Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

JohnStOnge wrote:You know, that MIT guy who was videoed saying that deception and lack of transparency was necessary to get the Affordable Care Act (ACA) passed. Tonight I saw a video on the evil Fox News Network of him talking about how "the dirty little secret" associated with the Massachusetts health care plan that preceded the ACA is that the Federal government paid for it. That's why it "worked." He said Ted Kennedy arranged it so that Massachusetts got $400 million annually from the Federal government to make it work.

I could not find that specific video on Youtube. But I did find this video where he says, at the 6 minute mark, that the Federal government paid for it.

So here's what we have: We have a situation in which people pointed to the Massachusetts thing as an indication that the concept represented by the ACA would work. But what they didn't say is that the Massachusetts thing wasn't "self-sustainable." There was some outside entity subsidizing it.

People, you were screwed. Even if you are a "liberal/progressive" who doesn't realize it, you were lied to and screwed. Way to go liberal/progressive sycophants!

kalm wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:You know, that MIT guy who was videoed saying that deception and lack of transparency was necessary to get the Affordable Care Act (ACA) passed. Tonight I saw a video on the evil Fox News Network of him talking about how "the dirty little secret" associated with the Massachusetts health care plan that preceded the ACA is that the Federal government paid for it. That's why it "worked." He said Ted Kennedy arranged it so that Massachusetts got $400 million annually from the Federal government to make it work.

I could not find that specific video on Youtube. But I did find this video where he says, at the 6 minute mark, that the Federal government paid for it.

So here's what we have: We have a situation in which people pointed to the Massachusetts thing as an indication that the concept represented by the ACA would work. But what they didn't say is that the Massachusetts thing wasn't "self-sustainable." There was some outside entity subsidizing it.

People, you were screwed. Even if you are a "liberal/progressive" who doesn't realize it, you were lied to and screwed. Way to go liberal/progressive sycophants!

Most liberals and progressives would have preferred single payer. Congrats on the conks hatching this idea in the first place to make insurance and big pharma "whole".

Someday we'll catch up to the rest of the first world...

JohnStOnge wrote:

Someday we'll catch up to the rest of the first world...

The rest of the world is generally behind us and has been for some time. Yes people can try to make arguments with certain limited areas and statistics pertaining to that. But if you ask what the leading country in the world is and what it has been for the past 80 years or so there's no question as to what the answer is. It's the United States.

BlueHen86 wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:
The rest of the world is generally behind us and has been for some time. Yes people can try to make arguments with certain limited areas and statistics pertaining to that. But if you ask what the leading country in the world is and what it has been for the past 80 years or so there's no question as to what the answer is. It's the United States.

Glad to see that we are still number one, sometimes it's hard to tell with all the Obama haters telling us the sky is falling.

JohnStOnge wrote:You know, that MIT guy who was videoed saying that deception and lack of transparency was necessary to get the Affordable Care Act (ACA) passed. Tonight I saw a video on the evil Fox News Network of him talking about how "the dirty little secret" associated with the Massachusetts health care plan that preceded the ACA is that the Federal government paid for it. That's why it "worked." He said Ted Kennedy arranged it so that Massachusetts got $400 million annually from the Federal government to make it work.

I could not find that specific video on Youtube. But I did find this video where he says, at the 6 minute mark, that the Federal government paid for it.

So here's what we have: We have a situation in which people pointed to the Massachusetts thing as an indication that the concept represented by the ACA would work. But what they didn't say is that the Massachusetts thing wasn't "self-sustainable." There was some outside entity subsidizing it.

People, you were screwed. Even if you are a "liberal/progressive" who doesn't realize it, you were lied to and screwed. Way to go liberal/progressive sycophants!

JohnStOnge wrote:

Someday we'll catch up to the rest of the first world...

The rest of the world is generally behind us and has been for some time. Yes people can try to make arguments with certain limited areas and statistics pertaining to that. But if you ask what the leading country in the world is and what it has been for the past 80 years or so there's no question as to what the answer is. It's the United States.

kalm wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:You know, that MIT guy who was videoed saying that deception and lack of transparency was necessary to get the Affordable Care Act (ACA) passed. Tonight I saw a video on the evil Fox News Network of him talking about how "the dirty little secret" associated with the Massachusetts health care plan that preceded the ACA is that the Federal government paid for it. That's why it "worked." He said Ted Kennedy arranged it so that Massachusetts got $400 million annually from the Federal government to make it work.

I could not find that specific video on Youtube. But I did find this video where he says, at the 6 minute mark, that the Federal government paid for it.

So here's what we have: We have a situation in which people pointed to the Massachusetts thing as an indication that the concept represented by the ACA would work. But what they didn't say is that the Massachusetts thing wasn't "self-sustainable." There was some outside entity subsidizing it.

People, you were screwed. Even if you are a "liberal/progressive" who doesn't realize it, you were lied to and screwed. Way to go liberal/progressive sycophants!

Most liberals and progressives would have preferred single payer. Congrats on the conks hatching this idea in the first place to make insurance and big pharma "whole".

kalm wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:You know, that MIT guy who was videoed saying that deception and lack of transparency was necessary to get the Affordable Care Act (ACA) passed. Tonight I saw a video on the evil Fox News Network of him talking about how "the dirty little secret" associated with the Massachusetts health care plan that preceded the ACA is that the Federal government paid for it. That's why it "worked." He said Ted Kennedy arranged it so that Massachusetts got $400 million annually from the Federal government to make it work.

I could not find that specific video on Youtube. But I did find this video where he says, at the 6 minute mark, that the Federal government paid for it.

So here's what we have: We have a situation in which people pointed to the Massachusetts thing as an indication that the concept represented by the ACA would work. But what they didn't say is that the Massachusetts thing wasn't "self-sustainable." There was some outside entity subsidizing it.

People, you were screwed. Even if you are a "liberal/progressive" who doesn't realize it, you were lied to and screwed. Way to go liberal/progressive sycophants!

Most liberals and progressives would have preferred single payer. Congrats on the conks hatching this idea in the first place to make insurance and big pharma "whole".

SeattleGriz wrote:

kalm wrote:
Most liberals and progressives would have preferred single payer. Congrats on the conks hatching this idea in the first place to make insurance and big pharma "whole".

...and how exactly did the Dems, who owned all three aspects of the government allow this to happen?

BDKJMU wrote:

kalm wrote:
Most liberals and progressives would have preferred single payer. Congrats on the conks hatching this idea in the first place to make insurance and big pharma "whole".

No need to be redundant.

feisty Senator Orrin Hatch spoke to a gathering at the Federalist Society, telling fellow conservatives he intends to use the filibuster reforms put in place by the Democrats “to stop bad judges if we want to,” before referring to progressives as “dumbass liberals.”

Speaking at the Federalist Society’s annual conference in downtown Washington, D.C, the Republican Senator from Utah who sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee, claimed he was going to turn the new rule — requiring just 51 votes to advance most nominees, instead of the 60 votes — back on the Democrats, the Huffington Post reports.

“We should not return to the old rule. We should teach those blunderheads that they made a big mistake. And we have the votes to stop bad judges if we want to,” Hatch said.


Prior to the election, Hatch said he wanted to change the rules back, telling Politico, “We should get it back to where it was. You can see the destruction that has happened around here.”

With Republicans now the majority party in the Senate, Hatch has had a change of heart.

Hatch also took time to mock liberals for using the term “progressive,” telling a laughing crowd, “I get a big kick out of them using the word ‘progressive. My gosh, they’re just straight old dumbass liberals anyway.”

SeattleGriz wrote:

kalm wrote:
Most liberals and progressives would have preferred single payer. Congrats on the conks hatching this idea in the first place to make insurance and big pharma "whole".

...and how exactly did the Dems, who owned all three aspects of the government allow this to happen?

Baldy wrote:

SeattleGriz wrote:
...and how exactly did the Dems, who owned all three aspects of the government allow this to happen?

It was a spanosesque type conspiracy.

kalm wrote:

SeattleGriz wrote:
...and how exactly did the Dems, who owned all three aspects of the government allow this to happen?

Who wrote the legislation? Why was it so long, that Nancy Pelosi couldn't even read it?

WASHINGTON — For ObamaCare “architect” Jonathan Gruber, the health law he helped design has been the gift that keeps on giving.

Gruber has come under blistering criticism since videos resurfaced of him saying the law passed due to the “stupidity” of Americans who didn’t understand its complexity.

Now, a series of government contracts totaling more than $2 million for consulting services provided by the Harvard-trained economics professor are coming under scrutiny.

89Hen wrote:So much fun to watch the board libs deflect and defend.

Fox Business Network anchor Melissa Francis has no reason to be surprised at the media blackout of Gruber’s infuriating comments. She knows just how ideologically rigid Obama’s Praetorian Media can be, having worked at CNBC. Here she reveals what happened when she pointed out on air that the ObamaCare numbers never added up:

OL FU wrote:We understand that healthy people pay into a pool where the people that benefit are the unhealthy(isn't that how insurance works).

CitadelGrad wrote:

OL FU wrote:We understand that healthy people pay into a pool where the people that benefit are the unhealthy(isn't that how insurance works).

Not exactly. Private health insurance will charge higher premiums for those who are less healthy or have a greater risk of illness (tobacco users, alcoholics, etc.). Those who are healthier and less at-risk will pay lower premiums and are expected to subsidize the higher risk policy holders. Before the mandate, one could even choose to not carry health insurance.

Bronco wrote:Nice video from a former CNBC talking head with a Harvard degree in economics. (Another person with higher grades than Obama at Harvard) But not hard to beat a c- average

She was told when questioning the math of Obamacare to quit disrespecting the president

http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/3891956966001" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Fox Business Network anchor Melissa Francis has no reason to be surprised at the media blackout of Gruber’s infuriating comments. She knows just how ideologically rigid Obama’s Praetorian Media can be, having worked at CNBC. Here she reveals what happened when she pointed out on air that the ObamaCare numbers never added up:

Maybe you guys should watch Fox news so you can actually hear both sides of a story