This REALLY puts it in perspective....

Post by **Wedgebuster** » Mon Jul 02, 2012 11:06 am

SuperHornet wrote:

This is really looking bleak for you SH, have you considered fleeing to Canada?

Post by **dbackjon** » Mon Jul 02, 2012 11:08 am

SH - you really need to get a new news source, instead of posting this drivel that is filled with distortions, half-truths and out and out lies.

Post by **Ibanez** » Mon Jul 02, 2012 11:48 am

SuperHornet wrote:

Says the guy with NO insurance.

Me: Hey, SH. What If I told you I could help you get afforadable health insurance?
SH: NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

houndawg · Post by **houndawg** » Mon Jul 02, 2012 11:53 am

Wedgebuster wrote:
SuperHornet wrote:

This is really looking bleak for you SH, have you considered fleeing to Canada?

Too socialist; he needs to shag ass to a place where the free market rules and there is no government interference.

Like Somalia.

Post by **AZGrizFan** » Mon Jul 02, 2012 12:14 pm

dbackjon wrote:SH - you really need to get a new news source, instead of posting this drivel that is filled with distortions, half-truths and out and out lies.

Which parts are distortions? Half-truths? Lies?

Was the mandate deemed constitutional? Check
Does it provide for adding doctors? Check
Is Congress exempted? Check?
Didn't they admit to passing it before reading it? Check
Doesn't Sortero smoke? Check
Didn't the Treasury Chief NOT pay taxes? Check
Don't most of the benefits get delayed for years? Check
Isn't the surgeon general fat? Check
Isn't the country broke? Check

You really need to get some new material rather than blathering on about lies and half-truths just because you're blindly following an idiot over a cliff.

Chizzang · Post by **Chizzang** » Mon Jul 02, 2012 12:32 pm

AZGrizFan wrote:
Which parts are distortions? Half-truths? Lies?

Was the mandate deemed constitutional? Check
Does it provide for adding doctors? Check
Is Congress exempted? Check?
Didn't they admit to passing it before reading it? Check
Doesn't Sortero smoke? Check
Didn't the Treasury Chief NOT pay taxes? Check
Don't most of the benefits get delayed for years? Check
Isn't the surgeon general fat? Check
Isn't the country broke? Check

All of that seems about right (above)
But if it's good enough for the Republican in Massachusetts who's now running for President..?
I don't see it as necessarily any crazier that much of what goes on in Washington DC

BUT: It might work..?
You gotta admit - it might just work
True, it probably won't but it might 50/50 chance it might just work

Post by **AZGrizFan** » Mon Jul 02, 2012 12:45 pm

Chizzang wrote:
AZGrizFan wrote:
Which parts are distortions? Half-truths? Lies?

Was the mandate deemed constitutional? Check
Does it provide for adding doctors? Check
Is Congress exempted? Check?
Didn't they admit to passing it before reading it? Check
Doesn't Sortero smoke? Check
Didn't the Treasury Chief NOT pay taxes? Check
Don't most of the benefits get delayed for years? Check
Isn't the surgeon general fat? Check
Isn't the country broke? Check
All of that seems about right (above)
But if it's good enough for the Republican in Massachusetts who's now running for President..?
I don't see it as necessarily any crazier that much of what goes on in Washington DC

BUT: It might work..?
You gotta admit - it might just work
True, it probably won't but it might 50/50 chance it might just work

Oh, come ON. NO government program has a 50/50 chance.

Chizzang · Post by **Chizzang** » Mon Jul 02, 2012 12:56 pm

AZGrizFan wrote:
Chizzang wrote:
All of that seems about right (above)
But if it's good enough for the Republican in Massachusetts who's now running for President..?
I don't see it as necessarily any crazier that much of what goes on in Washington DC

BUT: It might work..?
You gotta admit - it might just work
True, it probably won't but it might 50/50 chance it might just work
Oh, come ON. NO government program has a 50/50 chance.

I can dream can't I..?

Post by **AZGrizFan** » Mon Jul 02, 2012 1:35 pm

Chizzang wrote:
AZGrizFan wrote:
Oh, come ON. NO government program has a 50/50 chance.
I can dream can't I..?

Skjellyfetti · Post by **Skjellyfetti** » Mon Jul 02, 2012 2:02 pm

AZGrizFan wrote:Is Congress exempted?

No.

the only health plans that the Federal Government may make available to Members of Congress and
congressional staff with respect to their service as a Member of Congress or congressional staff shall
be health plans that are--
(I) created under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act); or
(II) offered through an Exchange established under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act).

http://healthlawandlitigation.com/PDF/c ... -fines.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Does the health care bill specifically exempt members of Congress and their staffs from its provisions?

A: No. This twisted claim is based on misrepresentations of the House and Senate bills, neither of which exempts lawmakers.

Members of Congress are subject to the legislation’s mandate to have insurance, and the plans available to them must meet the same minimum benefit standards that other insurance plans will have to meet.

http://www.factcheck.org/2010/01/congre ... alth-bill/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Post by **AZGrizFan** » Mon Jul 02, 2012 2:06 pm

Skjellyfetti wrote:
AZGrizFan wrote:Is Congress exempted?
No.

the only health plans that the Federal Government may make available to Members of Congress and
congressional staff with respect to their service as a Member of Congress or congressional staff shall
be health plans that are--
(I) created under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act); or
(II) offered through an Exchange established under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act).
http://healthlawandlitigation.com/PDF/c ... -fines.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Does the health care bill specifically exempt members of Congress and their staffs from its provisions?

A: No. This twisted claim is based on misrepresentations of the House and Senate bills, neither of which exempts lawmakers.
quote]Members of Congress are subject to the legislation’s mandate to have insurance, and the plans available to them must meet the same minimum benefit standards that other insurance plans will have to meet.

http://www.factcheck.org/2010/01/congre ... alth-bill/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;[/quote]

You're 1 for 20. Keep shootin'.

Chizzang · Post by **Chizzang** » Mon Jul 02, 2012 2:38 pm

Well that's one down... come on Liberals help me out here
I WANT this to be a good thing - show me how it is

Skjellyfetti · Post by **Skjellyfetti** » Mon Jul 02, 2012 3:21 pm

Well, the fact that Obama has been a smoker (I do not know if he currently is... nor do I really give a fuck) certainly doesn't have any bearing on whether the health care bill is a good thing or not.

The Surgeon General's weight is not something I give much of a fuck about... nor is it something that has bearing on whether or not the health care bill is a good thing or not.

Tim Geitner's tax problems is something I gave a bit of a fuck about a few years ago. But, it doesn't have much to do with whether the health care bill is a good thing or not.

Are the benefits delayed? Some are. Is it better than not having those benefits at all? Yes, imo.

I've said my spiel on the health care law. It was debated endlessly throughout the 2008 campaign and all through 2009. If you don't like the law or wish it wasn't passed. Great. I don't really care about convincing you. If you aren't convinced at this point or if there is stuff you are still misinformed on (ie. AZGriz still thinking Congress exempted themselves from the bill

)... I'm not going to reeducate you or bother trying to sway your opinion. I don't really give a fuck.

The bill passed. The public supports the bill. The mandate was ruled constitutional. Move on.

Post by **AZGrizFan** » Mon Jul 02, 2012 3:35 pm

Skjellyfetti wrote:Well, the fact that Obama has been a smoker (I do not know if he currently is... nor do I really give a fuck) certainly doesn't have any bearing on whether the health care bill is a good thing or not.

The Surgeon General's weight is not something I give much of a fuck about... nor is it something that has bearing on whether or not the health care bill is a good thing or not.

Tim Geitner's tax problems is something I gave a bit of a fuck about a few years ago. But, it doesn't have much to do with whether the health care bill is a good thing or not.

Are the benefits delayed? Some are. Is it better than not having those benefits at all? Yes, imo.

I've said my spiel on the health care law. It was debated endlessly throughout the 2008 campaign and all through 2009. If you don't like the law or wish it wasn't passed. Great. I don't really care about convincing you. If you aren't convinced at this point or if there is stuff you are still misinformed on (ie. AZGriz still thinking Congress exempted themselves from the bill )... I'm not going to reeducate you or bother trying to sway your opinion. I don't really give a fuck.

The bill passed. The public supports the bill. The mandate was ruled constitutional. Move on.

Doesn't change the fact that those things are all TRUE. And the public does NOT support the bill.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... h_care_law" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The U.S. Supreme Court declared that President Obama’s health care law is constitutional, but they were unable to make it popular.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that 52% of Likely U.S. Voters favor repeal of the health care law, while 39% are opposed. That’s little changed from a week ago. Indeed, support for repeal has barely budged since the law was passed.

houndawg · Post by **houndawg** » Mon Jul 02, 2012 4:12 pm

AZGrizFan wrote:
Skjellyfetti wrote:Well, the fact that Obama has been a smoker (I do not know if he currently is... nor do I really give a ****) certainly doesn't have any bearing on whether the health care bill is a good thing or not.

The Surgeon General's weight is not something I give much of a **** about... nor is it something that has bearing on whether or not the health care bill is a good thing or not.

Tim Geitner's tax problems is something I gave a bit of a **** about a few years ago. But, it doesn't have much to do with whether the health care bill is a good thing or not.

Are the benefits delayed? Some are. Is it better than not having those benefits at all? Yes, imo.

I've said my spiel on the health care law. It was debated endlessly throughout the 2008 campaign and all through 2009. If you don't like the law or wish it wasn't passed. Great. I don't really care about convincing you. If you aren't convinced at this point or if there is stuff you are still misinformed on (ie. AZGriz still thinking Congress exempted themselves from the bill )... I'm not going to reeducate you or bother trying to sway your opinion. I don't really give a ****.

The bill passed. The public supports the bill. The mandate was ruled constitutional. Move on.
Doesn't change the fact that those things are all TRUE. And the public does NOT support the bill.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... h_care_law" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The U.S. Supreme Court declared that President Obama’s health care law is constitutional, but they were unable to make it popular.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that 52% of Likely U.S. Voters favor repeal of the health care law, while 39% are opposed. That’s little changed from a week ago. Indeed, support for repeal has barely budged since the law was passed.

Telephone surveys aint what they used to be.

Post by **AZGrizFan** » Mon Jul 02, 2012 4:16 pm

houndawg wrote: Telephone surveys aint what they used to be.

Classic. When the answer doesn't fit your agenda, attack the source.

You'd think that survey was the gospel if the numbers were reversed.

Post by **Grizalltheway** » Mon Jul 02, 2012 4:18 pm

AZGrizFan wrote:
houndawg wrote: Telephone surveys aint what they used to be.

Classic. When the answer doesn't fit your agenda, attack the source.

You'd think that survey was the gospel if the numbers were reversed.

Can you tell us what percentage of the 18-34 demographic actually has a land line anymore, Z?

houndawg · Post by **houndawg** » Mon Jul 02, 2012 4:20 pm

AZGrizFan wrote:
houndawg wrote: Telephone surveys aint what they used to be.

Classic. When the answer doesn't fit your agenda, attack the source.

You'd think that survey was the gospel if the numbers were reversed.

Wrong.

It's common knowledge, really.

houndawg · Post by **houndawg** » Mon Jul 02, 2012 4:21 pm

AZGrizFan wrote:
houndawg wrote: Telephone surveys aint what they used to be.

Classic. When the answer doesn't fit your agenda, attack the source.

You'd think that survey was the gospel if the numbers were reversed.

I don't even think that the gospel is the gospel.

Post by **AZGrizFan** » Mon Jul 02, 2012 4:50 pm

Grizalltheway wrote:
AZGrizFan wrote:

Classic. When the answer doesn't fit your agenda, attack the source.

You'd think that survey was the gospel if the numbers were reversed.
Can you tell us what percentage of the 18-34 demographic actually has a land line anymore, Z?

Can you tell me the percentage of the 18-34 demographic that is a likely voter?

Can you tell me a polling methodology that you'd accept as "accurate"?

Post by **Vidav** » Mon Jul 02, 2012 4:54 pm

AZGrizFan wrote:
Grizalltheway wrote:
Can you tell us what percentage of the 18-34 demographic actually has a land line anymore, Z?
Can you tell me the percentage of the 18-34 demographic that is a likely voter?

Can you tell me a polling methodology that you'd accept as "accurate"?

None. Polls are a huge waste of time.

polsongrizz · Post by **polsongrizz** » Mon Jul 02, 2012 4:57 pm

AZGrizFan wrote:

Does it provide for adding doctors? Check

I must have missed something here, according to his cute little poster it adds zip, nada, nothing as far as new Drs.

Post by **AZGrizFan** » Mon Jul 02, 2012 5:20 pm

polsongrizz wrote:
AZGrizFan wrote:

Does it provide for adding doctors? Check
I must have missed something here, according to his cute little poster it adds zip, nada, nothing as far as new Drs.

Yeah. I typed the word "not" in there somewhere...not sure what happened.

Tod · Post by **Tod** » Mon Jul 02, 2012 6:07 pm

AZGrizFan wrote:
polsongrizz wrote: I must have missed something here, according to his cute little poster it adds zip, nada, nothing as far as new Drs.
Yeah. I typed the word "not" in there somewhere...not sure what happened.

That's one of the few charges in the original post that is of valid concern. I'd like to see Montana (UM) start a med. School.

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