Obama Lied, my Health Plan Died

“Facts”

Since: May 08

Location hidden

#192 Nov 10, 2013
GRANDPA NICOLAI wrote:
<quoted text>>
>
Better question would be why you knock the government so much?

And yes, I made some of my money from private companies who benefited from the protection, infrastructure,research etc etc made possible by the big bad government you hate so much...

Your claim that the private companies did not build the roads because they didn't need them is ridiculous, otherwise why did the private firms started using the interstates the moment the concrete dried out...?

You are correct, government contracts are worth a lot of money, and without those contracts precious little would get done by your "private companies"
We all know you have no money
Just like w

“Government IS the problem.”

Since: Jan 08

Chico, CA

#194 Nov 11, 2013
Another beautiful thing that Obamacare brings to the country is another marriage penalty.

"Any married couple that earns more than 400 percent of the federal poverty level—that is $62,040—for a family of two earns too much for subsidies under Obamacare. "If you're over 400 percent of poverty, you're never eligible for premium" support, explains Gary Claxton, director of the Health Care Marketplace Project at the Kaiser Family Foundation.

But if that same couple lived together unmarried, they could earn up to $45,960 each—$91,920 total—and still be eligible for subsidies through the exchanges in New York state, where insurance is comparatively expensive and the state exchange was set up in such a way as to not provide lower rates for younger people.(Subsidy eligibility is calculated using a complicated formula involving income in relation to the poverty line, family size, and the price of plans offered through a state's marketplace.)"
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2...
Local

Hidden Valley Lake, CA

#195 Nov 11, 2013
Sam Lowree wrote:
Another beautiful thing that Obamacare brings to the country is another marriage penalty.
"Any married couple that earns more than 400 percent of the federal poverty level—that is $62,040—for a family of two earns too much for subsidies under Obamacare. "If you're over 400 percent of poverty, you're never eligible for premium" support, explains Gary Claxton, director of the Health Care Marketplace Project at the Kaiser Family Foundation.
But if that same couple lived together unmarried, they could earn up to $45,960 each—$91,920 total—and still be eligible for subsidies through the exchanges in New York state, where insurance is comparatively expensive and the state exchange was set up in such a way as to not provide lower rates for younger people.(Subsidy eligibility is calculated using a complicated formula involving income in relation to the poverty line, family size, and the price of plans offered through a state's marketplace.)"
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2...
Right on again Sam.
This is simply another attempt by the left at worsening the destruction of the American family.
Most of our social ills can be traced back to the liberal's destruction of the traditional American family.

The destruction of America starts with family

http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/fisher/05...

Almost 70 percent of black children are born to single mothers. Those mothers are far more likely than married mothers to be poor, even after a post-welfare-reform decline in child poverty. They are also more likely to pass that poverty on to their children. Sophisticates often try to dodge the implications of this bleak reality by shrugging that single motherhood is an inescapable fact of modern life, affecting everyone from the bobo Murphy Browns to the ghetto “baby mamas.” Not so; it is a largely low-income—and disproportionately black—phenomenon. The vast majority of higher-income women wait to have their children until they are married. The truth is that we are now a two-family nation, separate and unequal—one thriving and intact, and the other struggling, broken, and far too often African-American.
http://city-journal.org/html/15_3_black_famil...

How's all that "hope and change" been workin for the black community?
The right is wrong

Lincoln, CA

#196 Nov 11, 2013
Yep, everyone who pays taxes in Mexico pays for IMSS butt you have to pay the $300.00 to enroll and from what is posted on Google anyone with $300.00 can enroll at any age.

Kind of like Medicare except repubicans won’t expand Medicare to cover everyone.

And IMG, it’s just another “supplemental” insurance to cover what the IMSS doesn’t.

Kind of like my Kaiser plan that doesn’t have any deductible.

I was wrong about the pedophile from Puerto Vallarta not posting that he has socialized medical care. Yes he did post it, butt not thousands of times like he claims.

I find it ironic that the pedophile from Puerto Vallarta brags about having socialized medical care, whines that Obama wants a system that he, the pedophile from Puerto Vallarta has and all the right -wing freaks on this forum continue to genuflect to the pedophile from Puerto Vallarta.

Simply amazing!

“Facts”

Since: May 08

Location hidden

#197 Nov 11, 2013
The right is wrong wrote:
Yep, everyone who pays taxes in Mexico pays for IMSS butt you have to pay the $300.00 to enroll and from what is posted on Google anyone with $300.00 can enroll at any age.

Kind of like Medicare except repubicans wonÂ’t expand Medicare to cover everyone.

And IMG, it’s just another “supplemental” insurance to cover what the IMSS doesn’t.

Kind of like my Kaiser plan that doesnÂ’t have any deductible.

I was wrong about the pedophile from Puerto Vallarta not posting that he has socialized medical care. Yes he did post it, butt not thousands of times like he claims.

I find it ironic that the pedophile from Puerto Vallarta brags about having socialized medical care, whines that Obama wants a system that he, the pedophile from Puerto Vallarta has and all the right -wing freaks on this forum continue to genuflect to the pedophile from Puerto Vallarta.

Simply amazing!
Caught in another lie so the moron switches to his duck and dodge.....

First John McCain and many other said Medicaid would be a better solution than oslamacare but oslama told John he had lost the election and to shut up and sit down and then oslama locked all conservatives out of any discussion of oslamacare

IMSS is a government managed program run by doctors far different than oslamacare. Nobody is forced to join but if you have a job your employer pays for it. Because I am not employed I pay for it

And you are caught in another lie as IMG is not a supplemental insurance at all.. So why do you once again cram your feet into your mouth and get got telling a lie??

Caught in another lie. IMSS is part of the benefits you get from working. In the USA there is unemployment. In Mexico the employer pays for your healthcare

So busted for three lies in one post

Keep it up rainhead..........ROTFLMAO
Tea Party Solution

Chico, CA

#198 Nov 11, 2013
Sam Lowree wrote:
<quoted text>
Not at all. I merely pointed out the fact that the countries many refer to as socialist are freer than we are. You should be proud we have more of a nanny state and restricted economy than Canada.
So, socialism does NOT mean less freedom. And Canada has socialized healthcare, and stronger safety nets than we have. You're slipping and sliding again. If Canada, as you say, is less of a nanny state, why did you move here?
Sam Lowree wrote:
<Here are a few of the charitable donations the Kochs have made.
New York-Presbyterian Hospital Weill Cornell:$15 million
M.D. Anderson Cancer Center:$25 million
The Hospital for Special Surgery:$26 million
Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center:$30 million
Prostate Cancer Foundation:$41 million
Deerfield Academy:$68 million
Lincoln Center's NY State Theater:$100 million
Massachusetts Institute of Technology:$139 million
I also see their name at the end of the PBS program Nova.
Which totals 444 million, about .5% of their wealth. Plus, the Koch's 'charitable donations' to universities often have strings attached.
"After all, when the Kochs invested millions in George Mason University, they got the incredibly influential anti-environmental regulation nonprofit Mercatus Center out of the deal." http://www.salon.com/2011/05/12/buying_profes...

Buffett is in the process of giving almost ALL of his wealth away-- to causes that help the poor and hungry all over the world.
Sam Lowree wrote:
<Oh, I get it now. These evil corporations are forcing the politicians to take their money.
Yep, those 'evil' corporations and 'evil' politicians are doing it TOGETHER.
Sam Lowree wrote:
<So who is at fault if the government abolishes needed, your definition, regulations?
The Big Money who buys the politicians and those bought off politicians, of course. The repubs in congress, and many dems as well, are stopping needed reforms such as breaking up the banks so that they're no longer "too big to fail". The short-sighted greed of the politicians and their big money donors are going to bring us to our knees again. And it will make the Great Recession look like a vacation.
Tea Party Solution

Chico, CA

#199 Nov 11, 2013
Sam Lowree wrote:
<quoted text>
This private toll road that I referenced was not the only road connecting the destinations. Motorists had another choice, a government highway, but they chose the toll road because the operators of that road knew that they had to keep it in above average condition otherwise they would have lost money. Profit is the best positive motivator that there is.
Could it be that this toll road also made the trip shorter, making the toll a bargain?

Good for them, I have no problem with that. But if we privatized all of the roads that are public now, who's going to compete with the companies buying these roads and freeways? Are companies going to build 4 new freeways spanning the same destinations, in order to compete? Are we going to give these private companies the power of eminent domain, buying people out of their homes?

Ridiculous.
Tea Party Solution

Chico, CA

#200 Nov 11, 2013
The right is wrong wrote:
Yep, everyone who pays taxes in Mexico pays for IMSS butt you have to pay the $300.00 to enroll and from what is posted on Google anyone with $300.00 can enroll at any age.
Kind of like Medicare except repubicans won’t expand Medicare to cover everyone.
And IMG, it’s just another “supplemental” insurance to cover what the IMSS doesn’t.
Kind of like my Kaiser plan that doesn’t have any deductible.
I was wrong about the pedophile from Puerto Vallarta not posting that he has socialized medical care. Yes he did post it, butt not thousands of times like he claims.
I find it ironic that the pedophile from Puerto Vallarta brags about having socialized medical care, whines that Obama wants a system that he, the pedophile from Puerto Vallarta has and all the right -wing freaks on this forum continue to genuflect to the pedophile from Puerto Vallarta.
Simply amazing!
Great post!

So, we get mexitroll just loving his Mexican medicare, and Sam just loving the socialistic countries he thinks are freer than ours-- including Canada, the country he came from.

These mixed-up righties don't know what they're talking about. All they're sure about is that they hate the Dems and they hate Obama.
GRANDPA NICOLAI

Chico, CA

#201 Nov 11, 2013
The right is wrong wrote:
Yep, everyone who pays taxes in Mexico pays for IMSS butt you have to pay the $300.00 to enroll and from what is posted on Google anyone with $300.00 can enroll at any age.
Kind of like Medicare except repubicans won’t expand Medicare to cover everyone.
And IMG, it’s just another “supplemental” insurance to cover what the IMSS doesn’t.
Kind of like my Kaiser plan that doesn’t have any deductible.
I was wrong about the pedophile from Puerto Vallarta not posting that he has socialized medical care. Yes he did post it, butt not thousands of times like he claims.
I find it ironic that the pedophile from Puerto Vallarta brags about having socialized medical care, whines that Obama wants a system that he, the pedophile from Puerto Vallarta has and all the right -wing freaks on this forum continue to genuflect to the pedophile from Puerto Vallarta.
Simply amazing!
>
>
Problem is that the fool thinks that this IMG, or whatever the hell it is, will cover people in the US for $300 bucks per year...

I guess MEXITROLL hasn't figured out that doctors charge a hell of a lot more for their services in the US than the doctores do in Mexico, and any insurance company that charges $300 bucks for coverage will only cover hang nail treatments or go broke in no time but the funny thing is that...

the moron calls himself a businessman.... ROTFLMAO X 10

“Facts”

Since: May 08

Location hidden

#202 Nov 11, 2013
Tea Party Solution wrote:
<quoted text>So, socialism does NOT mean less freedom. And Canada has socialized healthcare, and stronger safety nets than we have. You're slipping and sliding again. If Canada, as you say, is less of a nanny state, why did you move here?

Sam Lowree wrote, "<Here are a few of the charitable donations the Kochs have made.
New York-Presbyterian Hospital Weill Cornell:$15 million
M.D. Anderson Cancer Center:$25 million
The Hospital for Special Surgery:$26 million
Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center:$30 million
Prostate Cancer Foundation:$41 million
Deerfield Academy:$68 million
Lincoln Center's NY State Theater:$100 million
Massachusetts Institute of Technology:$139 million
I also see their name at the end of the PBS program Nova."

Which totals 444 million, about .5% of their wealth. Plus, the Koch's 'charitable donations' to universities often have strings attached.
"After all, when the Kochs invested millions in George Mason University, they got the incredibly influential anti-environmental regulation nonprofit Mercatus Center out of the deal." http://www.salon.com/2011/05/12/buying_profes...

Buffett is in the process of giving almost ALL of his wealth away-- to causes that help the poor and hungry all over the world.

Sam Lowree wrote, "<Oh, I get it now. These evil corporations are forcing the politicians to take their money."

Yep, those 'evil' corporations and 'evil' politicians are doing it TOGETHER.

Sam Lowree wrote, "<So who is at fault if the government abolishes needed, your definition, regulations?
"

The Big Money who buys the politicians and those bought off politicians, of course. The repubs in congress, and many dems as well, are stopping needed reforms such as breaking up the banks so that they're no longer "too big to fail". The short-sighted greed of the politicians and their big money donors are going to bring us to our knees again. And it will make the Great Recession look like a vacation.
Three year wait for joint replacement surgery..........LOL

“Facts”

Since: May 08

Location hidden

#203 Nov 11, 2013
Tea Party Solution wrote:
<quoted text>Great post!

So, we get mexitroll just loving his Mexican medicare, and Sam just loving the socialistic countries he thinks are freer than ours-- including Canada, the country he came from.

These mixed-up righties don't know what they're talking about. All they're sure about is that they hate the Dems and they hate Obama.
I see you are as stupid as rainhead..........

IMSS is as far from oslamacare as you can get.......

It is a benefit that your employer pays..........ROTFLMAO

“Facts”

Since: May 08

Location hidden

#204 Nov 11, 2013
GRANDPA NICOLAI wrote:
<quoted text>>
>
Problem is that the fool thinks that this IMG, or whatever the hell it is, will cover people in the US for $300 bucks per year...

I guess MEXITROLL hasn't figured out that doctors charge a hell of a lot more for their services in the US than the doctores do in Mexico, and any insurance company that charges $300 bucks for coverage will only cover hang nail treatments or go broke in no time but the funny thing is that...

the moron calls himself a businessman.... ROTFLMAO X 10
I see you are even dumber than rainhead

IMG is an American insurance company and until oslama stopped it you could buy it in the USA and it does cover me in the USA Canada or most every country in the world........

And if you were not so stupid you would have known that it cost me about 2k dollars per year and the Mayo clinic will take it but they won't take oslacare or Medicaid now..........ROTFLMAO

Thanks again for showing us how stupid you are
The wrong one

Lincoln, CA

#205 Nov 11, 2013
No duck and dodge. Just facts. The pedophile from Puerto Vallarta has medical coverage:

Kind of like Medicare except repubicans won’t expand Medicare to cover everyone.

And IMG, it’s just another “supplemental” insurance to cover what the IMSS doesn’t.

Kind of like my Kaiser plan that doesn’t have any deductible.

I find it ironic that the pedophile from Puerto Vallarta brags about having socialized medical care, whines that Obama wants a system that he, the pedophile from Puerto Vallarta has and all the right -wing freaks on this forum continue to genuflect to the pedophile from Puerto Vallarta.

Oh, and while we're talking facts, you wouldn't have a link to a reliable source proving Obama stopped IMG?

Oh, and one last thing: If IMSS is so great like pedophile one claims, why would anyone pay for IMG?

“Government IS the problem.”

Since: Jan 08

Chico, CA

#206 Nov 11, 2013
The Obamacare penalty for non compliance.

"But there is also the dirty little secret of the penalty: It is a bit of a chimera, because the federal government cannot use its usual tools like fines, liens or criminal prosecutions to punish people who do not pay it. The penalty is supposed to be reported and paid with the income tax returns of those who do not buy insurance, but the government has not said how it will collect from those who owe it but do not pay it, though the law allows it to deduct from any income tax refunds. "
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/11/nyregion/ta...

"Chief Justice John Roberts stated that the penalty is not a “financial punishment” because it is set low and therefore for constitutional purposes it is a tax. Roberts went on to opine,“By statute, it [the penalty] can never be more.” In other words, the penalty for not owning health insurance must remain small to be considered a constitutionally allowed tax. If the penalty becomes too large, it is no longer a tax and the constitutionality of the individual mandate is again subject to legal challenge.

This ruling places the entire financial basis of Obamacare at risk and seriously puts the law in jeopardy of not surviving beyond the next few years.

The current penalty for an individual not owning approved health insurance stops at $700 or 2.5 percent of gross income per year, whichever is larger. Because of the guaranteed-issue insurance mandate in Obamacare, a company must sell an individual a health insurance policy regardless of how sick or injured that person is.

Obamacare supporters could try to crank up the penalty for not having approved insurance to a level far beyond $700 per year in an effort to induce more people into the state exchanges. The problem with this approach is it runs smack up against Justice Roberts’ constitutional doctrine that the individual mandate is only allowable if the penalty (or “tax”) for violating it does not impose a “financial penalty” on citizens. From a financial standpoint, the viability of Obamacare is looking very tenuous."

http://www.washingtonpolicy.org/publications/...

“Government IS the problem.”

Since: Jan 08

Chico, CA

#207 Nov 11, 2013
Tea Party Solution wrote:
<quoted text>
So, socialism does NOT mean less freedom. And Canada has socialized healthcare, and stronger safety nets than we have. You're slipping and sliding again. If Canada, as you say, is less of a nanny state, why did you move here?
Are you really that thick? How do you know that Canada has stronger safety nets than we do? Let me try to break this down for you. If Canada, Sweden, etc., are freer economically than we are that means that we are more socialistic and regulatory than they are.

I listed a few of the Koch's charitable donations, obviously not all there donations. I am glad that Buffett is giving away his money. How much of his money is going into a charitable trust that goes to his children? I bet the Kochs give a larger part of their income to charity than you or Ole Comrade do.
GRANDPA NICOLAI

Chico, CA

#208 Nov 12, 2013
Sam Lowree wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you really that thick? How do you know that Canada has stronger safety nets than we do? Let me try to break this down for you. If Canada, Sweden, etc., are freer economically than we are that means that we are more socialistic and regulatory than they are.
>
>
Our system was not set up to guarantee the happiness of a few malcontents like you at the expense of the needs of tens of millions of people, SAM and....

If you and others of your ilk feel that the US is "more socialistic and regulatory" than Canada and Sweden no one is holding you back from relocating to those freer countries...
GRANDPA NICOLAI

Chico, CA

#209 Nov 12, 2013
Sam Lowree wrote:
<quoted text>

I listed a few of the Koch's charitable donations, obviously not all there donations. I am glad that Buffett is giving away his money. How much of his money is going into a charitable trust that goes to his children? I bet the Kochs give a larger part of their income to charity than you or Ole Comrade do.
>
>
You are correct SAM, "few" are the Koch's "charitable donations" with no strings attached, and as for Buffet's children Buffet himself has stated on numerous occasions that he will "leave them enough so they can do what they want but not so much that they will be able to do nothing..."

Donations, like taxes, are a percentages game, a 1% tax or donation is felt more by a person earning $25,000 per year and who has little possessions than a 10% tax or donation by the Koch brothers who have more than anyone could possibly want and earn $ 1,000,000,000 per year...

“Government IS the problem.”

Since: Jan 08

Chico, CA

#210 Nov 12, 2013
GRANDPA NICOLAI wrote:
<quoted text>
>

Donations, like taxes, are a percentages game, a 1% tax or donation is felt more by a person earning $25,000 per year and who has little possessions than a 10% tax or donation by the Koch brothers who have more than anyone could possibly want and earn $ 1,000,000,000 per year...
So what percentage of your vast income do you donate to charity?
GRANDPA NICOLAI

Chico, CA

#211 Nov 12, 2013
Sam Lowree wrote:
<quoted text>
So what percentage of your vast income do you donate to charity?
>
>
First off the topics were the Kochs and Buffett...

Second, I believe in doing my good deeds quietly, without seeking recognition nor boasting about them...
TWP

Wichita Falls, TX

#212 Nov 12, 2013
GRANDPA NICOLAI wrote:
<quoted text>

I believe in doing my good deeds quietly...
without seeking recognition nor boasting about them...
Oh...!

Sure thing there Road Toa d...!!!

Other than claiming to be a $SUPER RICH$ Multi-Millionaire...

And claiming to make $250,000.00 "on any day"...

And claiming to have a 175 IQ...

And claiming to be 4th in line to the Governor of California...

And claiming to be the human incarnation of ZEUZ, King of the Olympian Gods...

You are just the model of MODESTY and HUMILITY...!!!

It is to bad that you are also a DELUSIONAL PATHOLOGICAL LIAR...!!!

Poor old "GRANDPA NICOLAI"...

Such a sorry excuse for a man...!

http://www.merrystandish.com/dolanloses.html

ROTFLMAO...!!!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Richvale Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Trump is vindicated on wire tap claim. 5 hr CNN 3
Obama administration is guilty of acting like 1... 5 hr JimmyJack 1
Trump Derangement Syndrome Hits New Low 5 hr JimmyJack 2
O Raking in 6-Figure Wall St Speaking Fees 5 hr JimmyJack 2
Right Wingers HATE AMERICA 5 hr JimmyJack 5
Trump gave a great speech at UN! 6 hr JimmyJack 5
GOD Is Punishing Us for Electing TRUMP! 6 hr Show Some Proof 41

Richvale Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Richvale Mortgages