered me. I felt as though someone needed to remind him that he was not The King of America. There was so much flag waving fervor because of 911; just showed me how easily manipulated the voting populace can be in difficult times. Kind of like the CDC telling us "Not to worry about Ebola, we've the situation under control"
Right.
Back to topic, the mere thought of Hillary Clinton calling the shots scares the living Hell out of me.
So specifically who would you feel comfortable with calling the shots? Names?
Two years away from the Election and I can place my vote....nowhere. But I can say with an unparalleled degree of certainty who will not be receiving my vote in the next Presidential election.
That is a copout. It is the easiest thing in the world to oppose every candidate. That way you can complain about whoever is elected for four years by saying "I didn't vote for him". You have the right to feel however you wish, but when you constantly come out against everyone and everything it is difficult to take your stand or lack thereof seriously.
Wow. Fundamental reading skills not your thing, huh? I will not vote for Hillary is what this post clearly reads. "Two years away from the Election and I can place my vote....nowhere"...is my exact quote from above.
Name all of the Candidates for President who have declared so far. I'll wait. Kind of hard to choose when there are no people to vote for. The Presidential election is when?...Please refresh my memory!
That is correct. 2016. What year is this? So quite accurately, I can not yet state who I would back, because NO ONE has yet made their Candidacy a certainty.
Name "Everyone" I have "come out against" so far by name, once again , I will wait.
Wow, just wow.
If there are no candidates yet, why did you feel the need to say that you would vote for none of the nonexistent candidates? Why are you even making a comment at all if Hillary hasn't declared? Your history on this site has shown time and time again that you oppose both parties and never like any candidate. While I agree that most of what you post is forgettable, it is easy to remember how one trends with his comments.
Who is mentioned in the title of this thread?...And what does the corresponding year, also mentioned in the thread title have in common with her name? One can only surmise that it must have something to do with a possible Candidacy for the office of President of the United States. To be perfectly clear, so that even you can can comprehend... I will not even think about voting for Mrs. Clinton, should she decide to run. Any other decisions about said election will just have to wait until the primaries begin. That is called being an informed voter.
I am a Libertarian just to set the record straight. You answered NONE of my questions. Also, I would like to add that I find you to be extremely condescending.
"Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists"
This statement (or one very similar) made by President Bush at the time really bothered me. I felt as though someone needed to remind him that he was not The King of America. There was so much flag waving fervor because of 911; just showed me how easily manipulated the voting populace can be in difficult times. Kind of like the CDC telling us "Not to worry about Ebola, we've the situation under control"
Right.
Back to topic, the mere thought of Hillary Clinton calling the shots scares the living Hell out of me.
So specifically who would you feel comfortable with calling the shots? Names?
Two years away from the Election and I can place my vote....nowhere. But I can say with an unparalleled degree of certainty who will not be receiving my vote in the next Presidential election.
That is a copout. It is the easiest thing in the world to oppose every candidate. That way you can complain about whoever is elected for four years by saying "I didn't vote for him". You have the right to feel however you wish, but when you constantly come out against everyone and everything it is difficult to take your stand or lack thereof seriously.
Wow. Fundamental reading skills not your thing, huh? I will not vote for Hillary is what this post clearly reads. "Two years away from the Election and I can place my vote....nowhere"...is my exact quote from above.
Name all of the Candidates for President who have declared so far. I'll wait. Kind of hard to choose when there are no people to vote for. The Presidential election is when?...Please refresh my memory!
That is correct. 2016. What year is this? So quite accurately, I can not yet state who I would back, because NO ONE has yet made their Candidacy a certainty.
Name "Everyone" I have "come out against" so far by name, once again , I will wait.
Wow, just wow.
If there are no candidates yet, why did you feel the need to say that you would vote for none of the nonexistent candidates? Why are you even making a comment at all if Hillary hasn't declared? Your history on this site has shown time and time again that you oppose both parties and never like any candidate. While I agree that most of what you post is forgettable, it is easy to remember how one trends with his comments.
Who is mentioned in the title of this thread?...And what does the corresponding year, also mentioned in the thread title have in common with her name? One can only surmise that it must have something to do with a possible Candidacy for the office of President of the United States. To be perfectly clear, so that even you can can comprehend... I will not even think about voting for Mrs. Clinton, should she decide to run. Any other decisions about said election will just have to wait until the primaries begin. That is called being an informed voter.
I am a Libertarian just to set the record straight. You answered NONE of my questions. Also, I would like to add that I find you to be extremely condescending.
You can find me anyway you want to. It doesn't affect me.
you said "Two years away from the Election and I can place my vote....nowhere. " If you were talking about Hillary, you would have said you weren't voting for her. But you made an entirely different statement. In fact, you made your usual "they all suck" comment. Your history tells your story.
And there is nobody more condescending than you. But I do not really care. 😛 😛
In fact, you made your usual "they all suck" comment.
Please show me that exact quote. I'll wait.
A PRAYER
"Dear Lord:
This past year has been very tough.
You have taken my favorite Actor - James Garner;
My favorite Actress - Lauren Bacall;
My favorite Comedians - Robin Williams & Joan Rivers,
and finally, my favorite Author -Tom Clancy.
I just wanted you to know that my favorite Politicians are
Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and The Clintons.
Amen"
[Edited on 10/25/2014 by Muleman1994]
Far be it from me to understand what makes a good Democrat candidate, or to advise
them on who to select. But I don't understand what makes Hillary such an appealing
candidate, even to the point of just handing her the nomination on a silver platter. I don't
think it's a stretch to say that she's not that popular with non-Liberals. She's not the most
likeable person out there.
Also, I thought Liberals and Progressives considered themselves forward thinkers with
an eye toward change and an eye for the future. Curiously, they seem intent on putting
the Clintons back in the White House. That's moving backward. How is that forward thinking?
The reason I started this thread is because I was curious what other names might be
mentioned, and all anybody seems to do is to double down on Hillary.
Responding by asking which GOP candidate could beat her is not an answer.
[Edited on 10/25/2014 by alloak41]
Far be it from me to understand what makes a good Democrat candidate, or to advise
them on who to select. But I don't understand what makes Hillary such an appealing
candidate, even to the point of just handing her the nomination on a silver platter. I don't
think it's a stretch to say that she's not that popular with non-Liberals. She's not the most
likeable person out there.Also, I thought Liberals and Progressives considered themselves forward thinkers with
an eye toward change and an eye for the future. Curiously, they seem intent on putting
the Clintons back in the White House. That's moving backward. How is that forward thinking?The reason I started this thread is because I was curious what other names might be
mentioned, and all anybody seems to do is to double down on Hillary.Responding by asking which GOP candidate could beat her is not an answer.
[Edited on 10/25/2014 by alloak41]
______________________________________________________
Well said.
Hopefully a candidate that has both private sector executive level experience and has held a responsible government position (preferably a Governor) will stand up and ask to be President.
It will also take a real patriot and someone who genuinely believes in The United States of America.
Gonna be a short list.
Far be it from me to understand what makes a good Democrat candidate, or to advise
them on who to select. But I don't understand what makes Hillary such an appealing
candidate, even to the point of just giving her the nomination on a silver platter. I don't
think it's a stretch to say that she's not that popular with non-Liberals.Also, I thought Liberals and Progressives considered themselves forward thinkers with
an eye toward change and an eye for the future. Curiously, they seem intent on putting
the Clintons back in the White House. That's moving backward. How is that forward thinking?The reason I started this thread is because I was curious what other names might be
mentioned, and all anybody wants to do is to double down on Hillary.Responding by asking which GOP candidate could beat her is not an answer.
Just because she is a Clinton does not mean she is not her own person. There is is nothing in your theory of putting her in the White House that makes this a move backwards. If you have some sort of specifics & detail to support your wigi board belief, please present. Otherwise fess up & admit it is just your speculation. Maybe you can predict exactly how she will govern & administer that leads you to the conclusion of a "move backwards", but that is a gift that few of the rest of us possess.
The only other name mentioned so far that I personally would consider is Warren. You make not like her, but who cares. I doubt you'd consider her as a choice when you have, in all probability, the likes of Perry, Paul, Cruz, & Christie.
Your closing line of, "Responding by asking which GOP candidate could beat her is not an answer." is wonderful. What is worse is when I and another liberal on this site have tried to make wagers with you to ask you to stand up & back up your positions, and you avoid completely. No answer at all & avoidance is relatively worse than whomever turned the question on you to which GOP candidate can beat her. You could just as easily tell us that you're not a gambling type. Otherwise we'll just conclude that your logic trumps your wishes & beliefs, and you know the wagers we've offered you are losers should you take them.
Far be it from me to understand what makes a good Democrat candidate, or to advise
them on who to select. But I don't understand what makes Hillary such an appealing
candidate, even to the point of just handing her the nomination on a silver platter. I don't
think it's a stretch to say that she's not that popular with non-Liberals. She's not the most
likeable person out there.Also, I thought Liberals and Progressives considered themselves forward thinkers with
an eye toward change and an eye for the future. Curiously, they seem intent on putting
the Clintons back in the White House. That's moving backward. How is that forward thinking?The reason I started this thread is because I was curious what other names might be
mentioned, and all anybody seems to do is to double down on Hillary.Responding by asking which GOP candidate could beat her is not an answer.
[Edited on 10/25/2014 by alloak41]
______________________________________________________
Well said.
Hopefully a candidate that has both private sector executive level experience and has held a responsible government position (preferably a Governor) will stand up and ask to be President.
It will also take a real patriot and someone who genuinely believes in The United States of America.
Gonna be a short list.
I hope Dr. Carson runs. He's got everything you mentioned except the government
experience. I necessarily don't see that as a negative, especially when offset by his
superior intellect and impressive background. Conservatism just flows naturally from
him. He's the real deal, and in no need of coaching or posturing.
Might even be a positive. I feel that a good percentage of voters and non-voters alike
are sick to death of politicians and would come out in droves for the Doc after they get
to know him.
I'm not a Democrat and I despise the power held by the two parties. That said, the idea that voting for Hillary is a step backward is hard for me to grasp.
The world has changed since Bill Clinton was in office. Hillary had a front row seat for much of that change. I see her as far more conservative now, especially when dealing with foreign affairs, than she was when Bill was in the White House. I think her experience as Secretary of State is very valuable and makes her one of the most qualified Presidential candidates in recent years. I would surmise that only George H. W. Bush had more inside information on the state of the world.
My honest feeling is that our entire drawn out Presidential process is only a ratings grab. The money spent on the race is disgusting. The fact that two years into a term the President has to begin campaigning for the next election is thunderously stupid.
You want candidates Alloak? Give the American electorate what they want. Tom Sellick, Republican candidate and George Clooney Democrat, candidate. Then we have some real star power in America's most sensational and most reprehensible reality show.
I'm not a Democrat and I despise the power held by the two parties. That said, the idea that voting for Hillary is a step backward is hard for me to grasp.
The world has changed since Bill Clinton was in office. Hillary had a front row seat for much of that change. I see her as far more conservative now, especially when dealing with foreign affairs, than she was when Bill was in the White House. I think her experience as Secretary of State is very valuable and makes her one of the most qualified Presidential candidates in recent years. I would surmise that only George H. W. Bush had more inside information on the state of the world.
My honest feeling is that our entire drawn out Presidential process is only a ratings grab. The money spent on the race is disgusting. The fact that two years into a term the President has to begin campaigning for the next election is thunderously stupid.
You want candidates Alloak? Give the American electorate what they want. Tom Sellick, Republican candidate and George Clooney Democrat, candidate. Then we have some real star power in America's most sensational and most reprehensible reality show.
A Tom Selleck/Kurt Russell ticket. You may have something!
Who would you run Clooney with?
I hope Dr. Carson runs. He's got everything you mentioned except the government
experience. I necessarily don't see that as a negative, especially when offset by his
superior intellect and impressive background.
Interestingly, Obama has been bashed for years b/c of his "inexperience".
[Edited on 10/25/2014 by BoytonBrother]
I hope Dr. Carson runs. He's got everything you mentioned except the government
experience. I necessarily don't see that as a negative, especially when offset by his
superior intellect and impressive background.Interestingly, Obama has been bashed for years b/c of his "inexperience".Obama has been bashed for years b/c of his "inexperience".
[Edited on 10/25/2014 by BoytonBrother]
___________________________________________
Dr. Carson would be an excellent candidate for VP.
Obamacare needs to be repealed and replaced and he would be excellent leader for the replacement law which will take years to construct.
Unlike with Obama and the democrats, the American people should have a voice in the discussion for such an important matter.
Obama and the democrats cut the people out of the crafting of the ACA. Hell they didn't ever read the bill before pushing it through.
Anyone remember Hillarycare? That was so bad even her own husband had to shut that fiasco down.
Democrats want to pass legislation that agrees with their political agenda.
Republican want to get the job done right for The People and America.
On the "Obama has been bashed for years b/c of his "inexperience": Yea, no kidding.
Obama is proactive when he is pushing his social justice agenda but when it has come to jobs, national security, religious rights (except for Muslims), education, social security and the other issues important to our People e& Country, Obama has been reactive at best and mostly missing in action.
The amateur Obama has been a disgrace.
A Tom Selleck/Kurt Russell ticket. You may have something!
Who would you run Clooney with?
Sandra Bullock. You got to fight that war on women.
I hope Dr. Carson runs. He's got everything you mentioned except the government
experience. I necessarily don't see that as a negative, especially when offset by his
superior intellect and impressive background.Interestingly, Obama has been bashed for years b/c of his "inexperience".Obama has been bashed for years b/c of his "inexperience".
[Edited on 10/25/2014 by BoytonBrother]
___________________________________________
Dr. Carson would be an excellent candidate for VP.
Obamacare needs to be repealed and replaced and he would be excellent leader for the replacement law which will take years to construct.
Unlike with Obama and the democrats, the American people should have a voice in the discussion for such an important matter.
Obama and the democrats cut the people out of the crafting of the ACA. Hell they didn't ever read the bill before pushing it through.Anyone remember Hillarycare? That was so bad even her own husband had to shut that fiasco down.
Democrats want to pass legislation that agrees with their political agenda.
Republican want to get the job done right for The People and America.On the "Obama has been bashed for years b/c of his "inexperience": Yea, no kidding.
Obama is proactive when he is pushing his social justice agenda but when it has come to jobs, national security, religious rights (except for Muslims), education, social security and the other issues important to our People e& Country, Obama has been reactive at best and mostly missing in action.The amateur Obama has been a disgrace.
Obamacare is a success and its not going anywhere. YOU and those like YOU, are useful idiots to the GOP [bought and paid for by the koch brothers] around here you are just a "useless idiot". 😛
__________________________-
In 2010 The American People tossed Pelosi and the many democrats (all of which voted for Obamacare) out of the House and gave control to the Republicans.
In 10 days The American People will toss enough the democrats out of The Senate and put The Republicans in control.
Obamacare is a failure and fuel much of the American People's rejection of the democrats.
Started making your list of excuses for the morning of Nov. 5th yet?
[Edited on 10/26/2014 by Muleman1994]
Hillary has surely lost her mind...
Hillary: 'Don't Let Anybody Tell You' That 'Businesses Create Jobs'
Appearing at a Boston rally for Democrat gubernatorial candidate Martha Coakley on Friday, Hillary Clinton told the crowd gathered at the Park Plaza Hotel not to listen to anybody who says that “businesses create jobs.”
“Don’t let anybody tell you it’s corporations and businesses create jobs,” Clinton said.
“You know that old theory, ‘trickle-down economics,’” she continued. “That has been tried, that has failed. It has failed rather spectacularly.”
“You know, one of the things my husband says when people say ‘Well, what did you bring to Washington,’ he said, ‘Well, I brought arithmetic,’” Clinton said, which elicited loud laughs from the crowd.
How pathetic do Democrat candidates have to get to whip up anti-business, anti-wealth sentiment in order to mislead their followers? While they work their crony deals to favor the largest businesses and banks with legislation, tax advantages, and corporate handouts, they stand in public and act as if they're the champion of the little guy.
How stupid do people have to be to not connect these dots? Apparently quite a bit, as their supporters must also believe gov't works for them.
Obamacare is a success and its not going anywhere. YOU and those like YOU, are useful idiots to the GOP [bought and paid for by the koch brothers] around here you are just a "useless idiot". 😛
It may not be going anywhere soon, but "success" is only so as proclaimed by D's hoping to have some glimmer of positive news to campaign on.
The reality is that we're on the verge of the biggest change yet, as millions of workers who get their insurance through their employer face the first renewals under Obamacare's full effects. Huge increases are in sight, as are serious plan downgrades, and some being dumped into public exchanges wholesale.
Good friends of mine, both Proctor & Gamble employees, have a quadriplegic son who requires serious care. They've been told that due to Obamacare, substantial downgrades are being planned in what the company's policies will cover, and costs for those plans are going up. Rumor is that my companies rates are set to almost double.
So let's not uncork the champagne just yet. The largest group of "payees" in this scheme are just ready to get hit with it's financial impact. Let's see how affordable it seems after that. Of course, for those not contributing, it's just another reason to vote for those looking to enslave more support from the dependent class.
Hillary: 'Don't Let Anybody Tell You' That 'Businesses Create Jobs'
Oh......my......God.
Yawn... thanks fuji. No ambian needed tonight.
What will the folks who now have health care do once you take their health care away?
Vote Republican?
What will the folks who now have health care do once you take their health care away?
Vote Republican?
_______________________________________________________
typical line of the lying liberals.
No one is saying they want to take away any one's health insurance.
The Republican's position is repeal and replace.
Obamacare is a defective, politically motivated bill that has failed to get the 30 million uninsured covered.
The liberals constantly misrepresent the conservatives position.
On global warming, the liberals say the Republican's just want dirty air and dirty water. a flat out lie.
But y'all keep it up. Come the morning of Nov. 5th The People will have spoken.
Start writing up your list of excuses now.
Remember back in the 2012 campaign when Obama said “You didn’t build that” in his never ending quest for big government?
Now Hillary steps in a big pile of Obama.
Hillary Clinton: Corporations and businesses don’t create jobs
Published October 26, 2014 - Washington Free Beacon
Oct. 24, 2014: Hillary Clinton at a rally for Democratic gubernatorial candidate Martha Coakley, in Boston, Mass. (AP)
At a Democratic rally Friday in Massachusetts, Hillary Clinton’s attempt to attack “trickle-down economics,” resulted in a spectacularly odd statement, according to The Washington Free Beacon.
Clinton defended raising the minimum wage saying “Don’t let anybody tell you that raising the minimum wage will kill jobs, they always say that.”
She went on to state that businesses and corporations are not the job creators of America. “Don’t let anybody tell you that it’s corporations and businesses that create jobs,” the former Secretary of State said.
Clinton’s comment will likely be used frequently to attack her as another big-government Democrat. She is seen by many as already running for president in 2016.
To read more, click here: http://freebeacon.com/politics/hillary-clinton-corporations-and-businesses-dont-create-jobs/
Hillary supports Obamacare. However in iinterviews her handlers will not allow the interviewer to broach the subject.
The professionals describe Obamacare as a failure:
Four Years of Obamacare Failures Is Long Enough
http://www.forbes.com/sites/sallypipes/2014/03/24/four-years-of-obamacare-failures-is-long-enough/
President Obama marked the fourth anniversary of the passage of Obamacare this week by promising to spend the next year “working to implement and improve on it.”
He has his work cut out for him. Four years on, the Affordable Care Act has failed to deliver what its name formally promised — and is shaping up to be decidedly unaffordable for taxpayers. Consumers ought to hope that Obamacare doesn’t make it to the age of five — and that lawmakers enshrine market-friendly, patient-centered reforms in its place.
Four years after passage — and six months after they were supposed to be fully operational — Obamacare’s insurance exchanges are still malfunctioning. Last week, just days before the end of the open-enrollment period, the Philadelphia Inquirer discovered that the federal exchange website, HealthCare.gov, was displaying incorrect information about the subsidies for which shoppers should qualify.
The trillion dollars the Administration has earmarked for subsidies won’t make insurance more affordable if consumers can’t actually claim them.
Online insurance marketplace eHealthInsurance estimated last week that Obamacare had pushed premiums in the individual market up by as much as 59 percent this year, thanks to its myriad and costly new benefit mandates, taxes, and fees. Industry officials now say that rates could double in many areas of the country next year.
With the cost of coverage skyrocketing, it’s no wonder that enrollment has lagged the Obama Administration’s goals.
One-fifth of those whom the Administration has counted as “enrolled”, don’t appear to have paid their premiums. So they don’t actually have coverage.
Further, despite millions of dollars in advertisements, endless stumping by the president, and promotion by the likes of NBA stars Kobe Bryant and LeBron James, the exchanges have failed to attract anywhere near enough young people.
Without sufficient premium income from these young, largely healthy individuals, the marketplaces will not be able to shoulder the costs associated with treating older, less healthy folks.
Officials originally estimated that 40 percent of enrollees would need to be between the ages of 18 and 34 for the exchanges to be solvent. Thus far, this coveted demographic has accounted for just 25 percent of enrollment. If the exchanges flop, taxpayers could be forced to bail them out.
Small businesses that had been promised repeatedly by Obama that they’d save money learned in late February that two-thirds of them would see their premiums climb because of the law.
Obamacare is even failing to expand coverage to the uninsured. A McKinsey study found that only a fraction of those who enrolled in the exchanges had previously been uninsured.
The same study found that half of those who did not enroll pointed to “affordability” — or a lack thereof — as their main reason for choosing not to purchase coverage.
With the exchanges foundering and several directors of state exchanges resigning, the Administration has taken to rewriting the law to try to avoid open revolt. The over 5 million consumers whose plans were previously cancelled because they didn’t meet Obamacare’s stringent benefit requirements can now keep them through 2017, three years longer than the law originally prescribed.
The Administration has also given people whose plans were cancelled a “hardship exemption” so that they can dodge the individual mandate through 2016.
Many of those who have chosen to buy Obamacare-approved coverage have been outraged to find that their policies permit them to visit only a handful of doctors and hospitals. So much for the President’s oft-repeated promise, “If you like your plan, you can keep it.” The Administration has responded by forcing plans to expand their provider lists in 2015.
That decision may only hike rates further come next year. And recent media stories have been confirming as much.
By tweaking the law on the fly, the Administration is punting its problems down the road.
Industry officials specifically point to the Administration’s various delays and changes as the main culprit for rate hikes. One insurance company representative told The Hill that his firm’s rates would triple on the exchange next year.
It doesn’t have to be this way.
We can expand access to coverage for those with preexisting conditions, reduce costs, and lower the uninsured rate without disrupting Americans’ coverage and increasing their premiums.
The president chose to cover those with pre-existing conditions in the most expensive way possible — by requiring insurers to offer policies to all comers and forbidding them from charging anyone more than three times what they charged anyone else. So insurers just hiked rates for everyone.
A more cost-effective way to minister to those with pre-existing conditions is by expanding federal funding for state-level high-risk pools. Many such pools were functioning well before Obamacare, furnishing coverage to those who couldn’t get it on the open market without jacking up premiums for the rest of the population.
Meanwhile, the chief obstacle to covering the uninsured is affordability. Market forces could break that barrier down.
Letting consumers buy across state lines, for instance, would increase competition among insurers and encourage state regulators to limit unnecessarily costly benefit mandates.
Expanding health savings accounts (HSAs), where people can save money pre-tax for healthcare services, would give patients control over their healthcare dollars and encourage them to spend wisely. The explosive growth of HSAs in the employer market is one reason that health costs have been growing more slowly than the historical average in recent years.
Another way to make health insurance more affordable? Allow individuals to purchase coverage with pre-tax dollars, just as businesses can. Such a move would grant consumers the opportunity to choose coverage that suits their needs and budget — not their employer’s.
And to ensure that low-income individuals could take advantage, the government could offer a refundable tax credit toward the purchase of health insurance.
As Obamacare turns four, a clear majority of Americans stands opposed to it. Here’s to hoping that this anniversary is among the law’s last.
Sally C. Pipes is President, CEO, and Taube Fellow in Health Care Studies at the Pacific Research Institute. Her latest book is The Cure for Obamacare (Encounter 2013).
What will the folks who now have health care do once you take their health care away?
Vote Republican?
Are you referring to the people who have lied about their incomes on their Obamacare website applications in order to get subsidies?
I expect they will become pawns in class warfare politics, lies or not.
Are you referring to the people who have lied about their incomes on their Obamacare website applications in order to get subsidies?
Got anything to back up that preposterous claim? Or are you lying when you infer that everyone who now has healthcare lied to get it?
You are making an irresponsible and unsubstantiated claim.
Are you referring to the people who have lied about their incomes on their Obamacare website applications in order to get subsidies?
Got anything to back up that preposterous claim? Or are you lying when you infer that everyone who now has healthcare lied to get it?
You are making an irresponsible and unsubstantiated claim.
____________________________________________________________
It is fact.
HHS has been going back through the Obamacare signups (by hand because the healthcare.gov site's back end still doesn't work) and mailing income verification notices to many thousands of applicants.
The leftwing media is not reporting this because it doesn't reflect well on Obama.
Add to that the health care companies are still not able to verify the coverage elected by the suckers that did signup for Obamacare.
This is serious. A man's wife died waiting for a medical procedure because her insurance company said she didn't have coverage. The man's wife had the sign up screen print from Obamacare in hand but was continually denied the procedure to save her life.
Cancer Patient Dies From Brain Tumor After Obamacare Fails to Cover Her Treatment
by Steven Ertelt | Washington, DC | LifeNews.com | 7/2/14 6:15 PM
Linda Rolain passed away at her Las Vegas home on Monday after the Nevada resident but the Obamacare enrolleee died needlessly. Rolain’s family had joined two lawsuits against the State of Nevada and the company that set up its troubled online software, Xerox.
The Nevada resident tried to enroll in the state’s health exchange in November and after numerous issues, finally paid in January for coverage to start in March. But when she went to get treatment, there was no record of her name and she finally received an insurance card in May.
She underwent surgery in mid-May but struggled to recover.
When Congress approved and President Barack Obama signed Obamacare into law, pro-life advocates warned about rationing. This is one of the forms rationing takes — when government bureacracy fails to get it right and provide the lifesaving medical care and treatment patients need.
“I came in, held her hand. I whispered in her ear ‘I love you, I’m gonna be fine,’” Robert Rolain told Action News.
With that, 64-year-old Linda passed away, leaving behind her loving husband of 45 years.
It’s not the first time we’ve heard from Robert Rolain. Back in June, he spoke to Action News along with his attorney, Matt Callister, pleading with the state to get immediate health insurance coverage for Linda and others like her with life-threatening conditions. “She knew she was gonna die. She really knew it,” Robert said.
Doctors said Linda’s life could have been saved, had she gotten the brain surgery she needed six months ago when she was battling Nevada Health Link for coverage. After months of running into problems applying online, Linda finally got a plan and paid premiums every month, but when she went to go use it, her insurance company said they’d never heard of her. By then, it was too late. Linda spent her last four days on this earth in a coma.
“It’s hard, knowing she could have lived a little longer anyway,” Robert said.
Now Robert’s one reason to keep going is to keep fighting Linda’s fight. He doesn’t want one more person to go through the pain his family has suffered. “Even though they tell you you’ve got insurance, call the insurance company. Make sure you’re covered, because chances are you’re not going to be in their computers,” he said.
Robert is getting help from his attorney, Callister, who in addition to a class action suit, is suing the state. Callister is asking for the Health Exchange to get immediate coverage for those who can’t wait until the next open enrollment period, many of whom, like Linda, have been trying but failing for months.
[Edited on 10/26/2014 by Muleman1994]
What will the folks who now have health care do once you take their health care away?
Vote Republican?
_______________________________________________________
typical line of the lying liberals.
No one is saying they want to take away any one's health insurance.
The Republican's position is repeal and replace.Obamacare is a defective, politically motivated bill that has failed to get the 30 million uninsured covered.
The liberals constantly misrepresent the conservatives position.
On global warming, the liberals say the Republican's just want dirty air and dirty water. a flat out lie.
But y'all keep it up. Come the morning of Nov. 5th The People will have spoken.
Start writing up your list of excuses now.
LOL, Quoting articles from the antiabortion right-wing Christian LifeNews.com website to try to prove ACA is a failure? man you are really scraping this time Mule.
Eh, the current GOP has one of the worst voting records on Environmental issues in history so you may want to rethink your statement as it seems they really don't care about our environment.
here are some of the anti environment legislation proposed by the GOP
Prevent the EPA from calculating how much damage carbon pollution does to society
Stop the EPA from clarifying which streams and wetlands are protected by the Clean Water Act
Block EPA regulation of carbon pollution altogether
Ban the Fish & Wildlife Service from installing photovoltaic arrays
and the complete list is staggering
http://www.nrdc.org/legislation/2014-riders.asp
As far as the Dem losing seats in Congress no excuses necessary as turnover in Congress is cyclical but of course you continue to ignore that, thinking this is some major victory for the GOP. So lets review the facts again, very few Presidents enjoyed a Presidency with control of both houses for the majority of their terms. In fact many Presidents served their terms working with a Congress controlled by the opposing party.
Presidents Reagan spent all 8 years working with a Democrat controlled House so it no big deal. Clinton spent 6 of his 8 years with a GOP controlled Congress and his approval rating for his last term hovered around 60% so he must have been doing something right yet the GOP controlled Congress so how do you explain that Professor.
http://uspolitics.about.com/od/usgovernment/l/bl_party_division_2.htm
And here is a chart which proves my point
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Presidents_and_control_of_Congress
So continue to gloat over your false victory because as long as the Democrats control the Presidency that is all that matters. Hope you enjoy the next 10 years of Obama and Hillary running the show.
Just for fun interesting to see the Presidents approval ratings through the years. This one is for you Alloak as I know how much you love it when we bring G Dubya into the conversation. Notice how G Dubya's rating peaked when the U.S. invaded Afghanistan and drops like a rock from there until his 2nd term is over.
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-presapp0605-31.html
Just more fun facts for you Conservatives to learn from. 
[Edited on 10/26/2014 by Bill_Graham]
[Edited on 10/26/2014 by Bill_Graham]
[Edited on 10/26/2014 by Bill_Graham]
What will the folks who now have health care do once you take their health care away?
Vote Republican?
_______________________________________________________
typical line of the lying liberals.
No one is saying they want to take away any one's health insurance.
The Republican's position is repeal and replace.Obamacare is a defective, politically motivated bill that has failed to get the 30 million uninsured covered.
The liberals constantly misrepresent the conservatives position.
On global warming, the liberals say the Republican's just want dirty air and dirty water. a flat out lie.
But y'all keep it up. Come the morning of Nov. 5th The People will have spoken.
Start writing up your list of excuses now.
LOL, Quoting articles from the antiabortion right-wing Christian LifeNews.com website to try to prove ACA is a failure? man you are really scraping this time Mule.
Eh, the current GOP has one of the worst voting records on Environmental issues in history so you may want to rethink your statement as it seems they really don't care about our environment.
here are some of the anti environment legislation proposed by the GOP
Prevent the EPA from calculating how much damage carbon pollution does to society
Stop the EPA from clarifying which streams and wetlands are protected by the Clean Water Act
Block EPA regulation of carbon pollution altogether
Ban the Fish & Wildlife Service from installing photovoltaic arrays
and the complete list is staggering
http://www.nrdc.org/legislation/2014-riders.asp
_________________________________________________________You are referencing an extremist eco-wack-jobs organization. Of course they will attack conservatives. That is their political agenda.
The EPA, aligned with the eco-nuts are using their own interpretation of the CWA and others to serve their radical agenda.
When political activism by gov’t agencies occurs, they must be shut down and prosecuted.What would you say if when the Republican in power they outlawed any liberal speech like the homosexual mayor of Houston is trying to do to the churches right now?
____________________________________________________________As far as the Dem losing seats in Congress no excuses necessary as turnover in Congress is cyclical but of course you continue to ignore that, thinking this is some major victory for the GOP. So lets review the facts again, very few Presidents enjoyed a Presidency with control of both houses for the majority of their terms. In fact many Presidents served their terms working with a Congress controlled by the opposing party.
Presidents Reagan spent all 8 years working with a Democrat controlled House so it no big deal. Clinton spent 6 of his 8 years with a GOP controlled Congress and his approval rating for his last term hovered around 60% so he must have been doing something right yet the GOP controlled Congress so how do you explain that Professor.
http://uspolitics.about.com/od/usgovernment/l/bl_party_division_2.htm
And here is a chart which proves my point
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Presidents_and_control_of_Congress
__________________________________________Wikipedia again? Man you are desperate.
Excuses like yours are typical of losers. Unable to support Obama and Reid’s failures to lead, you stoop to justifying The People rejection with irrelevant crap.
_____________________________________So continue to gloat over your false victory because as long as the Democrats control the Presidency that is all that matters. Hope you enjoy the next 10 years of Obama and Hillary running the show.
Just for fun interesting to see the Presidents approval ratings through the years. This one is for you Alloak as I know how much you love it when we bring G Dubya into the conversation. Notice how G Dubya's rating peaked when the U.S. invaded Afghanistan and drops like a rock from there until his 2nd term is over.
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-presapp0605-31.html
Just more fun facts for you Conservatives to learn from.
[Edited on 10/26/2014 by Bill_Graham]
[Edited on 10/26/2014 by Bill_Graham]
[Edited on 10/26/2014 by Bill_Graham]
________________________________________
You can run from the truth all you wish as the liberals become more and more irrelevant and the conservatives take back control of the country.
