Yet another Obama lie

[CuteOldGuy]

Bet all you want. They liked their policy, were not "freeloaders" and don't need maternity. But it's nice of folks like you who know so much better than the rest of us.

Still a sanctimonious boor.

[rodog44]

Who the fuck are you or the gov. to tell people what they an buy. Obama lied to get it passed and then had to keep on lying to get reelected. He knew if he told the truth he would never be reelected because a whole bunch of dems. would have bailed on him. My greatest hope is to live long enough to see all you liberal fuckers eat your words. When this is all over lilberism will be as dead as fried cicken.

[Yssup Rider]

don't you cocksuckers get tired sucking cock?

[NiceGuy53]

Do you ever get tired of Obama shoving it up your ass, Mr. Dipshit of the Year?

[TexTushHog]

Originally Posted by rodog44

Who the fuck are you or the gov. to tell people what they an buy. Obama lied to get it passed and then had to keep on lying to get reelected. He knew if he told the truth he would never be reelected because a whole bunch of dems. would have bailed on him. My greatest hope is to live long enough to see all you liberal fuckers eat your words. When this is all over lilberism will be as dead as fried cicken.

Where the ones who have bern paying the external costs when people buy substandard policies. That's who we are to tell people what to buy. And we're sick of paying for other people's shit.

[CuteOldGuy]

Originally Posted by TexTushHog

Where the ones who have bern paying the external costs when people buy substandard policies. That's who we are to tell people what to buy. And we're sick of paying for other people's shit.

Really, TTH? All you espouse are programs and policies which require taxpayers to pay for other people's shit. Your selective and hypocritical indignation is as phony as your most recent closing argument.

Not want to pay for other people's shit? Bullshit! All your nanny state heroes like Bernie Sanders want is for us to pay for other people's shit.

Phony, fucking hypocrite.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by rodog44

Who the fuck are you or the gov. to tell people what they an buy. .

They do not have to buy it... you cry about lies as you yourself are lying!

[rodog44]

Originally Posted by TexTushHog

Where the ones who have bern paying the external costs when people buy substandard policies. That's who we are to tell people what to buy. And we're sick of paying for other people's shit.

I'm an american. Nobody is supposed to be able to tell me what to buy. I dont know what the fuck you are but it aint american, except maybe by birth.

[IIFFOFRDB]

[rodog44]

Originally Posted by TexTushHog

Where the ones who have bern paying the external costs when people buy substandard policies. That's who we are to tell people what to buy. And we're sick of paying for other people's shit.

If you think that if this had come out before the last election that Obame would have won then you really cant think. You liberals are going get exactly what you deserve.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by rodog44

I'm an american. Nobody is supposed to be able to tell me what to buy. I dont know what the fuck you are but it aint american, except maybe by birth.

nobody is making you buy insurance you dumb shit. You will pay a tax if you do not buy it though. Did you think the draft was legal btw? Not sure if your are bright enough to connect those dots.

[rodog44]

Originally Posted by WTF

nobody is making you buy insurance you dumb shit. You will pay a tax if you do not buy it though. Did you think the draft was legal btw? Not sure if your are bright enough to connect those dots.

What the the fuck is the difference in making me buy insurance or taxing me if I dont? They are both unamerican you dumb liberal motherfucker. And what does the draft have to do with this. I was drafted and did two tours in Nam. I fought for my country and I am goddanm pissed off that my country is pushing me around because of liberal cocksuckers like you.

[flghtr65]

Originally Posted by timpage

Yes, isn't it interesting that not one of the knuckledraggers has commented on the fact that the OP is factually incorrect? Even though you've now pointed it out twice. I'm sure we'll next see an attack on your source as being further evidence of liberal media bias....that most convenient of all excuses offered by the chuckleheads on here when faced with a fact they don't like or that doesn't fit their narrative.

It's all about "ODS"....one of the main symptoms of ODS is that it renders its sufferers incapable of any form of rational thought or expression when discussing President Obama.

+ 1,000

[JD Barleycorn]

Actually more and more information is coming out demonstrating that the White House and many top democrats KNEW that people would lose their health insurance and Obama was lying about it. There! Does that answer the OP?

[flghtr65]

Originally Posted by CJ7

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/06/oba...ealth-savings/


Obama cites a RAND study that found widespread use of electronic health records could save up to $77 billion a year in overall health care spending. But the study says that level of savings won’t be reached until 2019, when it projects 90 percent of hospitals and doctors would be using electronic records systems.
Much could be done to speed up the adoption of electronic record-keeping. But experts, including the lead researcher on the RAND study, are extremely doubtful the U.S. could see widespread adoption in the first term of an Obama presidency, or even a second term. Even a campaign adviser acknowledges Obama’s plan likely won’t reach the full savings potential until five years into implementation, by which time Obama could be out of office.
Obama says he’ll "lower premiums by up to $2,500 for a typical family per year” by investing in electronic health records as well as other efforts. But his adviser tells us that $2,500 figure includes savings to government and employers that could, theoretically, lead to lower taxes or higher wages for families – so we shouldn’t necessarily expect insurance premiums that are "lower" by that amount.
The RAND study on which the campaign partly bases its estimates is one of the only reports available on possible cost savings. It may well be correct – no one knows for sure. But it looks at potential savings in an ideal situation and recently has faced criticism

Excellent post CJ7.

+1000