lol, so now you just pick a random quote an attribute it to whoever you want?

[Edited on June 29, 2012 at 4:44 PM. Reason : 4]

6/29/2012 4:44:41 PM

That was GxB's Ron Paul quote.

6/29/2012 4:45:21 PM

i know, not mine

6/29/2012 4:45:57 PM

You agreed with Paul that NPs keep the cost down. I was assuming you'd drink the rest of the koolaid and agree with his numbers.

6/29/2012 4:47:27 PM

6/30/2012 5:39:57 PM

The 16,000 new IRS employees will almost entirely be processing those sweet sweet tax credits, Congress not only did not exempt itself but actually required its members to purchase insurance on an exchange, the lag between new taxes and new benefits is much lower than 4 years (I think for the 0.9% surtax on high incomes, it's 1 year before the major part of the new benefits comes into play, although many of the benefits have already begun), and there's a big difference between "will become broke if nothing changes" and "is broke."

6/30/2012 5:56:29 PM

Quote :

"The 16,000 new IRS employees will almost entirely be processing those sweet sweet tax credits, Congress not only did not exempt itself but actually required its members to purchase insurance on an exchange, the lag between new taxes and new benefits is much lower than 4 years (I think for the 0.9% surtax on high incomes, it's 1 year before the major part of the new benefits comes into play, although many of the benefits have already begun), and there's a big difference between "will become broke if nothing changes" and "is broke.""

I cannot fathom where you learn your information from.

I will address one, just one, of the ignorant statement in this disaster of a post:

Quote :

"there's a big difference between "will become broke if nothing changes" and "is broke.""

First, broke means 'has no money'.
Second, United States has no money.
Third, United States is spending borrowed money.
A broke person who spends someone else's money is still 'broke'.

A person who spends all of someone else's money and cannot repay his debts is 'owned' and the only way out is if you fundamentally kill or slay your guarantor.

in which case, you're still broke.

6/30/2012 7:32:26 PM

Quote :

"learn your information from. "

haha

Anyway, address the rest of it. Please.

6/30/2012 7:49:50 PM

Quote :

"of it"

OMG. can't believe you said that

7/1/2012 12:17:22 AM

Still not addressing the claims you say are bullshit.

7/1/2012 12:19:33 AM

Quote :

"I will address one, just one, of the ignorant statement in this disaster of a post:"

More like:

Quote :

"I will address one, the only one, of the points I copied and pasted from god knows where that I am prepared to defend. And I will address it poorly."

[Edited on July 1, 2012 at 12:53 AM. Reason : poorly]

7/1/2012 12:52:19 AM

^ precisely

7/1/2012 12:57:37 AM

Well shit, I guess under Clinton we were not broke....

7/1/2012 1:12:45 AM

.

[Edited on July 1, 2012 at 1:13 AM. Reason : W]

7/1/2012 1:12:45 AM

Me "I will address one, just one, of the ignorant statement in this disaster of a post:"
You: "Still not addressing the claims you say are bullshit."
Me "I will address one, just one, of the ignorant statement in this disaster of a post:"




Thanks for playing.



If you'd like to debunk the other claims for yourself, please be my guest for I have already done that.


PS. It's odd that you want me to prove my case, but you don't ask him to prove his.

[Edited on July 1, 2012 at 1:14 AM. Reason : .]

7/1/2012 1:13:43 AM

Quote :

"Well shit, I guess under Clinton we were not broke.... "

You're confusing a budget surplus versus national debt.





National debt:

7/1/2012 1:17:13 AM

Quote :

"If you'd like to debunk the other claims for yourself, please be my guest for I have already done that. PS. It's odd that you want me to prove my case, but you don't ask him to prove his."

You haven't debunked the other claims.

The onus is on you since you're calling shenanigans. But, since you fail at proving any point, I'll do your work for you.

Quote :

"The 16,000 new IRS employees will almost entirely be processing those sweet sweet tax credits"

http://www.factcheck.org/2011/02/irs-and-the-health-care-law-part-ii/

Quote :

"Congress not only did not exempt itself but actually required its members to purchase insurance on an exchange"

Quote :

"MEMBERS OF CONGRESS IN THE EXCHANGE.— (i) REQUIREMENT.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, after the effective date of this subtitle, the only health plans that the Federal Government may make available to Members of Congress and congressional staff with respect to their service as a Member of Congress or congressional staff shall be health plans that are— (I) created under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act); or (II) offered through an Exchange established under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act). (ii) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: (I) MEMBER OF CONGRESS.—The term ‘‘Member of Congress’’ means any member of the House of Representatives or the Senate. (II) CONGRESSIONAL STAFF.—The term ‘‘congressional staff’’ means all full-time and part-time employees employed by the official office of a Member of Congress, whether in Washington, DC or outside of Washington, DC."

And that didn't even take two minutes.

[Edited on July 1, 2012 at 1:28 AM. Reason : quote]

7/1/2012 1:28:07 AM

So I started to read H.R. 3952 for myself and realized it's impossible to read. Why? Because the text is very specific and just when you think you understand it, you come to the "revisions". Then you come to the "Amendments" . Then you come to the "Exceptions". Then it's says "revisions for I. So you have to scroll up to I and lose your place. Then revisions for II, then revisions for III, all the way through XVIII and they do this on purpose to confuse you because they could have easy put the revision INSIDE I, II, III... where it belongs. Now, when you read the text of I,II,III... you have no idea if there is a revision, amendment, or an exemption for it unless you read the whole document.

Fun facts:

<<<<14 pages>>>> length of The Constitution
<<<<1278 pages>>>> The length of H.R. 3590 - Obamacare

*Both MSWORD text, single spaced.

It is ridiculous to think that ANYONE IN THE GOVERNMENT will read, much less comprehend, all aspects of the Health Care Act when the government doesn't read, much less COMPREHEND, the simple text of the 14 page CONSTITUTION.


<<<<8,030>>>> words in the Constitution
<<<<379,891>>>> words in H.R. 3590

7/1/2012 1:50:19 PM

So you've gone from "omg, your facts are crazy talk" to "I have no idea what i'm talking about because it's too long"

7/1/2012 2:25:08 PM

I'm saying you don't know what you're talking about.
I'm saying I don't know what I'm talking about.
I'm saying I don't know what you're talking about.
and
I'm saying you don't know what I'm talking about.



Exchanges are not themselves insurers, so they do not bear risk themselves.


The next paragraph after the one you copied and pasted as a reference:

(4) NO PENALTY FOR TRANSFERRING TO MINIMUM ESSENTIAL COVERAGE OUTSIDE EXCHANGE. An Exchange, or a qualified health plan offered through an Exchange, shall not impose any penalty or other fee on an individual who cancels enrollment in a plan because the individual becomes eligible for minimum essential coverage (as defined in section 5000A(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 without regard to paragraph (1) (C) or (D) thereof) or such coverage becomes affordable (within the meaning of section 36B (C) (2) (c) of such Code).(e)ENROLLMENT THROUGH AGENTS OR BRO- KERS. The Secretary shall establish procedures under which a State may allow agents or brokers

[Edited on July 1, 2012 at 3:05 PM. Reason : .]

7/1/2012 3:02:05 PM

I really can't imagine anyone being surprised that you posted something that has absolutely nothing to do with the conversation at hand.

7/1/2012 3:16:12 PM

(3) VOLUNTARY NATURE OF AN EXCHANGE. (A) CHOICE TO ENROLL OR NOT TO ENROLL. Nothing in this title shall be construed to restrict the choice of a qualified individual to enroll or not to enroll in a qualified health plan or to participate in an Exchange. (B) PROHIBITION AGAINST COMPELLED ENROLLMENT. Nothing in this title shall be construed to compel an individual to enroll in a qualified health plan or to participate in an Exchange. (C) INDIVIDUALS ALLOWED TO ENROLL IN ANY PLAN. A qualified individual may enroll in any qualified health plan, except that in the case of a catastrophic plan described in section156 1302(e), a qualified individual may enroll in the plan only if the individual is eligible to enroll in the plan under section 1302 (e)(2). (d) MEMBERS OF CONGRESS IN THE EXCHANGE. (i) REQUIREMENT. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, after the effective date of this subtitle, the only health plans that the Federal Government may make available to Members of Congress and congressional staff with respect to their service as a Member of Congress or congressional staff shall be health plans that are (i) created under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act); or (II) offered through an Exchange established under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act). (ii) DEFINITIONS. In this section: (i) MEMBER OF CONGRESS. The term Member of Congress means any member of the House of Representatives or the Senate.157 (ii) CONGRESSIONAL STAFF. The term congressional staff means all full-time and part-time employees employed by the official office of a Member of Congress, whether in Washington, DC or outside of Washington, DC.

(4) NO PENALTY FOR TRANSFERRING TO MINIMUM ESSENTIAL COVERAGE OUTSIDE EXCHANGE. An Exchange, or a qualified health plan offered through an Exchange, shall not impose any penalty or other fee on an individual who cancels enrollment in a plan because the individual becomes eligible for minimum essential coverage (as defined in section 5000A(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 without regard to paragraph (1) (C) or (D) thereof) or such coverage becomes affordable (within the meaning of section 36B (C) (2) (c) of such Code).(e)ENROLLMENT THROUGH AGENTS OR BRO- KERS. The Secretary shall establish procedures under which a State may allow agents or brokers



Are you following me now?

7/1/2012 3:37:19 PM

I'm following the fact that you apparently don't understand basic english.

Quote :

"passed by a Congress that...exempted themselves from it."

You realize the shit you posted applies to EVERYONE. Everyone. That has nothing to do with Congress exempting itself.

Insurance provided by the government to members of Congress must come from the exchange. Yes, they can still buy their own insurance elsewhere...so can everyone else.

[Edited on July 1, 2012 at 4:00 PM. Reason : ]

7/1/2012 3:59:22 PM

Look man, you're arguing with people who think a $680 maximum annual surtax is the greatest threat to freedom since communism. Nothing they believe is grounded in reality. You're wasting your time.

7/1/2012 5:09:31 PM

lol

7/1/2012 5:11:43 PM

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fractal_wrongness

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect

[Edited on July 1, 2012 at 5:29 PM. Reason : ]

7/1/2012 5:25:51 PM

Quote :

" Look man, you're arguing with people who think a $680 maximum annual surtax is the greatest threat to freedom since communism. Nothing they believe is grounded in reality. You're wasting your time."

Good summary of the Health care law debate.

7/1/2012 5:27:55 PM

Quote :

"You realize the shit you posted applies to EVERYONE. Everyone. That has nothing to do with Congress exempting itself."

Glad to know that Congress isn't included in EVERYONE EVERYONE. Besides, I bolded the same fucking text YOU POSTED

YOU POSTED

[Edited on July 1, 2012 at 5:56 PM. Reason : .]

7/1/2012 5:55:50 PM

lmao

And they're still not exempted from the law.

Are you going to refute that anytime soon?

Or how about the 15000 overestimate of IRS agents

[Edited on July 1, 2012 at 6:07 PM. Reason : ]

7/1/2012 5:58:58 PM

I thought you wanted to argue to educate each other, not argue just to argue.

I'm actually trying to understand this shit. You are lmao'ing all over yourself for some asinine reason.

Not a single damn person on this website has read H.R. 3590. All you're doing is quoting quotes from second hand sources, but ignore that it's entirely possible, and completely plausible, for there to be two conflicting statements within the same document. The implications is that we're both right and we're both wrong at the same time which is EXACTLY the plan of the federal government.

Confuse and Conquer.

7/1/2012 6:08:06 PM

Quote :

"And they're still not exempted from the law. Are you going to refute that anytime soon?"

I already refuted it.

You said the exemption to the law covers EVERYONE, EVERYONE. Last time I checked, Congress is EVERYONE EVERYONE

7/1/2012 6:09:43 PM

You said those statements were ignorant.

You haven't come close to proving that statement.

I have actually posted direct evidence from the law proving you wrong.

You have done nothing but stated that the law is too long to read and that you magically know that what I quoted is contradicted. Because Donald trump and Ron Paul told you so.

7/1/2012 6:11:28 PM

Quote :

"I already refuted it. You said the exemption to the law covers EVERYONE, EVERYONE. Last time I checked, Congress is EVERYONE EVERYONE"

You haven't refuted anything. What you posted states that you're more than welcome to buy other (not from the exchange) insurance on your own and that it must still meet the guidelines.

Guess what that means? They're not exempt. You're not exempt. You still must abide by the minimum guidelines.

7/1/2012 6:13:03 PM

"Nothing in this title shall be construed to restrict the choice of a qualified individual to enroll or not to enroll in a qualified health plan or to participate in an Exchange. "

7/1/2012 6:23:40 PM

You realize that proves my point, right?

Quote :

"(3) VOLUNTARY NATURE OF AN EXCHANGE.— (A) CHOICE TO ENROLL OR NOT TO ENROLL.—Nothing in this title shall be construed to restrict the choice of a qualified individual to enroll or not to enroll in a qualified health plan or to participate in an Exchange."

Quote :

"What you posted states that you're more than welcome to buy other (not from the exchange) insurance on your own and that it must still meet the guidelines."

7/1/2012 6:29:29 PM

Bottom line is that Congress has to follow the law just like everyone else. The government provided insurance they receive must come from the exchange.

Your entire argument is quite simply nonsensical bullshit.

7/1/2012 6:37:36 PM

They have to and don't have to at the same time.

7/1/2012 6:39:07 PM

Just like everyone else.

7/1/2012 6:40:36 PM

Seriously, go back and read this:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fractal_wrongness

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect

[Edited on July 1, 2012 at 6:41 PM. Reason : ]

7/1/2012 6:40:56 PM

Congress not only did not exempt itself but actually required its members to purchase insurance on an exchange"


Refuted?

7/1/2012 6:41:33 PM

What the fuck are you even talking about?

[Edited on July 1, 2012 at 6:43 PM. Reason : ]

7/1/2012 6:42:37 PM

"Genius" Boy has forgotten he started this whole thing with his Trump picture.

7/1/2012 6:47:16 PM

all I did was post the picture from facebook.

that was the end of that.



Lewisje, was the one that responded to the picture.

okay good.


I asked lewisje where he got his information from?
I also said I was only going to address one of ignorant statements.


Then jazon started trolling me by making me refute the rest of lewisje's claims.
Now we are in some kind of clusterfuck because everyone ASSUMES my statements are donald trump's.

7/1/2012 7:12:12 PM

No, everyone expects you to back up your insistence that lewisje's statements are ignorant.

I provided evidence, with minimal effort, that at least two of them are factual.

You proceeded to show that you can't read.

Quote :

"making me refute the rest of lewisje's claims."

Still waiting on you to actually refute something.

[Edited on July 1, 2012 at 7:15 PM. Reason : ]

7/1/2012 7:14:53 PM

Quote :

"Now we are in some kind of clusterfuck because everyone ASSUMES my statements are donald trump's."

I think we're in a clusterfuck because our tastes in crazy aren't as discriminating as yours.


For future reference: when you post something with no additional comment, should we assume you agree or should we assume you disagree with the content of the post?

7/1/2012 7:26:40 PM

Oh, you're waiting?















@Tanz
^You know what they say about assuming?


[Edited on July 1, 2012 at 7:28 PM. Reason : .]

7/1/2012 7:26:56 PM

haha

So you finally realized you were wrong and gave up

7/1/2012 7:28:19 PM

^assumption

7/1/2012 7:28:51 PM

From your posts on the matter, there's at least good evidence that it's a correct assumption.

7/1/2012 7:29:25 PM

The evidence ""I will address one, just one, of the ignorant statement in this disaster of a post:"

and you came to the conclusion:

"you finally realized you were wrong and gave up"

7/1/2012 7:32:12 PM