December 04, 2013
Inslee voted against protecting those who want to keep their health plans

President Obama has tried to make good, at least temporarily, on his promise that "if you like your plan, you can keep your plan," telling states that they can allow insurers to continue selling for another year health plans that don't conform to Obamacare's requirements. In this state, Insurance Commissioner Mike Kreidler decided that the 290,000 people who received cancellation notices can't take Obama up on that offer, saying it wouldn't be good for "the overall stability of our health insurance market."

In a sense, you could say that Kreidler believes in the fundamentals of Obamacare more than Obama does.

But let's head back in 2009, when the original Obamacare bill was winding its way through Congress. The president and other Democrats were busy reassuring individual purchasers that the law wouldn't disrupt their current coverage.

Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-FL) offered an amendment in committee titled "Protecting the Right to Keep Current Coverage." The amendment read: "Nothing in this division shall prevent or limit individuals from keeping their current health benefit plan."

Three Democrats on the Energy and Commerce Committee joined Republicans in supporting the amendment, but it failed on a 26-32 vote.

Jay Inslee voted no.

Posted by Adam Faber at December 04, 2013 12:07 PM | Email This
Comments
1. It certainly makes sense to drop the complaining about the ACA web site. After all, Consumer reports has now blessed it.

"Consumer Reports health care expert Nancy Metcalf told MSNBC's Chuck Todd Tuesday morning that the federal health care exchange website was improved enough following the Obama administration's frantic month of repairs that users could confidently use it. [...]

"Now we're saying, 'it's time,'" Metcalf said, in particular praising the new window-shopping function, in which users can peruse health plans without registering with the site. The requirement to make an account before viewing options was considered one of the main causes for the site's initial traffic bottleneck. "It's terrific, I've tried it, it was working yesterday through the busiest times," Metcalf said."

Sounds good, huh? So we move onwards. Or backwards. To the Stearn amendment, of all things.

SEC. 102. PROTECTING THE RIGHT TO KEEP CURRENT COVERAGE.

"Nothing in this division shall prevent or limit individuals from keeping their current health benefit plan."

Completely undermining the ACA. Yeah, like that was ever going to fly. Got any other great ideas?

Speaking of ideas, when are you guys ever going to come up with another health care plan of your own? I say 'another' because the Democrats already stole the only health care plan you've had in nearly half a century. Now they call it Obamacare. Not Obama's smartest move, but it's what we've got for now. My idea is that you on the right should steal the left's idea of universal health care. That'd really snooker those commies. Sure, you'd have to sacrifice a few of the right's stated core principles, but hell, you all do that all the time anyway.

Posted by: Mengele on December 4, 2013 12:49 PM
2. .
Adam Faber, you lame HACK, all you've got is 4 year old ObamaCare news about a former Congressman? Damn, you're lame!

Read this:

According to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), one million people were able to access HealthCare.gov on Monday, the site's first day of full operation following a recent push to fix its glitches. On Tuesday, HealthCare.gov logged 950,000 visitors. Administration officials had estimated that the site would be able to host 800,000 people over the course of one day, but it appears to have the capacity to surpass that benchmark.

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on December 4, 2013 03:25 PM
3. .
Adam Faber, you lame HACK, here's some more recent news about government run healthcare

Medicaid & CHIP: October Monthly Applications and Eligibility Determinations Report December 3, 2013 {pdf}

Total Applications for Financial Assistance Received by State Medicaid and CHIP Agencies (note that more than one individual may be included on an application) - 2,479,114

% Change in Number of Applications Received from the Average Monthly Number (July - September) in States Expanding Medicaid - 15.5%

% Change in Number of Applications Received from the Average Monthly Number (July - September) in States Not Expanding Medicaid - 4.1%

Total Individuals Determined Eligible for Medicaid and CHIP by State Agencies (includes those newly eligible under the Affordable Care Act
and those eligible under prior law) - 1,460,367

Drip, Drip, Drip (h/t Adam the HACK)

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on December 4, 2013 05:23 PM
4. Adam, what don't you get? The importance of universal healthcare? The problem of insuring people with preexisting conditions? The problem with people going without coverage until they get sick? The need for everyone to get covered ("individual mandate") to avoid these problems? The fact that some "health benefit plans" are so minimal and restrictive that they still don't prevent these problems?

My guess is that you're smart enough to understand all these things, but are counting on your readers to not understand.

Posted by: Bruce on December 4, 2013 05:32 PM
5. Not getting the point is one of the tenets of our local right wing. At Adam's favorite new web site, SnitWAAAAH!, they note that people are using the ACA to flee the private health insurance market at amazing speed:

"The latest figures continue the trend of high Medicaid enrollment and abysmal private health plan purchasers. Of the 98,399 who have enrolled on the state exchange, only 11,742 have purchased a private health plan."

Note: they think this is a problem *with the ACA*! Washingtonians' reaction to ACA rollout rivals that of East Berliners when the Wall came down, but even the sight of their fellow citizens swiftly abandoning the system under which they grew up does not, to Adam's fellow righties, imply that system was not worth saving. Truly amazing.

Now, it's time for us in the majority to run the teabagging loons out of Congress, and install single-payer via expansion of Medicaid.

Posted by: tensor on December 4, 2013 06:51 PM
6. See, I told you the name is Democare. They did it, they OWN it.

This takeover of the free enterprise medical system has been planned for decades, by the very people Joe McCarthy warned of, the very people who killed John Birch.

The purpose is to inflame and incite a revolt so they Muslim/Marxist in chief can declare martial law.

Yes, the left IS VERY ANGRY.

They have been caught and the evidence is clear for all to see.

2014 will tell which way this country is going, Either rise again or into the dumpster.

Posted by: Independent Voter on December 4, 2013 07:08 PM
7. The ACA is simply a way to provide health insurance to everyone by forcing those who have the means to pay to also cover the insurance fees for those who cannot pay.

It's just that simple. I make no judgement about the ACA at all.

Posted by: Ten Years After - Roger Rabbit is just a liberal progressive troll. on December 4, 2013 07:48 PM
8. The ACA is simply a way to provide health insurance to everyone by forcing those who have the means to pay to also cover the insurance fees for those who cannot pay.

It's just that simple. I make no judgement about the ACA at all.

Posted by: Ten Years After - Roger Rabbit is just a liberal progressive troll. on December 4, 2013 07:48 PM
9. Adam - Way to go, riling up the Nazi, fake Boy Scout and other resident Marxist pukes. Barf.

teabag tensor sums up the ultimate goal of MaObamaCare apologists - genocide via single payer.

BTW, look up both Kriedler and Inslee, and you're re-directed to the definition of smarmy.

Posted by: We're all frogs, in the slow boil of socialism on December 5, 2013 10:39 AM
10. Say Aye if when you see the moniker "MikeBoyScout" you skip to the next comment.

Anyone who starts every comment with: "_____ You Hack _____" is a joke.

Posted by: Anonymous on December 5, 2013 11:07 AM
11. "teabag tensor..."

Thanks, but no. Sorry to disappoint.

"...sums up the ultimate goal of MaObamaCare apologists - genocide via single payer."

You guys have really gone off the deep end. I feel almost sorry for Adam; with support like this, any criticism, no matter how gentle or accurate, seems like piling-on. Then again, his pretending that universal heath care is some kind of atrocity, contrary to the experience of other English-speaking industrialized democracies, invites such lunatic responses.

Posted by: tensor on December 5, 2013 11:26 AM
12. You're right, tensor. The crazies are out in force, touting their heroes Joe McCarthy and John Birch. Ho boy!

But don't feel sorry for Adam. These are his peeps; he chooses to hang out with them and feed their paranoia and anger. It's gotta make him proud when they refer to Obama as a Muslim/Marxist and speak of moderate insurance reform as genocide.

Posted by: scottd on December 5, 2013 12:58 PM
13. No-Info Voter sez, "This takeover of the free enterprise medical system has been planned for decades, by the very people Joe McCarthy warned of, the very people who killed John Birch."

A plan to make Americans pay money to huge corporations is the 60 year-old brainchild of Chinese commies? And long-disgraced loser of a hero Tailgunner Joe warned you about this?

Another Tea Party Bircher, not like that's exactly news anymore. It's been apparent to many for some time now that the Tea Party has morphed into the Bircher Party. My, but the hate is strong with those guys. Heh. So is the crazy. Obviously.

Posted by: Mengele on December 5, 2013 01:58 PM
14. Tensor, "I feel almost sorry for Adam"

I have to agree with Scott. Adam's posse consists of a bunch of Birchers and other dregs of the political barrel. His posts have displayed an increased recognition of what he needs to write about to play to this crowd and he's gladly doing it, honing the skills required to survive as a hack (read 'whore') in today's GOP.

Posted by: Mengele on December 5, 2013 02:09 PM
15. I invite you proponents of a Single Payer system of health care delivery to come across the pond and try me out!

Posted by: National Health System on December 5, 2013 02:20 PM
16. @15 Or if you can't afford the ticket, join the US Armed Forces and experience US government run single payer healthcare. It's been in practice without Republican opposition for generations!

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on December 5, 2013 02:36 PM
17. To all of you progressives who so grandly and ignorantly defend single-payer health care, please desist from commenting unless you have spent several years living under said system. If you haven't, like I did for almost 20 years, you just really don't know of what you are speaking. It is truly an atrocity which not only destroys patients, but also physicians and other health care professionals, and is ripe with corruption. I wouldn't wish it on anyone.

Posted by: katomar on December 5, 2013 03:44 PM
18. @17 katomar on December 5, 2013 03:44 PM,

Yes, an atrocity!
And if Medicare is established "We are going to spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children, what it once was like in America when men were free." - Saint Ronald Reagan, the president who vetoed the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act and employed the South African foreign minister Pik Botha to lobby Republicans to support his veto.

ps. Because of ObamaCare, mental health services are part of the standard coverage in your insurance plan. Get your paranoid dementia treated.

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on December 5, 2013 04:20 PM
19. Katomar@17, even the biased Cato report that #15 links to admits that "no country with universal coverage is contemplating abandoning a universal system". (Shockingly, the report goes on to conclude that the US should move still further from the model that the rest of the developed world wants to keep.)

It is true that no system is perfect, and no nation is perfectly happy with its healthcare system. Wouldn't it be wise of us to use good old American ingenuity to figure out how to combine the best features of all systems, and learn from all nations' experience, rather than reflexively reject any increased role of government as a fascist freedom-hating slave-making plot worthy of impeachment?

Or you could just be political hacks trying to score points.

Posted by: Bruce on December 5, 2013 04:34 PM
20. Blind followers of blind serial lairs are amusing.

Nothing worth while in Health Care policy has ever come about in any government or country in the world. Pretend all you like but the facts will not change. Until recently America was the only place a sane person would ever want to be if they became ill. You can still get decent treatment here but that will not last much longer because of ObamaCare especially of you are poor or vulnerable (older). The good news here is that in time the market system will be restored.

OF COURSE no system is perfect, (nothing on earth is) but the American market based system is the best in the world in every way. Where we are failing is in abandoning the basis upon which our system has excelled far beyond the rest of the world.

Health care under the disguise of ObamaCare is not about health care anyway but power and control over human outcomes. People like boy scout and Bruce don't care about the truth or they would admit that Government can never provide the quality care the private sector and competition does. Nor do they care that the real reason why health care is as expensive as it is the result of idiotic leftist government intrusion and over-regulation.

Every single thing boy scout clown and Bruce benefits from (aside from the care of family and friends) came about because of free enterprise and competition in the model of Adam Smith and David Ricardo. If they lived as they attempt to demand others live that would change in a hurry.

Hey guys, if you are so generous why not give your own stuff away and leave the rest of us to take care of ourselves as we see fit?

The fun part of this whole ObamaCare situation is that in their blind stupid arrogance and lust for supremacy the left is so incompetent at seizing power that they have doomed the whole project to abject failure before it really got started. They have assured for all of us the failure of the left and the Democrat party it serves at least for the rest of this decade.

Again, the real losers are those very vulnerable people the left pretends to care about.
But eventually even idiots dumb enough to support an empty suit like Barack Obama will realize they are being lied to and stolen from.

Posted by: Amused by Liberal Lunacy on December 5, 2013 06:19 PM
21. Loved your fact-free rant, it was downright Hinton-worthy until this point: "They have assured for all of us the failure of the left and the Democrat party it serves at least for the rest of this decade."

Show us your un-skewed polls!

Posted by: tensor on December 5, 2013 06:27 PM
22. Hey Bruce,

How is disagreeing with a system that cannot succeed and in fact is designed to fail and result in a single payer system somehow "reflexively reject[ing] any increased role of government as a fascist freedom-hating slave-making plot worthy of impeachment?"

My rejection of ObamaCare is based on the fact that government cannot do as good a job of delivering health care as the private sector and the health care delivery systems we have to look at around the world prove my point.
None match (let alone come approach) our system in terms of cost, quality, or availability.

Moreover, for anyone to take away my right to use MY MONEY to pay a doctor to obtain treatment as I see fit, IS definitively a fascist freedom-hating slave-making plot . . . is it not?

If you want to follow an example why not follow one that is successful?
And if you want to voluntarily surrender your personal freedom, why should I accept your weak-mindedness?

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on December 5, 2013 06:49 PM
23. Tensor,

Polls?
You call polls facts?
You need polls to figure this out?
Polls govern your individual freedom?
How about a little thoughtful reasoning?

No?
Big surprise.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on December 5, 2013 06:56 PM
24. "Polls?"

So, in your world, the "Democrat Party" can win every election "at least for the rest of this decade" and still be a "failure"? What would "success" then be for a political party? Posting bitter, fact-free rants on obscure blogs?

"You call polls facts?"

I don't have the luxury of labeling a pig-ignorant opinion as "fact," so, yes, actual polling data is where I must start. Why do you hate our democracy? :-)

Posted by: tensor, amused by whiners on December 5, 2013 07:33 PM
25. Amused@22 lies, "None match (let alone come approach) our system in terms of cost, quality, or availability."

There is so much data contradicting this, and none supporting it. But write it again, put a few exclamation points after it, and keep believing it if you want.

"for anyone to take away my right to use MY MONEY to pay a doctor to obtain treatment as I see fit, IS definitively a fascist freedom-hating slave-making plot"

Nothing in Obamacare or even any likely single-payer replacement would do this. Take a deep breath.

@23: "You call polls facts?"

Yes, they are facts of what people are thinking, or at least saying they're thinking. Of course they don't say what's good policy, but they are the best facts we have to assess your claim @20 that the Democratic party is failing, at least until the next election.

Posted by: Bruce on December 5, 2013 08:40 PM
26. Clearly you actually do consider polls facts.

I would advise you to wise up or continue to be an obviously foolish leftist dimwit.
As any sensible person knows, while they can provide inductive grounds for a view, polls (being opinions) are never considered "facts."
Something that obviously eludes you is that polls as tools to determine voter intent change quickly according to how they are interpreted.

I hardly expect that you will get this, but in fact, all of the current reliable polls (even left leaning) provide premises decidedly against your position.
I truly don't care if someone of your obvious limitations agrees with these premises.
It might have been novel to get something more than inane nonsense to learn from about the issues from a leftist robot like you.
Again, no surprise.

You provide no reasoning or thinking, or even original insults; just tedious and boring defensive tactics that reveal the pathetic weakness of your position.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on December 5, 2013 08:41 PM
27. Bruce at 25,

Because you don't agree with what I wrote -- you claim (with no support whatsoever) that I LIED. Weak.
Is it possible that I have information you don't have? Is it possible that your so-called "data contradicting this" is erroneous?
If I can prove that facts about health care in England, Switzerland and Canada prove you wrong, does that make you a lair or just misinformed?

Would you even listen? -- I seriously doubt it because you are not persuaded by facts but look only for those "facts" that support your ideological nonsense.

For example, I wrote that "for anyone to take away my right to use MY MONEY to pay a doctor to obtain treatment as I see fit, IS definitively a fascist freedom-hating slave-making plot" and you replied, "Nothing in Obamacare or even any likely single-payer replacement would do this." You know damned well that Obamacare and its resultant single-payer plans both take away individual rights. Unless you expect to be laughed at, don't be any more arrogantly obtuse than you must.

Tensor (like you) seems to believe that polls are somehow an arbiter of the truth as if polls are manifestations of Democracy and shopping polls might somehow be part of the art of truth telling. Clearly you have little understanding of polls, and the statistical framework upon which they are predicated or you would NEVER make such a statement. Polls are never "facts of what people are thinking" but accurate "snapshot" approximations when carefully and correctly targeted, executed, and analyzed.

Nevertheless, as I wrote to Tensor, the current most reliable polls support positions at distinct odds with yours about ObamaCare.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on December 5, 2013 09:19 PM
28. Amused, I stand by my statement that nothing in Obamacare takes away your "right to use your money to obtain treatment as you see fit". (Or at least to try -- as in any market, no one has to take your money if they don't want to.) Does Obamacare take away any individual rights? Sure, it takes away the right to not carry some minimal level of health insurance (or pay a penalty). And it takes away certain employers' rights to not provide such insurance. But that's not what you said.

As I said clearly, polls are factual measures of what people tell the pollsters. That's by definition. Nothing more, nothing less. They certainly don't say whether people are telling the truth, what they will think tomorrow, or what is wise according to you, me, or anyone else.

Go ahead and hit me with some facts about the terrible health care in other developed countries. I've seen many measures, and the vast majority -- though certainly not all -- rank the US worse.

Posted by: Bruce on December 5, 2013 09:43 PM
29. Bruce,

You make a gratuitous distinction without a difference. I specifically wrote, "[F]or anyone to take away my right to use MY MONEY to pay a doctor to obtain treatment as I see fit, IS definitively a fascist freedom-hating slave-making plot . . . is it not?

When you assert that "no one has to take your money if they don't want to" you invariably describe a system where a health care provider's profit is govern-mentally allocated and/or distorted and their right to engage freely in trade with people like me to exchange money for treatment as I (and they) see fit is substantively infringed. Restricting the market from allowing you and I from free participation restricts our rights.

Are we pretending markets are not made of both consumers and providers?

Come on Bruce, you also replied, "[T]hat Obamacare takes away the right to not carry some minimal level of health insurance (or pay a penalty). This definitely amounts to a fascist freedom-hating slave-making plot"
Who the hell are you to force me to buy anything?
We (my side of this argument) fought a Civil War over such infringements of freedom.

Thanks for "standing by" what you wrote and in doing so endorsing my point.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on December 5, 2013 10:31 PM
30. Amused, how does Obamacare infringe on a healthcare provider's right to engage freely in trade with people like you?

Posted by: Bruce on December 5, 2013 11:04 PM
31. By requiring providers to meet substantive baseline standards dictated by the ACA.
Pre-existing conditions is a perfect example.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on December 5, 2013 11:18 PM
32. @31 Amused by Liberals on December 5, 2013 11:18 PM,

OMG! ObamaCare's government overreach of "requiring providers to meet substantive baseline standards" is the foot in the door of fascist freedom-hating slave-making DICTATORSHIP!

You're right! Why did your side fight a Civil War?

After ObamaCare's breach of freedomz what's next?

- Shall we be required to share our water fountains and toilets with the coloreds?
- Shall we be required to admit the Jews and women into our business clubs?
- Shall butchers be prohibited from using saw dust in their sausages?
- Shall we be required to offer accessible parking to the cripples?

And gawd only knows if this doesn't lead to being required to sell flowers to teh gays.

You're right! Your "rights" of commercial exclusion are gone. Damn Civil War!

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on December 6, 2013 06:08 AM
33. Amused @31
"Pre-existing conditions is a perfect example"

A perfect example of what? What are you really saying? Are you that cold to humanity? I take it you have no one you associate with that may have MS, Parkisons, a cancer survivor, diabetes? I take it you don't know someone who may have been abused and suffer from PTSD (yes it is more than just soldiers). You don't know someone who played sports and injured their knees, for example. All these (plus many more) are pre-existing conditions that previously were potential grounds for insurance companies to deny coverage. So, what do you really meain by the statement about pre-existing conditions?

Posted by: tc on December 6, 2013 07:58 AM
34. @33 tc on December 6, 2013 07:58 AM,

Excluding people is not a bug in the minds of Amused and his ilk, it's a feature. Any attempt to reach out to them with facts or pleas of humanity is wasted.

Don't forget Let Him Die

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on December 6, 2013 08:37 AM
35. At #32, thanks for your reply.

What you prove with this nonsense is that you must use every half/clever pretense to prop up your empty delusions. That you took the time to cobble up and might actually believe such dimwitted nonsense is the true source of amusement for me.

Govern-mentally requiring people to purchase insurance while at the same time requiring insurance providers to meet substantive baseline standards that defeat the basic purpose of insurance interferes with peoples basic rights to associate and transact business. That you are incapable of apprehending this simple "fact" is not surprising. That you would mock the surrender of your own freedoms in exchange for the promise of impossible delusions is sad.
You play so willingly and easily into the hands of despots who use you like a punk in a prison.

Likewise the truly shameless mental distortions drawn with such idiotic comparisons and pretense that your party's antecedents (unlike mine) fought to free slaves and your ilk are now likewise fighting to free others with seizures of fundamental individual freedoms when in fact the precise opposite is true. This is getting though to you but I don't expect it will take. Perpetual early adolescence works that way.

The fun part is that ObamaCare and the whole stupid experiment in folly is failing miserably before your eyes and you guys are defending it with whatever shameless tactics you can invent. Your ridiculous delusions mirror the integrity of your standard bearer only less "slick."
Remember, "everything is anything" and "believe at least three lies every day before breakfast" to stay in shape.

Maybe some day consider growing up at least a little.

Thanks for the chuckle.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on December 6, 2013 08:43 AM
36. Thanks, Amused by Liberals, for bringing some intelligent dialogue to this thread.

Posted by: cogent thought on December 6, 2013 09:02 AM
37. TC at #33
Thanks for your reply and query.

What I wrote in context was that substantive baseline standards dictated by the ACA that defy economic reality only serve to damage market opportunities for everyone most especially people that don't have (as an example) pre-existing conditions. Moreover, they don't (in the long run) actually help anyone.

Your comments seem to confuse "caring" for humanity with economic reality.
Insurance is (and only ever will be) a market based enterprise that operates on practical market realities. When it ceases to be a market based business (as is the case with the ACA) our government may call it insurance but it becomes a governmentally sanctioned and tax-payer supported entitlement.

There has been market based insurance available for pre-existing conditions for a long time but it is very expensive because no insurance company is in business to lose money. Expecting that insurance companies will insure those with many pre-existing conditions to do so at the same cost or less is simply foolish and unreasonable. Believing that a government system can or will do such things (like promising everyone a pony) is just stupid.

The ACA is not about health care, but central government seizure of power and control over people. I have a pre-existing condition and up until recently took good care of it by paying a little more to get treatment. The ACA will not improve my outcomes in the least; in fact it has damaged them considerably.

When you attempt to cajole me with implications that my recognition of economic realities is somehow heartless you completely miss the point.
Yours and my solutions while they may (or may not) be different I assume they have the same object in mind; the best system to provide those things that people need and want.

I welcome the debate and you see what I get from ACA supporters on this blog . . . inane crap.

Thanks for your comments.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on December 6, 2013 09:23 AM
38. Cogent Thought at #36,

Thanks and back at you.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on December 6, 2013 09:27 AM
39. Amused, you ranted about your "right to use MY MONEY to pay a doctor to obtain treatment as I see fit". Obamacare does not change that. You have repeatedly failed to say how it does ... because you can't.

Posted by: Bruce on December 6, 2013 09:53 AM
40. Amused @37

I don't see your response as really addressing the human aspect of the issue. There is a difference with health care compared to other insurance and pre-existing conditions is the prime example. You may quote the market as if it is some sort of "God", but this is exactly the issue. Who gets to decide who is covered and not covered? You, by your answer, assumes it is businesses whose goal is to make money, or in the case of no-profit/coops, not lose money. So, you are putting money as the "God" and letting it up to insurance companies to restrict their pools of who they would insure to their best case scenarios. This is the BIG (I mean VERY BIG) issue of the pre-ACA market. It is one of the main drivers of why health care is so DAMN expensive in the US. Because it isn't in the insurance companies best interest to cover XYZ pre-existing condition, these people are left with the choice of don't get the medical coverage or go bankrupt because they can't get or at least afford the insurance coverage. The costs remain. Providers (doctors or hospitals) either have to make up the costs elsewhere by charging more for other procedures to cover this loss, or the government has to pay back. The main reason for expanding the risk pools in ACA is to make it profitable for insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions.

I get a feeling that conservatives like you live in a dream world where you think an unregulated market is the answer to everything. I have news for you. Adam Smith never imagined an unregulated market. What we are talking about with ACA is market regulation and not government takeover of insurance. This is a false argument conservatives have been saying for the past several years. I am sick and tired of this argument because it is so false. I can prove it is false. If you look at the Exchanges, do you see (a) private insurance companies offering products, or (b) the government itself offering insurance? The ACA was modeled after Massachusetts. In Massachusetts, do you see (a) Private insurance companies offering insurance, or (b) the State of Massacusetts directly offering insurance? The ACA is about regulation of insurance nationally to spread the risk out and lower overall medical costs. By early number, this is actually happening. Overall healthcare spending is not rocketing the way it did pre-ACA. The cost curve has been bent. This has long term benefits to you as a taxpayer. Conservatives howler and scream about deficits, yet by the one act that is doing more to bend the Cost Curve and reduce future benefits, they want to get rid of.

I feel you fail to grasp the big picture. No, was ACA the best solution. Heck no, there were other plans (Wyden-Bennett for example) that were probably better. ACA had too much compromise in it to get it passed. It is however, an improvement to the laizze-fare regulated health insurance industry pre-ACA. If you don't like ACA, then where is the better alternative? The GOP has had years to propose a better alternative, and we have gotten nothing. The pre-ACA health insurance environment is in no way better than the current struggles. You can just look at the overall health spending cost numbers to demonstrate this fact.

Posted by: tc on December 6, 2013 10:15 AM
41. @40 tc on December 6, 2013 10:15 AM,

Amused and his ilk grab the big picture just fine. But his big picture is not the same as yours. He has no interest in humanity or improving the pre ObamaCare system.
Again, Let Him Die is a feature in their mind, not a bug.

Despite a mountain of evidence to the contrary, read him up @37 "Believing that a government system can or will do such things (like promising everyone a pony) is just stupid."

You and your ilk who want to ensure people have access to health care through the right of the people to self govern are stupid and want ponies.

You can't argue with that. You can point and laugh and use self government to marginalize those who would marginalize you (literally) to death if they were in power.

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on December 6, 2013 10:27 AM
42. "26. Clearly you actually do consider polls facts. "

No, I don't. I clearly asked you what you would do if real voters, in actual elections, disagreed with you:

So, in your world, the "Democrat Party" can win every election "at least for the rest of this decade" and still be a "failure"?

You haven't answered, which is unsurprising. I doubt you have any answers worth considering on any part of this topic,, hence your bitter, name-calling rants, and repeated references to your own ignorant opinions as "facts."

Posted by: tensor on December 6, 2013 10:39 AM
43. TC,

You are ruled by your base emotions, completely misunderstand and misapply Adam Smith, and you "don't see [my] response as really addressing the human aspect of the issue" because of your (clearly displayed) ignorance of economics and reality. Talking points like "bending the cost curve" are pretence of something that is simply not happening and will never happen," and demonstrates your inability to think for yourself and willingness to buy any crap your leftist leaders tell you.

The best health care system ever invented in the world was invented in America and it was (and is) based mostly on laissez-faire economics; and that means minimal regulation not NONE. This system excels because medical professionals provide high quality care for a price in accordance with demand rather than at the whim of foolish nitwits like you whose comprehension of economics is purely emotional. Where over-regulation is what caused our problems, your solution is to double-down on stupid and destructive.

The ACA is failing and will continue to fail because its purpose is to gain power over people using the simplistic sentimentality of fools like you to seize any self determination you may have ever developed away from you and force you to do their bidding. The most pathetic part of this is that you seem to actually believe that Barack Obama et al care about your health care. As more people find themselves out in the cold without insurance and without access to decent care, this failure will accelerate to final dissolution and result in rebuilding of the market based system.

A liberal like you is someone who when confronted with any objective reality they don't like simply lies about it, then pretends it will just go away. This won't.
Cheer up though, maybe you can just call me a "hater" for disagreeing with your schlock and be done with it.

Thanks for your comments.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on December 6, 2013 12:58 PM
44. TensedUp scribbled: "Now, it's time for us in the majority to run the teabagging loons out of Congress, and install single-payer via expansion of Medicaid."

The only "teabagging loons" in Congress all have a (D) behind their name. I can understand why I would wish to get rid of all that dead weight but why would you?

Posted by: alphabet soup on December 6, 2013 01:06 PM
45. At #26

You pose, "So, in your world, the "Democrat Party" can win every election "at least for the rest of this decade" and still be a "failure"?

If you believe that your party will continue to win elections in the next few years based on the things your leaders have been doing, fine.
I suggest that you put all of your money on it.
Was that all you had?

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on December 6, 2013 01:09 PM
46. Some witless fool wrote: "You're right! Why did your side fight a Civil War?"

We fought to stop treasonous fools like you from tearing up the nation because you lost an election. We fought to force insurrectionists like you from declaring war on your own homeland and stealing everything that wasn't nailed down (and a lot that was). And we fought idiots like you because you insisted not only on owning other human beings but in making us complicit in your evil practices.

By the way - we kicked your sorry asses.

Thanks for asking ;')

Posted by: alphabet soup on December 6, 2013 01:12 PM
47. The same witless baboon also blathered: "You can't argue with that. You can point and laugh and use self government to marginalize those who would marginalize you (literally) to death if they were in power."

This is rich coming from a proponent of the death panels.

Posted by: alphabet soup on December 6, 2013 01:15 PM
48. At #41 scout writes;

"You and your ilk who want to ensure people have access to health care through the right of the people to self govern are stupid and want ponies."

Do you ever read your own contributions at all before you push the button?
At least to his credit TC can form a rational sentence and tries to make sense.
Why not try to make some sense yourself once in a while just for the novelty?

And you wonder why I am so amused by you?

Thanks.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on December 6, 2013 01:22 PM
49. Amused @43
While it is hard to reply concisely to your response @43, I will try to hit the highlights.

First to start at the end, while responders here would classify me as liberal, that is not the case. Am I more liberal than you, yes, but in the range of politics, my stances fall in the moderate zone. I would most associate with the Modern Whigs as a party and probably the Whigs of the early 1800's. Also, in the past, the progressive Republicans of Teddy Roosevelt era would be more my style. So, I asked not to be lumped with liberals. To me they are a lot farther left than I am politically.

I disagree that I misapply Adam Smith. You yourself acknowledged in your second paragraph a need for at least some regulation. So, you do agree with me that Adam Smith did not call for fully unregulated economy, as some on the right promote. To me, I see government as the both the organizer and referee for the economy with Congress establishing the rules and the executive branch managing/enforcing the rules. The question of extent of the rules needed is a difference of opinion, say between you and I, but in no means do I feel government is both the referee and the player. In a perfect world, health care wouldn't need middlemen. The consumer and the provider would be involved in direct exchange of services. However, that isn't the system we have set up and due to the nature of healthcare, it could never be implemented. Healthcare is too complex for a consumer to know all the ins and outs to be fully qualified buyer. The purpose of people in the middle is to make sure each side gets what they need out of the system. The fact that we use government and insurance companies in the middle is a US feature and not necessarily universal. It should be noted, however, at no time, however, except in the case of the Veterans Association (VA), and military, does government directly provide the service to the end consumer. Even under ACA, this is not the case (government providing directly the end service). This is different than some other areas in our society. For example, in many cities, the electricity is provided directly by a government entity (city or municipal district). This would be the case of government providing the service. So, one can argue the degree of regulation, but one can't say as you earlier inferred that under ACA the government was providing the service. The government is acting as a middle-man (broker) between the consumer and insurance companies, who bundle services provided by networks of doctors and hospitals. For large companies, they hire their own brokers to work out these bundles with the insurance company. What ACA does is provide this "bundling" service for end consumers who can't get insurance through a company. So, the question to you is if the government doesn't do this, should consumers, who don't have enough information to truly understand the bundles be left to the forces of the market which dictates that insurance companies will only offer packages that best suit their needs and not the society as a whole, or should government be involved to even the game and specify bundles of services that best manage the overall costs for society?

As I stated in my previous response and to counter your statement in your last response, the actual numbers for Health Care costs for the society as a whole has flattened. This isn't some talking point as you stated, it is factual hard numbers. It can be directly correlated to ACA changes to regulations going into effect. I know you may not like the numbers because they deflate the story you are trying to spin, but they are what they are.

Posted by: tc on December 6, 2013 02:01 PM
50. Amused,
You may question why I feel government needing to be involved, I give you the following as a prime example of the need for government involvement in healthcare marketplace. By your argument, United Healthcare should be able to do whatever it likes. Is this right?

Medicare Advantage ruling may affect thousands

Posted by: tc on December 6, 2013 02:45 PM
51. "If you believe that your party will continue to win elections in the next few years based on the things your leaders have been doing, fine."

While I'm not a Democrat and never have been, I do note that President Obama was re-elected, despite some mighty-fine poll-unskewing last year, the latter done by some of the same people who now blather on about the troubles with the ACA.

"Was that all you had?"

You still haven't answered my question. Can a political party enact their agenda, win subsequent elections, and yet you'd still call that party a "failure"? It's a yes or no answer, so please try not to continue tripping so miserably over it.

Posted by: tensor on December 6, 2013 02:56 PM
52. "a proponent of the death panels"

Indeed, we don't need no stinkin' gubmint death panels. We did just fine with corporate death panels, thank you. Got a pre-existing condition? Sucks to be you, Loser. Double suck if you're both poor and have a pre-existing condition. Nah-nah-nah-nah-nah!! After all, dogs must hunt and CEOs need bigger yachts. And if you think otherwise, you're a damned America-hating commie-fascist.

Posted by: Amused by Commie-Fascists on December 6, 2013 03:39 PM
53. "This system excels because medical professionals provide high quality care for a price in accordance with demand rather than at the whim of foolish nitwits like you whose comprehension of economics is purely emotional. Where over-regulation is what caused our problems, your solution is to double-down on stupid and destructive."

A system that excels because of medical professionals and yet has problems caused by over-regulation. Are you going to identify which regulations on the health care industry caused the problems which, by the way, you also didn't identify? From your comments I reckon we can at least eliminate the insurance industry as having a problem of previous over-regulation. It's not the medical professionals. There's not much left after that. It wasn't the insurance industry. Let's see, there's the health care industry, pharmaceuticals, bio-technology. Were they over-regulated or was it something else? Just what was the problem with over-regulation and please be specific. And just how does ACA "double-down" on those regulations.

Posted by: Doctor Mengele on December 6, 2013 04:06 PM
54. @48 Amused by Liberals on December 6, 2013 01:22 PM,

Because you are a Horses Ass.

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on December 6, 2013 04:11 PM
55. Some half-wit: "We did just fine with corporate death panels, thank you."

If you thought those were death panels and liked them you're just gonna love what the dhimmicraps are bringing your way.

Posted by: alphabet soup on December 6, 2013 04:31 PM
56. "Because you are a Horses Ass."

And he cedes the field...

Posted by: alphabet soup on December 6, 2013 04:32 PM
57. @56 alphabet soup on December 6, 2013 04:32 PM,

and you seed your hand...

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on December 6, 2013 04:37 PM
58. "And he cedes the field..."

Name-calling is a truly spectacular admission of failure, yes. I'm glad to see you agree. :-)

Posted by: tensor on December 6, 2013 04:38 PM
59. @58 tensor on December 6, 2013 04:38 PM,
but, but, but ... you're a stupid dim-wit dhimmicrap fool.

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on December 6, 2013 04:44 PM
60. At #49,

You purport that "the actual numbers for Health Care costs for the society as a whole has flattened'" and that
"This isn't some talking point as you stated, it is factual hard numbers."
Bullcrap.

There are no such numbers and there cannot be.
Because the system has yet to go into effect in any meaningful way, there is no "cost curve" to identify or conceivable way to measure actual numbers for Health Care costs respecting the ACA for the society as a whole yet. It wouldn't surprise me if Obama administration publish numbers of some sort purporting them to be factual but because this is impossible no one in their right mind would believe them any more than any of the legion of lies told about nearly everything these days.

Even if that were possible and numbers could be accurately obtained and reported, costs alone have nothing whatsoever to do with the relative value of the ACA in terms of what you call "addressing the human aspect[s] of the issue."

As a part of the human aspect[s] of the ACA, millions of people losing thier health care insurance is hardly a positive thing.

You are making things up as you go along.

Economics is not just some arbitrary study that can be understood without some academic basis and your comments reveal that you have not studied basic economics at all. You note superficial outward aspects of mixed economics and correlate them in ways that show you donlt understand them. The you conclude that they might somehow justify government intrusion into a market based system that can and will never work when controlled by government dictum.

No one in the world has ever successfully accomplished what you propose to be possible; and you believe that Barack Obama, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi all complete demonstrated imbeciles can? Come on.

Thanks for your efforts and opinions.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on December 6, 2013 04:52 PM
61. @60 Amused by Liberals on December 6, 2013 04:52 PM,
There are no such numbers and there cannot be.

Because numbers are the work of liberal fascist Obama lovers. Fortunately Amused has an academic basis (no, I don't know WTF he's talking about. Neither does he, but he's on a roll) and he is not taken in by the superficial aspects of facts like the government's licencing and regulating of the insurance business long before Obama was even born. Yes, born! In Honolulu, Kenya!

No one in the world, and by the world I mean that imaginary world inside my head, has ever successfully accomplished what you propose to be possible and then ... some nonsensical incomplete sentence?

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on December 6, 2013 05:02 PM
62. At #50,

You write, "By your argument, United Healthcare should be able to do whatever it likes. Is this right?"

No and that is certainly not what the court ruled.
In America government is not entitled to force private companies to do what it likes either.
Its called the U.S. Constitution.

Read it sometime just for laughs.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on December 6, 2013 05:08 PM
63. @62 Amused by Liberals on December 6, 2013 05:08 PM,

Hey, when you read the US Constitution, how many times do find the words
1) Business?
2) Company?
3) Private?

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on December 6, 2013 05:22 PM
64. Moron at #53,

Refute my comments as they stand.
No one cares what someone like you believes.

After all, "Consumer reports' [sic] has now blessed the ACA web site and that's good enough for you.

Thanks for the joke.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on December 6, 2013 05:27 PM
65. Our resident liberal blog-lawyer seriously asked:

Hey, when you read the US Constitution, how many times do [you] find the words
1) Business?
2) Company?
3) Private?

Golly scout boy, I dunno, I guess this means the government can force private companies to do what it likes after all eh?
Tricky move . . . . from a crafty feller.
Very amusing indeed.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on December 6, 2013 05:45 PM
66. "Hey, when you read the US Constitution, how many times do [you] find the words
1) Business?
2) Company?
3) Private?"

MikeBoyScout -- If only we had some court, maybe one with authority to rule on whether the ACA is constitutional, and we had a ruling by that court on the ACA, then maybe we could resolve this thorny issue.

But, since self-proclaimed constitutional expert Amused hasn't mentioned any of those things, they can't have happened, and so we must simply take his statement as fact.

Posted by: tensor on December 6, 2013 06:16 PM
67. Yeah there scout boy, like tensor cleverly writes, if we had some court, maybe one with authority to rule on whether the ACA is constitutional, that might also rule that the government can force private companies to do whatever it likes, then you know . . . we could just get Obama to go out and fix everything.

Then next we could get the same court to outlaw all badness and give free stuff to everyone and make Obama our permanent Big Daddy.
What a hoot.

You guys are truly unbelievably deluded.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on December 6, 2013 06:57 PM
68. @67 Amused by Liberals on December 6, 2013 06:57 PM,

National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius

Read up, dipshit

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on December 6, 2013 07:18 PM
69. At 68, you might attempt to read it yourself.

In NFIB v. Sebelius, the ACA 's requirement that certain individuals pay a financial penalty for not obtaining health insurance can be considered a tax.

While it is clearly a conceptual stretch for someone of your obvious limitations to comprehend, NFIB v. Sebelius in no way allows the government to force private companies to do anything.

Once again you reveal an arrogant stupidity that is both breathtaking and comically amusing.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on December 6, 2013 08:33 PM
70. @69/68
if we had some court, maybe one with authority to rule on whether the ACA is constitutional

Did the SCOTUS rule ObamaCare unconstitutional in National Federation of Independent Business, et al. v. Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al.; Department of Health and Human Services, et al. v. Florida, et al.; Florida, et al. v. Department of Health and Human Services, et al.?

Or maybe you just disagree that the SCOTUS has the authority to determine the constitutionality of laws passed by Congress?

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on December 6, 2013 09:02 PM
71. Amused by Liberals:

PP-CACA (AKA Øbozocare) is the very worst possible response to the very worst possible misread of our nations heathcare problems. Pathetically myopic and hopelessly convoluted, it was malevolent in its ambition and ham-fisted in its execution.

Stillborn on the event of its Rollout Del Grande, it promises only more of the same. It will NEVER accomplish its aim - unless that aim is the dismantling of our once-great healthcare system. No wonder mouth-breathers like the scooter and tensore and tc are orgasmic over it.

In true leftist style the arch-criminals will pour more and more of our taxpayer money into it like sand down a rathole. All for naught because the truth is they don't want it to succeed. Because the stupid evil bastards want the government to be there when it all comes crashing down to enforce a single-payer replacement as its salvation.

Only that will never happen either. They will deliberately destroy our healthcare system and come away empty handed for their efforts.

I look forward to thanking them in person.

Posted by: alphabet soup on December 6, 2013 09:37 PM
72. "Or maybe you just disagree that the SCOTUS has the authority to determine the constitutionality of laws passed by Congress?"

Don't be a dolt. Oops - too late.

Posted by: alphabet soup on December 6, 2013 09:38 PM
73. At #70,

Read this v-e-r-y c-a-r-e-f-u-l-l-y and attempt to reason it through.

At #62 I wrote that "In America government is not entitled to force private companies to do what it likes . . ." and based my assertion on the U.S. Constitution.
At #63, #68 and now #70 you challenged this statement.

However, none of the rulings you cite discuss government power to force private companies to do anything.
This is very simple, you are wrong, and your attempt to change the argument to save face is at once both obvious and pathetic.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on December 6, 2013 09:44 PM
74. At #71,

While indelicately put, your analysis is quite accurate. while amusing in a dark way, i find their lack of common sense and intellectual rigor disturbing.

The truly interesting part for me is that fact that these people are willing to surrender their basic rights to government (especially Obama et al) and somehow believe they will get something better from it than from private enterprise.

Once a government has seized power it never lets go and there is no recourse. Who would want to have our country mimic Canada, or England, or Switzerland? And who is so stupid that they actually believe there is anything free?

The dialogue on this thread is representative of the total lack of integrity with which leftists approach any question; ignorant, obnoxious, and thoroughly emotionally centered. Like petulant spoiled adolescents.

To be honest I don't care what any of them believe, I just hoped to obtain some insight into why they are so willing to sacrifice themselves to the wills and ultimate control of evil fools like Obama et al especially where something as vital to their survival as health care is concerned. Fools to the slaughter.
To his credit, at least Tc worked to reason through ideas in an honest way.

Given the content of this thread, it's easy to see why we got to the dangerous point where we are. These people are completely unaware of the suffering they are about to experience.

Thanks for your comments.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on December 6, 2013 10:09 PM
75. The best formula for men which you may find out more about as we speak.

Posted by: ???????? on December 7, 2013 07:17 AM
76. Sound Politics: Inslee voted against protecting those who want to keep their health plans
avhwtlxkjw
[url=http://www.g92yu1m1ed15m2j659j8acpn7y7f8f79s.org/]uvhwtlxkjw[/url]
vhwtlxkjw http://www.g92yu1m1ed15m2j659j8acpn7y7f8f79s.org/

Posted by: vhwtlxkjw on December 7, 2013 07:21 AM
77. Sound Politics: Inslee voted against protecting those who want to keep their health plans
amfqfzxieen
mfqfzxieen http://www.gk0223ydmghd8694y54b5nj7e40p46jds.org/
[url=http://www.gk0223ydmghd8694y54b5nj7e40p46jds.org/]umfqfzxieen[/url]

Posted by: mfqfzxieen on December 7, 2013 07:21 AM
78. "Economics is not just some arbitrary study that can be understood without some academic basis and your comments reveal that you have not studied basic economics at all. "

You see, tc, had you ever studied economics with some academic basis, you'd know there are no numbers we could ever possibly use to compare one country's expenditures on health care to another, or to measure the results of those expenditures. That leaves stunningly pompous windbaggery as our only tool of economic analysis. If you liberals were ever smart enough to understand that basic fact, you'd know better than to waste my time with your tedious requests for these so-called numbers.

Posted by: tensor on December 7, 2013 08:01 AM
79. At #78,
Excellent liberal approach tensor.
Reformulate and distort the arguments so they please your superficial notion of irony, but in doing so, make certain you avoid the real issues at all cost.

I can only assume that you (like otherwise sensible people) would like to receive good quality health care for you and your family. There are numbers available to make such comparisons and even if compared without any other essential considerations, they don't justify your position. In all of those countries both the standards of health care and standards of living are far lower than in America and they have little to no choices about either. You are buying into a bad deal all-around.

Except for those who care little for themselves, most average people pay far more in taxes offset for their health care in countries that have socialized health care than our market based system. The most important metrics here include access to care on a timely basis, personal individual choice of caregivers, scope and quality of care. All of these are more important to most of us than cost.

And concerning cost and access, when your side argues that people have not been allowed access to care because they cannot afford it, you are either outright lying or simply don't know the facts. Medicaid and other provisions have assured that NO ONE in America has been deprived of essential medical care. This (of course) is part of the reason why our system is so expensive.

The trope that people go bankrupt because of heath care is silly bunk. People go bankrupt mostly because they simply don't manage their finances. Most importantly remember, there is life (and health care) after bankruptcy. My brother-in-law was recently treated with several surgeries for lung and brain cancer after a bankruptcy and he still lives today in his big beautiful home, nearly new cars, and big-screen TV. Last year he took a trip on a cruise ship in the Bahamas. Who is fool enough to argue that we all must pitch in to prevent others from bankruptcy? This argument is plain stupid.

Any government system over anything is always designed to serve the purposes of government and not people. The military maintains the government, the IRS funds it, and Social Security bailed out the Democrat party after Roosevelt sustained the trashing of our economy just as Medicare provided Johnson his re-election. Socialism involves distributing people's hard earned money to less resourceful people in exchange for their vote. This is outright theft and nothing more.

Many people emigrate from places like Canada (my cousin's family) and England (most English entertainers including the Beatles) precisely to avoid such theft. The extremely high taxes and socialist web of restriction to health care such countries impose upon their people is unnecessary and unacceptable. Ever heard of the Beatles tune "The Tax Man?" Moreover, they understand something few on your side seem to care about; there is no appeal to government decisions. Once government has seized power it rarely gives it up. Once the government establishes once and for all what you are entitled to get in terms of your health care there will be left no alternate plan.

Why not reason your way through the problem in a sensible adult way instead of asserting rash generalizations about supposed numbers (metrics) of which you neither know nor understand?

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on December 7, 2013 11:03 AM
80. "...rash generalizations about supposed numbers (metrics)..."

Oh, so you know the term! That's some progress, at least.

Why don't you cite some of those numbers (metrics) -- y'know, actual economic data -- to support any of the many sweeping assertions you've here mislabeled as "facts"? We can start with your premise, stated all those many long windy words ago, "the American market based system is the best in the world in every way." If you fail to justify that statement, all of the rest of your tedious bloviating will then collapse as well.

Now, "in every way," could take awhile, so how about starting with per-capita expenditures, infant mortality, life expectancy -- you know, the basic hard numbers (metrics) by which actual adults make real comparisons. Try comparing such numbers (metrics) from the US to, say, Canada, France, the UK, or Germany on those points. If you make it that far (hahahahaha...) we can go onto other data. Eventually, we'll have a pretty good idea of how well "market-based" America is doing.

I boldly predict a response, if any, full of pretentious invective, but lacking in verified numbers (metrics). Here's your chance to prove a liberal wrong about something. Don't fail too miserably!

Posted by: tensor on December 7, 2013 12:04 PM
81. I discovered long ago that the only thing that can change a leftists mind is a tire iron. Go on your own snipe hunt tinselore.

Posted by: alphabet soup on December 7, 2013 12:20 PM
82. At # 80,

It writes, "Why don't you cite some of those numbers (metrics) -- y'know, actual economic data"
Why don't you?

In other words you rely in effect on, change the subject, change the subject, run away, run away!!
Put up or shut up bozo.

Most Amusing indeed

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on December 7, 2013 12:33 PM
83. Thank you for validating my prediction. You may now update and improve your nym, by changing it to "Amusing to..." Have a nice day!

Posted by: tensor on December 7, 2013 01:37 PM