Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

CNBC Op-ed: Obamacare flimflam exploited gullible voters

page: 1
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 30 2013 @ 02:22 PM
link   
It is interesting to see so many news articles in the liberal media slamming the Obama administration as of late. This one took it a step further and even slammed Hillary also. LOL....

I have been saying all along that Obama was exploiting the voters, so seeing this article on CNBC pleases me. The truth must prevail!



Some things never change. There is no such thing as a free lunch, but voters wanted to believe differently. And the president exploited that.

His only refuge—or that of the Democratic candidate for president in 2016—will be to top his whopper promises on health care.

Perhaps Hillary Clinton can offer Americans immortality. But in this progressive paradise, that would be too much like purgatory.



Op-ed: Obamacare flimflam exploited gullible voters
edit on 30-10-2013 by elouina because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 30 2013 @ 02:31 PM
link   
Look at all of these liberal news stations turning on Obama as of late.

But something that has been bothering me- they all started comming out at the same time, on the same day, with the same vicious attacks that he so rightfully deserves...but why now? And why after 5 years of kissing his ass?

They realize they can no longer afford the lies ? Are their ratings THAT bad? I know they are bad...but damn.

Someone gave an order to stop protecting his sorry ass- and Im glad. My opinion of course.



posted on Oct, 30 2013 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Common Good

Look at all of these liberal news stations turning on Obama as of late.


Yesterday for the first time since Obama was born NPR was reporting with a very hostile tone about Obamacare and all the applicable lies and failures along with some NSA related news for good measure.
The reporters sounded as if they have experienced personal slights and insults. Very angry. Almost sounded like they were talking about Bush and AG Gonzales.

It's as if they finally pulled their heads out of their asses and really looked at what's going on.

Enjoy it while it lasts. I seriously doubt it will carry much longer or that anything positive will come of it.
edit on 30-10-2013 by thisguyrighthere because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 30 2013 @ 02:36 PM
link   
reply to post by elouina
 


The Hillary line was funny.

But many of us knew he was a con man from the get go.



posted on Oct, 30 2013 @ 02:46 PM
link   
As an economist the writer knows better but writes his dissent anyways. His excuse for why we cannot possibly tax the rich more is "because America already has the highest corporate tax rates in the world". What he fails to mention is that those same corporations also get loopholes and subsidies that sometimes accrue to a negative tax balance. GE is one such company who actually gets a tax refund at the end of the year. How quaint.
I agree with his criticisms of Obamacare, there is no free lunch. Because other countries have free health care somehow younger Americans think it should be theirs for free too. The sad reality is what we spend on military and defense is what it would take to build such a system. That's why other countries can afford it, because they don't spend over half their GDP on ways to blow things up.
The American health system was in many ways broken, no argument there. Obamacare is like trying fix a broken car by building a whole new automobile around the old one.
I'm not sure it was ever meant to work at all. I tend to agree ACA is just giant step in Cloward-Piven strategy to break the middle class and make everyone a dependent upon government. This isn't creeping socialism. This is Olympic sprinter socialism.
All I can say is brace for impact. When this bus hits the wall we're all going to feel it.



posted on Oct, 30 2013 @ 02:46 PM
link   

thisguyrighthere

Common Good

Look at all of these liberal news stations turning on Obama as of late.


Yesterday for the first time since Obama was born NPR was reporting with a very hostile tone about Obamacare and all the applicable lies and failures along with some NSA related news for good measure.
The reporters sounded as if they have experienced personal slights and insults. Very angry.

It's as if they finally pulled their heads out of their asses and really looked at what's going on.

Enjoy it while it lasts. I seriously doubt it will carry much longer or that anything positive will come of it.


Oh gee, I should have saved the link to a really good video. A reporter was fit to be tied over what Obamacare did to her insurance bill. But that's ok, I am certain that we will have more angry, "affected reporters". Did Obama forget that Journalists need health insurance too?



posted on Oct, 30 2013 @ 02:47 PM
link   
you know ever since the 1st of oct. i've been wondering if nancy pelosi has regretted saying.



now that we know, i bet she wished we didn't and were still in the fog.



posted on Oct, 30 2013 @ 02:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Asktheanimals
 


I say we drop the NSA to pay for health insurance. What do you say Americans, do you agree?

Oh and I have been saying all along that the Obamacare impact on the economy will be deadly. But I also have a feeling that Obamacare is not here to stay.
edit on 30-10-2013 by elouina because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 30 2013 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


I know right- they will probably be back to the ass kissing in no time Im sure. It all just seems orchestrated though; so I am not cheering them in any way shape or form. If you ask me- they still have a lot of catching up to do when it comes to down to all of the scandals he has accumulated over the years, and their lack of interest in holding his feet to the fire.



posted on Oct, 30 2013 @ 02:53 PM
link   
It's interesting how they are turning on the administration. Makes almost as if they were used up and when the big payouts stopped, they no longer cared. Gotta have ratings right, to replace that "funding" lost.



posted on Oct, 30 2013 @ 02:58 PM
link   
reply to post by elouina
 


Honestly- I dont know why they didnt push for the single payer when they had a chance to. In my opinion- I think that is what they have been going for all along. So why didnt they do so? Maybe because they wanted this bill to fall flat on its face so "we" would have no other option as an "emergency" measure. Dont think for a second though if they do that- that at the same time they will cut anything substantial to pay for it- they will probably just end up adding even more to the debt without cutting the things that need to be cut like foreign aid- NSA programs- and defense spending.

single payer= what they really want IMO. I just dont understand why they didnt go with that from the beginning.



posted on Oct, 30 2013 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by elouina
 


This article gives Obama to much credit, he could not have exploited any one without the people that installed him creating the means to acquire the base for Obama to exploit.

As for Hillary it will be interesting to see how she packages progressive socialism, there is not much left to lie about or give away, then again how about " what difference does it make" we are all the same in politics so lets create another moment in history and put a woman in the Whitehouse...Ya, I know...it stinks.



posted on Oct, 30 2013 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Common Good
reply to post by elouina
 


single payer= what they really want IMO. I just dont understand why they didnt go with that from the beginning.


Politicians know how to work the slippery slope. You know, that fallacy that doesnt exist.

If you cant get a gun ban go for the easy wins like "high capacity mags" and "assault weapons."
Let that ride for a few years then you can go after the 10 round mags and semi automatics.

So single-payer was seen as too much change too fast. No support. Start with something you can convince people to vote for. Apparently this ACA nonsense is that. Let if flail and fail and then single payer will be an easier sell.



posted on Oct, 30 2013 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by elouina
 


Great idea but good luck getting the corporations that benefit from the NSA to go without their "leg up" advantage since they know what their competitors are up to in real time.

It's also handy for manipulating the stock market which can only be pried from their cold dead hands.



posted on Oct, 30 2013 @ 06:16 PM
link   
I listened to the counter-spin this morning on talk radio. In short:

1. No one lied because all the language was in the bill.

2. The bill protects Americans from bad insurance products.

3. The bill is protecting Americans from robbers(the insurance industry).

4. A sense of being betrayed by those putting the system together.

5. How could Obama know what was going on?

I am not going into each as they are pretty weak and anyone can see through them.

The sad part is there are many people who will believe this nonsense. Maybe they are too emotionally invested in the narrative to think clearly. Maybe the whole narrative is so well tailored to these folks, this will dovetail with the rest flawlessly.

The sadder part is there are good Americans, naive Americans, but good Americans who want to see those who really need health insurance get it. Who can fault them? I don't. However, I do fault those snake oil salesmen who sold the PPACA as the answer to their calls. Now some are starting to realize that which was put together is so far from what was promised. Listening them trying to rationalize it all is depressing.
edit on 30-10-2013 by ABNARTY because: sp



posted on Oct, 30 2013 @ 06:26 PM
link   

ABNARTY

2. The bill protects Americans from bad insurance products.


This is my favorite one so far.

Essentially "we lied to you because you're too stupid to know when you have a good plan or a bad plan and now you have to pick one of our plans. Sure it will cost a lot more and the deductible will be really high but should you ever meet that deductible the plan will be "good" by decree. So say we all."

I love how all the plans are just magically better now. Better than what? Better coverage and a lower deductible than my current plan at a better rate? Ummmmm no. None of the available plans in the marketplace are better. They are all actually substantially worse. And more expensive. And have smaller provider networks.

I'm just glad my employers plan is still available though the backroom chatter is it wont be for long. Then I get to pay more for less. Yay Obamacare!



posted on Oct, 30 2013 @ 06:27 PM
link   
reply to post by ABNARTY
 


It is kind of hard to forget that Obama sounded like a Huckster on the back of a truck. Doesn't matter what was in the bill. Obama misrepresented the product and comitted multiple frauds including election fraud.

Now you do realize that the "rule" defining who gets to keep their insurance was not in the bill? This was later created as an IRS rule. Our elected representatives had no say in this, nor were they aware. And I think a lot of the media are even confused by this.
edit on 30-10-2013 by elouina because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 30 2013 @ 07:29 PM
link   
reply to post by elouina
 


Actually, the spin was something like:

'Well, obviously the only plans which will change are plans which are no good for the consumer. That's the beauty of the PPACA.'

Whether it was in the original six foot high stack of goobldee-gook called the bill or added later I do not know. But never fear, all that is good and wonderful is now here.

I wish I could say I was not hearing what I was hearing as it made me depressed as an American.



posted on Oct, 30 2013 @ 07:37 PM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


I listened to another cheerleader during the recent hearings on the hill. A person in Michigan who had an $800/mo insurance plan is now paying only $77/mo. The story teller thought it was good news. Again very sad to a thinking person.

Sure that one individual (if he/she really exists) is now paying less but the plan still costs $800. Who is picking up the other $723/mo? The PPACA does nothing to reduce health care costs which would make that $723/mo no longer needed.

So who is paying for it?

Don't get me wrong, I want sound health care for everyone but this monstrosity is not the answer. It is a bail-out for the health insurance industry as if they needed more money anyway.



posted on Oct, 30 2013 @ 08:52 PM
link   
reply to post by elouina
 



Not to nit pick, but the author, Peter Morici Professor, Smith School of Business, University of Maryland, puts out this in his first paragraph?



With enough money, the morass can be fixed, but it lay bear the limits of tax and spend to buy voter allegiance.


I tire of articles written with a lack of spell check.
edit on 30-10-2013 by pavil because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join