February 14, 2014
Every Obamacare Delay in one helpful chart

Posted by Adam Faber at February 14, 2014 03:44 PM | Email This
Comments
1. .
Adam Faber (HACK!),
You know what is missing from this gop.com chart?

The alternative Republican plan is missing.

Sure, there have been some delays in delivering the benefits of ObamaCare. But benefits have been delivered.

Just look to he person "chronicling" RagnarDanneskold's (ObamaCare beneficiary since at least 2013!) opinions and private information here @(un)SP.com whose 24 year old son is enjoying the ObamaCare benefit of being on her family health insurance plan.

But your side has delivered Zip, Zero, Nilch, Nada.

What really is "unworkable" is expecting Republicans to do any work.

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on February 14, 2014 04:35 PM
2. .
March 2010, Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) delivers the weekly Republican address.

EVERYTHING YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT DELAY

Watch it!

""Look, nobody is satisfied with the health care system as it is. We've got serious problems that need to be addressed. Costs are out of control. Too many people are being squeezed out of the market. ... Republicans are committed to repealing this bill and replacing it"

4 years later what have Republicans delivered on their "commitment"?

Absolutely nothing.

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on February 14, 2014 04:51 PM
3. Dear Adam:

So what?

Let me know the negative impact of any of these items and then I might care, but your post looks like crocodile tears to me.

Posted by: scottd on February 14, 2014 05:23 PM
4. MikeBS @ 1:

Perhaps a better plan than Obamacare (which is pretty much understood to be a failure by a majority of people in the US) would be to just eliminate it and go back to where we were.

Sure, there would be ~3 million people without insurance (per the CBO, there will still be 30+ million uninsured in 2017). But we'd have ~3 million more jobs, cut over $1 trillion from our upcoming deficits, have lower costs - and get to actually keep our doctor, if we liked them.

Sometimes the best way to fix a problem is to undo the problem.

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on February 14, 2014 05:49 PM
5. @4 Shanghai Dan on February 14, 2014 05:49 PM,

Dan, don't be ridiculous.
In November 2012 the American people had the choice to elect a candidate who said "The Supreme Court may have made their decision, but the American people haven't. Day one. Job one. Repeal ObamaCare.". A majority of people in the US don't see it the way you think they do. Ask "President" Rmoney or Senate "Majority Leader" Mitch McConnell.

The majority of American people have made their decision about ObamaCare.

No, as I quoted above, in March 2010 the Republican party said there was a problem before ObamaCare went into effect. "Costs are out of control. Too many people are being squeezed out of the market."

After 4 years of delay the Republican party has not delivered anything to address those problems.

Republicans' Plan? Repeal and Cackle

Zip, Zero, Nilch, Nada.

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on February 14, 2014 06:05 PM
6. MikeBoyScout,

Do you *really* think that the democrats and Obama would be "bi-partisan" enough to listen to anything the Republicans come up with to replace the ACA, much less agree to it? obama is not going to let his highest achievement be tainted by anything the Republicans come up with. The democrats hold their social programs in high reverence and are the holy of holy to them. Only the democrats are allowed to toy with democrat laws. If a Republican even brings up reform ideas for social security or medicare, the democrats have a fit. They create campaign ads about Republicans throwing grandma over the cliff for wanting to reform social security.

Posted by: William on February 14, 2014 06:44 PM
7. @6 William on February 14, 2014 06:44 PM,

I really think the only way to determine how the twice elected President Obama and the Senate Democratic majority would evaluate a Republican legislative proposal on health care costs and too many people being squeezed out of the market is to see the proposal William.

Since President Obama and the Democrats produced legislation to address the problem in 2010 and despite Republican acknowledgement of the same set of pre-2010 problems, there hasn't been any proposal to listen to or evaluate despite repeated promises to the contrary.

Tell me William, beyond "Day one. Job one. Repeal ObamaCare", what was the Romney/Ryan alternative?

Why hasn't it gotten an up/down vote in the Republican house?
If the Rmoney/Ryan proposed solution is not good enough, why has there not been a single Republican led House committee hearing on solutions? Not one.

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on February 14, 2014 07:05 PM
8. MBS:

To take a page from your playbook and throw it back at you:

Bush was elected twice, and had a congressional majority. Why didn't the democrats consider anything he did law of the land, now and forever? Did they stand still and just accept that Bush was elected twice and was therefore entitled to imperial powers. Sitting presidents usually win re-election. Just because Obama won twice does not mean the american individuals in this country support everything he does.\

You also haven't answered my question. Would the democrats and obama take anything that the republicans proposed, seriously? It's not a hard question.

For that matter, why haven't the democrats come up with some sort of reforms to this law? Why aren't they up in arms about Obama and the executive orders delaying this or that. That isn't the law. If the law is so great, we should be abiding by how it was written. Oh and SCOTUS ruled on the law as it was written, not on the "modifications" that obama has made.

Posted by: William on February 14, 2014 07:14 PM
9. MBS:

To take a page from your playbook and throw it back at you:

Bush was elected twice, and had a congressional majority. Why didn't the democrats consider anything he did law of the land, now and forever? Did they stand still and just accept that Bush was elected twice and was therefore entitled to imperial powers. Sitting presidents usually win re-election. Just because Obama won twice does not mean the american individuals in this country support everything he does.\

You also haven't answered my question. Would the democrats and obama take anything that the republicans proposed, seriously? It's not a hard question.

For that matter, why haven't the democrats come up with some sort of reforms to this law? Why aren't they up in arms about Obama and the executive orders delaying this or that. That isn't the law. If the law is so great, we should be abiding by how it was written. Oh and SCOTUS ruled on the law as it was written, not on the "modifications" that obama has made.

Posted by: William on February 14, 2014 07:14 PM
10. MikeBS @ 5:

I'm not being ridiculous. the public opposes Obamacare. We know that 2+ million will lose jobs because of Obamacare. We know the CBO estimates $1.3 trillion in additional debt because of Obamacare. And we know that, even after 10 years, 30+ million will still be uninsured by Obamacare.

So what's the upside? Is that purported upside worth more than all these downsides? If not - then how about first repealing Obamacare, and then looking at it logically and seeing if something should be done.

When even President Obama is rewriting Obamacare to try to make it work, maybe it's time to admit it's a fatally flawed law, roll it back, and try again.

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on February 14, 2014 07:29 PM
11. Dan: You just keep repeating that wingnut horseshit to yourself if it helps you get through the day. You're going to need something because the ACA isn't going away.

We know the CBO estimates $1.3 trillion in additional debt because of Obamacare.

From the very same CBO report Dan cited for the above claim:

That legislation includes many other provisions that, on net, will reduce budget deficits. Taking the coverage provisions and other provisions together, CBO and JCT have estimated that the ACA will reduce deficits over the next 10 years and in the subsequent decade.

Keep wanking, Dan.

Posted by: scottd on February 14, 2014 07:42 PM
12. Dan had obviously struck a chord because there are a lot of whiny defensive comments.

Own it: Obombacare!

Posted by: Leftover on February 14, 2014 08:31 PM
13. "Bush was elected twice..."

Valid elections don't involve shredding uncounted ballots. Furthermore, the one big idea Bush promoted after his only actual election was to destroy Social Security, and it was so wildly unpopular he abandoned it a few months into his second term.

But to throw your own idea back at you, how'd Bush's other major policy, Regime Change, go?

Posted by: tensor on February 14, 2014 09:08 PM
14. Apologists (liars) for the ACA like scootie d, mikebullshit, and tensor etc. pretend that the ACA is successful and has a chance to succeed.
Snerk.

Have fun with that . . . drooling morons.

Nice (predictable) start with the crap and let's WATCH YOU DANCE
If your programs were secure, you would never bother posting here but you are too fucking stupid to recognize it.

What fun!!!!!

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on February 14, 2014 09:13 PM
15. At # 11,

The ACA is going down hard and with it will the left.
Have fun (with your crap) while you still can.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on February 14, 2014 09:39 PM
16. scottd,

Do you dispute the link I provided states that Obamacare will increase budgets by $1,363 billion over the 2014-2023 period? And that the number was revised - once again - upward from previous estimates?

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on February 14, 2014 10:20 PM
17. Do you dispute the link I provided states that Obamacare will increase budgets by $1,363 billion over the 2014-2023 period?

Dan, that's not what you said.

Nice try.

Posted by: scottd on February 14, 2014 10:46 PM
18. "The ACA is going down hard and with it will the left."

So, is there a statute of limitations on that? Or is it like the imminent demise of Social Security, any day now for the last seventy-five years?

Nah, more likely it's in the realm of your claim about Canadian health-care costs, which was so obviously false even Dan (!) refuted it.

Keep on blowing hard about healthcare, though; the wind you so create is the only one beneath your wings. Facts, data, math -- these can only but hurt you.

Posted by: tensor on February 15, 2014 02:41 AM
19. Facts, Data, Math. How many of the young and healthy democgraphic required to make the Obamacare numbers work are currently enrolled? How short are they of their enrollment goal? How will the shortfall be addressed? Who will pay?

After one year adjustments by the insurance companies, how many will be raising rates based on risks, enrollment and payouts on policies? How many that were forced to buy insurance, will opt for penalty payments after renewal notices are issued with increased premiums?

What will the Obama administration do to increase particpation by medical professionals to provide services to the increased numbers of medicaid patients? will they be forced to accept new patients and lower reimbursment levels?

Countdown to Single Payer and Nationalized Healthcare....and all of the increased costs that entails.

Posted by: Smokie on February 15, 2014 06:16 AM
20. @8 William on February 14, 2014 07:14 PM,

"To take a page from your playbook and throw it back at you:
Bush was elected twice, and had a congressional majority. Why didn't the democrats consider anything he did law of the land, now and forever? Did they stand still and just accept that Bush was elected twice and was therefore entitled to imperial powers. Sitting presidents usually win re-election. Just because Obama won twice does not mean the american individuals in this country support everything he does.
"

Don't be absurd William.

Medicare Part D was passed by a Republican congress and signed by President Bush in 2003.
Can you find me a single Democratic congress person who opposed and voted against the bill who has doesn't consider it the "law of the land, now and forever"?

Despite Democratic majorities which vociferously opposed the Bush Republican law's prohibition for the government plan to negotiate prices of drugs with the drug companies, as federal agencies do in other programs, and despite the law's implementation of the Medicare Part D coverage gap (informally known as the Medicare donut hole), and despite its budget busting cost which the Bush administration knew of and withheld from the American people and the Congress during debate, Medicare Part D is the law of the land.

What the Democratic party did was to specifically address the shortcomings of the Republican Bush law with legislative proposals, discussed in legislative committees.
Specifically ObamaCare eliminates the "donut hole" and ObamaCare addressed the Medicare Part D balance sheet problem with reductions in cumulative Medicare and Medicaid spending over the 2011-2020 period by $900 billion (or nearly 10 percent over that period).

So, here we are in 2014, and after 4 years of incessant Republican claims of "death panels", "job killing", "deficit increasing" ..... caused by ObamaCare, there is still not a Republican proposal to address their concerns.

"death spiral" indeed.

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on February 15, 2014 06:45 AM
21. There is also the practical matter of the precedent of legislating from the Oval Office. Despite the left fantasy of 1000 years of progressive presidents, the pendulum will swing and a Republican will inhabit the White House.

Do you Obama devotees really want to set precedent for a GOP president to markup law on current conservative whims?

Posted by: Leftover on February 15, 2014 07:08 AM
22. @21 Leftover on February 15, 2014 07:08 AM,

If so called conservatives have a problem with the constitutional legality with the way President Obama has utilized his executive authority to administer provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, there's a legal remedy.

They can petition the court for relief, just as was done during the Bush administration in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld in 2006 and during the Clinton administration in Clinton v. City of New York in 1995.


Posted by: MikeBoyScout on February 15, 2014 07:24 AM
23. scottd:

So then we're in agreement that Obamacare will increase the deficit by over $1.3 trillion. We agree that it's a big financial hit for the budget (never mind it was sold as "saving the budget").

Are we also in agreement that over 30 million will still be left uninsured by Obamacare?

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on February 15, 2014 07:28 AM
24. Dan@27: That's obviously dishonest and pretty thick-headed, even for you. I'll let readers review the comments and decide for themselves.

Posted by: scottd on February 15, 2014 07:37 AM
25. @23 Shanghai Dan on February 15, 2014 07:28 AM,

Try to keep up, will you?
As scottd @11 on February 14, 2014 07:42 PM informed you from the very same CBO report you cited for making your baseless claim:

That legislation includes many other provisions that, on net, will reduce budget deficits

And, no, ObamaCare won't leave 30 million uninsured.
There are studies that have estimated the impact on the health of Americans who live in predominantly Republican led states of the impact of opting out of ObamaCare's Medicaid expansion provisions

Low-income adults in states that have opted out of Medicaid expansion will forego gains in access to care, financial well-being, physical and mental health, and longevity that would be expected with expanded Medicaid coverage. ...We estimate the number of deaths attributable to the lack of Medicaid expansion in opt-out states at between 7,115 and 17,104. Medicaid expansion in opt-out states would have resulted in 712,037 fewer persons screening positive for depression and 240,700 fewer individuals suffering catastrophic medical expenditures. Medicaid expansion in these states would have resulted in 422,553 more diabetics receiving medication for their illness, 195,492 more mammograms among women age 50-64 years and 443,677 more pap smears among women age 21-64. Expansion would have resulted in an additional 658,888 women in need of mammograms gaining insurance, as well as 3.1 million women who should receive regular pap smears.

I look forward to your presentation of similar studies which show the positive effects for the health of the uninsured by states opting out of ObamaCare's Medicaid expansion provisions.


Posted by: MikeBoyScout on February 15, 2014 07:48 AM
26. scottd @ 24:

Then what part of what I wrote is "horseshit"? Is it the fact the public opposes Obamacare? The fact it will add to the deficit? The fact that it will leave 30+ million uninsured? Or the fact the President is willfully ignoring the law and rewriting it?

MikeBS @ 25:

The pitch for Obamacare was that it wouldn't add to the deficit. Now we find that it will add $1.3 trillion to the deficit, but it's supposedly going to reduce budget deficits. Show your math, please.

And if you don't think there are 30+ million uninsured in 10 years, then you need to take it up with the CBO - their words are such. 30+ million uninsured.

Now how about the President rewriting the law - literally ignoring hard-fact statutes such as when aspects of the law are to take place? Is this a precedent you want the President to have? To be able to pick and choose what laws to enforce - and to unilaterally rewrite parts he doesn't agree with?

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on February 15, 2014 08:03 AM
27. @26 Shanghai Dan on February 15, 2014 08:03 AM,

Clearly an area where ObamaCare could be improved would be to address medical conditions which impair cognitive skills. You appear to be suffering terribly.

I'm not going to refute your baseless claims with evidence .... again.

Feel free to lend your continued support with bullshit and bluster to repealing ObamaCare and ignoring all the problems that existed before its passage and implementation.

I certainly understand you are doing the best you can and can accept you are incapable of doing any better.

Oh, you should print out copies of the gop.com chart Adam posted and hang them up everywhere you can.

lol

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on February 15, 2014 08:22 AM
28. Mike: There's no point in arguing with someone as willfully dishonest as Dan. He'll claim the CBO says the ACA will add $1.3T of debt and then link to a CBO report that says the exact opposite. And he's dumb enough to think that just repeating an obvious lie will make it more persuasive.

It's fun to watch him make a fool of himself, but in the end, it doesn't matter what he thinks. The ACA is going to be around for years to come and he'll still be here whining about it and spreading right wing horseshit.

Posted by: scottd on February 15, 2014 08:25 AM
29. MikeBS @ 27/scottd @ 28:

I'm curious about where the CBO contradicts itself. The CBO said it would add $1.3 trillion to the deficit - and you claim it then says it will lower the deficit. Can you show your link to your claim?

I know, better to just huff and puff and walk away claiming "willfully ignorant". At least it's less work for you, and less of a hit to your self-esteem.

Facts are curious things, aren't they?

- Higher deficits: check.
- 30+ million left without insurance: check.
- Majority of citizens opposed: check.
- President unilaterally rewriting laws: check.
- Leftists fawning ignorance and walking away: priceless.

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on February 15, 2014 08:46 AM
30. Mike (re Dan @29): See what I mean?

Thick as a brick...

Posted by: scottd on February 15, 2014 08:55 AM
31. @29 Shanghai Dan on February 15, 2014 08:46 AM,

Dan, as fun as it is to point to your idiocy and laugh, I got other things to do this morning.

But, it is funny how you left out some "facts" that are indisputable

- ObamaCare has been the law for 4 years
- Republicans promised to repeal and replace it 4 years ago
- No Republican replacement has been presented in 4 years
- Republicans ran against Obama on the proposition of "Day one. Job one. Repeal ObamaCare." and the American people decidedly chose the candidate who signed ObamaCare into law and vowed not to repeal it


Posted by: MikeBoyScout on February 15, 2014 08:58 AM
32. Dan,

Your list is spot on.
Nice try but (as you know) facts are slippery things especially to people who want so fervently to believe in fairy tales that they will distort anything.

The extension to your list is not good for any of us - especially the very poor.
Liberals "think" [emote] they are being clever but they will suffer right along with us when their family members are hurt or die because of the policies of willful stupidity and destruction in which they they pretend to believe. Their response is "When, and How,(?) some lack of specificity here proves anything.

Sooner than any of them imagine.
I recently watched the indirect effect Obamasnare had on the death of two seniors and know up close and personal what it will do to many of us.

Everyone including the liberal clowns on this blog are watching as the ACA collapses.

Like teenagers mad at their parents they want to keep the discussion alive to try to vex anyone that tells the truth. Then they quote sources like Wiki as though they are anything more than the perverted opinions of one side of the ongoing polemic, in fact a circular argument that goes nowhere but down.

If the Canadian system is so good why do so many Canadians (and other Europeans) come here for health care services? And who in America goes to Europe for health care? And who is dim-witted enough to believe what the World Health Organization or the World Bank purports about anything? Liberals

They don't care what you or I think and I am amused at their feeble strained gesticulations and pathetic defenses of the indefensible. And in the fullness of time, they will care what happens to them and theirs.

Nice job Dan.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on February 15, 2014 09:22 AM
33. Amused,

As usual, the leftists here simply shout and yell and call names and retreat behind non-sequiturs. Facts tend to scare them... As we see here.

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on February 15, 2014 09:58 AM
34. Oh, and amused? This paper may explain our resident leftist trolls... ;)

Have a great Saturday!

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on February 15, 2014 10:14 AM
35. @34 Shanghai Dan on February 15, 2014 10:14 AM,

That's rich coming on a post complaining about delays in ObamCare implementation where the proposed solution is to delay it forever and where you criticality comment it doesn't insure enough people so it should be repealed to insure less.

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on February 15, 2014 10:46 AM
36. "Thick as a brick..."

Some thicker than others.

"facts are slippery things especially to people who want so fervently to believe in fairy tales that they will distort anything"

Wingnut projection unleashed.

"your list is not good for any of us - especially the very poor"

LMFAO!! The very poor. Because we all know that you Randroids so deeply love the leaches on society, er, the Takers, er, the very poor. Look stupe, here's an actual fact, not something pulled from your ass. The "very poor" have already long had access to Medicaid, which Red States refuse to expand, no doubt because you love the rest of the poor so damned much. In fact, a study by the Urban Institute suggests that 5.8 million Americans will be denied access to Medicaid in the red states which refused to expand the program.

http://www.urban.org/health_policy/health_care_reform/localmedicaidexpansion.cfm

Posted by: Dr. Zatoichi, the Blind Surgeon on February 15, 2014 10:57 AM
37. I've recently written an article that touches upon this subject, entitled "The Democrats: The Party of Control." You can read it here: http://wp.me/p3N9zD-5s

Posted by: Robert Boxer on February 15, 2014 11:05 AM
38. The only way to save the country is to repeal Democare, and the only way to do that is to throw the homo Muslim out of the White House.

Posted by: Independent Voter on February 15, 2014 05:24 PM
39. At # 37,

Excellent article and spot on.
The thing that is most amusing (in a dark way) is that liberals are so completely tone deaf to the larger political problem they find themselves in.

I wouldn't expect someone like the clown at # 36 to care what happens to anyone let alone his own mother or other family members because he is a demonstrated proven degenerate. However, I am acquainted with liberals that have some class and decency and they are becoming more and more quiet these days and showing signs they are changing their minds about the ACA.

I spent the day today with seniors (democrats and Republicans) who are justifiably scared to death at what is happening to their HC system. The indirect effect the ACA is having on the very poor is especially devastating and difficult to ignore, but the leftists that come here don't care at all and appear completely blind to it.

Maybe if leftists put on some clothes and went out and volunteered to help people they would recognize what is really happening in our communities.

Nice job Robert Boxer

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on February 15, 2014 06:59 PM
40. Dan at # 34,

Thanks for the reference.

Indeed online "trolls" like tensor, scottd, mikeBS, and especially rootie gazootie the blind moron are twisted people whose sole purpose is to provoke discord and discomfort online, and mostly just because they can.

I do think there is another important reason though.

It has become very clear to me the reason they want to try to attack people disagree with is two-fold.
First they are narcissistic cowards who you will never find actually doing anything for others and are very often unemployed or employed only where other liberals have placed a lock on the workplace subculture.
Union shops are full of these hateful ignorant and vicious slobs because the unions protect their right to keep their job despite their being completely and utterly worthless as employees.

Secondly, they are not aware of their own minds. They were educated to be liberal and never explored life enough to discover that what their liberal teachers taught them doesn't work. They took the easy way out and they are deep down angry because they were conditioned to be punked by the idiots that conditioned them.

Even many of the older liberals look at them in amazement (and amusement) at the arrogance and simpering stupidity of positions and opinions they express.

They know how to tear down things made by others but have no idea on how to create anything on their own. Then they surrounded their whole life with the pathetic pretense of superiority they arrogate to themselves by promising to give the supposed downtrodden (and themselves) stuff they steal from others. Then they elect morons like bongo that promise to take the stuff for them.

Thanks for the article.

Posted by: Amused by liberals on February 15, 2014 07:40 PM
41. "Facts are curious things, aren't they?"

The only "curious thing" about your facts is how they don't support your claims, such as in the previous thread, wherein you misrepresented data in support of your idea that Americans pay less for health care than citizens of other industrialized democracies do. A closer look belied your claim, but instad of admitting error, you just came here and kept blathering away.

Nonetheless, we here in Seattle continue to appreciate your missives from Shanghai, describing your distaste for one-party government, and for excessive government regulation of health care.

Posted by: tensor on February 15, 2014 07:50 PM
42. At # 41,

We here in Seattle," wow
Very amusing.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on February 15, 2014 08:15 PM
43. A recent study out of Harvard reveals that in the red states where Medicaid expansion has been denied, the estimated number of needless deaths could be over 17,000. Nearly a quarter million individuals might suffer catastrophic medical expenditures. Nearly a half-million more diabetics would have received medication for their illness. Over 650,000 women in need of mammograms would have insurance. Over 3 million women would receive regular pap smears.

It is with a hatred born of insatiable greed that Amused hates America's so-called Takers, our poor, especially the women and little children who will suffer most from his quest to deny them the health care they so deperately need. He'd see them die by the thousands because he believes their suffering and needless deaths will save him a few precious pennies.

http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2014/01/30/opting-out-of-medicaid-expansion-the-health-and-financial-impacts/

Posted by: Dr. Zatoichi, the Blind Surgeon on February 15, 2014 08:48 PM
44. At # 43,

SNERK

A recent study out of Harvard reveals that in the blue states where morons like rootie gazootie is popular for his nose pickin's eatin and momma insultin' is popular, the estimated number of needless deaths could be over 77,000,000, or uis that 77,000,000,00? He's not sure.

What the hell . . . a round number don't you think?

Pure genius there nose pickin's eater.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on February 15, 2014 09:16 PM
45. Thanks Adam Faber for providing an accurate chart of the delays, changes, and repeals of the Obama Asshole Crappola Act "ACA" idiocy of the left.

Of course if we (conservatives) were good people like the high falutin' leftist "we here in Seattle" crowd, we might do something like create opportunity for work where people could provide for themselves.
Work's too "unfair" for them.

Keep em coming please.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on February 15, 2014 09:27 PM
46. I figured that would trigger yet another outburst of drug and alcohol-fueled rage. You never disappoint, Stupe.

Posted by: Dr. Zatoichi, the Blind Surgeon on February 15, 2014 09:38 PM
47. Over 17,000 dead Americans, mostly women and children, and it's all your fault, Amused, for being such a stupe.

Hey, 'tard, put down the meth pipe for a moment, let go of the anger and try refuting the study.

Posted by: Dr. Zatoichi, the Blind Surgeon on February 15, 2014 09:50 PM
48. At # 46,

Of course someone of your obvious pathetic limitations would assert that,
"creat[ing] opportunity for work where people could provide for themselves . . . " might [somehow] be drug and alcohol-fueled rage.

Why not go back to eating your nose pickin's moron and leaving comments to the sane?

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on February 15, 2014 09:52 PM
49. Interesting here is that what we have left at this point is the least resourceful of the trolls.
Something on the order of a drooler.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on February 15, 2014 09:57 PM
50. More drug and alcohol-fueled rage. No refutation of the study. Just name-calling. Which leads us to yet more wingnut projection,

"obvious pathetic limitations"

Wingnuts and projection. It's a Psych 101 thing. Sigh! Yes, Amused, it's obvious that your limitations are pathetic. Now refute the study.

Posted by: Dr. Zatoichi, the Blind Surgeon on February 15, 2014 10:14 PM
51. tensor,

Sorry, not in Shanghai... Right now in Ventura, CA. Beautiful, sunny morning - will probably be a wonderful 73-75 degrees today.

Enjoy the gloom and rain today - it goes well with your attitude! ;)

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on February 16, 2014 07:55 AM
52. .
re @51, 'tis funny how none of our (un)SP peanut gallery never finds themselves moving to Republican paradise locations like Shreveport LA, or Oklahoma City, Murfreesboro TN or Meridian MS to avoid those eveel librul Democratic party states like WA.

Dan's loving life in Ventura, CA with its Democratic government from top to bottom and full ObamaCare buy-in. And he's moved there after the state led by Gov 'moonbeam' Brown raised taxes.

lol


Posted by: MikeBoyScout on February 16, 2014 08:59 AM
53. Dan,

Given that the ACA seemed superficially to have so much support in your area, I imagine it would be especially amusing for you to watch the collapse and frenzied idiotic excuse making in its defense. As evidenced here at SP in Washington we have a contingent of lame brains who cite Wiki and the WHO and pretend that's the final word.
Any wacky notion that comes to mind suddenly becomes "fact" whenever a liberal or gaggle of liberal pea brains utter it.

Which lie will bongo or any of a number of other pretentious mendacious leftists tell each other next?

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on February 16, 2014 10:18 AM
54. Good work, Doc; Amused's funniest moments are when he abandons his pretentious, pompous windbaggery for puerile name-calling.

And, MikeBoyScout, we know all of the scolding about the unrealistic and unstable nature of us liberals and our programs will always emanate from safe within deep-blue areas. They may be nasty and self-absorbed, but for the most part, they're not stupid enough to attempt living their wretched "values."

Dan, please enjoy paying Gov. Moonbeam's salary, and know that one of the reasons I like winter in Seattle is it keeps the moochers and takers from living here full-time. :-)

Posted by: tensor on February 16, 2014 02:19 PM
55. Now that is amusing.

Tensor writes, "one of the reasons [tensor] like[s] winter in Seattle is it keeps the moochers and takers from living here full-time."

The "we here in Seattle," tensor refers to at # 41, including tensor, are nearly all moochers and takers.
I say nearly because if there weren't some conservatives around the city would simply shut down for lack of basic competency and awareness.
Seattle has a mayor with an IQ smaller than his shoe size and a City Council woman who sincerely believes Boeing workers should simply take Boeing over by force.

They all love the ACA, because is designed to collapse our health care system and allow them to take from one person and give to another.
It makes people of limited capacities like him happy to pretend they are being generous when in fact they are stealing and breaking things others considerably more resourceful and vital than him create.

Most of these people think Nancy Pelosi is smart.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on February 16, 2014 03:17 PM
56. I say nearly because if there weren't some conservatives around the city would simply shut down for lack of basic competency and awareness.

Can you name a few members of this dedicated team of conservatives who keep Seattle running for the moochers and takers?

Seems to me a little recognition is the least this blog can do for them.

Posted by: scottd on February 16, 2014 04:22 PM
57. The level of name calling from the left is always a good gauge of how close to the truth we are.

Posted by: Independent Voter on February 16, 2014 04:59 PM
58. "Can you name a few members of this dedicated team of conservatives who keep Seattle running for the moochers and takers?"

That's our Amused, making up shit as he goes.

"They all love the ACA"

Amused likes to tell everybody what they believe, so I'm sure he doesn't mind when I play that game too.

Amused hates Medicaid because he wants to see little children suffer horribly and die needlessly for lack of health care. Why? Besides hating America's little children, Amused believes their suffering and premature deaths will save him a dollar in taxes.

Posted by: Dr. Zatoichi, the Blind Surgeon on February 16, 2014 06:08 PM
59. .
And yet it is curious how none, not a single one of the (un)SP peanut gallery nor any of the (un)SP front pagers have found it of such an economic advantage to leave leftist Washington (with its Democratically dominated government for mostly 40 years) for 'greener' economic pastures in an anti-ObamaCare Republican state.

If you read their bullshit (e.g. "The only way to save the country is to repeal Democare, and the only way to do that is to throw the homo Muslim out of the White House.") you'd think there was some disadvantage to living in a state like WA that is so sold on ObamaCare.

Yet, having had the choice to vote with their feet, not a single solitary (un) SP'r can find her/his way out of WA to Republican led government.

Why is that?

Maybe Adam Faber (HACK!) will post a chart showing us everything we need to know about (un)SP hypocrisy in one helpful chart?

No, I didn't think so.

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on February 16, 2014 06:18 PM
60. No-Info Voter jumps into the fray @38 with, "throw the homo Muslim out of the White House". Hmm, he must be talking about President Bongo. Heh. Nothing bigoted about any of that.

Then @57 he comes back as a sage to drop this little pearl of wisdom on his friends, "The level of name calling from the left is always a good gauge of how close to the truth we are".

These people can be so damned funny.

Posted by: Dr. Zatoichi, the Blind Surgeon on February 16, 2014 07:36 PM
61. Homo Muslim? What the heck is THAT.

Posted by: Ten Years After - Roger Rabbit is just a liberal progressive troll. THERE, FIXED! on February 16, 2014 08:15 PM
62. At # 60,

Even rootie gazootie the blind moron calls his sainted serial liar "President Bongo."
Yet he can't bring himself to admit bongo's lies will hurt him as well.
Being a blind moron degenerate who eats his nose pickin's appears to take it's toll.

SNERK :>)

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on February 16, 2014 08:17 PM
63. scottd -- without Amused's godlike intellect and prose, Seattle would not merely be poorer -- the very space-time continuum itself would be in danger of collapse.

Boeing's unionized Machinists create nothing of value, and Costco was certainly not founded by liberal Democrats. If you'd just listen to Amused, you'd know these "facts."

(Maybe Amused could put his literary talents to use here, and write a story where the few conservatives in Seattle all move to a gulch in the mountains, leaving Seattle to us moochers and takers. We might call it, "Amused Flubbed.")

Posted by: tensor on February 16, 2014 08:27 PM
64. Adam Faber,

Thanks again for providing more proof that the ACA is collapsing.

Of course the obvious reality is that if the ACA was NOT collapsing, the left wouldn't bother to comment.

Keep the simple and obvious facts comin' as always please.
Thanks again

What fun. :>)

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on February 16, 2014 08:49 PM
65. At # 63,

Amused should, "write a story where the few conservatives in Seattle all move to a gulch in the mountains, leaving Seattle to us moochers and takers."

Interesting idea.

Given the incidents recently in a central California electrical substation last year, the potential for liberal isolation is very real.
In fact I find it amusing how clueless the left is on such a point. And how easily they ignore the potential problems it obviates.
So, what would a mass group of leftists (like tensor, scottd or mike bullshit, let alone other truly demented leftists here) confined in an area and left alive, do to survive?

Work together; reach out and help each other? Why?
Other than dealing drugs or voting robotically alike, they never help each other.
They believe the "Leviathan" owes them succor.
In fact they are more likely to buy an illegal gun and murder each other than conservatives would.

And how would they deal with conservatives?

Being a conservative, if I was a sadist, am enormously amused by the obvious and inevitable answer to this question.

Thanks tensor for shedding light upon one of your obvious and irreconcilable weaknesses.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on February 16, 2014 09:50 PM
66. MikeBS and scottdouche,

Shanghai Dan handed your asses to you in the argument above. You are just too chickenshit to admit it.

Well done Dan. Always a gas to watch Obamabots slither away.

Posted by: Mike on February 16, 2014 10:24 PM
67. .
@66 Mike on February 16, 2014 10:24 PM,

Yep, he sure did.
Perhaps you can inform the Republican leadership of his winning "argument" and they can use its persuasive qualities to repeal ObamaCare.
Then again, perhaps it's just more of the same empty bullshit and bluster from Republican supporters that goes to show y'all are just shouting at the wind. You know, like "Day one. Job one. Repeal ObamaCare." How'd that work out?


ps. Sorry to hear about your problem with gas.

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on February 17, 2014 04:50 AM
68. "Interesting idea."

And, by your standards, a highly original one. (Do try to spend less than a thousand pages on telling everyone just how great you are, though.)

Posted by: tensor on February 17, 2014 06:56 AM
69. amused@65: You've packed so much into just a few brief paragraphs -- I can't wait for the novel!

Maybe you could serialize it right here at SP.

Posted by: scottd on February 17, 2014 07:20 AM
70. "President Bongo."

Bongos aren't from Africa. I just thought you should know.

Posted by: Dr. Zatoichi, the Blind Surgeon on February 17, 2014 07:34 AM
71. "How'd that work out?"

About as well as "one term president".

Posted by: Dr. Zatoichi, the Blind Surgeon on February 17, 2014 07:39 AM
72. "Amused's godlike intellect and prose"

And I thought he'd run out of meds again. My bad.

Posted by: Dr. Zatoichi, the Blind Surgeon on February 17, 2014 07:52 AM
73. Oh, look: Jim Miller wrote an entire post referring to the same study Ventura Dan cited above @34. Congratulations, Dan, and I'm sure you'll agree, it's good to see Jim recognizes the great value comments bring to this blog.

However, neither Dan nor Jim seemed to understand the study refers only to self-identified trolls, not to persons labeled as trolls by others. For example, we liberals have long regarded this very blog, its front-page posters, and approving peanut gallery as an epic exercise in failed concern-trolling of Seattle's liberalism. I think Jim and Dan can agree that this long-term and sincere belief, although completely supported by every post and supportive comment ever made here, does not automatically count as proof the folks here suffer from the personality defects listed in the study.

Posted by: tensor on February 17, 2014 07:58 AM
74. "However, neither Dan nor Jim seemed to understand the study refers only to self-identified trolls, not to persons labeled as trolls by others."

It makes more sense when one considers the conclusions reached by Hodson and Busseri (2012). Lower intelligence in childhood is predictive of greater racism in adulthood and poor abstract reasoning skills are related to homophobia. So lower cognitive abilities predict greater prejudice through right-wing ideology. In fact, "sadism, psychopathy, and Machiavellianism" as a discription of wingnuttia could have been lifted word for word from Hodson and Busseri!

So in a manner of speaking, Jim Miller, Amused, Shanghai Dan and the rest of them are trolls on their own blog.

Posted by: Dr. Zatoichi, the Blind Surgeon on February 17, 2014 08:58 AM
75. @73
Yes you scottd and especially MBS qualify as the sadistic trolls mentioned in the study.

Posted by: Anon on February 17, 2014 09:10 AM
76. @6: Shanghai Dan handed your asses to you in the argument above. You are just too chickenshit to admit it.

Where do you get that? Nearest I can tell, they refuted him by quoting exactly the same study he was drawing from. Did Dan manage to address any of that? No.

@75: Yes you scottd and especially MBS qualify as the sadistic trolls mentioned in the study.

Because they dare to disagree with you? It seems like the most sadistic and abusive language is from the sad guy that can't seem to make a point, but does like to call his opponents "blind moron degenerate[s] who eats [their] nose pickin's".

Keep it classy, man.

Posted by: demo kid on February 17, 2014 09:52 AM
77. Oops, make that @66, not @6...

Posted by: demo kid on February 17, 2014 09:53 AM
78. @65: Given the incidents recently in a central California electrical substation last year, the potential for liberal isolation is very real.

I'm sorry, what the hell does that have to do with anything? Are you inventing a conspiracy theory or something?

Other than dealing drugs or voting robotically alike, they never help each other.

Not only is there no evidence of that, it's patently absurd. You're wallowing in a sad, delusional caricature that I can absolutely guarantee is not supported by evidence.

In fact they are more likely to buy an illegal gun and murder each other than conservatives would.

Where is the evidence that this is connected to liberalism of any kind? Facts, please... the feverish rantings of a whack-job don't count as the "truth".

Posted by: demo kid on February 17, 2014 10:00 AM
79. Are you inventing a conspiracy theory or something?

Sheesh, DK -- isn't that obvious? That's what these guys live for...

Amused actually thinks that the only thing that keeps Seattle going is a dedicated (and secret!) band of conservative do-gooders who maintain function and order for the moochers and takers. I have no idea why they would bother with such a thankless job. Maybe it will come out in the novel.

You can't reason with someone like that. All you can do is laugh at the clown show.

Posted by: scottd on February 17, 2014 10:12 AM
80. I think where (Ventura) Dan is confused is taking estimated costs for the program and assuming that the alternative costs was "zero." Dan, you fail Economic Analysis course in this case. To compare the costs, you have to compare against the previous state condition, which is the "do nothing" alternative to ACA. The CBO report you quoted doesn't provide this number, so it is incorrect to compare the costs you quote without this comparison. This is why the report states that ACA will reduce budget deficits. The costs pre-ACA were steeper. If you want to make an argument, compare the ACA program cost versus the programs that were in place pre-ACA. How do those numbers compare? Don't tell me the pre-ACA program numbers were zero, because they weren't. To use Pudge's term, if you state pre-ACA numbers were zero, you'd be "lying."

Posted by: tc on February 17, 2014 10:14 AM
81. (Ventura) Dan,
For your reference, here is the original CBO report on the final bill and showing which areas will increase and decrease when compared to pre-ACA state. The report you linked to only covers current costs and makes no comparison to previous costs.

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/113xx/doc11379/amendreconprop.pdf

Posted by: tc on February 17, 2014 10:22 AM
82. "the only thing that keeps Seattle going is a dedicated (and secret!) band of conservative do-gooders who maintain function and order for the moochers and takers."

A league of Republican superheroes. Too funny! Got capes?

"Maybe it will come out in the novel."

A comic book might be more appropriate.

Posted by: Dr. Zatoichi, the Blind Surgeon on February 17, 2014 10:36 AM
83. tc: I'm sure Dan appreciates the life preserver you're offering him, but there's no need to refer to an earlier CBO report.

Dan claimed that the ACA adds $1.3T in debt, and then he linked to a CBO report that explicitly said that the ACA reduces budget deficits. In other words, Dan's source says the opposite of what he claimed it said. And that is a comparison to the status quo ante.

You can provide all the helpful links you want. Dan doesn't even read his own links. Why do you think he will read yours?

Posted by: scottd on February 17, 2014 10:42 AM
84. From the rabid name calling and trolling by the one or two lefties using multiple monikers, I'd say we are very close to the truth on Democare.

Posted by: Independent Voter on February 17, 2014 12:32 PM
85. "From the rabid name calling and trolling by the one or two lefties"

Yeah, I see your point. It was rabid of me to write @38 how we should "throw the homo Muslim out of the White House". Oh, wait, that was you. Heh.

Posted by: Dr. Zatoichi, the Blind Surgeon on February 17, 2014 01:02 PM
86. Truth is not name calling.

Posted by: Independent Voter on February 17, 2014 01:55 PM
87. @86 Independent Voter on February 17, 2014 01:55 PM,

And you wouldn't know "truth" if it smacked you upside your moronic empty skull, dimwit.

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on February 17, 2014 02:44 PM
88. .
Remember the great hullabaloo raised here by the (un)SP peanut gallery when the "imperial" president arbitrarily delayed healthcare program milestones without congressional authority?

Knight Ridder Newspapers - May 9, 2006

WASHINGTON--With pressure mounting to extend next Monday's enrollment deadline for the Medicare prescription-drug benefit, the Bush administration took another small step in that direction Tuesday, waiving penalty fees for very low-income seniors and people with disabilities who sign up late.

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on February 17, 2014 03:20 PM
89. The Chicago area is full of people who saw him frequent homo clubs. He was raised as a Muslim and has never renounced the cult.

And your angry, name calling post serves to verify what I posted here earlier.

Posted by: Independent Voter on February 17, 2014 04:01 PM
90. "throw the homo Muslim out of the White House"

"The Chicago area is full of people who saw him frequent homo clubs."

"He was raised as a Muslim and has never renounced the cult."

Too funny.

Hey, Adam, meet your base! Heh. Sadly, and as you know, you go into an election with the base you have, not the base you might want or wish to have.

Posted by: Dr. Zatoichi, the Blind Surgeon on February 17, 2014 04:54 PM
91. @89 Independent Voter on February 17, 2014 04:01 PM,

Of course my reply to you 'verifies what you posted here earlier'. How could it possibly not?

Tell us more about the Chicago area's 'homo clubs' and the people you know who frequently see people in them.

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on February 17, 2014 05:15 PM
92. .
Great news for ObamaCare dead-enders!

The man who brought you "Day one. Job one. Repeal ObamaCare." is back!

Mitt Romney Is the 2016 Republican Front-Runner

Don't wait one more moment (un)SP peanut gallery
Draft Mitt Romney for President 2016!

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on February 17, 2014 05:44 PM
93. Obama's actions of changing the date of implementation of the Small Business mandate is not clever by one half and the other 27 provisions he has changed. He has set a precedent that give the next Republican president (be it in 2016 or 2020) the ability to repeal whatever portion they wish by Executive Order.

Chances are the law will look different after this radical leftist ideologue & pathological liar is out of office - may an orange jump suit loom in his future. The kool aid drinking peanut gallery from Horsesass.com will try to argue aimlessly or divert the topic with jibberish like Romney leads all GOP candidates in 2016 - who gives an excrement as he will not run again - its irrelevant. Romney was competent but his campaign strategy sucked/he was way too nice - his nature and should have campaign on Mr. Obama's lack of character which he did not. The radical left -aka the Democrat Party has made their bed of thorns and will eventually have lay in them.

Posted by: KDS on February 17, 2014 07:23 PM
94. Thanks for giving us that peek into your rich fantasy life, KDS. But please, help educate this poor Seattle liberal:

Will the Senate repeal the ACA, or must repeal wait until we get a Republican president?

What crimes do you imagine President Obama to have committed?

Posted by: tensor on February 17, 2014 09:56 PM
95. @94 - tensor - I did not expect a kool aid drinking leftist & low info voter like yourself to comprehend what I wrote and your comments demonstrated that.

"Will the Senate repeal the ACA, or must repeal wait until we get a Republican president?"

Silly question - Democrats control the Senate now. Of course not. Even if the Senate was controlled by the GOP, they would need 67 votes to override Obama's predictable veto which is doubtful - should they vote to repeal it in 2015-16. A Republican President could repeal parts he does not like by Executive Order if he wishes, just as Obama changed the law bypassing Congress for political advantage, the legality of which is questionable - but the only check against this is the Judicial Branch ie. Supreme Court. Chances are these changes in Obamacare will end up in court, and move forward as the aggreived party will have standing when it is brought before Federal Court.

"What crimes do you imagine President Obama to have committed?"

Purgery - lieing under oath about consequential matters to many Americans like Keeping your doctor if you want to..after enrolling in Obamacare - a blatant lie, Actually, most every time he says something, not an imaginary crime, but the DOJ has his back and their corruption is breathtaking. He also has usurped authority and overreached. His executive actions have been repealed by the courts on a number of occasions (one example - the recess appointment last year was made when the House was in session and the court ruled against him). You insinuate his innocence, so let me ask you if you also believe that former Pres. Morsi of Egypt was innocent and did not deserve to be overthrown ?

Posted by: KDS on February 18, 2014 09:49 PM
96. Perjury is lying under oath in a matter material to the case or investigation for which the testimony is given. In what place did President Obama testify about the matters you mention, and how was his testimony material to the case or investigation?

Other than that, you've listed political disputes, none of which are crimes in this country, and complained you don't like his policies. So what?

Posted by: tensor on February 19, 2014 08:45 AM
97. Larry Hill from Olympia is one of the trolls here.

Posted by: Independent Voter on February 19, 2014 04:43 PM
98. "97. Larry Hill from Olympia is one of the trolls here."

Is he the one who punked Rags with such risible ease in the McAddled thread?

Posted by: tensor on February 19, 2014 06:40 PM