Bill Maher Left An Obamacare Hater Speechless With One Question

You mean there are still a few morons left who believe the law is 2000 pages?

huh...after all this time.
 
And yet, wouldn't reasonable reform have provided for some take on such? Reform was never taken into account with this monstrosity, it was all about 'government knowing what's best.' Once again, it failed.

Does this bother you when regular insurance companies do it or is it just Obamacare? And if it does bother you, what have you done about it?
 
What you really mean is that the Democrats were told how to vote by Obama and like good jackass thugs, with total power and control of the gov. did just that....

before anyone could even read and try to understand the 2000+ pages of legislation.

"you gotta pass it to know whats in it"...??? Thats reality.

Do you use this argument about every umpteen-page budget that's passed? And please don't deflect the question by bringing up Obama's budget problems.
 
Nothing in the petty bullshit list would be there if the majority party didn't want it...and none of those items have anything to
do with the cluster fuck that IS Obamacare....
All of those so called contributions were called for back when Hillary was pushing for her version of healthcare...
and not even one Rep. voted for this pig....they weren't contributions, they were issues the R's choose not to fight and agreed to.

If you had a single shred of honesty you'd admit the repubs don't give a shit about reforming health care in this country, and never did. So of course they didn't vote for it.
 
Sorry, but Maher's question was stupid. The mandates create a one size fits all insurance policy. The law is not 2000 pages because of the wealth of options provided.

Matt Welch is tea party? Based on what?
 
That's bullshit from the get go and you won't often see me post the word. Republicans were rooted in opposing issues such as mandated participation, abortions and birth control in all policies, as well as all policies mandated to include as many requirements as passed.

In actuality, these were the very issues that are now killing the implementation, once we get by the 'technical glitches' in a month or years.

Bottom line, it should have been bi-partisan from the get go, with the assumption that the minority party likely was making good points. I grant you that likely even today we might not have had a bill, much less a law, but real reform must be just that. This isn't that.

From an article of the time, when the political decision was made to let the 'honeymoon' force the bill:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/19/health/policy/19repubs.html?_r=0

It's going to fail because the penalty is not high enough to make the "mandate" work. Many young and healthy people who would have provided subsidies for the old will just pay the penalty. Without them the costs are going to be higher than expected. Then the left will claim the insurers are being greedy.
 
baxter for once says something useful.

And the fake libertarian atheist, who demands special rights for Catholics/Christians, never says anything useful. I would say you should kill yourself but after your debate performance I am not sure you should be allowed to.
 
Yea...there was nothing wrong with the way healthcare was delivered in this country. There was no need for any change.

Still some morons who think the law is 2000 pages, I see.

But all politics aside, the investigation contains some interesting figures and information culled from thousands of pages of documents provided by the insurers. The memo points out, for instance, that since 2007, the number of denials on the basis of pre-existing conditions has risen each year, outpacing the increase in applications for insurance coverage:
A year-by-year analysis shows a significant increase in the number of coverage denials each year. The insurance companies denied coverage to 172,400 people in 2007 and 221,400 people in 2008. By 2009, the number of individuals denied coverage rose to 257,100.Between 2007 and 2009, the number of people denied coverage for pre-existing conditions increased 49%. During the same period, applications for insurance coverage at the four companies increased by only 16%.


http://www.propublica.org/blog/item...e-to-1-in-7-people-citing-pre-existing-condit


 
Obamacare is so wonderful that Obama had to lie about it for years...


300x2301.jpg



He didn’t say it just once.


No, the president said it at least twenty-three separate times over a four-year period: “If you like your insurance plan, you will keep it. No one will be able to take that away from you.”


Liar, liar, pants on fire.


Hundreds of thousands of people recently received notices from their insurers informing them that they would not be able to keep their plans under Obamacare. Millions more will discover the same thing over the next few weeks.


They’ll lose the reliable, affordable plans they have now.


And they’ll instead have the option to purchase more expensive, more comprehensive plans that they may not need or want.


Some will no doubt find the coverage available under Obamacare unaffordable. So they’ll go without — and pay the individual mandate penalty of $95 or 1 percent of income in 2014.


Thanks to Obamacare, more than two millions Americans have received letters denying renewal of their existing policies.


That’s triple the number of people who have attempted to buy new plans under the law.


In California, 279,000 people have been told they’re being stripped of their coverage; in Michigan, 140,000; in Florida, 300,000; and in New Jersey, 800,000.


And that’s just the tip of the iceberg.


Of the 19 million people with individual-market health insurance, approximately 16 million could lose their current plans.


The rash of changes to Americans’ existing insurance coverage will soon extend to the employer marketplace.


That shouldn’t be a surprise.


After all, the Department of Health and Human Services predicted back in 2010 that by the end of this year, 66 percent of small employer plans and 45 percent of large health plans would lose the “grandfather status” that exempted them from the law’s many expensive mandates.



http://www.forbes.com/sites/sallypipes/2013/11/11/president-obama-actually-meant-if-you-like-your-insurance-plan-too-bad/
 
How many times are you going to lie about the law being 2000 pages?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/10/23/affordable-care-act-pages-long/3174499/

Along with partisan sniping, Washington, D.C. sure creates a lot of paper. And the Affordable Care Act is really adding to the pile. The nearly 11,000 pages of regulations for this one law alone would reach three feet high if you made the mistake of printing it.

Yeah Big Money, stop lying.

obamacare-length-infographic-2.jpg


Grassley-ObamaCare-regulations.jpg
 
you're an outright idiot. Democrats own this piece of shit, you dipshit. We have to pass it to see what's in it!

You are a lame partisan since you can't even keep the facts straight
Yup...that's the political risk for both parties. Democrats own it. Even though most of the ideas are market based ideas which originated with previous Republican administration. The PP&ACA was passed through congress without a single Republican vote.

and that's the risk...if the ACA works and becomes popular...and it is already starting to do so, then Democrats will own that. If it flops, then they will still own it.

The GOP opposition is almost solely politically based on that they expect it to succeed and Dems will own it and not them.
 
Nah, it's one giant, dysfunctional 'compromise.' The Dems had to fight for every inch with the Republicans.
That's what was truly amazing about the ACA...the Dems gave the GOP just about every compromise they asked for...and then they still voted against. Does that tell you what the GOP's opposition to healh care reform is really about?
 
Back
Top