posted September 21, 2010 07:49 AM            

katatonic, that's one of the most lame things you've said here..in a long lame list.

O'Bomber was elected....by someone.

If not by O'Bomber voters...then by whom??

"Likely US Voters according to Rasmussen are by definition those who do NOT support Obama."...katatonic

Now, show me...from Rasmussen reports where Rasmussen says his polls of likely voters ...by definition...exclude O'bomber supporters.

posted September 21, 2010 11:31 AM            

quote:

---

When Americans want news they don't go to the Kool-Aid drinkers channel...MSNBC.
They go to the "Fair and Balanced" channel, Fox New Network.

---

ROFL ... oh my jwhop, that is by far the funniest thing you've "said"... Fox "news"
( wiping laffing tears from eyes )

posted September 21, 2010 11:42 AM              

with all due respect i suggest it is rasmussens' tactics that are lame, not my reference to them! they aim to please...the conservative opposition, that is.

posted September 23, 2010 06:44 PM            

Lies, Damned Lies – Obamacare 6 Months Later; It’s Time to Take Back the 20!
by Sarah Palin
on Thursday, September 23, 2010 at 2:13pm.

Sarah Palin

It’s now six months since President Obama took control of one-sixth of the private sector economy with his health care “reform,” and the first changes to our health care system come into effect today. Despite overwhelming public dislike of the bill, we were told that D.C. knows best, and there was nothing to worry about, and we’d be better off swallowing the pill called Obamacare; so, in defiance of the will of the people, the President and his party rammed through this mother of all unfunded mandates. Nancy Pelosi said Congress had to pass the bill so that Americans could “find out what is in it.” We found out that it’s even worse than we feared.

Remember when the president said, “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor”? Not true. In Texas alone a record number of doctors are leaving the Medicare system because of the cuts in reimbursements forced on them by Obamacare! The president of the Texas Medical Association, Dr. Susan Bailey, warns that “the Medicare system is beginning to implode.”

Remember the Obama administration’s promise that Obamacare would cut a typical family’s premium “by up to $2500 a year”? Not true. In fact, fueled by reports that insurers expect premiums to rise by as much as 25 percent as a result of Obamacare, Senate Democrats are contemplating the introduction of price controls.

Remember when the president said in his address to Congress that “no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions”? That turned out to be yet another one of those “You lie!” moments. We found out that Obamacare-mandated high risk insurance pools set up in states like Pennsylvania and New Mexico will fund abortions after all.

Remember the promise that Obamacare would “strengthen small businesses”? Not true either. The net result of Obamacare is that small businesses will face higher health care costs, new Medicare taxes, and higher regulation compliance costs, while the much-hyped health care tax credit for small businesses turns out to be almost impossible to obtain.

Remember the president’s promise that his bill would ensure “everyone [has] some basic security”? False again. Besides the great uncertainty that Obamacare hampers businesses with, companies now find it is actually cheaper to pay the $2000 per employee fine imposed by Obamacare than to keep insuring their workforce. This leaves millions of American workers at risk of losing their employer-provided health insurance.

And remember when the Obama administration said they would not be “rationing care” in the future? That ol’ “death panels” thing I wrote about last year? That was before Obamacare was passed. Once it passed, they admitted there was going to be rationing after all. There has to be. The reality of Obamacare is that it enshrines what the New York Times called “The Power of No” – the government’s power to say no to your request for treatment of the people you love. The fact that the president used a recess appointment to push through the nomination of Dr. Donald Berwick as head of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services tells you all you need to know about this administration’s intentions. After all, Berwick is the man who said, “The decision is not whether we will ration care – the decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open.”

By the way, when the administration was talking about that independent board that has the statutory power to decide which categories of treatment are worthy of funding based on efficiency calculations (that, again, sounded to me like a panel of faceless bureaucrats making life and death decisions about your loved ones – which, again, is what I referred to as a “death panel”), it was another opportunity for Americans to hear the truth about Obamacare’s intentions.

So, yes, those rationing “death panels” are there, and so are the tax increases that the president also promised were “absolutely not” in his bill. (Aren’t you tiring of the untruths coming from this White House and the liberals in Congress?) When the state of Florida filed a challenge to Obamacare on the basis that the mandates in the bill are unconstitutional, the Obama Department of Justice filed a motion to dismiss the suit by citing the Anti-Injunction Act, which blocks courts from interfering with the federal government’s ability to collect taxes. Yes, taxes! Once the bill was passed it was no longer politically inconvenient for the Obama administration to admit that it makes no difference whether the payment is a tax or a penalty because it’s “assessed and collected in the same manner.” The National Taxpayer Advocate has already warned that “Congress must provide sufficient funding” to allow the IRS to collect this new tax. Pretty soon we’ll be paying taxes just to make it possible for the IRS to collect all the additional taxes under Obamacare! Seems as if this is another surprise that the public found out about after the bill was rammed through.

But perhaps the most ridiculous promise of all was the president’s assurance that Obamacare will lead to “bending the curve” on health care spending. Yes, rationing is a part of the new system, and yes, Obamacare does raise taxes. But because the new government managed system is so incredibly complicated and expensive to run, health care spending will actually rise instead of fall. Don’t believe me? Then take a look at the Congressional Budget Office’s admittance that the CBO’s original estimate of the total costs of the bill were off by around $115 billion. Its new estimate is now above $1 trillion, and even that may be way too low. A more realistic figure calculated by the Pacific Research Institute puts the number at $2.5 to $3 trillion over the next 10 years! This is probably what President Obama was referring to when he admitted recently that he had known all along that “at the margins” his proposals were going to drive up costs. Give us a break! Only in this administration would they refer to a $3 trillion spending increase as “marginal.” Next time he comes to us with another one of his harebrained proposals for a budget-busting federal power grab, let’s make sure we remember the president’s admission that he was lying all along when he told us his health care plan was going to cut costs. He is increasing costs. He admits it now. Period.

Higher costs and worse care – is it any wonder why people are overwhelmingly in favor of repealing and replacing Obamacare? Politicians who have vacillated on this issue need to be fired. Candidates who don’t support “repeal and replace” don’t deserve your support. No amount of money spent on Washington’s “government-wide apolitical public information campaign” (otherwise known as “propaganda”) will convince Americans that this awful legislation is anything other than a debt-driven big government train wreck. We need to repeal and replace it, and that can only happen if we elect a new Congress that will make scrapping Obamacare one of its top priorities. We can replace it with pro-private sector, patient-oriented reform that the GOP has proposed.

On March 23, when Obamacare was signed into law, I launched my “Take back the 20” campaign, focusing on 20 congressional districts that John McCain and I carried in 2008 which are or were represented by members of Congress who voted in favor of Obamacare. They need to be held accountable for those votes. They voted for Obamacare. Now we can vote against them. We need to replace them with representatives who will respect the will of the people.

That’s why today I’m launching a new Take Back the 20 website at www.takebackthe20.com!

TakeBackthe20.com provides information about the candidates in these 20 districts who are committed to repealing and replacing Obamacare. It has links to their personal websites and their donation pages. It allows you to read up on them, and then support them in their race to defeat those who gave us this terrible bill.

We have to send Washington a message that it’s not acceptable to disregard the will of the people. We have to tell them enough is enough. No more defying the Constitution. No more driving us off a financial cliff. We must repeal and replace Obamacare with patient-centered, results-driven, free market reform that provides solutions to people of all income levels without bankrupting our country.

It’s time to make a stand! Let’s take back the 20!

posted September 24, 2010 01:00 AM              

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20017335-503544.html

halfway down the page on this link you will find the text to the republican "pledge to america" outed today. as one of the comments mutters, "more like contract on america"...

apparently they want to repeal the healthcare act and replace it...with one that sounds identical!!

of course they think the rich should keep their bush tax cuts. never mind that the income from that 1.5% rise on income over 250,000 would go a long way to paying down the deficit they are screaming about...never mind the loopholes the rich are so good at that makes a large portion of their income "invisible" and untaxable...

they promise to grant money needed by the troops...though they refused to do this just the other day!!

yadayaadayaaaaddaaaaa....

and like jwhop they keep talking about "self-appointed elites" (those people we elected 18 months ago) who go against the will of the people (who voted for what they promised and have gone a good way toward accomplishing) and refuse to let those ELECTED people do the job we voted them in to do.

sarah palin can talk about liars. she belongs to a party full of them. oh i forgot, she is planning on starting her own party.

well let them argue amongst themselves and cut their own throats...they seem to think the people who voted for this admin have forgotten who drove the car into the ditch, as one of the other comments put it.. and DON'T seem to understand that as bad as the dems may look right now it is the republican party that has so many FACTIONS it is going to shoot itself in the foot.

posted September 24, 2010 03:33 PM            

Good for Sarah Palin. She and other Conservatives are reshaping the Republican Party; getting RINOS defeated in primary elections by supporting and getting Conservatives nominated.

Leftists...like you...aren't going to like the Conservative Republican Party.

Now katatonic, you keep throwing out the terms lie and liars.

The problem is katatonic is that you never, ever state what the lie(s) is/are and back it up with any proof whatsoever.

posted September 24, 2010 04:38 PM              

do you want me to quote that whole post of palin's to illustrate what i mean? there is not an ounce of backup to anything she says.

Candidates who don’t support “repeal and replace” don’t deserve your support. i just offered you the "pledge for america" which claims to want to repeal and replace...the CURRENT LAW with one which does pretty much exactly what has already been done. very productive and cost effective to spend more congressional time redoing something and putting a new name on it.

that is just one example of sarah palin's rhetoric and what it actually means.

read my lips...the woman is a trojan horse. by that i mean a hollow weapon being used to dismantle the ELECTED GOVERNMENT in place.

the current administration is hardly a bunch of "self-appointed elites". they are elected officials and appointees who had to be approved before they got in. there is no snow job going on here.

except in the conservative and republican camps, where anything that does not confer power upon THEM is to be destroyed. never mind that the only thing they have to replace it with is its carbon copy!

it was YOU who brought up the terms lies and liars with your post which i was debunking. and i have yet to see you back yourself up with anything more factual than the american thinker's opinion column.

yall go have a nice weekend now, y'heah?

posted September 24, 2010 08:38 PM              

how bout her assertion that the healthcare bill is going to cost us trillions? she doesn't seem to add into the equation the money people will be saving on their healthcare....

but my point, if you remember, is that she makes claims about all these things without any real backup or punch, basically using a bunch of catchphrases designed to rile and scare and paint a picture of dire deeds being done behind our backs. so please don't complain about MY lack of specifics. everything she says is just shy of truth..

have you found rasmussen's definition of "likely voters" yet?

posted September 24, 2010 09:41 PM            

This is hilarious, that we have repeated affirmation via Palin Facebook posts about her lack of intellect. Now we have her defacto [?] campaign manager shouting where are the lies!

All any one has to do is type the words Sarah Palin lies into a Google search engine and auto complete will provide you with lists of sites posting Palin lies. Mine did.

posted September 24, 2010 10:54 PM            

If you're anything other than a simpleton, you needn't go beyond that point.

I didn't read the whole thing, but I spotted another outright lie shortly after. She claims I can't keep my doctor. Strangely, I can. How is that? She tried to support that lie by pointing to Medicare, but it's careless imprecise speech to suggest that we're not free to sustain our doctors when we're prefectly capable of doing so.

posted September 24, 2010 11:59 PM              

i would read it if i were you but if you're too tired or determined to ignore the truth, let me spell it out for you T-A-X B-R-E-A-K-S COMING!!!

palin actually gives the game away herself over and over again. using "obamacare" to denigrate the healthcare act may work on chat boards and at home with her cronies (that'd be todd and bristol, who is now a star thanks to mom and being a single mom!!) highlights the fact that she lives in a world of her own, full of slogans and soundbytes and catchy little phrases that make her a perfect cartoon...bugs bunny for presidente anyone?

posted September 25, 2010 10:45 AM            

My god, are there some here so dense they don't understand that when you mandate the structure of how a whole section of the private economy works...under the law..., when you mandate everyone must buy the product, when you specify what must be included in a program...policy, when you set up commissions to determine what treatments will be available for what illnesses or diseases, when you say there is no legal recourse..either administratively or through courts or law against the commission's rulings...

THEN BY GOD, YOU HAVE TAKEN OVER THE OPERATION OF THAT SECTION OF THE PRIVATE ECONOMY CALLED HEALTH CARE AND THAT HAPPENS TO BE 1/6th OF THE US ECONOMY.

Definitely not as smart as Sarah Palin. Probably not as smart as her son Trig either.

posted September 25, 2010 11:36 AM            

The Daily Kos pollster finds her endorsement to be significantly stronger than Barack Obama's endorsement in North Carolina. On the question of whether a voter is more or less likely to vote for a candidate endorsed by Barack Obama or Governor Palin, Palin's score is better than Obama's score by a net eighteen points. Barack Obama won North Carolina in 2008.
http://www.conservatives4palin.com/2010/09/daily-kos-pollster-finds-palins.html

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_NC_901.pdf

posted September 25, 2010 11:40 AM            

Good news from Tennessee. A federal judge has ruled against Governor Palin's email hacker, David Kernell. Kernell, who is the son of Democrat state Representative Mike Kernell, will be sentenced on October 29th unless his expected appeal to the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals delays it further. Jamie Satterfield at the Knoxville News-Sentinel has the story:
http://www.conservatives4palin.com/

posted September 25, 2010 10:25 PM            

quote:

---

When the government regulates any private sector industry (which it does across a spectrum of businesses), those businesses are not said to be under the control of the government. It's a obvious and stupid exaggeration on the part of Republicans to claim otherwise....acoustic

---

Bullshiiit!

In those other regulated sectors of the economy, the federal government does not tell them WHAT they must sell acoustic.

Your entire theory is utter bullshiiit acoustic.

Neither does the federal government demand that every living breathing person in the US buy their products.

Your entire theory is utter bullshiit acoustic.

posted September 26, 2010 02:47 AM            

The fact of the matter is that while this measure is intended to produce less debt for the government, it's not designed to produce any profit for it. The profit will continue to be in the private sector.

quote:

---

In those other regulated sectors of the economy, the federal government does not tell them WHAT they must sell acoustic.

---

Every regulation enforced upon an industry affects what that industry can do, and you can, in fact, make the case that the demands are a "must do". The FCC, for instance, by mandating what broadcasters can do, enforce what broadcasters must do. When the government comes out with new emissions standards, they affect what product can be sold in this country. When the FDA says a drug is unsafe, it must not be sold. So don't tell me that the Federal government does not tell them what they MUST sell. They do. They have for a long time, and they will continue to do so well into the future.

quote:

---

Neither does the federal government demand that every living breathing person in the US buy their products.

---

The Federal government didn't mandate that people buy the government's products. They mandated that people have insurance.

posted September 26, 2010 06:34 AM            

Your bullshiiit theory is that the feds regulate across a the broad range of private sector enterprises....and that's not "control".

quote:

---

When the FDA says a drug is unsafe, it must not be sold. So don't tell me that the Federal government does not tell them what they MUST sell....acoustic

---

Try to focus here acoustic.

The federal government does NOT require any drug company to either MAKE or SELL any SPECIFIC product.

Neither are the feds in direct competition with drug companies in the manufacture and sale of drugs to consumers.

In the case of O'BomberCare, the feds are attempting to tell every health insurance company WHAT SPECIFIC HEALTH RISKS MUST be covered in their policies.

The feds are also attempting to tell insurance companies HOW MUCH they can charge for their policies....which the feds designed.

And, the feds have set up a health insurance operation in direct competition with private insurers subsidized by US taxpayers.

That's Fascist Socialist control and that control is coming to a halt.

posted September 26, 2010 11:49 AM            

quote:

---

The federal government does NOT require any drug company to either MAKE or SELL any SPECIFIC product.

---

The government still is not compelling any medical insurance company to MAKE or SELL any SPECIFIC product. An insurance company is free to get out of the game, and pursue a different avenue of income. The requirement is that IF an insurance company wishes to continue offering medical insurance it must meet certain criteria.

quote:

---

Neither are the feds in direct competition with drug companies in the manufacture and sale of drugs to consumers.

---

Irrelevant. Any good Republican will tell you that the private sector is more efficient. Therefore the government being in competition shouldn't be anything you worry your pretty little head over.

quote:

---

In the case of O'BomberCare, the feds are attempting to tell every health insurance company WHAT SPECIFIC HEALTH RISKS MUST be covered in their policies.

---

And the alternative was better? What are your thoughts on the sudden disallowance of coverage that so permeated our insurance industry prior to this legislation? You think it's better that insurance companies should be able to deny treatment to their long term clients?

quote:

---

The feds are also attempting to tell insurance companies HOW MUCH they can charge for their policies....which the feds designed.

---

How are you expecting this to be an arguing point? I guess you're saying that you advocate insurance companies charging excessively for their services. Is that correct? Yeah, that's how things were. That's why the majority of the country wanted healthcare reform prior to the last presidential election. They are free to charge as low as they'd like, they are free to specialize in a particular area of coverage, and they're free to get out of the game.

quote:

---

And, the feds have set up a health insurance operation in direct competition with private insurers subsidized by US taxpayers.

---

You mean paid for by the participants. It's still insurance, and it's still paid for by the people using it. If you don't use it, your tax money isn't going into it.

posted September 26, 2010 11:56 AM            

quote:

---

The federal government does NOT require any drug company to either MAKE or SELL any SPECIFIC product....acoustic

---

Wrong!

The feds are mandating that there be no cap limits on dollar coverage.

The feds are mandating that children must be covered to age 26 on parents policies.

The feds are mandating that no one can be denied insurance or have their insurance canceled.

That's enough to prove you just don't know what the hell you're talking about acoustic and no further exploration of your bullshiit is necessary.

posted September 26, 2010 03:26 PM              

regulation is not takeover. it is a consumer protection.

the mandate, meanwhile, is a sop to the insurance companies making sure they have a whole new consumer base they didn't have before...so for why do they need to raise the premiums when they are being guaranteed billions already? the fact appears to be that many insurers are NOT raising their premiums because they see down the road that they will have to backtrack.

insurance as a concept and process ADDS to the cost of healthcare it is true. perhaps we should just do away with insurance and allow doctors to go back to charging as they see fit. but i don't see that happening do you?

posted September 26, 2010 03:37 PM              

either she is knowingly lying or deluding herself. which do YOU prefer jwhop?

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/living-single/200911/sarah-palin-s-lies-updated
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/11/the-odd-lies-of-sarah-palin-a-roundup.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/04/politics/animal/main4414049.shtml

i console myself in the distinct possibility that she is NOT going to run for president because after all, as a mere public speaker she does not have to conform to government regulations on a) lying b) conduct and c) spending....she is having a ball being "important" and making money hand over fist just as she is.

and no, jwhop, i have no problem with people being successful and even super-rich. i actually know quite a lot of members of both these populations and they are diamonds.

i do have a problem with people who will lie, cheat and steal to get there. yep yep eyep!!!

posted September 26, 2010 03:37 PM            

quote:

---

The feds are mandating that there be no cap limits on dollar coverage.

---

And the problem is? You'd rather insurance companies be "death panels," and cut you off?

quote:

---

The feds are mandating that children must be covered to age 26 on parents policies.

---

No, they're not. I got the info from my own insurance provider saying that I could opt to put my children that are younger than 26 years of age on my policy, but it was not required of me to do so. I don't have any dependents, but if I did and I wasn't putting them on my insurance, what would lead them to suspect that my children didn't have their own coverage? The mandate is that insurance companies must allow parents the option of putting their up-to-26 yr old children on their policy.

quote:

---

The feds are mandating that no one can be denied insurance or have their insurance canceled.

---